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 Chris O'Neill
    January 8, 2013

    You do know what a hyothesis is (in science), don’t you?

    Yes, for example, there is a “hiatius”.

    You are now talking about ‘statistical significance’ but from the wrong end

    Yes, you’re the only one who’s allowed to do that.

    <blockquote and you claim could certainly be challanged

    Go ahead. Make my day.

  2. #2 pentaxZ
    January 8, 2013

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

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha……hillarious!!!

  3. #3 Stu
    January 8, 2013

    Okay, pentax, let’s look at that big picture. Stand back, I will be doing something called “math” now.

    The data area of that graph is 300 pixels wide. The scale tells us it references 520,000,000 years of data. So each x-axis pixel represents over 1.7 million years.

    Let’s take the human influence on climate as starting in 1698 (which is very, very generous). This entire period would be represented in your graph by about 0.00019 pixels.

    This is before I start asking questions about where this data comes from, what the latest data point is, or what the ever-loving relevance is. It was this hot 100,000,000 years ago? Awesome, but unless you are a dinosaur or large fern, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

    Are you a large fern, pentax?

    So you’ve shown 15 years, and you’ve shown 520,000,000 years. Why are you not showing 30? 50? 100? 200? 300? Do you really think you are fooling anyone with this tripe?

    Oh, even better. I see Jonas is trying science again.

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

    Of course! It has nothing to do with starting with an anomalous year. I mean, it holds up perfectly if you do 10 years, right?

    Oh, no, it doesn’t. You HAVE to have that late 1990s in there to make crap statistics work so you can “menion” it has lasted “som” time.

    And I did not see you addressing any of Moncktons points, just copying his conditioned politics predictions. And BTW, those I think are wrong …

    I quoted his politics because they ably illustrate that the man is clinically insane. News flash: I also refrain from debating individuals drooling on themselves in the subway.

    But you do have a point, Jonas. I should have phrased my question better. Do you support the parts of Monckton’s article that address climate?

    Answer that question, and I’ll address his points.

  4. #4 chek
    January 9, 2013

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

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha……hillarious!!!”

    I know! And that’s not even the best part PantieZ!

    Because Jonarse must either say *something* and thereby demonstrate either dishonesty and/or incompetence with statistics, or say *nothing* in the hope it’ll go away and be revealed as just another nano-gnat brained denier meme repeater just like you PantieZ!

    Hilarious doesn’t begin to describe it!

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    January 9, 2013

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

    Hoh, hoh, hoh. Pretty certain, yeah right. For those for whom it is not blindingly obvious, that is how far back you can go while still avoiding statistical significance. The choice is a cherry pick of the maximum possible period that lacks statistical significance.

    And I did not see you addressing any of Moncktons points

    I’m too busy to find it now but potholer pointed out Monckton addressing Monckton’s points. If Monckton can’t address his own points to his own satisfaction, no-one can.

  6. #6 pentaxZ
    January 9, 2013

    Jeeez, you’re so funny, guys. How does it feel to be the emperor without clothes? Hahahaha…….

  7. #7 Chris O'Neill
    January 9, 2013

    And I did not see you addressing any of Moncktons points

    You want addressing of Monckton’s manouvres? Try this for starters. And once you’ve got through those, you can start on all the rest: http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54/videos?query=monckton

  8. #8 Jonas N
    January 15, 2013

    Sorry abandoning you here in your despair ..
    Things just aren’t going that well for the climate scare beleivers nowadays. Nothing really seems to work out four you, and the diminishing remaining faithers more and more need to reliy on each other and on those outlets still . Even the Met-office now predicts a hiatus for quite a few more years. Sea levels aren’t even close to rising at the ‘consensus-rate’ and never were accelerating as so many hoped. And only the hard core loonies believe in James Hansen’s predictions of five-ten fold increases on average in rate for the remaining century. Hansen being one of the of course ….

    Poor things. How much of your identity have you staked on this faith?

    :-)

  9. #9 Jonas N
    January 15, 2013

    Chris O’Neill

    I understand that you rather would like to believe Potholer/Peter Hadfield’s assertions about somthing else regarding Monckton, without checking it ..

    And that you thing ‘statistically’ significant’ is equivialent to ‘still not statistically signifiantly proven wrong’ ..

    But hey, this is Deltoid .. what do you expect?

  10. #10 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    Even the Met-office now predicts a hiatus for quite a few more years.

    [Citation needed]

    Sea levels aren’t even close to rising at the ‘consensus-rate’

    [Citation needed]

    and never were accelerating as so many hoped.

    [Citation needed], [Citation needed]

    And only the hard core loonies believe in James Hansen’s predictions of five-ten fold increases on average in rate for the remaining century.

    Rate of what, moron? Is it really too much to ask for a single coherent sentence?

    I understand that you rather would like to believe Potholer/Peter Hadfield’s assertions about somthing else regarding Monckton, without checking it ..

    So do you stand behind Monckton’s assertions, yes or no?

  11. #11 Jonas N
    January 18, 2013

    Stu ….

    I’d surmise that you ‘need’ quite a lot more than only ‘citations’

    For instance, learning to understand a context. Admittedly, you are ‘better’ than Wow, who usually won’t make it through a normal sentence. But not much …

    And yes, we have plenty of examples where you utterly failed to correctly understand even simple language and sentences. Have you forgotten already? Or are still in ‘denial’!?

    :-)

  12. #12 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    Oh, and by the way:
    “Christopher Monckton is not and has never been a Member of the House of Lords. There is no such thing as a ‘non-voting’ or ‘honorary’ member.”

    And
    h_ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/monckton-makes-it-up/
    h_ttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/mike-steketees-response-to-christopher-monckton/story-e6frg6xf-1225985171179
    h_ttp://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site297/2010/0409/20100409_103701_Monckton_Mystery_Solved.pdf
    h_ttp://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html
    h_ttp://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/monckton-lies-again-and-again-and-again-and-again-the-continuing-saga-of-a-practicer-of-fiction/
    h_ttp://www.politicususa.com/christopher-monckton-man-lies-credentials-questions-obamas.html
    h_ttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/monckton-lies-to-ap-denie_b_392233.html
    h_ttp://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html

    An obvious and stupid liar with delusions of grandeur. Hey Jonas, any relation?

  13. #13 Jonas N
    January 18, 2013

    And I see that Jeff Harvey, who desperately wants to believe in James Hanses loony-rates (because he is a so well recognized and respected ‘scientist’) still tries the very same method of barking irrelevant feelings at others hoping his rants somehow strengthen whatever it is he believes in. And as usual, without even understanding what the topic is.

    The most amazing thing is that he publicly displays his utter incompetence at almost everything he addresses. He tells us that he is ‘well respected’ among his peers. But we have only his word for that, and although there are loonies in most professions, I doubt that there are circles where they are really in majority …

  14. #14 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    I’d surmise that you ‘need’ quite a lot more than only ‘citations’

    Your scare-quotes are completely nonsensical. And by providing no citations for your assertions, you are conceding that you were, again, making things up.

    For instance, learning to understand a context.

    Context? Are you drunk again? You make several moronic assertions that I asked you to provide citations for. You failed to provide those. You fail at grasping the concept of context, which is irrelevant — in this context. You fail to answer a simple yes-or-no question.

    You fail.

    Admittedly, you are ‘better’ than Wow

    Again with the inappropriate scare-quotes. You’re a moron.

    <blockquote.who usually won’t make it through a normal sentence.</blockquote.

    You don't write any. Most of your sentences are irrelevant to the topic being discussed, show you don't understand what people are saying to you or are so poorly spelled or omit so many key words that they become useless.

    Like the one I was responding to. I asked for specific clarification on a sentence that was obviously omitting key words, and you are too stupid to understand the question or see where you failed.

    Seriously, between that level of nonsense and failing to address anything being said, why don’t you just save everybody a lot of time and post nothing but “Narf”? Same amount of content.

    And yes, we have plenty of examples where you utterly failed to correctly understand even simple language and sentences.

    Right, the many instances where I pointed out the silly things you say and defend? Where everyone understands except you? So you still believe everyone else is stupid and crazy, except you?

    Or are still in ‘denial’!?

