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 pentaxZ
    January 22, 2013

    And what say ya now? Hansen admits that there is a temperature stand still. Naughty boy.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real/

  2. #2 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu

    another of your empty long posts … and you even seem to get a little emotional over not being taken seriously.

    But seriously, what in heaven’s sake do you want to be taken seriously for? You finding typos?

    Do you really believe that what you are producing here should be called ‘engaging’? Do you think you are capable of asking ‘relevant questions’?

    You’ve demonstrated that you are completly unfit to handle any answers to questions, relevant or not.

    Your best ‘function’ here is to get the likes of Jeffie and others (who seeminly believe they can discuss science) to lean on the ‘support’ from trolls like you and the other ‘Wows’ in his argument.

    Jeff procliming ‘Stu nailed it’ in yet another completely untrue claim was truly hilarious. But that’s the method you guys use. Inventing your own ‘supporting facts’, repeating them and thinking that confirms or strengthens the BS-faith. and being in denial about this too …

    What a joke!

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    That looked awfully like another empty post from you there, Jonas.

    And Pentax, why are you linking to a propagandist site?
    Why not go directly to Hansen’s report and read it without the intermediary of a dishonest political lobbying effort?

    You might see from Hansen’s report that we just had the hottest La Nina ever recorded.

    Obviously global warming can’t have stopped, or the La Nina natural variation would have brought the temperatures down instead of up.

    Maybe avoid the crank blog sites like Anthony Watts’ WUWT and you will avoid being disinformed.

  4. #4 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    You know Vince,

    The difficulty is that Stu, even if he tries really really hard, cannot come up with anything above that level. The most ‘technical’ comment he made was about what temporal resolution you can get from a graphic and a given pixel-size. His point was (I think) that one pixel corresponded to so-and-so many years. I didn’t follow that discussion. But this might have been a valid point. And is a valid point whenever people on your side start going on about ‘unprecedented rate’ and look at (often averaged, filtered) proxies

    However, the difference is that I have no problem discussing real and relevant issues or the science. Very few on your side will even dare to venture there …

  5. #5 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    So, Jonas, when was the last time a La Nina was hotter than the last La Nina we just had?

  6. #6 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    “Unprecedented”, or not?

  7. #7 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    another of your empty long posts …

    I asked you to answer specific, topical questions, pointed out your obvious avoidance and a few more of your lies — so no, the post was not empty. I’m sorry it was so long though, sweetheart. With your grasp of the English language it must have taken you hours to get through.

    By the way, you’re still not going to answer those questions, are you? Nope, you’re not. So your bleating about lack of content in my comments is yet more pathetic, sniveling, hypocritical projection.

    and you even seem to get a little emotional over not being taken seriously.

    Really? You read that into my comment? That’s absolutely precious, Jonas. Is your reading comprehension truly so rudimentary that you have to guess at feelings to project into comments of others when they get too long for you?

    But seriously, what in heaven’s sake do you want to be taken seriously for? You finding typos?

    Christ, you are truly unable to string two coherent sentences together. Asked and answered, Jonas. Go read that long comment again.

    Do you really believe that what you are producing here should be called ‘engaging’?

    I have been addressing your inability to comprehend the simplest things, your inability to communicate, your continuous lying and your avoidance of any questions you don’t like.

    Do you think you are capable of asking ‘relevant questions’?

    There are half a dozen that you have been dodging for over a week now. You have been proven to be dense as a post and a lying weasel. Now you do the math on what your judgement on relevance is worth.

    On second thought, no, please don’t do any math. You’re likely to hurt yourself if you try.

    You’ve demonstrated that you are completly unfit to handle any answers to questions, relevant or not.

    How on Earth would you know, Jonas? You don’t answer questions. That’s kind of the entire problem here. All you have to do to prove this point is to answer some questions. Then we’ll see if I’m able to handle them.

    Deal?

    Your best ‘function’ here is to get the likes of Jeffie and others (who seeminly believe they can discuss science)

    Now I’m confused. So when Jeff goes to a conference or publishes a paper, he’s doing what… needlepoint? And all of this opposed to you, who has no education and hasn’t even met a scientist in his entire life?

    to lean on the ‘support’ from trolls like you and the other ‘Wows’ in his argument.

    Either you think ‘troll’ means ‘person who says things I don’t like’, or you lack even more self-awareness than I thought.

    Also, I’m just another Wow? Dang, I thought I’d merit a category all by myself.

    Jeff procliming ‘Stu nailed it’ in yet another completely untrue claim was truly hilarious.

    He didn’t proclime anything, idiot. He proclaimed that I was right about you resenting people with an actual education, probably because of a raging inferiority complex. Since you continuously whine about the education of others without ever being forthcoming about your own, that seems like an entirely reasonable observation to make.

    All you have to do to refute that is share your educational credentials and stop your pathetic obsession with mine.

    But that’s the method you guys use. Inventing your own ‘supporting facts’, repeating them and thinking that confirms or strengthens the BS-faith. and being in denial about this too …

    [Citation needed]
    The content-free passive-aggressive assertions are getting a little old, Jonas. Get a new shtick.

    The difficulty is that Stu, even if he tries really really hard, cannot come up with anything above that level.

    I love how this addresses absolutely no point made by anyone. Half your comments are excellent exercises in “guess what the doofus really means”. So let’s see here… I presume you’re talking about me mostly addressing your comments on spelling and your reading comprehension?

    Very true. I already explained why, but I’m sorry, that was in one of those long comments. You’ll have to ask someone who can read to explain it to you. Of course, you won’t, so let me try again: it is futile to discuss space exploration with a sea urchin until they at least drag themselves onto land.

    The most ‘technical’ comment he made was about what temporal resolution you can get from a graphic and a given pixel-size. His point was (I think) that one pixel corresponded to so-and-so many years. I didn’t follow that discussion.

    So wait. One paragraph ago I was unable to discuss anything above “that” level, and here you say that I did? And that you didn’t follow it?

    But this might have been a valid point.

    So now I might even have been right, if you could have been bothered to follow the discussion?

