Jonas Thread

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

Comments

  1. #1 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Wow .. I don’t consider you to be a problem …

    .. for anything relevant, that is.

  2. #2 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    I agree, Joan, the climate certainly is warming.

  3. #3 chek
    January 6, 2013

    It seems to me Jonarse that you’re so off your face that even you can’t stomach any of the destinations any of your possible confused lies will take you to.

    So much so that you can barely manage a complete sentence, let alone make any of your customary failed attempts at cogent and reasoned argument.

    Crank nobody crashes and burns. News and weather at 11.

  4. #4 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    (he hinted)

    :-D

  5. #5 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek .. I have not once had the need to lie about anything here.

    However it is very hard to believe that the many many bottomlessly stupid claims made about me 8and other things) are made in good faith.

    I know you guys aren’t the brightest bunch, and also that you are blinded by activism and faith … but if you truly believe all the things you say you want to be true, even I would be flabbergasted in sheer dispelief!

    It’s funny that you of all here talk about “cogent and reasoned argument”

    However, with you I haven’t seen any need to explain anything on a higher scientific or only technical level. Since i know that you neither comprehend, nor reply, nor have the ambition to produce anything higher than your ‘Jonarse lying denier fuckwit’-level which is your hallmark.

    And I usually assume that people try their best arguments. Wow and Jeff do too, as does Stu …

    And there is absolutely nothing there, chek. Just your inane repetition of wishful projections

  6. #6 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    You’re right Joan, you’ve done nothing but lie on this thread.

    And you’re also correct in admitting the climate is warming dramatically.

  7. #7 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Poor ole Joan.

    Heart as big as the whole outdoors, but doesn’t have a single brain in his whole body.

  8. #8 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    Just in case anyone thinks Joan is telling the truth, he’s already affirmed that to him:

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

  9. #9 Wow
    January 6, 2013

    “And I usually assume that people try their best arguments”

    This doesn’t apply to you, though.

  10. #10 chek
    January 6, 2013

    “And there is absolutely nothing there, chek. Just your my inane repetition of wishful projections”.

    Corrected that for you Jonarse. Which is exactly what I expect to be your definition of ‘hiatius’. You know, the one that daren’t speak its name or describe its properties because it’s lower than lo-grade denier hogwash? Nothing, nothing at all is what you’ll come up with. Which is exactly all you’ve had from the very start.

  11. #11 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek .. .

    Maybe you think you were clever, but you weren’t

    And you still get the argument the wrong way, The hiatus is not the centerpiece, or how it is defined or described, or what exact dates of what dataset are used.

    the data itself is what it is. And there is another hypothesis which needs to be reconciled with that data. And this is getting more and more problemativ. Regardless of how many times you try ‘Jonarse lying denier fuckwit’and the like, or the others try equally stupid stupidities.

    That’s your level chek. You have never risen above it. I’ve never needed to stoop so far.

    And in contrast to very many here, i don’t need to lie, I don’t need to make claims in bad faith. I don’t need to fabricate my own ‘facts ‘ to support my story. That’s all on your side … and massively I’m afraid.

    And sombody like you claims that people here know and understand climate science quite well …

    Stupid wordgames .. that’s all you have chek … and not even that

  12. #12 chek
    January 6, 2013

    Jonarse, you lying denier fuckwit, the trend isn’t seperate from the data, it emerges from them.That’s the circle YOU are required to square. But being a lying denier fuckwit you cannot.

  13. #13 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek … you usual nonsense

    The data is there, and the pet scare hypthsesis is too …

    The latter has he problem with the former, and it’s a growing problem.

    Your labelling attempts have zip to do with this, but trying different ‘words’ seems to be the pinnacle of your scientific understanding.

  14. #14 chek
    January 6, 2013

    The growing problem, Jonarse, is your own ineptitude.

    That and your dishonest attempts to deflect from your own inability to explain what the word soup you use actually means.

    But rest assured your convenient inability is noted.

  15. #15 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    chek …

    You are hadly one to tell me about ‘ineptitude’

    Of course I cn explain in quite some detail what the problem is. I even have. In quite som detail. But you guys just aren’t dealing with science. Or have the knowledge it takes. Or the interest to find out. You are blind but staunch believers in somthing you can’t argue.

    That’s why you produce and hide behind so much stupidity …

    And you chek .. you haven’t even been close to stating an argument. Not even four your own side … you have pointed to the 2012 low arctic summer ice … and believed it is an argument. But failed even there …

  16. #16 Stu
    January 6, 2013

    sheer dispelief!

    Whatever that is, sweetheart, I hope you don’t hurt yourself.

  17. #17 Jonas N
    January 6, 2013

    Stu … that’s your appropriate level .. stay there, and you won’t hurt yourself

  18. #18 chek
    January 6, 2013

    “you have pointed to the 2012 low arctic summer ice … and believed it is an argument”

    It’s not an ‘argument’, it’s a real-world manifestation of the heat your current darling ‘hiatius’ has no explantion for.

  19. #19 Jonas N
    chek ... you
    January 7, 2013

    chek .. If you would consider “real-world manifestation of [things you have] no explantion for”

    you couldn’t even start, nor could the IPCC, they don’t have any explanations for ice either. Not in the arctic nor elsewhere. You (and others) want to talk about 2012 summer artic ice, later you wanted to talk about Sandy, or other weather events.