    What the hell is it with the quotes, jackwagon? Did you just hit the Quotes chapter in English for Dummies? If so, go read it again — you’re failing at it pretty hard.

    Do you stand behind Monckton’s assertions on climate change, yes or no?

  15. #15 Jonas N
    January 18, 2013

    Eight links, Wow!?

    Did you have to got that far? Hasn’t this been claimed at Deltoid already, and must therefor be true?

    Your obsession with Monckton’s persona and many completely irrelevant thinsg is noted and quite cute. Maybe it helps you to get through the day. Somehow …

    And the hiatus is still the same problem as when I (here) first mentioned it. It only has lasted another year. And gotten worse, of course.

    The ignorant response from quite a few (not only you) amounts nowadays to: ‘Well, it is not entirely disproven yet’ and ‘It still could be true, and only obscured by something huge we don’t know yet what it is’ …

    Well. Both are at least theoretically possible. But not consistent with what has been claimed and trumpeted with the highest confidence by you all for years …

    But hey, this is Deltoid … nobody expects you to be consistent about anything really. Consisten is just a word found sometimes in your copied and rehashed ‘arguments’ … and then it’s a good word. Isn’t it Wow?

    ;-)

  16. #16 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    Jonas:

    Narf

    Zoot.

  17. #17 Jonas N
    January 18, 2013

    Stu ..

    Have you ever contemplated that there is a simpler (and closer to home) explanation for why you don’t understand something that is addressed here?

    Do I really have to spell this out, stu?

    You imagined that somebody argued pushing a box with the hand, but at different speeds between hand/box!

    You did that! I am fully serious! You believed this and still defend that idiocy! And you imagined/believed that in spite of the opposite being spelt out for you! You actually did. And stuck with that nonsense-idiocy! All by yourself! And in full vision ..

    :-)

    Well, you probably then too believe that ‘moron’ is a smart word for you to use and look smarter. Amazingly, quite a few here and on your side harbour similar beliefs and try them all the time.

    You know, I even think that I have explained what ‘rate’ of Hansen I was referring to before. To you, when you asked.

    But then, your postings never are about the topic Stu ..as so many other bystanders, you are merely hoping that throwing dirt (or nonsense) somehow detracts from reality. And that’s never a good method for anything

  18. #18 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    You imagined that somebody argued pushing a box with the hand, but at different speeds between hand/box!

    You did that!

    So the problem is that people can’t imagine things?

    That you can’t think of anyone who has an imagination?

    That it is wrong to imagine what someone means when they are unclear?

  19. #19 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    Eight links, Wow!?

    I’m not Wow, idiot. So yes, you’re posting drunk again.

    Did you have to got that far?

    Wait, now you are complaining that I provide too much evidence? Ah, now I see what your problem with the IPCC AR4 attribution section is. I mean, it’s got way too many references, right? Did they have to go that far?

    Hasn’t this been claimed at Deltoid already, and must therefor be true?

    Did you follow any of the links?

    Do you dispute any of the evidence provided at the links?

    Do you dispute that Monckton is a habitual and pathological liar?

    Do you support Monckton’s assertions on climate change in his guest post at WUWT that was referenced earlier (I believe by pentax)?

    Your obsession with Monckton’s persona and many completely irrelevant thinsg is noted and quite cute.

    He could have a Dragonball Z persona for all I care — it’s just that pomposity combined with continuing lying (for example, about what the IPCC actually says) is annoying and permanently discredits him.

    And the hiatus is still the same problem as when I (here) first mentioned it.

    Totally. Hey, Jonas, have you figured out yet why it’s a 16-year hiatus? Not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30? 16 years, on the dot. Doesn’t that strike you as oddly and extremely specific?

    Have you figured out yet why this would be? Maybe you and pentax can pool resources on this one.

    It only has lasted another year. And gotten worse, of course.

    A hiatus got worse? What the hell? You have no concept of language, do you. Jonas, just because you put a few words you like together does not mean you’re making sense.

    The ignorant response from quite a few (not only you) amounts nowadays to: ‘Well, it is not entirely disproven yet’

    [Citation needed]

    and ‘It still could be true, and only obscured by something huge we don’t know yet what it is’ …

    [Citation needed]

    The strawman creation guild is going to sue you Jonas.

    Well. Both are at least theoretically possible. But not consistent with what has been claimed and trumpeted with the highest confidence by you all for years …

    [Citation needed]

    But hey, this is Deltoid … nobody expects you to be consistent about anything really.

    Until you can provided citations for all your previous assertions, this is yet another asinine assertion. Since we both know you can’t provide citations for it, it is also an obvious and stupid lie. Monckton-grade, really.

    Consisten is just a word found sometimes in your copied and rehashed ‘arguments’

    No, “consisten” is not a word found in our arguments. We, unlike you, can spell.

    … and then it’s a good word. Isn’t it Wow?

    You can’t be bothered to address the correct person. You can’t be bothered to follow links we give you. You can’t be bothered to follow references the IPCC gives you. You actively resist getting informed yet insist you are smarter than everyone and know more than everyone.

    The only reason anyone talks to you anymore is that your pathology is occasionally amusing.

  20. #20 Jonas N
    January 18, 2013

    Wow

    Of course Stu is allowed to imagining nutty things, or believing things just because he wants to believe them. No problem there ..

    He just completely derailed after (possibly, initially?) just a stupid misreading of the words. He is still derailed and laments over ‘consisten’ and hopes that it helps him somehow.

    And your nonsense strawman implications/questions are duly noted. Those are what you regularly manage to accomplish. Irrelevant nonsense .. no surprise there!

  21. #21 Jonas N
    January 18, 2013

    Stu …

    You are (as usual) completely without any substance. None. Only the empty stupid rantings we have seen from the start.

    Your comment about ‘too many references for that AR4 claim’ is particularly stupid! Really really really stupid, Stu!

    I’m not even going to point out why this is so stupid. Even you (who allegedly spent six years not managing to understand even the simplest physics) should be able to figure out why …

    If you really are as stupid as your many arguments Stu I feel really sorry for you, and even more about those forced to be around and cope with you. But I hope you are a bit smarter than what you manage to show here ..

  22. #22 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    Stu, Joan has been hysterically screaming for well over a year that you have asked someone what they meant.

    That is the long and short of it.

    Joan is all hysterical because you asked someone what they meant.

    Nothing more.

    Their continued bitching has two purposes:

    1) to wind you up
    2) to get airtime

  23. #23 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “He just completely derailed after (possibly, initially?) just a stupid misreading of the words.”

    So asking “what did you mean” is completely derailing?

  24. #24 Jonas N
    January 18, 2013

    Wow … counterfactual assertions … that’s your spiel

    Do you even know what your purpose is with that?

  25. #25 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    Have you ever contemplated that there is a simpler (and closer to home) explanation for why you don’t understand something that is addressed here?

    You mean things that dozens of us here agree upon, versus you? It still makes sense to you that we are all crazy and you are sane?

    Do I really have to spell this out, stu?

    …must…resist…obvious…pun…

    Hell, no, I won’t.

    Jonas, you are not in a position to “spell things out” to anybody. You cannot spell.

    You imagined that somebody argued pushing a box with the hand, but at different speeds between hand/box!

    [Cliff Notes]
    I reacted to GSW saying “The hand must move faster also”. Bringing up the hand speed implies the velocity can be different. If it cannot, it should not be mentioned because “hand pushing box” means “hand always moves at the same speed at the box”. Therefore, I asked why it was brought up, and here we are over a year later with one clown defending the original statement and every other sentient creature in the known universe face-palming at him in unison.

    But sure, Jonas. I made it up. I misunderstood an English sentence, whereas you got it right.

    A likely scenario.

    You did that! I am fully serious!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h05YfP_8UsU

    And you imagined/believed that in spite of the opposite being spelt out for you!

    Sweetheart, nothing was “spelt” out to me. Nor “spelled”, for that matter. Not by anyone, especially you. You cannot spell.

    And stuck with that nonsense-idiocy! All by yourself! And in full vision ..

    You’re right! I totally should have made my “nonsense-idiocy” (facepalm) stealthier!

    (You do realize you’re not helping your case here, don’t you?)