    Jonas, you ask people to take you seriously but you can’t even remain coherent or consistent in two consecutive paragraphs. How does that make sense to you?

    And is a valid point whenever people on your side start going on about ‘unprecedented rate’ and look at (often averaged, filtered) proxies

    That is your dumbest non-sequitur yet. Denialist cuts and pastes irrelevant graph, I explain the irrelevance, you don’t follow that discussion, then turn around and say “if that’s valid then proxies are wrong”.

    What. The. Hell.

    1) The irrelevance had nothing to do with proxies
    2) You don’t know what a time scale is
    3) You don’t know what the climate change literature says about proxies
    4) You don’t know why proxies are used
    5) You can’t follow a math problem that uses division
    6) …oh, never mind.

    However, the difference is that I have no problem discussing real and relevant issues or the science.

    Obvious and stupid lie. You’ve been dodging topical questions and issues for years on this thread. When you get called on it, or get backed into a corner, you suddenly decide that the science isn’t “real”, or that the questions are not “relevant”, you bob, weave, whine and pretend nothing happened. Or you pretend you addressed something months ago when everyone knows damned well that you did not.

    This is not hard to see, Jonas. It’s pretty damned obvious. You are childish, arrogant, petulant and avoid the issues like the plague.

    Very few on your side will even dare to venture there …

    Okay, so prove me wrong and let’s talk about a real issue, Jonas. One that you just brought up. Show us a climate change paper that uses averaged, filtered proxies and explain why, in your learned opinion, said use is incorrect.

    I ventured there, and I double dog dare you to respond.

  8. #8 pentaxZ
    January 22, 2013

    vincie dear. You deltoid culprits all with one voice claims there is no pause in the warming, using straight lines to try proving your point. Well, now your high priest hansen says there is actually a pause, La Nina or not. Ergo you all must be lying.

    Take it as a man, crank.

  9. #9 pentaxZ
    January 22, 2013

    Jeez, stu, that’s a lot of nonsens diarrhea.

    Nop, me still no take yo seriously.

  10. #10 chek
    January 22, 2013

    Your translator is lying to you PantieZ.
    Try reading the original and getting an adult to help you with the long words.

  11. #11 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Vince …

    “when was the last time a La Nina was hotter than the last La Nina we just had?”

    Your question makes no sense. La Niñas are described by an index. This index is is not a temperature (although it is presented as an ‘anomaly’ in °C). You can read about it here.

  12. #12 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    Was it unprecedented or not?

  13. #13 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu

    .. then turn around and say “if that’s valid then proxies are wrong”.

    Making up citations now, Stu?

    I fully accept that you didn’t understand what I was referring to. Not even when you for once had a small point which I acknowledged, the one about temporal resolution.

    But one tiny little step further, and petty little Stu loses it completely again. Now making a (this time numbered six-point) list with the silliest inventions of fabricated Jeffie-style facts.

    A practice he denied just moments earlier in an equally empty rant.

  14. #14 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu … your ‘question’ is more ill informed than Vince’s. Maybe he is able to rephrase to express what he really means. I don’t expect you to be though …

  15. #15 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Stu, Joan never says anything, so that when you argue against the point he IMPLIES BUT DOES NOT STATE, he can whine about you making shit up about him.

    If you want to stick to answering questions or asking him ones, then don’t paraphrase. If what he’s said makes no sense or even no point, then ignore it or demand clarification.

    Of course, asking him what he means will send him completely hysterical with panic.

    Again.

    But that’s about the only even remotely amusing thing about this retard.

  16. #16 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    Making up citations now, Stu?

    Did you or did you not say

    But this might have been a valid point. And is a valid point whenever people on your side start going on about ‘unprecedented rate’ and look at (often averaged, filtered) proxies

    You really don’t even understand what you write yourself, do you?

    Not even when you for once had a small point which I acknowledged,

    How could you? You said yourself you didn’t follow it. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

    Stu … your ‘question’ is more ill informed than Vince’s.

    It’s a simple yes-or-no question. Answer it, you pathetic little weasel.

  17. #17 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu, seriously

    What is it you are trying to accomplish with the silly rants and all the nonsense you bring here.

    You are not anywhere near any science, real science regarding climate change. You don’t have any grasp even of simple basics (physics) needed in real science. Not even when the leeding obvious is pointed out to you and explained in detail.

    Still you are posting, over and over again, claims to the effect that you have something relevant to say, or that something I said is invalid.

    But that’s a total farce. Do you even know what it is you want to convey? For instance: Do you really challange my statement that nobody has ever seen any (by 2007) published science demonstrating that most (in)famous AR4 claim.

    You haven’t! And still you are shouting gibberish from the sideline ..

    Why? Hoping that your shouting somehow wrongs me? What a joke, Stu.

  18. #18 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    By the way, don’t you love how Hansen is to be discarded, is always wrong, not a real scientist, et cetera… but as soon as a political denialist group misquotes him as saying there is a pause, all of a sudden he is the central point of a pathetic argument from authority?

  19. #19 Richard Simons
    January 22, 2013

    I rarely visit here these days, but this struck me:

    “when was the last time a La Nina was hotter than the last La Nina we just had?”

    Your question makes no sense. La Niñas are described by an index. This index is is not a temperature . . .

    Let’s rephrase that slightly.

    “when was the last time a day was hotter than the last day we just had?”

    Your question makes no sense. days are described by Earth’s rotation. This is not a temperature . . .

    Do you understand why I, for one, am not impressed by your thinking skills?

  20. #20 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu

    We’ve been there before, and it was really bad for you:

    You not understanding what was written.
    You imagining that something completely different had been claimed.
    You lamenting about it for weeks. And continuing one year later.
    You being unable to contextually link two consecutive sentences about sea level, rise and rate … repeatedly.

    And now you are making up quotes. Do you know what a quote is, Stu? And how you indicate that you are quoting somebody?

  21. #21 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Richard Simmons

    I suggest you let Vince try to be a little more precise. Your repprasing is not very precise either. And there is a false analogy too. Because Hot is indeed described using temperatures.

    I have a hunch about what Vince was after, but I’d like to hear from him that that hunch was correct. And if so, I have a ready answer for him.