    But science is not on the map. Cheap media talking points .. and the stupid childish attempts to insult. That’ your level chek … You’ve never risen above that.

    And the hypothesis made ‘predictions’ about som parameters. And it failed with arctic sea ice too … and other ice too.

    You probably take this as confirmation … but it isn’t. In stupo-land maybe, but not in science chek.

    And you need to take my word for that again, since you don’t know this for yourself, nor will( the more scientifically inclined, with some integrity left on) your side inform you …

    You are afraid of information chek, and probably always have been. And that too is a common treat among you …

  20. #20 Stu
    January 7, 2013

    That’s twice with the copy-cat crap this page alone, Jonas. Pathetic.

    that’s your appropriate level

    What, pointing out your inability to spell? Why progress beyond that? Why discuss anything substantive with someone who averages 5 glaring errors in every non-one-liner post?

    It’s YOUR level that’s the problem, Jonas. Learn to spell and we’ll talk about big-people stuff, mmmkay?

  21. #21 Stu
    January 7, 2013

    you couldn’t even start, nor could the IPCC, they don’t have any explanations for ice either.

    I do! Water. Cold. Ice.

    There.

    Is there anything you can actually formulate without sounding drunk, Jonas?

  22. #22 chek
    January 7, 2013

    “You are afraid of information chek, and probably always have been.”

    Haven’t you ever noticed that, Jonarse? That since day one here you * have * no ‘information’. You never have had any.

  23. #23 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    Stu .. I think you’d be better off commenting typos .. that’s you level.

    chek .. are you talking about ‘no information’!? What a joke!

    I’ve been trying to help (the smarter among you) with the scientific method, or at least som basic concepts there .. but already that was way too high for most of you. You certainly chek ..

    I reckon the smarter ones believing in he hypothesis stay away from the core issues … the less kowledgeable repeat the simpler memes, and the stupid … well … we know where they hang around

  24. #24 chek
    January 7, 2013

    Leaving the upper percentile as lying deniers just like you , eh Jonarse?

    Your self-aggrandising, content-free, chicken nugget ‘logic’ is at odds with the real world, whereon the one hand you’re the spittle-flecked crank with your motley crew of brain-dead, skydragon believing hangers-on, and on the other the IPCC reports are compiled and peer-reviewed by the world’s leading experts.

    You never had a chance, Jonaarse.

  25. #25 Stu
    January 7, 2013

    Jonas, I think you’d be better off not making so many typos.

    Christ on a crutch you’re a moron.

    (Oh, and you “helping people with the scientific method”? Shirley, you must be kidding. You can’t formulate a 2nd grade physics problem properly.)

  26. #26 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Joan, are you a big Ronan Keating fan?

  27. #27 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “The hiatus is not the centerpiece,”

    OK, now you’re agreeing with us: your haitus is nothing like a problem.

    “Of course I cn explain in quite some detail what the problem is”

    Of course, you can’t. You don’t even know the words.

    Too thick to think.

  28. #28 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “You are hadly one to tell me about ‘ineptitude’”

    Exactly!

    You’re a grade-A inept moron NOBODY can teach you anything about being inept! You’re an inept MASTER!

    :-P

  29. #29 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “The data is there, and the pet scare hypthsesis is too … ”

    Yup, the data is there and your pet scare hypothesis is blaringly obvious.

  30. #30 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “And the hypothesis made ‘predictions’ about som parameters. And it failed with arctic sea ice too … and other ice too.”

    Are you talking about the IPCC reports?

    Are you talking about the predicted temperature trends from the IPCC reports?

    Are you talking about the fact that the temperature trends from the IPCC report are still tracking well on target?

    And are you talking about the IPCC predictions of ice loss which were too conservative and the ice has been melting much much faster than the consensus predicted (though still many models predicted the ice loss catastrophe correctly)?

  31. #31 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “I reckon the smarter ones believing in he hypothesis stay away from the core issues ”

    Well, I don’t think JUST the smart ones are doing so since you’re staying away from the core issues and you’re definitely the bluntest tool in the shed.

  32. #32 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    chek .. as always, your claims are just things you concoct up in your head. And here, you haven’t even stepped up to the plate … just stupid ramblings only slightly different than Wow’s

  33. #33 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    Stu ..

    Have you already (or again) forgotten that you hoped that luminous got his 1:st grade physics right? And that you derailed over imagining different speeds only exisiting in your own little head? And that you claimed having studied six years of physics? And that you (more recently) even hoped to side with Wow …

    Or is this just denial?

    :-)

    And yes, I have been telling you guys where they go wrong, where they depart from the scientific method, if only on the most simple levels.

    And yes, it seems that the vast majority here is completely unfamiliar with how real science works.

    In your case, that’s not even an accusation or blame. You said you spent six years studying, but it didn’t even get you as far as handling the simplest laws of motion, in a simple experiment!? Is six years the time it too you to try passing the tests?

  34. #34 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “Have you already (or again) forgotten that you hoped that luminous got his 1:st grade physics right?”

    Another made up history from Joan!

    That’s all the history Joan needs. It’s like idiot version of “peril sensitive glasses”. Just pretend lol!