    Well, you probably then too believe that ‘moron’ is a smart word for you to use and look smarter.

    Wait.

    What?

    “Moron” is a smart word I use to make myself look smarter?

    Are you serial?

    Did you have to look it up, Jonas?

    Amazingly, quite a few here and on your side harbour similar beliefs and try them all the time.

    We “try our beliefs”?

    Again, Jonas, save some time. Just say “Narf” and save us all some time.

    You know, I even think that I have explained what ‘rate’ of Hansen I was referring to before. To you, when you asked.

    Awesome! So you’ll be able to point me to the comment where you actually added the missing words to that nonsensical sentence?

    Please do. I’m waiting.

    But then, your postings never are about the topic Stu

    Really?

    A denier (pentax) brings up a posting by Monckton.

    We start slagging Monckton because he is a proven liar.

    You push back, without any arguments.

    I provide you with a starter set of links that prove Monckton is a liar.

    You say I gave to too many links.

    And all through this, you refuse to even answer whether or not you stand by the assertions on climate change Monckton made in that post. For weeks now. A simple yes or no question on the thing closest to the topic brought up in months, and you refuse to answer it.

    And here you are, not answering the question, accusing me of not sticking to the topic.

    That is trolling, Jonas. And bad trolling at that. Answer the damned question and then we can talk about who is avoiding the topic. While you’re at it, provide clarification on that “rate” sentence, as requested multiple times now.

    ..as so many other bystanders, you are merely hoping that throwing dirt (or nonsense) somehow detracts from reality.

    Jonas, are you clairvoyant? How do you know that “bystanders” on this thread hope any such thing? Did they say so on this thread? Hate to tell you Jonas, but that would make them “participants”, not “bystanders”. In an Internet comment tread, everyone but the blog owner is by definition unaware of who the “bystanders” (lurkers, for sane people) are.

    So again, you are trying to say something vapid but lack the language skills to make even that argument properly. Yet here you are saying that your interpretation of what was said about “the hand has to move faster also” is the only correct one.

    You have again, in a completely seperate incident, proven you have insufficient mastery of the English language to define even the most basic of concepts, yet insist on talking physics with professional scientists.

    This is one of the many levels where you are glaringly incompetent, the level I have been addressing from the start, and purposefully so. We obviously overestimated you from the get-go, assuming you had the mental faculties and intellectual toolkit to discuss things like IPCC attribution. However, you lack so many basic tools (spelling, vocabulary, reading comprehension) that by now it is obvious that addressing your arguments on that level is absolute folly. Whether through a learning disability, mental illness or willful disassociation, you are unable to grasp what is being discussed.

    And that’s never a good method for anything

    As adjudicated by…

    Oh, never mind.

    Wow, Of course Stu is allowed to [narf]

    So you realize you were addressing the wrong person.

    You refuse to correct yourself.

    You refuse to even acknowledge that you messed up. Completely expected, of course. You refuse to acknowledge any of your many failings. You refuse even now to even check your spelling.

    Children do that. Do you even know how adults communicate, Jonas?

    imagining nutty things, or believing things just because he wants to believe them.

    This coming from someone who crows about an imagined “hiatus” “getting worse”. It’s official, again: IT’S ALL PROJECTION.

    He just completely derailed after (possibly, initially?) just a stupid misreading of the words.

    “The hand has to move faster also.” We’ve been over this

    He is still derailed and laments over ‘consisten’ and hopes that it helps him somehow.

    I’ll stop bagging on your pathetic spelling errors as soon as you stop making pathetic spelling errors. This has been explained to you. This is easy for you to avoid. You don’t care enough to spend 10 minutes to not look like a doofus yet demand people stop calling you on writing like a doofus.

    The fault, at this point, is entirely yours. Learn how to spell, download free software to check your spelling, hire someone who can spell to check your spittle — nobody cares how you do it Jonas… just realize that with every glaring error you make yourself look more stubborn and dense.

    And your nonsense strawman implications/questions are duly noted.

    I know you really like that “duly noted” thing, Jonas. I used that construct on you, it struck your pompous nature, and you have been unable to restrain yourself from using it as much as humanly possible. It’s still very, very pathetic.

    Anyway.

    The definition of a rhetorical strawman is arguing against something not said. You made assertions about what was said to you and argued against that. I asked for citations, you refused to provide any. You were committing the stawman fallacy, repeatedly, and now assert (again, without citation) that that is “nonsense”.

    This specific response of yours is so prima facie and transparently idiotic that I don’t think there’s even an officially defined fallacy for it, although I am open to being corrected on that.

    You are (as usual) completely without any substance.

    When I hit “Submit Comment”, the number of outstanding open questions posed to you that you have so far refused to answer will go from 2 to 6. They are all relevant, and we all know why you don’t want to answer them — it’ll make you look like a kook, and a dumb one at that.

    Answer the questions I posed to you over the past half-dozen comments or so or concede you have no interest in actually addressing the topic.

    Your comment about ‘too many references for that AR4 claim’ is particularly stupid! Really really really stupid, Stu!

    Really? You’ve conceded that you don’t like it when people give you too many references. You’ve conceded that there are a lot of references in the AR4 attribution section. You’ve conceded that you haven’t read any of them.

    What logical conclusion, pray tell, do you expect people to draw in the face of those facts?

    I’m not even going to point out why this is so stupid.

    Ah, so back to “Narf”. God forbid you actually address the topic, right?

    Even you (who allegedly spent six years not managing to understand even the simplest physics)

    We know you’re envious of and hateful towards the education of others. No need to expose your insecurities this blatantly all over again Jonas, it does not help your case.

    [Much more Narf]

    Zoot.

  26. #26 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    Oh dear me. Just for fun, I looked up

    Even the Met-office now predicts a hiatus for quite a few more years.

    Right! Except no, not at all.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html

    “The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.

    However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years.”

    “…changes in ocean surface temperatures in some parts of the world over the past year are understood to have made a key contribution to the difference between the 2011 and 2012 forecasts, but other factors will also have played a role.”

  27. #27 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    (Should’ve asked the first time)

    So what is it Jonas?

    A) Did you not understand what the Met was saying
    B) Did I not understand what the Met was saying
    C) Is the Met lying
    D) Are you lying

    Yes/No seems to be too complicated for you, but let’s see if you can do multiple choice.

  28. #28 Chris O'Neill
    January 19, 2013

    Jonas still thinks 16 years without “statistically significant” warming means there is a hiatus in warming.

    But hey that’s Jonas.

    BTW, if it hasn’t already been mentioned, a global warming confidence interval calculator is here.

  29. #29 pentaxZ
    January 19, 2013

    Hey, deltoid zealots! Here’s a very pedagogic pic for you about lines and trends. I especially like the sentence: “Linear trends are worthless for statistically inferring cause-and-effect; but getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance.”

    Read and wipe, deltoidistas.

    http://s7.postimage.org/69qd0llcr/intermediate.gif

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    January 19, 2013

    …”The most amazing thing is that he publicly displays his utter incompetence at almost everything he addresses”

    .. says our resident pseudo-intellecutal Dunning-Krugerite non-scientist with no scientific publications in his life or any recognition in any field of endeavor. Its funny how our psychotic Swede can make such a statement since, as we all know, he has no scientific competence in ANY field. I’ve written a lot about ecology and environmental science on Deltoid, which is my area of professional expertise, as it turns out. So what Mr. Ego appears to be saying is that inn his uneducated opinion my comments are wrong there too. Here’s a guy who can’t tell a hippopotamus from a grasshopper and yet he’s not afraid to making sweeping generalizations. Like other deluded fruitcakes, he also doesn’t hesitate to impugn and smear scientists who have years of experience. Now, let’s see, who is more respected amongst members of the scientific community: James Hansen or Jonas Nincompoop. GOSH! That’s a hard one. If there were a vote amongst climate scientists, what would the result be – 99.9999999999999999999% Hansen, 0.0000000000000000001% Jonas.

    So you better be careful there Jonas – you already look like a complete schmuck to 99% of those posting on Deltoid. Such asinine remarks won’t increase your fan club beyond the 1 or 2 equally daft idiots who support you now.