    Meanwhile you are of course free to provide what you think is the correct answer to what you seem to think is a correlcty posed precise question.

    And try to impress with your thinking skills. I at least can regognize such …

    ;-)

  22. #22 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu … I don’t think Hansen has been misquoted, not when he has actually been quoted. But then again, we know you have comprehension issues with ‘quotes’ too …

  23. #23 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Another point about (om of) your previous comments:

    Not even when you for once had a small point which I acknowledged,

    How could you? You said yourself you didn’t follow it. Were you lying then or are you lying now?

    I said you had a small valid point (about information contained in a graph). What I did not bother to check is if that point also indeed proves your claim:

    Denialist cuts and pastes irrelevant graph, I explain the irrelevance

    Because you saying somthing is wrong almost never has any relation to the correctness of some other claim. Most of the time you don’t even understand what it said (cf hand/box/speed).

    But as I said, this time I didn’t bother to check if your (correct little) point also proved something/somebody else wrong.

    What I said is that you noting ‘how many years are represented by one pixel’ is about the highest level you have reached here. You even called it ‘math’. And it was kind of a compliment Stu … usually you really are much much worse.

    And tumble with the Wows at the bottom here ..

  24. #24 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    By the way Richard S

    Regardless of how you interpret Vince’s question, or me thinking it is poorly phrased ..

    .. you might want to check out the link I provided. And do so before (possibly) try to give an answer yourself.

    Funnily, Stu thought his follow up question:

    It’s a simple yes-or-no question. Answer it, you pathetic little weasel.

    Maybe then: “you understand why I, for one, am not impressed by [his] thinking skills”

  25. #25 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    What is it you are trying to accomplish with the silly rants and all the nonsense you bring here.

    Low-brow polemic practice. And to continue to expose your mental illness.

    You are not anywhere near any science, real science regarding climate change.

    Again, you are not the arbiter of “real” science. You have redefined it to mean “science Jonas likes”, as a child would.

    You don’t have any grasp even of simple basics (physics) needed in real science.

    We’ve been over this. You did not and do not understand basic physics, math or English. You have proven this. Can you just quell your inferiority complex on at least that issue and move on?

    Not even when the leeding [sic] obvious is pointed out to you and explained in detail.

    You never understood my point, and you never will. The “obvious” you were explaining was and is beside the point. In essence, you’ve been whining about your misinterpretation of a single, simple English sentence for over a year now, and blaming others for it.

    Still you are posting, over and over again, claims to the effect that you have something relevant to say, or that something I said is invalid.

    You said that “the hand must move faster also” does not imply hand speed is a variable. That is invalid. I’m sorry you are congenitally incapable of admitting fault, in any way, ever — but that is not my problem.

    For instance: Do you really challange [sic] my statement that nobody has ever seen any (by 2007) published science demonstrating that most (in)famous AR4 claim.

    You are pathetic.

    I JUST asked you a single, simple, topical question. Here, let me remind you.

    Okay, so prove me wrong and let’s talk about a real issue, Jonas. One that you just brought up. Show us a climate change paper that uses averaged, filtered proxies and explain why, in your learned opinion, said use is incorrect.

    You accuse us of not wanting to “venture” into a real discussion. I posed you a challenge, a simple one. What do you do? You pretend the last year and a half of discussion never happened and rotate back to your original, pathetic, do-my-homework-for-me talking point.

    That particular question of yours has been addressed repeatedly, but you did not like the answers… so you just pretend nothing was said, wait a few months and trot it out again. It is now a zombie argument, Jonas. It’s gone. Dead. It was childish, intentionally vague and asinine to begin with, but even so — it was addressed. It’s yet more narf, Jonas.

    So zoot to that.

    Let’s move on. Rise to the challenge. Show us that you’ve read at least one climate paper. You say proxy use in climate change is bad (averaged, filtered, whatever)? Okay, show us one paper and why its proxy use is bad.

    If not, you’re admitting you just read denialist tripe on proxies and are regurgitating it. Just because you’re too slippery to link to your denialist claptrap sources (like pentax does) does not mean we cannot see through your cobbled-together set of talking points, or where they came from.

    Show us that intelligence, Jonas. That original thinking. Pick one paper and show us where it is wrong.

    And still you are shouting gibberish from the sideline ..

    From the sideline? Nobody has been engaging you as much as I have been (the others are probably less bored and/or less affected by SIWOTI syndrome). Do you even know what “from the sideline” means? Or are you so blinkered and arrogant that you think you get to define the playing field?

    On second thought, you really don’t have to answer that.

    Hoping that your shouting somehow wrongs me?

    Shouting? What the hell are you talking about now? What is it with you and projecting feelings? I haven’t shouted at you whatsoever. I have addressed you in well-deserved derogatory terms, that’s all. I’m not the one who starts posting comments in utter pig-Latin every time I get challenged, Jonas. That’s you.

  26. #26 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu … at this place, I most definitely am an arbiter of real science ..

    You just have to take my word from it though. Since you don’t even know what that means.

  27. #27 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    You being unable to contextually link two consecutive sentences about sea level, rise and rate … repeatedly.

    Ah. Okay, so you’re saying these sentences contextually link?

    Sea levels aren’t even close to rising at the ‘consensus-rate’ and never were accelerating as so many hoped.

    and

    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.

    Let me help you out, sweetheart. You could have said:

    1) rate of sea-level rise
    2) that rate
    3) this rate
    4) the aforementioned rate
    5) said rate
    6) the rate
    7) the above rate
    8) et cetera

    I’m glad that it was just your inability to write a proper sentence rather than thorazine-induced dropping of entire clauses.

    And now you are making up quotes.

    I directly quoted you, and explained to you what your direct quote means when parsed as English. Are you saying it wasn’t “real” English?

    Do you know what a quote is, Stu? And how you indicate that you are quoting somebody?

    Again with hoping that nobody notices that you’re trying to use a rhetorical device you just learned on the same person you learned it from. Jonas, honey, I explained to you that you were overusing scare-quotes and sounded even denser than usual.