  35. #35 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    Six years Stu …

    And the level on which you are performing here is compareble to Wow, lower than botch-job luminous!?

    What a total joke you are

  36. #36 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “chek .. as always, your claims are just things you concoct up in your head”

    They are, unlike yours, conclusions based on reality.

    But like you asserted before, for you, the argument isn’t about reality, is it.

    ROFL!

  37. #37 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    Stu .. it seems you once more have support in your (still?) contorted beliefs from Wow …

    He sometimes thinks you were right on the money, other times claims your imaginiations (of different speeds) are as stupid as they actually were, not realizing that that blow landed there right in you egg plastered face …

    But hey, this is Deltoid, these are the typ of characters dwelling here. And many of them even try to convince each other that they are talkin about ‘science’ ..

    The guys whose prime occupation and method is inventing strawmen about reality to protect them from it ..

    Six years, Stu, and you need to side with über morons like Wow etc

  38. #38 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “Six years Stu … ”

    Gosh, who would have thought. Another idiot post from our resident failed AI.

    What a maroon!

  39. #39 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    So, Joan, what courses in science to you claim to have done?

    General Science in High school?

  40. #40 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    Wow …

    Stu claims to have studied (taken classes, or at least tryin to pass one) for six years. And failed to do the most elementary things with that claimed ‘knowledge’

    I am pretty confident too that he first googled ‘passive mass’ and thereafter claimed this had a distinct and specific meaning in physics. Again in an attempt to appear more knowledgable(*) than he is. (Earlier attempts invovled ‘different speeds’, ‘dependent variables’ ‘officially introduced in the equations’ and ‘six years’). Every time he tried to participate in any topic though, the purpose was never the topic, but instead to confirm some imagined fantasy of his (unrealated to reality). Your many many postings serve the same purpose. Completely unrelated to any reality, even more disconnected to any relevant issue here. Only repetition of inane stupidities you’d rather want to cling to than anything of relevance.

    As you demonstrate in almost every comment, you can’t even read complete sentences, and instead try create nonsens by chopping the words. And nonsense it is. But it’s yours.

    Chek, Stu, Jeff and many others try the exact same method, some of them on a slightly higher level, but still: The method is to invent an alternate reality and go on about that strawman la-la-land instead.

  41. #41 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    So you haven’t even taken High School General Science, Joan?

    Pretty poor education there.

  42. #42 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    As I said … strawmen is you only method. And it’s a really stupid method too. In case you ever believed it wouldn’t show ..

  43. #43 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    So that’s a confirmed “yes”, then. Did you even go to high school, then?
    Just trying to find out where you did your learning (if any, it doesn’t look good for you so far. Not even High School General Science).

  44. #44 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    As I said … your ‘method’ is so idiotic it would take a real idiot to take it seriously. Seriously!

  45. #45 pentaxZ
    January 7, 2013

    HOW THE PROFITEERS WHO MARKET THERMAGEDDON OFFEND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF FORMAL LOGIC
    Guest post by Monckton of Brenchley

    LOGIC is the heartbeat of all true learning – the soul of the Classics, the Sciences and Religion. Once everyone studied the Classics, to know that in logic there is a difference between true and false; the Sciences, to discern where it lies; and Religion, to appreciate why it matters. Today, few study all three empires of the mind. Fewer study the ordered beauty of the logic at their heart.

    Is Private Fraser’s proposition that “We’re a’ doomed!” logical? I say No. G.K. Chesterton once wrote: “When men have ceased to believe in Christianity, it is not that they will believe in nothing. They will believe in anything.” The belief that Thermageddon will arise from our altering 1/3000th of the atmosphere in a century is in-your-face illogical, rooted in a dozen fallacies marked out by Aristotle as the commonest in human discourse.

    “Consensus” is the New Religion’s central fallacy. Arguing blindly from consensus is the head-count fallacy, the argumentum ad populum. Al-Haytham, founder of the scientific method, wrote: “The seeker after truth does not put his faith in any mere consensus. Instead, he checks.”

    Two surveys have purported to show 97% of climate scientists supporting the supposed “consensus”. In both, 97% agreed little more than that the world has warmed since 1950. So what? One involved just 79 scientists, hardly a scientific sample size. Neither was selected to eliminate bias. Neither asked whether manmade global warming was at all likely to prove catastrophic – a question expecting the answer “No.”

    Claiming that the “consensus” is one of revered experts is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the fallacy of appeal to authority. T.H. Huxley said in 1860, “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”

    Believers talk of a “consensus of evidence”. Yet evidence cannot hold opinions. Besides, there has been no global warming for 18 years; sea level has risen for eight years at just 1.3 in/century; notwithstanding Sandy, hurricane activity is at its least in the 33-year satellite record; ocean heat content is rising four and a half times more slowly than predicted; global sea-ice extent has changed little; Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice; and the U.N.’s 2005 prediction of 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010 was absurd. The evidence does not support catastrophism.

    Believers say: “Only if we include a strong warming effect from CO2 can we explain the past 60 years’ warming. We know of no other reason.” This is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fundamental fallacy of argument from ignorance. Besides, natural variability is reason enough.