    I’ll be even more blunt: in a scientific venue you wouldn’t reach up to my ankles.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    January 19, 2013

    Stu nails it here in describing Jonas:

    “We know you’re envious of and hateful towards the education of others. No need to expose your insecurities this blatantly all over again Jonas, it does not help your case”

    If there is anything that has been made clear by Jonas on this thread, it is this. He loathes academics, probably because he isn’t one. Note his comments towards me, John Mashey, James Hansen, Michael Mann and other scientists with who he disagrees. Its the politics of envy.

  32. #32 pentaxZ
    January 19, 2013

    “So you better be careful there Jonas – you already look like a complete schmuck to 99% of those posting on Deltoid.”

    And that of course says more about the weirdos who populate this pseudoscience blog than of Jonas. Owngoal jeffie, owngoal.

  33. #33 Stu
    January 19, 2013

    “getting a match between wiggles in two datasets is much less likely to be due to random chance”

    Seriously? “Match between wiggles”?

    Hmm. Who’d be dumb enough to say something like that.

    Roy Spencer? This Roy Spencer?

    h_ttp://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
    “In Andrew Dessler’s view, “[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.” [8]

    In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down.”

    Any more quality unsourced claptrap you care to cut and paste, pentax?

  34. #34 Stu
    January 19, 2013

    And that of course says more about the weirdos who populate this pseudoscience blog than of Jonas.

    I see you have no concept of irony.

  35. #35 pentaxZ
    January 19, 2013

    Directly on to the ad hom,stu? So, what about ordinary arguments? Depleted? Hahaha…

  36. #36 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Yes, Stu, how dare you ad-hominate about “weirdos”?

    As you say, still no concept of irony.

  37. #37 pentaxZ
    January 19, 2013

    The irony, vince, is that in the real world, you know, the one that exists outside this tiny, dark little corner of the internet, ad homs is commonly recognized as being the technique for argumenting for those without any arguments (or liars, your choise). So you see, the faceplanting is all yours, Ironically, isn’t it?

  38. #38 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Who posted this, Pentax:

    the weirdos who populate this pseudoscience blog

    And where is the ad-hominem in Stu’s post? I can’t see it.

    Typically with deniers, we find their literacy level is as low as their intellect, and they have a nasty habit of employing words whose meanings they are not familiar with.

    Calling you an idiot is abuse, not ad-hominem, and it seems like factual and justifiable abuse at that. You are an idiot.

  39. #39 Stu
    January 19, 2013

    Guys, guys, let’s let pentax actually point out where, specifically, he feels I committed an ad hominem fallacy first. If he can I’ll openly apologize for it.

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    January 19, 2013

    “And that of course says more about the weirdos who populate this pseudoscience blog than of Jonas. Owngoal jeffie, owngoal”

    In your dreams, Pentup. In your dreams. Here’s a question for you and your hero:

    Who is a better qualified scientist?

    A James Hansen
    B Jonas Nobody

    Not that hard to answer. Give it a shot. I dare you. I ask because Jonas has pretty well spent this entire thread claiming to know everything there is about science, routinely smearing and deriding those he doesn’t like, including people who have bothered to get off their butts, get the relevant education and qualifications, and do research.

    Arrogance doesn’t begin to describe Jonas and his views, which for some strange reason are way out from the mainstream. Jonas is an example of a storm in a teacup. Big man in one little corner of the blogosphere. Can make all kinds of unsubstantiated arguments with no recourse. Can forever belittle Mann, Hansen, Santer, Trenberth and others, safely tucked away from broader scrutiny.

    I have challenged him dozens of times to go into a broader arena – a conference and a workshop – or to write a paper for a peer-reviwed journal if he thinks he is some brilliant wannabe scientist bravely debunking those he regularly attacks here.

    But of course he won’t . He won’t even respond to this post because he can’t. He’s trapped here by his own ego and by the fact he knows that his so-called wisdom would be blown to smithereens if he threw his hat in the ring. So the Jonas thread on Deltoid is where he will stay, along with a few denier blogs. Again, big man in a teacup with his loony sidekicks (you included) for ego massaging.

  41. #41 Jonas N
    January 19, 2013

    Jeff …

    As I’ve said many times. You claim to be a scientist, ans still in almost every comment you post, you make claims and assertions which have only the inside of your skull, ie your feverish imaginiations as source. You fantisize ‘facts’ to supporrt your completely idiotic narrative.

    And you can’t argue one single topic here on the merits, and quite frankly most of the time my impression is you dom’t even have the slightest clue what issues are on the table. It’s just brainless irrational ranting and screaming. And has been for 1½ year now ..

    And you call yourself a scientist? Well Jeff Harvey … in real science you have absolutely nothing to bring to the table.

    Just look here. Aapart from not being able to even grasp what is discussed here, you now cheer one other commenter who has shown how absolutely incompetent he is regarding a discipline he claims to have studied for six years!

    A nitwit who (in spite of his claim) was unable to se any of the many complete disasters luminous made, and then tried to pile up to cover for his inital fiascos.

    Stu didn’t nail one thing. He is completely incompetent wrt to anything worth discussing here. Almost everything he tris is diversion and getting away from any substance.

    No Jeff, you nailed yourself again. First by once again making your fantasy claims, and then by cheering for yet another incompetent crank just because he also is as incapable as you are …

    And still Jeff. I told you were Hansen and Mann went wrong. In Hansens case it’s sp bleeding obious that ony a complete stupid moron or blind-faith climate-scare-cultist can fail to see it: His promises of (now) 10-fold increase in sea level rise rate in the coming decades.

    By the way: Your claims about percentage among climate scientists once more are abslute utter idiotic hogwash .. and you are probably once more completely incompetent to understand why …

    Because you are no scientist, Jeff. You just write total nonsense agian and again hoping that it becomes true that way …

    What and idiot!

  42. #42 Jonas N
    January 19, 2013

    And now my comment in my own thread is ‘awaiting moderation’ .. what a joke

    But hey, this is Deltoid

    :-)

  43. #43 pentaxZ
    January 20, 2013

    “Who is a better qualified scientist?”

    About qualified, massaging data, exaggerate and lying isn’t by any way proper science, so hansen does definitely not qualify as a scientist, less still a qualified one. Pseudoscientist is a more accurate term for hansen.

    So Jonas is the qualified one, scientist or not.

    “Big man in one little corner of the blogosphere”

    Finaly you got something right, jeffie. Jonas’ knowledge about physics and climate by far exceeds any of your deltoidistas. And that completely without the need to wave a CV in others face. Yes, he’s a big man. And deltoid is a little, dark corner of the internet, although of course you zealots think otherwise. Two rights in one sentence, jeffie. Impressive.

  44. #44 pentaxZ
    January 20, 2013

    stu
    “Guys, guys, let’s let pentax actually point out where, specifically, he feels I committed an ad hominem fallacy first. If he can I’ll openly apologize for it.”

    I don’t expect you to have enough brains to figure that one out.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    Sigh. Jonas still can’t answer my simple question.

    IS HE A MORE QUALIFIED SCIENTIST THAN JAMES HANSEN.

    Pentup writes a bit of verbal diarrhea, in keeping with the fact he’s an utter twerp who thinks that AGW is some global left-wing conspiracy. He seems to think he has enough acumen to evaluate the qualifications of scientists. Much like Jonas. Again, straight from the Dunning-Kruger handbook. You won’t ever find even deniers who are scientists doing this. Christy, Lindzen, Spence, Pielke, love em’ or loathe em, they wouldn’t go down this road, because they know that whatever thin street cred they have would be shot to pieces.

    But that doesn’t stop the assorted ugly mob of non-scientists on blogs doing it. They do it because they are anonymous and can get away with it. Again, this lot pound their chests and act like silverbacks in little corners of the blogosphere, but if they were to step out into the big, bad academic world they’d been eaten up and sapt out in a nanosecond.