    Wait, wait, wait. I’m over-thinking this. Are you actually saying I was not quoting you? Or are you saying that you do not approve of the use of blockquote tags to indicate a quote? Are those not “real” quotes to you?

    Stu … I don’t think Hansen has been misquoted, not when he has actually been quoted.

    Yes, you are right. I apologize, there are actual direct quotes in that tripe. Their being used out of context aside, the major issue is that that site (in their case, intentionally) and you (in your case, because of being dumber than a sack of hammers) do not actually understand what is being said.

    Again, I might be proven wrong. Jonas, explain to us the difference between “no warming” and “no statistically significant warming”. Hey look, another question. Seems relevant and topical, too. I’ve got $20 that says you will never, ever answer it. Anyone want to bet against me?

    But then again, we know you have comprehension issues with ‘quotes’ too …

    You just scare-quoted ‘quotes’ in there. Holy hakalela you’re dense.

    I suggest you let Vince try to be a little more precise.

    Sounds a lot like “I won’t answer that question because it would pin me to a stupid position, so I will dodge, bob and weave until I can whine about a detail, wait a week or so and then pretend really hard that I actually addressed it”.

    I might be wrong about that too, but I doubt it — it’s what you’ve been doing for ages now, Jonas. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it, everyone derides you for it and nobody takes you seriously precisely because of it.

    Your repprasing is not very precise either.

    I sure hope not. Precise “repprasing” sounds like it would hurt. A lot.

    And there is a false analogy too. Because Hot is indeed described using temperatures.

    I’m sorry, what? Do you even know what an analogy is, Jonas? This is double-take what-the-hell off-your-meds incoherent.

    I have a hunch about what Vince was after, but I’d like to hear from him that that hunch was correct. And if so, I have a ready answer for him.

    Oh bullpuckey. You expect us to glean meaning from your utterly incoherent drivel and address it, and in return you demand people be precise, so you can give them your already-formed answer?

    That’s called being a douchy troll, Jonas. Here’s what you do. “Hey Vince, if I am to assume that you meant X, my answer is Y.” You won’t, because you’re a weasel.

    And try to impress with your thinking skills. I at least can regognize such …

    No, no you can’t Jonas. You can’t even spell it, for crying out loud.

  28. #28 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu ..

    No you have not been ‘engaging’ … you been rambling and ranting mostly complete nonsense about many things …

    You tried to ‘enage’ while luminous made a complete fool of himself, and not even undertanding where, how, and how bad. And we all know how well that ‘engaging’ worked out for you.

    And oh yes, Stu, I fully understood what ‘point’ you hoped to score there (hand/box/speed). It just was an utterly stupid and moot point, had there been any point. But there wasn’t, Stu.

    The claim was perfectly well presented and explained right from the start. Even explicitly that ‘faster’ referred to ‘accelerate’.

    As I’ve told you, my knowledge and education is far better suited for what we are discussing here, than what most others here manage to bring to the table.

    And you Stu, bring absolutely nothing to the table. I don’t even think you know what ‘the table’ is.

    Typos and occasionally poor syntax is most definitely not the relevant table, although you seem to hope so.

  29. #29 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    Stu … at this place, I most definitely am an arbiter of real science ..

    I don’t think even Dunning & Kroeger ever met someone quite like you.

    You just have to take my word from it though. Since you don’t even know what that means.

    No, sorry, I have no idea what “taking your word from it” means. If you meant “taking your word FOR it”, I’m sorry, no, I’ll stick with those with actual educations and actual scientific credentials over a random Swede with dyslexia, dyspraxia and a Napoleon complex.

    (Sometimes you make this too easy, Jonas. Challenge me.)

  30. #30 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu, one thing you got right.

    With you, I always could have explained things in even greater detail and helping you with even more terms, definitions, and understanding of them. (*)

    The problem then however, is that every little point would need even even more space and words than presently, and that will be confusing for you too. And we’ve tried that (almost):

    (*) I explained in detail how and when and why luminous went all wrong, and even how it should have been done instead. And that didn’t help you either (in spite of some claimed six years of physics studies)

  31. #32 Jonas N
    January 22, 2013

    Stu, you totally got me there: You need to take my word for it

    ;-)

    And you really do!

  32. #33 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    [Narf elided]

    You tried to ‘enage’ while luminous made a complete fool of himself

    No, Jonas, I never tried to “enage”. Sounds dirty to me. I asked you then, and ever since, to point out where luminous was wrong.

    Still waiting.

    and not even undertanding where, how, and how bad.

    Well, I wouldn’t want to “undertand” it, that sounds like it hurts.

    (Really Jonas, you’re just doing this on purpose for my entertainment now, right?)

    And oh yes, Stu, I fully understood what ‘point’ you hoped to score there (hand/box/speed).

    I will now bet you $20 if you can explain my point. I dare you.

    It just was an utterly stupid and moot point, had there been any point. But there wasn’t, Stu.

    So you understand the point, but there was no point. Wow. You went from contradicting yourself paragraph to paragraph to contradicting yourself in a single sentence. Do the orderlies know you’re on the Internet again, Jonas?

    The claim was perfectly well presented and explained right from the start. Even explicitly that ‘faster’ referred to ‘accelerate’.

    Yes, you still don’t get the point. Even me saying “bringing up hand speed at all was stupid, because by definition it is the same as that of the box” did not do it. Nothing will. This is just you being ornery, Jonas. Children understand this. You do not.

    As I’ve told you, my knowledge and education is far better suited for what we are discussing here

    OH DO SHARE SWEETHEART. What is your knowledge? What is your education? It seems it did not include English, math or physics, so please, please, please tell us what your knowledge and education is.

    I will give you $20 if you give us your full education credentials. I dare you.

    And you Stu, bring absolutely nothing to the table. I don’t even think you know what ‘the table’ is.

    I know, I know. It’s not much.

    1) I can spell
    2) I can form a coherent sentence
    3) I can postulate a basic physics problem
    4) I can do basic math

    At no point did I claim high-flying scientific credentials, because I don’t have any. However, what I have claimed and claim now is true, and has been proven to be true.

    Typos and occasionally poor syntax is most definitely not the relevant table, although you seem to hope so.