    They say: “Global warming is accelerating, so we are to blame.” Even if warming were accelerating, this non sequitur is an instance of the argumentum ad causam falsam, the fallacy of arguing from a false cause. They go on to say: “CO2 concentration has risen; warming has occurred; the former caused the latter.” This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc sub-species of the same fallacy.

    They say: “What about the cuddly polar bears?” This is the argumentum ad misericordiam, the fallacy of needless pity. There are five times as many polar bears as there were in the 1940s – hardly, as you may think, the profile of a species at imminent threat of extinction. No need to pity the bears, and they are not cuddly.

    They say: “We tell the models there will be strong CO2- driven warming. And, yes, the models predict it.” This is the fallacy of arguing in circles, the argumentum ad petitionem principii, where the premise is the conclusion.

    They say: “Global warming caused extra-tropical storm Sandy.” This inappropriate argument from the general to the particular is the argumentum a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, the fallacy of accident. Individual extreme events cannot be ascribed to global warming.

    They say: “Melting Arctic sea ice is a symptom of global warming.” This unsound argument from the particular to the general is the argumentum a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, the fallacy of converse accident. Arctic sea ice is melting, but the Antarctic has cooled for 30 years and the sea ice there is growing, so the decline in Arctic sea ice does not indicate a global problem.

    They say: “Monckton says he’s a member of the House of Lords, but the Clerk says he isn’t, so he’s not credible.” This is the argumentum ad hominem, a shoddy sub- species of ignoratio elenchi, the fundamental red-herring fallacy of ignorance of how a true argument is conducted.

    They say: “We don’t care what the truth is. We want more power, tax and regulation. Global warming is our pretext. If you disagree, we will haul you before the International Climate Court.” This is the nastiest of all logical fallacies: the argumentum ad baculum, the argument of force.

    These numerous in-your-face illogicalities provoke four questions: Has the Earth warmed as predicted? If not, why not? What if I am wrong? And what if I am right?

    Q1. Has the Earth warmed as predicted? In 1990 the IPCC predicted that the world would now be warming at 0.3 Cº/decade, and that by now more than 0.6 Cº warming would have occurred. The outturn was less than half that: just 0.14 Cº/decade and 0.3 Cº in all.

    In 2008 leading modellers wrote:

    “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the observed warming rate.”

    Yet the linear trend on the Hadley/CRU monthly global temperature anomalies for the 18 years 1995-2012 shows no statistically-significant warming, even though the partial pressure of CO2 rose by about a tenth in that time.

    The modellers’ own explicit criterion proves their scary predictions exaggerated. Their vaunted “consensus” was wrong. Global warming that was predicted for tomorrow but has not occurred for 18 years until today cannot have caused Sandy or Bopha yesterday, now, can it?

    Q2: Why was the “consensus” wrong? Why do the models exaggerate? The climate-sensitivity equation says warming is the product of a forcing and a sensitivity parameter. Three problems: the modellers’ definition of forcing is illogical; their assumptions about the sensitivity parameter are not falsifiable; and their claims that their long-term predictions of doom are reliable are not only empirically disproven but theoretically insupportable.

    Modellers define forcing as the net down-minus-up flux of radiation at the tropopause, with surface temperature fixed. Yet forcings change surface temperature. So the definition offends against the fundamental postulate of logic that a proposition and its converse cannot coexist. No surprise, then, that since 1995 the IPCC has had to cut its estimate of the CO2 forcing by 15%. The “consensus” disagrees with itself. Note in passing that the CO2 forcing function is logarithmic: each further molecule causes less warming than those before it. Diminishing returns apply.

    Direct warming is little more than 1 Cº per CO2 doubling, well within natural variability. It is not a crisis. So the modellers introduce amplifying or “positive” temperature feedbacks, which, they hope, triple the direct warming from CO2. Yet this dubious hypothesis is not Popper- falsifiable, so it is not logic and not science. Not one of the imagined feedbacks is either empirically measurable or theoretically determinable by any reliable method. As an expert reviewer for the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, I have justifiably excoriated its net-positive feedbacks as guesswork – uneducated guesswork at that.

    For there is a very powerful theoretical reason why the modellers’ guess that feedbacks triple direct warming is erroneous. The closed-loop feedback gain implicit in the IPCC’s climate-sensitivity interval 3.3[2.0, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling falls on the interval 0.62[0.42, 0.74]. However, process engineers building electronic circuits, who invented feedback mathematics, tell us any loop gain much above zero is far too near the singularity – at a loop gain of 1 – in the feedback-amplification function.

    At high gain, the geological record would show violent oscillations between extremes of warming and cooling. Yet for 64 million years the Earth’s surface temperature has fluctuated by only 3%, or 8 Cº, either side of the long- run mean. These fluctuations can give us an ice-planet at one moment and a hothouse Earth the next, but they are altogether inconsistent with a loop gain anywhere near as close to the singularity as modellers’ estimates imply.

    Surface temperature changes little, for homoeostatic conditions prevail. The atmosphere’s lower bound, the ocean, is a vast heat-sink 1100 times denser than the air: one reason why 3000 bathythermographs deployed in 2006 have detected no significant ocean warming. The atmosphere’s upper bound is outer space, to which any excess heat radiates harmlessly away. Homoeostasis, then, is what we should expect, and it is what we get. Thus the climatic loop gain cannot much exceed zero, so the warming at CO2 doubling will be a harmless 1 Cº.