    Jonas rambles on: “And you call yourself a scientist? Well Jeff Harvey … in real science you have absolutely nothing to bring to the table”

    Says the man with no scientific background in any field, of endeavor. Many of us here has asked Jonas Nobody a millions times what qualifications he ‘brings to the table’ . Aside from often telling us how smart he is and how much he knows more than anybody else, no qualifications are produced. Again, I reiterate: I actually do science. My science is sent out for peer-review. I attend conferences and workshops and give lectures at universities. I review manuscripts and grant proposals. I am on editorial boards and scientific committees. I have the letters after my name. Jonas has none of those things. Just some vacuous rants on a blog. END OF STORY.

    Wanna know why that is?

    BECAUSE HE AIN’T GOT ANY!!!!!!!!

    On top of this, he has his little daft science-devoid wart, Pentup, as his main defender. Of course if there was a democratic vote amongst those here, we know who’d they vote off in the dunce category first and second. No need to say who.

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    Essentially, in the end my advice to people here is not to reply any more to our hapless Swedish idiots. Jonas craves attention. He feeds off it, because it bloats his ego. He’s down to one regular supporter here now, an equally nutty guy with an equally nutty monicker.

    Jonas loathes academics. That’s clear. He refuses to answer basic questions, such as what his day job is, or why he refuses to take his self-professed brilliance to the big world of academia. If Pentup is correct and Jonas is a repressed scholar, who knows far more than Mann, Hansen, Trenberth et al., its a tragedy that his academic brilliance is not being exposed to the big world.

    Forget Hansen! Jonas N will change the course of science! So why oh why is Jonas N a completely anonymous schmuck? Is it because he’s shy of publicity? Or because he doesn’t think the world is ready for his brilliance?

    Perhaps there’s another reason – he knows his garbage would be shot down almost immediately. Also, people would ask why a self-taught scholar had no formal qualifications in the field of climate science or, indeed, any science. Kinda tricky, that one.

    Every so often I stumble into this sad, twisted thread and read more of Jonas’ idiotic barbs. Most of the time I let them pass, but foolishly I respond to some of them. If we all ignore him, and his wart, then my hope is that they will fade away into the obscurity from which they emerged.

  47. #47 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Jeff …

    I told you exactly where Hansen went completely wrong! And yes, I have that acumen. And you don’t! You have no method at all nvigating anything wrt to real sceince. None!

    Shouting idiot-rants about Dunning Kruger, denialists and fantasizing your own ‘facts’ is what you do. Totally clueless? If Hansen says 1 to 5 m raise this centure, it must be true becaues of his long CV!? What a totally idiotic and moronic argument!

    But that’s all you have. And you’ve tried it for 1½ half not even knowing what you are defending. Here you side with Stu, another completely inept six failed years of studied physics claimee … Who can’t read and understand even the simplest things. Desperately you hope that Stu ‘nailed’ it when expressing ignorant wet fantasies similar to yours ..

    You of course are too dumb to assess anything even remotely related to real science. You are too dumb to evaluate even the simplest quantified claims. You write utter hoqwash and even pretend to speak for 99.9999999999999999999% of the scientific community!

    Of course you don’t! You don’t speak for any real science at all here. Do you even know what sample size you’d need to make such an idiotic claim, Jeff?

    And yes Jeff, you have tried waving that CV many times. And still here, when discussing any little detail or fact or law of physics, or how to interpret numbers, what observations actually say and what they can support, what can be said with what confidence (or lack thereof) etc .. Everytime, you chicken out and start ranting your idiocy.

    And you know what Jeff? I think your behavior accurately reflects your skills. Here you have none whatsoever … None!

    And you make up your own facts in so blatant desperation … that only a complete lunatic can think what he spouts are real facts he knows.

    And if you are not, you are knowingly asserting statements you know nothing about. Which makes you a liar!

    And neither lunatics or liars have any place in real science and how it is conducted.

  48. #48 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Ah Jeff ..

    So why are you so desperat trying to put me down with the most stupid non-arguments available?

    First you say Hansen (and Mann Trenberth etc) are the finest scientists there are with long CVs that make them appear amlost saintlike ..

    And now you are saying we should forget Hansen (or the others) and what claims they make about the future? We should not ask them how they arrive at their sometimes spectacular ‘conclusions’!?

    We shoulc not check if their numbers and data make any sense and what physics are required to make their predictions to happen?

    You are claiming (meaning: *hoping without knowing’) that what I say here is garbage!?

    How would you know Jeff? You can’t even get my stance, position or statments correct. Not even after me repeatedly pointing out that what you attack is not what I said. You hardly ever go near anything relevant and real I say. So how can you claim it’s garbage?

    I know: Because it origins from the inside of your head. You make things up. You kame garbage up, and you do it all the time!

    Garbage is your only method here Jeff … And your product. And you’v been spouting it for 1½ years

  49. #49 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Oh Jeff, another little (ie big) peculiarity about your failures here ..

    You often say that you speak for many others, for scientists, and even for ‘the scientific community’ and make claims about what they would do or say or respond to what I am saying etc

    Of course you don’t. You don’t speak for any real scientist, that’s for sure. And you don’t speak for any community either. And you wouldn’t know how things I say about the matter here would be responded to. Because you don’t know what I say. Because you don’t know the matter or what it is. And because you neither understand what others are arguing wrt the same matter. You just don’t know …

    And you are of course completely wrong in your assertions. Many scientists say and argue the exact same things I do. You just wouldn’t know since you don’t know what I actually say.

    But that was not the main point. Instead you want to take that ‘argumentum ad populum’-fallacy. Even to this place, and conduct a ‘head count’ among the commenters here. Which is so laughable it defies belief ..

    Firstly because this is a heavily moderated alarmist site, and secondly, because the ones you want to count in as support for your garbage beliefs are signatures like:

    Stu, Wow, Lotharson, sidecup, bill, ianam, Michael, Bernard, Vince, chek and the like …

    And remember: The higher your ‘majority’ head count would be, the more cranks you would need to include there together with you.

    And just look at that bunch, and the kind of ‘arguments’ they bring here. Utter garbage the whole time. Most are as lousy as you at addressing anything relevant. All would just rather like to shout insults and shout me down (avoiding any issue altogheter). And the very few who occasionally actually try to adress some real issues reveal how little substance and knowledge there ever was behind their beliefs … just look at Stu or luminous …

    But you think that more of them, of those here is an argument for your beliefs!? Really?

    How did you come to think anything as stupid? Pleaste tell! How do you think sealevel rates will quadruple or worse, because those ranters rant the same rants as you?

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    Buh-bywe Jonas. Nice to leave you ranting at thin air. I certainly don’t ever expect to see or hear from you again. Deltoid is it.

    You are one sad, pathetic loser….

  51. #51 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Well Jeff …

    You spent 1½ year ranting absolute ignorant garbage here … trying to convince whom about what? Do you even know?

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    One final point, Jonas: I am brave and honest enough to admit that I am not a climate scientist and on that basis to defer to those who have the proper training, expertise and qualifications. This is what having a proper scientific education does. It tells us what we know and where we should be cautious. You exhibit no hesitation in claiming to be an expert in an area you’ve never formally studied. You aren’t afraid to attack Hansen as an anonymous entity on a little blog, but you don’t venture into academic circles. Why is that?

    Its because you are a rank coward. As I said yesterday, big man in microscopic teacup. You bleat on about how you’ve proven Hansen is wrong here, but why not in a scientific journal? Why not in a public venue? But you won’t do that. If you did, then you know what would happen. You’d either be ignored for being a rookie, or else your views would be shot down.

    As I said, here you stay. As the loser you are and will always be.

    Sad but true.

  53. #53 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    “You spent 1½ year ranting absolute ignorant garbage here”

    Says you. And one or two of your ignorant hangers on. Am I supposed to believe YOU?

    Good grief man, get real. If my science is so flawed then try telling that to the journals that publish my research and to the scientists who cite it. Last year (2012) my papers were cited over 500 times on the Web of Science. Now who do I believe; this massive recognition of what I do or some unpublished, untrained libertarian Swede with a chip on his shoulder? Gee, that’s a toughie…

  54. #54 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Jeff

    Well Jeff … your ‘proper scientific education’ has not cured you from making up garbage and presenting them as ‘facts’ in almost every comment.

    As you say, such an eduction: “tells us what we know and where we should be cautious” or at least it should.