    It’s a yardstick, Jonas. If you can’t be bothered to download a free spell-checker for the language you are expressing significant, Earth-shattering scientific breakthroughs in… if you can’t be bothered to proof-read your own comments to at least get a semblance of coherence sentence-to-sentence, let alone paragraph-to-paragraph… if you can’t be bothered to “follow” a basic division-multiplication math problem… it shows us that you don’t give a hoot about accuracy on any level.

    I know my idiom, at times, is absolutely piss-poor. I re-read some of my own comments and cringe at my mangled sentence structure, odd sub-clause construction and lack of proper flow. I happily blame being ESL and hammering these suckers out in 5-10 minutes a pop, and I know I am still coherent and comprehensible.

    What’s your excuse, Jonas?

  33. #34 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    I would like to note and credit Jonas for actually admitting he was wrong. Credit where credit is due, even if he was glib about it and tried to score points off of his own stupidity.

  34. #36 Stu
    January 23, 2013

    Politician sees snow outside, questions global warming.

    Well, I’m convinced!

  35. #37 pentaxZ
    January 23, 2013

    Well, stu, I’m not trying to convince anybody about anything. Just pointing out that more and more people starts to see through your hollow scare “science”. The tide has turned, but you foilhats here hasn’t discovered that yet. You’re in such a deep denial that it’s surley gonna take a while.

  36. #38 Stu
    January 23, 2013

    Ah yes, when all of your cut-and-paste jobs turn out to be vapid claptrap… just jump back on the asinine passive-aggressive high horse. Nobody will notice, right?

    Stay classy, pentax.

  37. #39 pentaxZ
    January 23, 2013

    “…turn out to be vapid claptrap…”

    But yes of course, because you say so. Silly me,

    Hahaha…… you really are totally disconnected from reality, dumbass.

  38. #40 Stu
    January 23, 2013

    So Jonas is taking a well-deserved thorazine break, and you feel the need to plumb new depths…

    pentax, are you disputing that the past five links you’ve posted were vapid and/or from obvious political denialist sites and/or obviously wrong?

    All of them have been openly refuted on this thread. If you have arguments against those refutations, present them now or concede that you are just whining and avoiding the subject.

  39. #41 chek
    January 23, 2013

    Stu, you may not be aware of it, but Murdoch’s at the time UK operative Becky Brooks ran a “newspaper” “campaign” in an attempt to get ‘Megan’s Law’ style legislation introduced in the UK.

    To do this, she hyped up the ignorati who then attacked the house of a paediatrician (it had a brass plaque on the gatepost), threw rocks at a pedello and stamped on centipedes (two of those may have been invented by alt com Stewart Lee).

    Any similarity of the brainless torch and pitchfork brigade to deadheads like Jonarse and PantieZ is entirely their own fault.

  40. #42 pentaxZ
    January 24, 2013

    stu, are you disputing that most of the deltoidistas posts posted on deltoid is vapid and/or from obvious political, pseudoscientific alarmist culprits/watermelons and obviously wrong?

    So darn obvious that your arguments are melting away. Tought in the pseudoscience business these days, stupid?

    chek, when it comes to projections and straw man building you really are the maestro. And by the way, GBA does not bother me in slightest. It’s truly a sign to when a person doesn’t have any sensible arguments left. So by all means, keep on it, stupid.

  41. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    January 24, 2013

    …more and more people starts to see through your hollow scare “science”. The tide has turned,…

    You anti-science cranks have been saying that for the last 15 years, and yet every year that goes by sees you becoming increasingly marginalised as the novelty and amusement the media derives from your patent idiocy starts to wane.

    We’ve seen the Arctic melt reach unbelievable rates, Antarctic peninsula ice shelves are virtually all gone, sea level rise has tripled, temperature has reached levels never before measured.

    You have all the credibility of the buffoons who used to deny the theory of Continental Drift (and perhaps still do, from their nursing homes).

    Your audience consists of halfwits and idiots, illiterates and tinfoil-hat-wearing cranks, all egged-on by the dishonest Murdoch media empire and the Energy corporation PR companies.

    You have become completely boring. Even that lunatic fantasist Christopher Monckton isn’t funny anymore.

  42. #44 pentaxZ
    January 24, 2013

    “You anti-science cranks have been saying that for the last 15 years, and yet every year that goes by sees you becoming increasingly marginalised as the novelty and amusement the media derives from your patent idiocy starts to wane”

    Hahaha….and you foilhats gets funnier and funnier. And more and more pathetic. The fall from your high horses is going to be quite painful and hilarious to watch. Marginalised you say. That’s quite correct, but not for the realistic camp. cAGW hacve had it’s glory, now it’s fading away. Take it like a man, if you can.

    And still, there has been no warming the last 16 years. Both Metoffice and your guru hansen, among many others, says so. Deal with it!

  43. #45 Jonas N
    January 24, 2013

    Vince

    Have you gotten around to clearify (to yourself) what you meant, if anything, by the hottest La Niña?

    Stu, have you? Or Richard Simmons?

    You all sounded so cocky at first …

  44. #46 Stu
    January 24, 2013

    stu, are you disputing that most of the deltoidistas posts posted on deltoid is vapid and/or from obvious political, pseudoscientific alarmist culprits/watermelons and obviously wrong?

    Since you and your hyper-intelligent idol Jonas have yet to refute a single one of them, there are two possibilities:

    1) The arguments for climate change are not political, not vapid, scientific and correct

    and/or

    2) You and Jonas are the most incompetent communicators in known history.

    So darn obvious that your arguments are melting away.

    Totally. Us refuting your pathetic cut-and-paste jobs means that OUR arguments are melting away.

    Have you gotten around to clearify (to yourself) what you meant, if anything, by the hottest La Niña?

    Oh yawn. You’re just going to refuse to answer the question no matter what, just as you are refusing to answer the other half-dozen questions posed to you.

    Pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?

  45. #47 Jonas N
    January 24, 2013

    Once again Stu

    You (and many others here) throw out stuff you barely or not at all understand, having found them here and there, mostly on alarmist sites which are who cannot debate without an erase-button. Like SkSc, Tamino etc. (Deltoid is not even among them).