    Yet the overriding difficulty in trying to model the climate is that it behaves as a chaotic object. We can never measure the values of its millions of defining parameters at any chosen moment to a sufficient precision to permit reliable projection of the bifurcations, or Sandy-like departures from an apparently steady state, that are inherent in the evolution of all objects that behave chaotically. Therefore, reliable, very-long-term modelling of future climate states is unattainable a priori.

    The IPCC tries to overcome this actually insuperable Lorenz constraint on modelling by estimating climate sensitivity via a probability-density function. Yet PDFs require more, not less, information than simple estimates flanked by error-whiskers, and are still less likely to be reliable. The modellers are guessing. Their guesses have been proven wrong. Yet they continue to demand our acquiescence in an imagined (and imaginary) consensus.

    Q3: What if I am wrong? If so, we must travel from physics to economics. Pretend, ad argumentum, that the IPCC’s central estimate of 2.8 Cº warming by 2100 is true, and that Stern was right to say that the cost of failing to prevent warming of that order this century will be about 1.5% of GDP. Then, at the minimum 5% market inter-temporal discount rate, the cost of trying to abate this decade’s predicted warming of 0.15 Cº by typical CO2-mitigation schemes as cost-ineffective as Australia’s carbon tax would be 48 times greater than the cost of later adaptation. At a zero discount rate, the cost of acting now exceeds that of adapting in the future 36 times over.

    How so? Australia emits just 1.2% of Man’s CO2, of which Ms. Gillard aims to cut 5% this decade, abating 0.06% of global emissions by 2020. Then CO2 concentration will fall from a predicted 410 μatm to 409.988 μatm. In turn predicted temperature will fall by 0.00006 Cº. But the cost will be $130 billion ($2 quadrillion/Cº). Abating the

    0.15 Cº warming predicted for this decade would thus cost $317 trillion, or $45,000/head worldwide, or 59% of global GDP. Mitigation measures inexpensive enough to be affordable will thus be ineffective: measures expensive enough to be effective will be unaffordable. Since the premium vastly exceeds the cost of the risk, don’t insure. That is a precautionary principle worthy of the name.

    Q4: What if I am right? When I am proven right, the Climate Change Department will be swept away; Britain’s annual deficit will fall by a fifth; the bat-blatting, bird- blending windmills that scar our green and pleasant land will go; the world will refocus on real environmental problems like deforestation on land, overfishing at sea and pollution of the air; the U.N.’s ambition to turn itself into a grim, global dictatorship with overriding powers of taxation and economic and environmental intervention will be thwarted; and the aim of science to supplant true religion as the world’s new, dismal, cheerless credo will be deservedly, decisively, definitively defeated.

    Any who say “I believe” are not scientists, for true scientists say “I wonder”. We require – nay, we demand – more awe and greater curiosity from our scientists, and less political “correctness” and co-ordinated credulity.

    To the global classe politique, the placemen, bureaucrats, academics, scientists, journalists and enviros who have profiteered at our expense by peddling Thermageddon, I say this. The science is in; the truth is out; Al Gore is through; the game is up; and the scare is over.

    To those scientists who aim to end the Age of Reason and Enlightenment, I say this. Logic stands implacable in your path. We will never let you have your new Dark Age.

    To men of goodwill, lovers of logic, I say this. It is our faculty of reason, the greatest of the soul’s three powers, that marks us out from the beasts and brings us closest in likeness to our Creator, the Lord of Life and Light. We will never let the light of Reason be snuffed out.

    Do not go gentle to that last goodnight – Rage, rage against the dying of the light!

  46. #46 chek
    January 7, 2013

    I gave up reading at the third lie, but I can easily see why an ignorant klutz like you would buy it hook, line and sinker. You and Monckton deserve each other.

  47. #47 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Ah, so you haven’t even been to High School, Joan.

    OK, were you homeschooled?

  48. #48 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “HOW THE PROFITEERS WHO MARKET THERMAGEDDON OFFEND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF FORMAL LOGIC”

    Yup, you just did it right there, tampax.

    But it’s good to see you on the crusade for formal logic to be followed.

    Joan, tampax here is warning you: STOP ABUSING LOGIC.

  49. #49 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Tell me, pantax, do you believe in the conspiracy of gravity? After all, that’s agreed by consensus.

  50. #50 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    So I take it you all agree that consensus is a fallacy, tampax, right?

  51. #51 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “the greatest of the soul’s three powers”

    The others being

    Bissomy
    and
    Snood

  52. #52 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “Direct warming is little more than 1 Cº per CO2 doubling”

    So you think that H2O is not a greenhouse gas? Or do you think that its effect is negligible compared to that of CO2?

  53. #53 Stu
    January 7, 2013

    Please tell me the moron did not just cut and paste Monckton.

  54. #54 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    What? You were expecting original work from panties here?

    Far too much effort.

    By cutnpasting someone else’s work, they can avoid defending any of the content (despite agreeing with it) by saying “Well, you have to take that up with so-and-so”.

    Meaning even less work for them.

  55. #55 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    Wow .. how manu times have you cut’n’pasted references or whole lists of references you haven’t even read?