    You Jeff have shown absolutely no restraint here making the stupidest claims imaginable. And that’s what they have been, imagined (by you) and stupid.

    And there is no need for me to confront Hansen. Nobody (except possibly cranks like yourself) take Hansen’s claims about future sea levels seriously.

    And contrary to your oft repeated nutty rants have I ever said that I know fields far better than anybody else. However, I know far mor than you about this matter (which is no measure at all) and I know far more than required to spot nutty claims, poor science, poor logic, and vastly overstated conclusions.

    It must be immensly difficult for your fragile ego to handle that all your idiotic projections about me are so far off the target that you now are a total joke. That you repeat your idiotic claims about me hoping that would make them true after the fourhundred:th repetition.

    And no they don’t Jeff.

    And yes Jeff, I know what will happen if I bring what I say to a scientific debate. You don’t. You don’t even know what it is I am saying.

    You again claim that your assertions ar the truth. And you are as wrong as always. Your method doesn’t work. And repeating it just makes you look more stupid … Not my problem though.

    And it seems that you still are completely unaware of what is happening in the real world, and the real science about the climate and what makes it move ..

    But how could you. You claim superiority over me, and can’t even read what I say correctly …

  55. #55 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Jeff … ‘your science’ is completely irrelevant to what and how the climate changes on earth .. .Completely irrelevant!

    You angry CV-shaking does not answer any relevant question about that.

    But it’s good of you that you spell it out (even twice) that your navigation is about ‘believing’ and ‘whom to believe

    Do you remember that this is one of the very first things I told you guys here: That you are taking things on faith!? In particular the most prominent IPCC AR4 claim?

    Maybe you still ‘believe’ … and think that such claims don’t even need to be stated, much less demonstrated beyond any questionsmarks in the published literature .. But that’s were we differ:

    I ask to see the data. Or in this case just the publications …

    And when I do, the whole Deltoid blog ‘goes Jeffie’ for 1½ years …

  56. #56 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Let me be vary clear Jeff:

    You have spent 1½ years producing absolute garbage (in almost every comment) towards me.

    There might have been som grains of sanity a few times, some crumbs of substance wrt tthe actual issues … but the utter gabage, the attempted childish insults, the irrelevant CV-waving and contest pissing are larger by three orders of magnitude (possibly more, but I’m trying to be modest here)

    And why you feel compelled to write as much (garbage) as you do here, I don’t know. I noticed though that you try the exact same spiel with others too. And you completely lose the arguement there too. Your garbage are not arguments. No matter how desperatly you want them to be.

  57. #57 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    “And there is no need for me to confront Hansen. Nobody (except possibly cranks like yourself) take Hansen’s claims about future sea levels seriously”

    Sorry Jonas. Gotta stop you there. Strawman. Calling people cranks on the basis of comments on a blog does not cut ice. Nobody takes that seriously.

    Second fallacious point: “However, I know far mor than you about this matter (which is no measure at all) and I know far more than required to spot nutty claims, poor science, poor logic, and vastly overstated conclusions”

    Meaningless drivel. Based entirely on your own views. And as I have said, I don’t care what you think. If you were such a talented guy your wisdom wouldn’t be confined to a small blog would it? You are clearly very frustrated. You loathe academics. That’s clear. That’s because you think you’re one. Or are a wannabe. But to become a respected scholar is something you can’t do in 5 minutes on a blog. I’ve asked you what your background is over and over again. You refuse to say. Which means that aren’t an academic. Except in your own mind.

    Stupid point # 3: “It must be immensly difficult for your fragile ego ”

    My ego isn’t fragile, Jonas. You certainly cannot even put a speck on it. My scientific career speaks for itself. It has been successful thus far, and my plant-insect research is heavily cited in the peer-reviewed literature. It would certainly take a lot more than an anally retentive Swede to make me feel that my science is not up to scratch. Unlike you, I stick close to my field (well, you don’t exactly have a field do you? Amateur all the way). I don’t stick my neck out and try to give the impression of being a genius in fields I have not studied. But I have spoken with a lot of climate scientists and have yet to meet one who denies the human fingerprint on the current warming.

    Finally this howler: “I ask to see the data. Or in this case just the publications”

    Pretty blatant lie, there. Dozens of publications have been linked here and you’ve pretty well ignored every one of them. Its clear that you don’t understand them, and even when you do occasionally respond, its usually just some dismissive remark aimed to give the impression that you are better than the authors who wrote the studies and did the research. Its so easy to do that in a blog; if you were to crawl out from under the slimy rock you call home you’d then have to defend your put-downs more publicly. And then your rank ignorance would be exposed fully.

    Finally, with the spittle flying out of your twisted mouth, try and learn to write and spell better. Your grammar is atrocious.

  58. #59 pentaxZ
    January 20, 2013

    ”This is an egregious example of sloppy science, slipshod science, bad science. … This is what happens when the race for fame, government funding and political advantage collide with science—the validity of the science is destroyed”

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/science-gets-stratosphere-wrong

  59. #60 Wow
    January 20, 2013

    Essentially, in the end my advice to people here is not to reply any more to our hapless Swedish idiots.

    So do so, Jeff.

    Tim’s not willing to cut this shithead off, we must.

  60. #61 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Jeff!?

    Again only nonsense.

    1) Hansen made claims about future sea levels … which if taken seriously require a tenfold increase in rising rate. For the next 87 years. On average. Nutty! No real scientist takes that seriously. Period!

    2) Yes, I know far more about what I am talking about than you. Period! My education is far better than yours. And suited for the purpose.

    4) Nonsense! Nobody has provided any references even making that claim. Are you lying trhough your teeth now Jeff?

    3) Yes, you are, and have been barking at me for 1½ year now. Very angrily. Demanding that I ‘recognize’ your ‘grandiose stature’ as a scientist. I don’t. What you bring to the table here is nutty garbage (and worse)

    And you still hope to put me down with your infantile insult-attempts. Why is this so important to you? When you steer away from every on-topic issue and detail?

  61. #62 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Jeff …

    One of the ‘participants’ of your head-count support is signature ‘Wow’. Congratulations! You belong in that company!

    I would say that almost all of the ones who believe that insult-hurling is an argument are nothing but trolls here. Absolutely no connection to any topic.

    You are a troll too. Claiming that a tenfold increase in sea level rising rate should be ‘accepted’ because Hansen is such a ‘respected scientist’ .. right there showing that you have absolutely no understanding of what real science is. None!

    You say that your ego isn’t fragile, and still you have spent 1½ years here trying to tell yourself that you are ‘better than me’ by waving that CV and by makeing the stupidest most dishonest claims you can come up with.

    In my experience, people with a good self esteem don’t invent lies about others to bolster their own … That’s what you expect from the schoolyard bully in elemetary school.

  62. #63 chek
    January 20, 2013

    “by makeing the stupidest most dishonest claims you can come up with. ”

    The claims are neither dishonest nor stupid.
    You ARE a nobody, and you have nothing (except your fuckwit posse and their even more fuckwitted links).
    Enjoy.

  63. #64 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    chek …

    And you have never even been close to anything here. Your comments have been even more stupid than Jeff’s. And dishonest too, I’m quite certain.

  64. #65 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    “My education is far better than yours. And suited for the purpose”

    Prove it.

  65. #66 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Prove it!?

    You already proved it, Jeff. I would never write idiotic claims like you. For instance:

    If there were a vote amongst climate scientists, what would the result be – 99.9999999999999999999% Hansen, 0.0000000000000000001% Jonas.

    You probably don’t even know why this is idiotic. Or how idiotic!

  66. #67 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Another extremely obvious illustration is that I have to (over and over again) exlain to you even the simpler parts of what is required by the scientific method. (And my impression still is that you don’t even understand those parts. Since you are unable of violating them essentially in every one of your comments. But logic just isn’t your thing, Jeff. Is it?)

  67. #68 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Correction:

    “Since you are unable [to refrain from] violating them essentially in every one of your comments”

  68. #69 chek
    January 20, 2013

    “what is required by the scientific method”.

    The “scientific method” shows that Jeff is a frequently published, oft-cited, respected scientist in his field with an international reputation.