    Vince asked something he though was supported by a recent Hansen paper, but bungled it so it didn’t make any sense.

    You thought it was a concise question when it wasn’t.

    Like I said, I’m pretty sure what Vince was after (and almost quite as sure that you don’t have a clue). And that I then have a ready answer for him (you are allowed to watch and fawn from the sideline).

    But Vince needs to get the question right first. As it looks now, it doesn’t make any sense at all.

    Richard Simmons, who is one of the few who can behave like a grown up, too thought Vince’s questions was well posed. And if so, he was wrong too. But I already showed him (and you) were to look, at least for part of the answer.

    But from you, Stu, I don’t expect you to understand anything of it all. You don’t even know why the question was ill posed, or do you Stu?

  46. #49 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    Answer the other half-dozen question posed to you, you pathetic little weasel.

  47. #50 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    (By the way, from pentax’s new link):

    The objective is doing modeling and prediction of global temperature anomalies through self-organizing knowledge extraction using public data. It predicts temperatures of nine latitudinal bands 36 months ahead, which is a rather short-term forecast horizon for climate.

    Sigh.

  48. #51 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    Stu ..

    I take it you have no clue why Vince’s question was ill posed.

    You too have have asked very ignorantly posed questions before. And never understood why they were, although I explained it (and answered the part that made any sense)

    That’s your problem Stu. You often make hillariously stupid claims, occasianlly followed by a and ill informed follow-up question (which to you surely must have seemed very Gotcha-clever) … But since the premise (‘claim’) is nonsens, the follow-up question (or what you may think is a ‘challange’) too makes no sense.

    And as I on numerous occasions have pointed out how and why and how some combined claim/challange/question has no merits, and you (and others) have been unable even to understand why and rephrase/specify accordingly .. I must assume that you just couldn’t.

    Here we’ve had the (meaningless) question (by Vince):

    “when was the last time a La Nina was hotter than the last La Nina we just had?”

    You chirped in with:

    “Was it unprecedented or not?” and “It’s a simple yes-or-no question. Answer it, you pathetic little weasel”

    Earlier you got stuck with a ‘What percentage of climate scientists .. ‘ hang-up. Which I answerd (but mayby to Jeff H)

    So if there have been some less idiotic questions, or even relevant ones, I probably might have missed them among all the nonsense you spout, Stu.

    But many of the idiotic stuff (sometimes with equally idiotic challenging ‘questions’) I just ignore.Replying to every idiotic detail and mae up stuff and nonsense in your long posts would take even more space. And (as you’ve demonstrated so aptly and consistently) wouldn’t help you the least to improve any of your many wanting (lacks of) skills ..

    I vaguely recall that you tried a SkSc-link wrt to the hiatus, and some phrase from the sneaky Met-release. Maybe you think you were clever. But to me it just sounded like Stu once more not really knowing the issue, but having found some internet-thingy you don’t understand …

    But if you really think you had some relevant question(s) (which I doubt, though), you need to try to state and phrase them clearly, concisely and correctly, while using the terms and definitions correctly.

    Two more pieces of advice: Leave out any of that utter garbage and your fantasies, feelings or whatever causes you to produce a majority of your empty verbage. And also try to convey the impression that you actually want to know what you ask.

    Ptretending to ‘wanting to know’ answers to obvious nonsense questions only shows either a total lack of comprehension or that the purpose is not inquiry (or both).

    So Stu. Are you certain I have missed any relevant question regarding anithing we’ve been discussing wrt climate (or boxes) or any real science discussed here?

    As I just admitted, I might have missed it among all the garbage you’ve tried since day one.

    Well!?

  49. #52 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    Oh Jonas, you’d be funny if you weren’t so pretentious and transparent.

    Here, let me take care of this for you.
    – Was last year’s La Nina unprecedented?
    – Depends on how you define 2006.

    Makes it even weirder how the past decade was the warmest on record, how most of its years were in the top 10 hottest in recorded history, how natural disasters are becoming more frequent, how sea level is rising and how oceans are acidifying.

    Anyway. You want questions? From those long comments that are beyond your comprehension?

    [Click back, scroll up, OOH! Wow! That only took 20 seconds! Not only dense as a post and delusional, lazy too!]

    Here, let’s start you off with this simple batch:

    1) Did you follow any of the links I posted about Monckton?
    2) Do you dispute any of the evidence provided at the links?
    3) Do you dispute that Monckton is a habitual and pathological liar?
    4) Do you support Monckton’s assertions on climate change 5) in his guest post at WUWT that was referenced earlier by pentax?
    6) Have you figured out yet why it’s a 16-year “hiatus”? Not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30?
    7) What is the difference between “no warming” and “no statistical warming”?

    or whatever causes you to produce a majority of your empty verbage.

    Eww! I’m producing verbage? That sounds gross. What is it?

    And also try to convey the impression that you actually want to know what you ask.

    Whatever impression you get from anyone is completely irrelevant, and now your third distinct dodging tactic to avoid answering simple, direct questions.

    1) I can’t find the question
    2) I think the question is irrelevant
    3) You don’t want to know the answer anyway

    Children do this, Jonas. Is that why you have no educational background? Are you still working on it, precious?

    Ptretending [sic] to ‘wanting to know’ answers to obvious nonsense questions

    You are not, nor will ever be the arbiter of what “nonsense” is. Nor “intent”, or “inquiry”, or “science”. Answer the damned questions, you weakling.

    If you refuse to answer even now, you might as well start wearing weasel fur out in public. None of these questions are “what you think”, they are “what you know”. And I even kept the comment short for you.

  50. #53 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    Stu …

    Your ‘let me help you’ question is still very badly put. But

    Last year’s La Niña was not in any way unprecedented (*) … If that is what you really asked. Asked now. Did you? Because before it was gibberish ..

    Then you start about ‘past decade warmest on record .. ‘ and either are just rambling off, or trying to derail .. Whatever.

    1 through4 ) Monckton? Follow links? Argue with you and other’s claims or whatever?

    Couldn’t care less. The Monckton obsession is entirely on. your side of the trench …

    5) is not a question

    6-7) Answered, and explained in detail.