    Any consistency in any of the … not ‘arguments’, but … blathering comments just isn’t your thing either, is it?

  56. #56 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Flipping heck, not even homeschooled?!?!?!

  57. #57 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Kindergarden. Have you ever been to ANY school at all, Joan?

  58. #58 chek
    January 7, 2013

    Is Jonarse claiming false equivalence of PantieZ pasting of Monckton’s drivel (and let’s not forget his slightly earlier skydragons drivel) with actual references?

  59. #59 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “how manu times have you cut’n’pasted references or whole lists of references you haven’t even read?”

    Several.

    So what?

  60. #60 Stu
    January 7, 2013

    Jonas, so you support that article by Monckton?

  61. #61 Chris O'Neill
    January 7, 2013

    The problem is with the hypothesis

    What problem? Getting it out of you is like getting blood out of a stone.

    And I assure you, it certainly is not me who is the source of meaningless quibbling

    You would say that, wouldn’t you?

    You too had a long stretch of meaningless pouting

    What a hypocrite.

    There is no statistically significant change in the rate of global warming, so I have absolutely no idea what your problem is. And that’s apparently how you want things to stay.

  62. #62 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    chek

    A very frequent ‘argument’ here is referencing articles which the person hasn’t read.

    Another is just making stuff up and accusing others.

    It is very obvious that your ‘understanding’ of the science, or even real science in general is not much better than Stu’s or Wow’s. And there we are really talking utter ignorance.

    From your many (almost every) comments it looks like you have as severe difficulties identifying what is actually claimed as Wow ..

    And you too have been talking about references you have not read.

    As I said, reality is never really a partof your arguments.

  63. #63 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “A very frequent ‘argument’ here is referencing articles which the person hasn’t read.”

    Where?

  64. #64 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “Another is just making stuff up and accusing others.”

    And you do make stuff up and accuse others.

    “And there we are really talking utter ignorance.”

    Nope. You’re making stuff up and accusing others again.

  65. #65 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “As I said, reality is never really a partof your arguments.”

    Yeah.

    In REALITY, you’ve never actually made an argument based on reality.

    But you made that up and blamed everyone else.

  66. #66 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Remeber, Joan, in REALITY, you asked for the papers used to get the results IPCC AR4 Chapter 9.

    If you’d wanted them read out to you, you should have asked.

  67. #67 Jonas N
    January 7, 2013

    Chris O’Neill

    The hypcisy and meaninhgless comments abound on your side here. Stay away from it if you can manage.

    And I ask you again: You do know what a hyothesis is (in science), don’t you? And you do know what it is used for and how it is used.

    The point is that when testing a hypthesis, it is compared to observations, to see if it successfully can describe and predict them, or not

    This should be bleeding obvious to essentially everyone of you, but seemingly isn’t.

    You are now talking about ‘statistical significance’ but from the wrong end (“no statistically significant change”) and you claim could certainly be challanged, or at least would need quite som additional specification to extract something meaningful.

    However, the problem remains. You now argue ( ~kinda) that the hypothesis still has a chance. And yes, I could agree to that (again under the proviso that all claims are propely quantified and specified, which they aren’t yet).

    However, this is quite a departure from the earlier claims (sometims at the 98% significance level) of how certain they were about the hypthesis and forecasts.

    And the quickly dimininishing chance that it still might survive, becomes even more remote as time goes, and othing drastically changes …

    If you are paying attention (and I don’t blame you if you don’t), your fellow travelser here are already trying to regroup and rephrase the original claims, and you were doing something similar.

    As I said, the hypothesis is having more and more trouble remaining one … and unless …this will increase rapidly and exponentially.

  68. #68 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “The hypcisy and meaninhgless comments abound on your side here.”

    Yup, more making stuff up and blaming others.

  69. #69 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    “And I ask you again: You do know what a hyothesis is (in science), don’t you? And you do know what it is used for and how it is used.”

    Yes and yes.

  70. #70 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    The trend of the last 16 years includes the predicted AGW warming trend at the 95% confidence limit.

  71. #71 pentaxZ
    January 7, 2013

    Hehe…as I suspected, my cut’n’paste did get the deltoid zealots a little upset. But what a heck, what else to suspect when someone questions their deep, religious beliefs.

    And wow immediately starts with his showpiece, building strawmen de luxe. Hillarious.

    Oh, almost forgot, here’s the original posting you asked for:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/the-logical-case-against-climate-panic/

  72. #72 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Nope, not upset.

    We just wanted to point out that you haven’t had an idea yourself, merely parroted what someone else said.

    But you only have emotional responses to anything and therefore assume that the non-insane proportion of humanity did the same thing.

    And yet again you’re posting another cutnpaste which you have no clue about.

  73. #73 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    And I take it with your newfound zeal against the strawman construction, you’ll stop, right?

    Oh, that’s right. Do what you say, not do what you do.

    It’s very stalinist of you, but we expect no better.

  74. #74 chek
    January 7, 2013

    It shouldn’tbe that surprising that individuals as intellectually equipped as PantieZ would prefer the ravings of liars, fantasists and assorted cranks and convicted and unconvicted paedophiles to the professional work of leading scientists.