    You, Jonarse, on the other hand are merely an idiot blog poster with no data and no case apart from your own cluelessness but also a certain amount of animal cunning attempting to camouflage the fact that your only appeal is feral morons like PantieZ et al.

  69. #70 Stu
    January 20, 2013

    Me:

    “Guys, guys, let’s let pentax actually point out where, specifically, he feels I committed an ad hominem fallacy first. If he can I’ll openly apologize for it.”

    pentax:

    I don’t expect you to have enough brains to figure that one out.

    So you admit that you cannot, in fact, point out where I committed an ad hominem fallacy. So you admit that you are a liar.

    Thank you, and please don’t be offended if people laugh at you even more from here on out — you are now a proven lying douche, and sane creatures tend to dismiss those.

  70. #71 Stu
    January 20, 2013

    Jonas:

    “My education is far better than yours. And suited for the purpose”

    Jeff:

    Prove it.

    Jonas:

    You already proved it, Jeff. I would never write idiotic claims like you.

    So no, no proof. Again. Jeff has already proven his scientific credentials, and said he is not a climate scientist. I have admitted I have nothing but a high-school physics education. We have been totally forthcoming about our education and its limits.

    Jonas, so far, has not even deigned to inform us of a single detail of his education. All he has shown is that he cannot spell, cannot formulate a basic physics problem and is less original than your average Lenny Kravitz album.

    But sure, he’s the “real” scientist. He’s smarter than all of us. All we need to do is take his word for it.

  71. #72 Stu
    January 20, 2013

    pentax: Your last few quotes have been:

    – Monckton
    – Spencer
    – A cartoon drawn by someone too dense to understand a simple Met report
    – A random blog douche still not understanding that the NOAA data was validated by an independent Koch-founded study

    pentax, sweetheart, is it that you don’t understand what these links actually say… or is it that you really hope people are dumber than you and don’t check up on them?

  72. #73 Jonas N
    January 20, 2013

    Stu,

    Yes Jeff proved that all his training and his aéducation is inferior when trying to argue his many idiotic claims.

    And it is eve easier with you.

    If you really had studied your alleged six years of physics, you would have realized that every single thing I told luminous was correct and to the point. If you had studied those six years and also mastered what you had studied, you would have realizes luminous’ many violations of simple physics already before I pointed them out.

    Well according to your own account you did neither. And insted went on lamenting about somthing else (I don’t need to remind you of, but gladly will)

    So, in case you really studied the absolute first simplebasics of physics, you are doubly aware of that I am correct. And you are aware of that Jeff claiming ‘you nailed it’ once more revealed that he neither had the slightest clue.

    On the other hand, if you aren’t even aware of your (and luminous) failures after the fact, those alleged six years have been entirely wasted. Again proving my point:

    My education is far better than yours. And suited for the purpose

    And Jeff cluelessly siding with luminous, wow and you, confirming it once again (wrt Jeff)

  73. #74 chek
    January 21, 2013

    Shorter Jonarse: Empty, meaningless, (misspelled) words conveyiing nothing and adding nothing..

  74. #75 Jonas N
    January 21, 2013

    And how would you know (-nothing) chek?

  75. #76 Jonas N
    January 21, 2013

    chek .. unfortunately and for some stupid reason, my reply to your earlier comment is ‘held up in moderation’ … I don’t know why, and I don’t even think there is purpose behind it. But essentially I was mocking you (and Jeff) for your ignorant comments about ‘the scientific method’. You guys really have no clue what science is about .. Real science, that is

  76. #77 chek
    January 21, 2013

    “You guys really have no clue what science is about .. Real science, that is”.

    The “real science” that goes on only within your own head is not “real science” Jonarse. It’s only your own safe, la-la fantasy world. That’s why your existence is defined by your meaningless, inconsequentia blog sniping, not by anything you’ve actually done. Nor can do.

  77. #78 Jonas N
    January 21, 2013

    chek .. you are wrong already on the very first syllable. I have been asking for the references to that AR4 claim which for many is at the core of your belief system. And absolutely none of you have seen any such science. Much less being able to understand any such science.

    And Ive told you this for 1½ years.And you still seem to be in denial …

  78. #79 pentaxZ
    January 21, 2013

    “I don’t expect you to have enough brains to figure that one out.

    So you admit that you cannot, in fact, point out where I committed an ad hominem fallacy. ”

    Funny when someone claiming to write and understand the English language actually don´t. Hillarious!

  79. #80 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    Jonas is so smart, I’m amazed the UN hasn’t hired Black Helicopters to knock him off before he gives the game away….

  80. #81 Vince Whirlwind
    January 21, 2013

    As for Pentax, the man who has no idea what “ad hominem” means, he has just posted yet another meaningless post that has no obvious connection to anything that has happened before.

    Maybe he forgot to take his pills this morning?

  81. #82 pentaxZ
    January 21, 2013

    Hahaha, you’re so funny, Windy. You too prove my point.

  82. #83 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    Funny when someone claiming to write and understand the English language actually don´t. Hillarious!

    * doesn’t
    * Hilarious

    And still unable to point to an actual fallacy.

  83. #84 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    Oh, and by the way, Jonas, if all you’re going to do is repeat “I did point out where luminous is wrong”, “you didn’t show me any references I like”, “you might be scientists but I know real science, which I define as science I like”, “I am still so insecure about my education I cannot shut up about yours but I’ll never tell you about mine” and “I feel the need to prove I cannot spell over and over”…

    …why just not say “Narf”?

    Anyway, Jonas: zoot.

  84. #85 Jonas N
    January 21, 2013

    Stu

    I don’t think I can hep you with your real problem. At least part of that still seems to be denial.

    But as so often you are only scoring owngoals. You (and many others) have been saying ‘zoot’ and ‘narf’ and not much more. Essentially without any relevant connection to anything.

    Only very few have even touched upon some real issues

  85. #86 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    You can.

    So could Tim.

    Fuck off.

  86. #87 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    And please realise that I have no care whatsoever what you think about this, nor any of you other denier idiots.

    You can help everyone by getting the fuck out of here.

  87. #88 pentaxZ
    January 21, 2013
  88. #89 Jonas N
    January 21, 2013

    Wow .. Why would you even think that anybody at all cares the least about what you think or all the nonsense you spout here?

  89. #90 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    But as so often you are only scoring owngoals. You (and many others) have been saying ‘zoot’ and ‘narf’ and not much more. Essentially without any relevant connection to anything.

    You could, at any time, answer the many relevant questions that have been posed to you. You don’t, and you won’t. Do you really think that you’re fooling anyone?

    Why would you even think that anybody at all cares the least about what you think or all the nonsense you spout here?

    You truly are a case study in lack of self-awareness. You’re bleating on deludedly in a thread you were confined to for being vapid and obnoxious, and you feel you need to tell others how little anyone cares about what they say?

    Sad, sad, sad.

    Also: are you congenitally unable to google anything?

    Oh, wait! Pentax has cut-and-pasted something again! Let’s see…

    Oh wow! Scientists commit fraud? Stop the presses! Scientists don’t like being called frauds by an anonymous website? I’m going to faint!

  90. #91 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    Here, Jonas, let me help you out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o620WWho-o

  91. #92 pentaxZ
    January 21, 2013

    “Oh wow! Scientists commit fraud? Stop the presses!”

    I know, that’ fraud is a common thing among you cAGW mongers.

    “Scientists don’t like being called frauds by an anonymous website?”

    Well, it doesn’t matter the least who points at the cheating “scientist”, anonymous or not. And I certanely understand why one choose to do so anonymous, Green idiots aren’t exactly known to be unviolent.

    But my point by copypasting is simply that a tsunami is coming, a tsunami with sensible, realistic and true scientific science. All you alarmists are in for a tough time.

  92. #93 Wow
    January 21, 2013

    “I know, that’ fraud is a common thing among you cAGW mongers.”

    Yeah, you keep bringing it here.

    It’s getting a frigging lothlorien in here ferchrissakes.

    “a tsunami with sensible, realistic and true scientific science”

    And you’ve never let that tsunami change your mind.

  93. #94 chek
    January 21, 2013

    I know, that’ fraud is a common thing among you cAGW mongers.