    So Stu

    There was really nothing was there? Your obsession with Monckton is yours (not mine) The relevant bits and pieces possibly burried in some yof your questions or thoughts, I have addressed many times. So I must ask you Stu:

    In which way was any of your ‘questions’ relevant? For what? Or a part of anything relevant? How was this only not Stu once more blathering in piqued dismay ..

    In what way do you even imagine that Monckton is relevant to anything relevant wrt to me?

    And besides of course being unable to phrase the questions correctly, starting of with 4 (!) completely irrelevant ones, and silly posturing with some more, you weren’t able to hold back the idiotic drivel again:

    Whatever impression you get from anyone is completely irrelevant

    says Stu who with the other bunch have done nothing but obsess about their own ‘impressions’ of me. What an owngoal Stu. And what nonsense.

    And oh, Stu, I very much am the arbiter (unfortunaly only here) between what’s nonsense and what not. And that’s long before we get to evaluating real science. Even long before we would discuss how to correctly deal with friction and a hand pushing a box.

    (*) irrespective of 2006

  51. #54 Wow
    January 25, 2013

    Reality passed you by, didn’t it Joan.

  52. #55 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    Oh, I forgot one thing, Stu. In your year long trainwreck failure of ‘engaging’ you of course missed the principal and most relevant (and by far most frequent) point in your silly litte list 1 to 3. Which is:

    Answered, answered in detail, and explained. And repeated. Several times. Further explained trying simpler examples …

    You might recall an instance with a box, and friction … and how helpful I was trying to show you that nobody ever (except you) ever, ever talked about, or imagined or implied different speeds between hand and box … and even explicitly and specifically wrote this to help you out of that … ehrm .. ‘misconception’ (because, Stu, you did believe that, didn’t you? That somebody else apart from you had been arguing different speeds among hand/box, even done so for days/weeks. At least you wrote and claimed that .. or did you not mean what you wrote?)

  53. #56 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    Wow – are you part of reality? Or is that the version that didn’t pass you by?

  54. #57 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    Sorry guys, I’m still chuckling at the notion that Stu thought that his demands to answer the questions (‘you weakling/weasel’) were so relevant that I was dodging them …

    Just hilarious …

    Monckton, Monckton, Monckton, Monckton !… And then some bits that had been answered and addressed many times.

    That’s somehow the most ‘relevant’ Stu could manage.

    What a total and hilarious joke …

  55. #58 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    Stu, I’m sorry (just a little) but you are often so pathetic in your silly attempts to ‘get me’ it is afterall quite cute and even adorable …

    I was (and am) a bit mean to you, and mocking you for all the things you’ve tried (and failed) so many times now .. A little bit mean and patronizing too … Sorry Stu. After a while it gets really difficult to take anyting you try and do seriously .. Sorry

    ;-)

    So I repeat my offer: Try to put forward a relevant and clear and precise, well posed question. (Don’t forget the ‘relevant’)

    And do so without the gibberish usually making up your posts.

    You may reuse one you (imagine to have) asked before, just work a little bit on gettin sufficiently correct so that it makes sense, and asks for something equally sensible ..

    And, if you will, you can (seperately) specify why you think it’s relevant, and to what.

    PS I’m not interested in any posturing, semantics, or rhetorical attempts. But you just need to know what’s at the core of your inquiry

  56. #59 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    And as predicted: avoid, avoid, whine, “not relevant”, avoid, whine, narf.

    Pathetic. You can pick up your weasel coat on your way out.

  57. #60 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    As I’ve already pointed out Stu, the small possibly relevant parts for someone new to the discussion have been answered and adressed many times, and actually to more than one who asked ..

    So my offer still stands. Can you phrase one relevant question correctly .. in a comment free from your childish whining

  58. #61 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    Oh, since I’m tired of it by now, and on the off chance someone new happens upon this thread, allow me to present the canonical version of what Jonas’s incoherent whining about “hand-box” is about.

    [On an experiment where a hand pushes a box]

    GSW: …if the box moves faster, the hand has to move faster also.
    Me: Why did you bring up hand speed? It’s irrelevant.
    Jonas: It’s physics!
    Me: You’ve got the causality wrong: the hand causes the box to move. The hand ‘having to move faster also’ is nonsensical, even disregarding that it is ALWAYS the same, by the definition of the experiment. What part of ‘hand pushing box’ are you having trouble with?
    Jonas: Hahaha! See, what you don’t understand is that this is physics! If the hand pushes the box, and the box moves faster, the hand has to move faster too!
    Me: It’s the same, by definition. If the hand has a different speed than the box, it is not pushing it. So bringing up what speed the hand moves, what speed the hand has to move, hell, bringing up the hand at all is ‘hello, you just failed physics 101′-dumb.
    Jonas: Neener! You don’t understand physics! The hand has to move faster! I just explained why!
    Me: So why not bring up the air in the box? Why not bring up how the watch on the pushing hand needs to move faster also? It’s a dependent variable [note: this was a poor translation; what I meant was a variable which is wholly dependent on others by definition, and is therefore completely irrelevant — like the speed of the watch on the hand, or the speed of the fly on the watch on the hand].
    Jonas: You’re the one that brought up different speeds! And now you’re talking about dependent variables! Haha, I already explained to you why they have to be the same!
    Me: That they have to be the same is the point in a way (as in why it should have never been brought up), and it is not (as in your Kindergarten explanations are irrelevant since you missed the basic point).
    Jonas: Haha! You brought it up! You don’t know physics!
    Me: My physics is fairly poor, but I did manage to make it through 6 years of it in high school. By the way, I did not bring it up, GSW did.
    Jonas: Haha! You brought it up! You didn’t do physics! I am smarter than you! I explained it! Haha! You’re the only one who thinks this!
    Other person #1: No, we understand what he is saying. He didn’t bring it up, Jonas. GSW did.
    Other person #2: No, we understand what he is saying. He didn’t bring it up, Jonas. GSW did.
    Other person #3: No, we understand what he is saying. He didn’t bring it up, Jonas. GSW did.
    10
    Jonas: Haha! He brought it up and he’s the only one! I am smarter than you! My education is better than yours!
    Me: I did not bring it up, GSW did. Bringing up the hand at all is irrelevant. Hey Jonas, what IS your education?
    [Wait two weeks]
    GOTO 10

  59. #62 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    Can you phrase one relevant question correctly

    You are a sad, sad little man. You have to pre-emptively give yourself not one but two weasel outs to any question posed to you. “Oh no, that’s not relevant.” “Oh no, that’s not phrased correctly”.