    Obviously scientists don’t give them what they want, whereas the former group do.

  75. #75 Wow
    January 7, 2013

    Given Joan doesn’t even attempt to prove wrong the statement that the actual data for the last 16 years temperature trend includes the figures for climate change the IPCC AR4 predicted, I can’t really be bothered with this thread at all.

    If Tim doesn’t bother just banning the fuckwit, entirely possible to do, or closing this thread for good, I’ll look forward to never seeing this thread appear in the recent comments thread except on very calm days, where his idiotic ravings will appear and remain ignored as they deserve.

  76. #76 Stu
    January 7, 2013

    my cut’n’paste did get the deltoid zealots a little upset

    You quoted Fake Lord Monckton, you moron. There’s hardly anyone with less credibility, period — let alone when it comes to climate science.

    Might as well have quoted Big Bird for all the good that did.

    I mean, SERIOUSLY?

    When I am proven right, the Climate Change Department will be swept away; Britain’s annual deficit will fall by a fifth; the bat-blatting, bird- blending windmills that scar our green and pleasant land will go; the world will refocus on real environmental problems like deforestation on land, overfishing at sea and pollution of the air; the U.N.’s ambition to turn itself into a grim, global dictatorship with overriding powers of taxation and economic and environmental intervention will be thwarted; and the aim of science to supplant true religion as the world’s new, dismal, cheerless credo will be deservedly, decisively, definitively defeated.

    The man is mentally ill, and you by extension for quoting him. And no, that is not an ad hominem, it is a statement of fact. No sane person has such delusions of grandeur.

  77. #77 pentaxZ
    January 7, 2013

    “We just wanted to point out that you haven’t had an idea yourself, merely parroted what someone else said.” says someone who has problems with long sentences. Hillarious!

    I must say, the fanatism among you deltoid zealots is really furious. I can’t emagine how it must be to have such deep religious faith.

    Psst stu, Lord Monckton si actually a real lord. Just so you know.

  78. #78 pentaxZ
    January 7, 2013

    Oh, one more thing. Just for wow. He claims the warm Hamburg december weather on AGW (but strangely not the biting, freese your ass off cold in Russia). Anyway, what does Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie have to say about the German (not just Hamburg, wow) klimate the past 15 years? Well, let’s see:

    http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder_Dateien/Kowatsch_Abkuehlung_2012/Abkuehlung___CO2_Zunahme.png

    Hm…doesn’t seem tlike there’s so much AGW going on there at all. Bollocks, ay, wow?

  79. #79 pentaxZ
    January 7, 2013

    And if you want to read the whole artikle, just google “Der Klimawandel in Deutschland heißt Abkühlung. Seit 15 Jahren gibt es keine steigenden Temperaturen mehr.”

    For some reason it seems like linking to EIKE isn’t possible. Wonder if some moderation kicks in. In that kase, wonder why.

  80. #80 chek
    January 7, 2013

    For those unaware, EIKE is the Euro Heartland hangout, and is staffed by exactly the kind of whangbangs that attract dribbling lunatics like PantieZ.

  81. #81 pentaxZ
    January 7, 2013

    Hahahaha…..you just can’t deal with the real world without building strawmen. Hillarious, just plain hillarious! Jeez, what is it called again? Oh, right, denialism. Yes, and deep religious beliefs. Hahaha…..what a pathetic loon.

  82. #82 pentaxZ
    January 7, 2013

    Heartland hangout, you say? Ok, who then is the European fake-a-e-mail-account-and-write-a-fake-document-because-I-can’t-argue-for-my-stance Peter “criminal” Gleick, mr looney toon?

  83. #83 chek
    January 7, 2013

    The detrails don’t matter PantieZ. What’s impoortant is that Heartlands finance sources are drying up quicker than a pool of camel piss in the Sahara in August.

  84. #84 Stu
    January 8, 2013

    NO WAY! There’s a European site that says that there hasn’t been cooling in 15 years?

    Sweetheart, have you figured out yet why they pick 15-16 years yet?

  85. #85 chek
    January 8, 2013

    Stu, PantieZ doesn’t ‘figure out’ things. He’s told what to think by the most shameless and obvious front groups imaginable. Of course, he thinks they’re speaking to * him *.

  86. #86 Stu
    January 8, 2013

    The only thing I’m actually curious about at the moment is whether Jonas will have the stones to comment on that Monckton tripe, one way or the other.

    Oh, and yes, he is a Lord, as in “can call himself Lord”. Bad phrasing on my part. I meant “the clown that has tried to get into Parliament for ages now because he thinks he is entitled to, and gets laughed at over, and over, and over again”.

    Of course, any Brits are more than welcome to correct me if I got that wrong.

  87. #87 chek
    January 8, 2013

    Monckton is a ‘lord’ in that he holds an inherited title, but he is not a member of the UK legislature whose upper house restricts hereditary peers to a proportion who are elected. Monckton received zero votes.

    Being in denial of reality and not just climate science, he blames this state of affairs on ‘socialists’ and under his breath questions the legitimacy of such parliamentary law.

    Like most of his Mittyesque fantasies, huge lawsuits are grandly announced (‘top’ constitutional lawyer engaged – oooh scary!) and then quietly shrivel up, never to be heard of again.