    No, that’s your own myth, easily shown by you not having any evidence to back up your assertion.

    Green idiots aren’t exactly known to be unviolent.

    No, again your confusing your fantasies with reality. It’s your fellow Scandinavian right-wing nutters like Anders Breivik that go off on mass-murder sprees, fed on a diet of conspiraloon newsletters from the likes of Monckton.

    a tsunami with sensible, realistic and true scientific science.

    Hoh yus! One of these days, you’ll see…..
    You really are a complete moron aren’t you.

  94. #95 Jonas N
    January 21, 2013

    Stu

    I case you hadn’t noticed. You, Jeff, and quite a few more have spent 1½ years arguing amonst themselves and with their/your fantasy strawmen of why what i point out wrt to various things should be deemed(!) wrong.

    Based ont the absolutely mosts fantastic

  95. #96 Jonas N
    January 21, 2013

    Sorry … posted prematurely:

    Based ont the absolutely most fantastic nonsense arguments.

    Most of yiu have been desperate to get away from any topic, and instead shouted the most inane sstupidities about your own imaginataions.

    Blindly guessing and desperately hoping thinsg you had no clue at all about.

  96. #97 Jonas N
    January 21, 2013

    Jeff for instance (in his hoplessly inconsistent way) seemed at one point to be aware of and accept that that (in)famous AR4 claim wasn’t really to be taken literatlly or based on real science ..

    But when I reminded him of this, he again brought up the most stupid invented reason for why it should be believed(!) after all … and why the the opposite should be believed (based on his usual fantasies about me).

    You can’t make these things up, Stu.

    This is the level on which you manage to operate.

    Self awareness, Stu … you after all your silly attempts … do you even believe your own drivel?

  97. #98 Stu
    January 21, 2013

    I case you hadn’t noticed.

    I hadn’t. Oh, by the way, a sentence like that works a lot better when followed by a comma.

    You, Jeff, and quite a few more have spent 1½ years arguing amonst themselves

    No, none of the sane people here have argued amonst themselves. Heck, we haven’t even argued amongst ourselves. And the only reason anyone bothers with you at all anymore is SIWOTI and/or cheap entertainment.

    and with their/your fantasy strawmen of why what i point out wrt to various things should be deemed(!) wrong.

    Half a dozen direct, pertinent questions posed to you, and you whine about “what i point out wrt to various things should be deemed(!) wrong”.

    That single clause is the new nexus of vague passive-aggressive idiom-raping abuse of the English language.

    I especially love the “(!)”. It’s really telling. It means that you were sufficiently worked up and convinced of your righteousness while writing that polenta of an argument that you felt the emphasis would truly drive your point home.

    I dare everyone here to read the following out loud, to themselves, three times, right now: “what i point out wrt to various things should be deemed(!) wrong”

    Either you will reach a new state of Zen, or your head will hurt. I just tried, and not only did my head start hurting… my child laughed at me. YMMV.

    Based ont the absolutely mosts fantastic

    Hurblefurblewhatta?

    Sorry … posted prematurely:

    Oh, I’m sorry. By that logic, most of your comments are. But hey, even you noticed that was a little too incoherent, so please, do go on…

    Based ont the absolutely most fantastic nonsense arguments.

    So wait, you went back to continue that dreck, changed “mosts” into “most”, but still left “ont” as perfectly valid?

    Yowza.

    It must be wonderful to be so right without ever having to pose a single coherent argument. It must always be sunny in Jonas land, where you can be right forever, no matter who challenges you… because the people that do are stupid, not real, not scientists, or not real scientists. It must be wonderful to be so much smarter and such a better scientisty person than everyone else.

    Most of yiu have been desperate to get away from any topic

    Who’s “yiu”?

    Anyway.

    Obvious and stupid lie. You have been avoiding at least five very topical questions for close to a week.

    Why do you think you can get away with this? Most people have better reading comprehension than you Jonas, and can instantly peg this for the claptrap it is.

    and instead shouted the most inane sstupidities about your own imaginataions.

    There must be a denialist requirement to be unable to spell properly. That, I understand.

    What I don’t understand is where a grown-up individual can sit down and rag on someone else’s comprehension of a language, or that person’s reading comprehension in general, and make multiple errors while doing it. It’s baffling. I mean, pentax tried and scored two spelling errors in a single sentence — I’ll even forgive the poor idiom due to ESL considerations –; now here comes the head clown to top him with two blatant spelling errors in a single clause.

    And yes, we’ll even grant him the poor idiom and complete lack of coherence. At least he didn’t leave out words this time.

    Seems like there’s a 2 spelling error minimum for denialists frothing about other people being stupid. Let’s see if that holds.

    Blindly guessing and desperately hoping thinsg you had no clue at all about.

    Narf. Narf, narf, narf. Jonas, you know what it sounds like when you say something like this after every single argument you have ever put forth has been refuted, and you pretend really hard that they have not been?

    WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

    Address the questions posed to you, or concede you have no point.

    Jeff for instance (in his hoplessly inconsistent way) seemed at one point to be aware of and accept that that (in)famous AR4 claim wasn’t really to be taken literatlly or based on real science ..

    Do you even realize how pathetic that sounds? I thought you didn’t care about what anyone here thought, and here you are attempting to latch on to Jeff’s authority (which you dispute) to try to make a point.

    WRITE A PAPER PROVING US ALL WRONG, JONAS. I DOUBLE-DOG DARE YOU.

    Of course, you don’t dare. If you had any real conviction behind your whining fetid excretions you would have taken Bernard’s bet last year. Not only a liar, but a cowardly one unwilling to put his money where his mouth is.

    Also, I think Jeff might actually enjoy beer. (Now scroll back, Jonas, and please tell me you actually understood that pun).

    But when I reminded him of this, he again brought up the most stupid invented reason for why it should be believed(!) after all … and why the the opposite should be believed (based on his usual fantasies about me).

    Do you even read what you write? That particular paragraph is completely void of content. Well, obviously, judging from the (OOH LOOK AT THE IRONY I AM SUPER CEREAL LET ME THROW IN THE EXCLAMATION MARK HARK HARK) conviction you added, there was a lot of emotional investment.

    No content, though.

    You can’t make these things up, Stu.

    Nope, you can’t. I mean, what pathetic little douche would sit there, obviously avoiding half a dozen relevant questions and throw out random insults that show nothing but projection, a raging inferiority complex, dyslexia and dyspraxia?

    Oh, wait. That would be you.

    This is the level on which you manage to operate.

    No, you idiotic, self-absorbed, childish liar, this is the level I am choosing to engage you on. You are unable to grasp anything written on an adult level. You are unable to express your thoughts clearly on any level at all. I have been making fun of you for these failings for over a year now, and you still don’t grasp that that is all I am doing.

    Self awareness, Stu … you after all your silly attempts … do you even believe your own drivel?

    What the hell? That’s two hard non-sequiturs in a single sentence.

    Wait. Let’s just get serious here for a minute.

    It’s not even funny anymore. Jonas, please, please please do the following:

    – Write these words down on a piece of paper: Broca, Wernicke
    – Run, don’t walk to the nearest hospital
    – Demand an fMRI
    – Hand the aforementioned piece of paper to the neurologist

    Look, I can make fun of asinine personality disorders all I want, and even needle those with developmental disorders that are jerks… but Jonas, you literally have symptoms of actual brain damage. Please get yourself checked out.

  98. #99 pentaxZ
    January 22, 2013

    “No, that’s your own myth, easily shown by you not having any evidence to back up your assertion.

    No, again your confusing your fantasies with reality.”

    Oh right, coming from your filthy mouth makes it true. Sorry, forgot that.

    ” It’s your fellow Scandinavian right-wing nutters like Anders Breivik that go off on mass-murder sprees, fed on a diet of conspiraloon newsletters from the likes of Monckton.”

    Breivik? You claim to find a connection between him and klimate sceptics? What an utterly joke you are. That two cells between your ears is really working hard making the most looney things up. What an completely joke you are. Pathetic.

  99. #100 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    He’s right.
    Breivik was a rational and intelligent human being, compared with the kind of nutters who get their information from crank blogs like Anthony Watts’ WUWT or Jo Nova’s crank blog.