    In short, just the sort of big-talking but insubstantial humbug that impresses double-digit IQ attack dogs like PantieZ.

  88. #88 Olaus Petri
    January 8, 2013

    Speaking of camels and Australia’s war on Glomal warming:

    http://science.time.com/2011/06/10/australia-killing-camels-for-carbon-credits/

  89. #89 pentaxZ
    January 8, 2013

    “NO WAY! There’s a European site that says that there hasn’t been cooling in 15 years?”

    You too have problems with reading comprehension, stu? The EIKE paper is about Germany.

    And then the whole deltoid bunch starts rambling and building strawmens en masse not even once mention anything at al about anythin of inportance. But hey, it’s deltiod, what did you expect? Sciense talks or ad homs? Hillarious you are. Hahaha…

  90. #90 pentaxZ
    January 8, 2013

    Haha, who would have thought, a perfect sensible article in Pravda.

    http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/04-01-2013/123380-global_warming-0/

  91. #91 Jonas N
    January 8, 2013

    Stu …

    Are you talking about ‘stones’!?

    I looks once more as if you want to avoid any relevant substance, and derail on fantasies, strawmen and pojections.

    Who cares about your opinions, Stu? You can’t even formulate your own beliefs properly. When it comes the science (particularly the real version) you are completely lost. You are lost already when it comes to the simples examples taught in elementary physics, like the laws of motion. And then you start making things up: different speeds, dependent variables, gravitation etc. And not even your ‘googled knowledge’ do get correctly. You are and remain a total joke.

    And the physical reality is the last thing you want to involve in your beliefs.

    You guys seem patently incapable of understandung even your own ‘arguments’. Both the ones you’ve picked up atacyivist sites, and the contorted ‘reasoning’ when trying to make some stupid irrelevant point. the reason you guys obsess about Monckton is because you are afraid of dealing with issues that matter. And incapable.

    But most obvious is that you are unaware of how devastating you ‘arguments’ would be if taken seiriously, and applied generally. Meaning in both directions.

    But you aren’t, you don’t and whatever you try aren’t arguments. Mostly they are tokens of your belief-system which you cling to …

    And talking about ‘stones’ Stu … have you yet come clear reagarding your nonsense claims wrt to simple physics? Or are you really still in denial?

  92. #92 Jonas N
    January 8, 2013

    chek …

    The above goes for you too. You comment here quite regularly. But the most on-topic you can manage is that you want people to believe various claims (or what you believe are the claims) made by various (what you seem to believe are) ‘authorities’. Ie, you are telling us what you believe, and say that others should believe the same thing. Just demanding, not even trying to argue or convince ..

    And those are the rare on-topic parts. Most of the time you are just frothing from the mouth and completely irrelevant..

    You know, for some reason i think you have gone through an education better than Stu’s or Wow’s … albeit one that isn’t useful regarding how the climate system functions and what governs it, make it vary etc

    But you seem unable to live up to any education or understanding of science here. (Just as Jeff Harvey)

  93. #93 Jonas N
    January 8, 2013

    chek .. I just saw in the open thread that temperatures are rising in spite of them not rising (when measured). But that arctic sea ice and the US northeast weather some how negate this ..

    As you you said:

    “Like a good wattminded goldfish”

  94. #94 pentaxZ
    January 8, 2013

    Oh dear, oh dear, this can’t be happening, can it?

    http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/7/pdf/i1052-5173-13-7-4.pdf

    I would say that the AGW coffin by now contains of more iron than wood.

  95. #95 Vince Whirlwind
    January 8, 2013

    Yes, a kook-paper riddled with errors that 98% of the world’s experts laugh at is ” the final nail in the coffin of AGW”.

    The weird thing is that despite all these “final nails”, global warming remains a reality.

  96. #96 Stu
    January 8, 2013

    pentax: Have you figured out yet why all denialists pick 15-16 years?

    Jonas: Do you support Monckton’s article or not? This is a yes or no question, Jonas. Even you can answer that.

  97. #97 pentaxZ
    January 8, 2013

    “…errors that 98% of the world’s experts…”

    Ah, you mean the survey consisting of 79 so called scientists. By all means, let them laugh. I’ll even join. Hahahaha….

  98. #98 pentaxZ
    January 8, 2013

    But stu, dear. Look at the bigger picture:

    http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Kosmisk-fig-11.jpg

    There you have correlation. But of course, the line isn’t straight, so in the cAGW church it’s a big nono.

  99. #99 Jonas N
    January 8, 2013

    Stu

    the observed hiatus has now lasted for som 15-16 years. I am pretty certain that’s the reason this time span is menioned.

    As so often, you don’t have a point, but try ‘look at somethings else … ‘

    Same thing with Monckton … all you ever want to talk about is irrelevant or diversion.

    I’m sure you’d made a point (after 1½ years) if you ever had one.

    The ‘support somebody else’-meme is frewquent on your side. And I did not see you addressing any of Moncktons points, just copying his conditioned politics predictions. And BTW, those I think are wrong …

    So, what was your point little-Stu? And how did you imagine that ‘stones’ are involved here, please tell!

  100. #100 chek
    January 8, 2013

    Jonarse, there is no ‘hiatus’. That’s why you’re too chickenshit to define it.