    You are the most cowardly person I have yet had the distinct displeasure of encountering on the Internet, Jonas.

    Okay, here’s one. It’s simple, it’s relevant, and there’s only one way to phrase it.

    What is your educational background, Jonas?

  60. #63 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    Stu #5661

    No Stu, your brought up the differnet speeds .. nobdy else. Nobody. Not one singe-body-else ..

    Big fail. And you still haven’t recovered. It’s so bad that you now even are lying (or lying to yourself) about it, even imagining that others agree with you, that GSW brought it up. He didn’t. There is not one mention of any word ‘different’ before you. And even after you started, it was pointed out ‘move at the same pace’ ..

    So Stu .. is this how badly it has gone for you? That your life starts revolving around your own lies and incompetence? Is it really that bad Stu?

    I mean, I can (given your difficulties with most things here) understand that you for a short time and sloppy reading/thinking/comprehenseion you imagined that GSW might have implied the possibility of different speeds.

    I mean, we all know how badly you would like to score at least some point and land a little pinprick hit at someone ..

    O can even have empathy with that need (although it is very petty).

    But I can not understand why you would, in the blatant face of immedieate clarification go on to claim the opposite for weeks and now years ..

    And now you (openly) tell me that you still rather would believe the opposite, and that you need to sice it up with more untruths and lies just to protect that fragile ego?

    Is that what you are telling me Stu?

    somebody else brought ut and for weeks argued differnet speeds?

    Are you that far gone, Stu?

    Pleaste tell me it aint so …

  61. #64 Vince Whirlwind
    January 25, 2013

    Jonah says:

    Last year’s La Niña was not in any way unprecedented

    So, tell us which La Nina was warmer than last year’s.

  62. #65 Jonas N
    January 25, 2013

    Vince, your question still is extremely poorly and (most likely) ignorantly put …

    But in #5611 there is a link where you can see both the strength and the duration of La Niñas a nd El Niños, they are even coloured for your ‘convenience’ ..

    If your question really was what you asked, there are all the answers. But I might have overestimated you, I thought you would understand the subtle hint (with the link) and do a better job phrasing you question the next time.

    I even think that Stu (after some searching) came closer (*) although he still didn’t manage to phrase the question properly.And that Vince, is not a compliment …

    ;-)

    (*) and quickly wanted to change the topic to something entirely different

  63. #66 chek
    January 25, 2013

    Jonarse, you are (most likely) an idiot* …… with moronic tendencies. (*)

    (*) who can neither see straight nor think straight.
    ((*)) and who can’t even figure out permalinks.

  64. #67 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    Obvious and stupid lie, Jonas. I summarized what actually happened and will from now on just link to it (especially since you’re still saying the same, easily and oft refuted things</i).

    What is your educational background, Jonas?

  65. #68 Stu
    January 25, 2013

    Tag failure and link failure in one post. Glad the weekend is here. Second attempt.

  66. #69 pentaxZ
    January 26, 2013

    stu, some more from the same link:

    Verifying the prediction skill of the system model from April 2011 to December 2012, the accuracy of the most likely forecast (solid red line) remains at a high level of 75%, and the accuracy relative to prediction uncertainty (pink area) is an exceptional 98%. Given the noise in the data (presumably incomplete set of system variables considered, noise added during measurement and preprocessing of raw observation data, or random events, for example), this clearly confirms the validity of the system model and its forecast.”

    “The IPCC A1B scenario is derived from a number of million-dollar General Circulation Models (GCMs), which depend on atmospheric CO2 as the major driver for Global Warming. Consequently, the IPCC A1B projection follows the development of CO2 concentration, which – in contrast to observed global temperatures – has only been rising in the past and which will continue to do so for the next future. This IPCC projection currently shows a prediction accuracy of 23% (September 2007 – December 2012, 64 months) and just 7% accuracy for the same forecast horizon as applied for the system model (April 2011 – December 2012, 21 months). ”

    Looking good for the multimillion dollar GCMs?

    “Makes it even weirder how the past decade was the warmest on record, how most of its years were in the top 10 hottest in recorded history, how natural disasters are becoming more frequent, how sea level is rising and how oceans are acidifying.”

    I agree, how could this be when empirical data shows no such things? Well, if you massage empirical data enough, you get the result you want. The temp the last decade isn’t unprecedented in any way, natural disasters are not more frequent today than in any other time, sea levels are rising in the same pace it always has since the last ice age, and the seas are long from acidic, perhaps a microscopic amount less alkaline. But that’s hardly the same as “oceans are acidifying”. You warmiztas has always lyed and you keep it on. For how long did you think you could fool Earths people with your scam?

  67. #70 Stu
    January 26, 2013

    So wait, pentax, are you seriously debating the last decade was the warmest on record?

    Oh, and this is precious:

    and the seas are long from acidic, perhaps a microscopic amount less alkaline. But that’s hardly the same as “oceans are acidifying”.

    Okay, so if you read this back, this makes sense to you?

  68. #71 Jonas N
    January 26, 2013

    So Stu …

    You summarized what actually happened? Possibly what happened inside your head. But definitely not outside ..

    You were never part of any part of the discussion, Said so yourself; Couldn’t see anything wrong …

    But at some point you decided to jump in: With a notion of different speeds hand/box.

    Within minutes your misconception was clarified, even spellt out explicity:

    Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force, therefore your hand needs to accelerate as well

    This was 14 minutes after you asked, two hours after you firs got ‘confuesed’ by the same information phrased only slightly different.

    And you still aren’t over it? Still imaginge others argue different speeds. Repeating your tripe like a raving lunatic ..

    Sorry kiddo, you were the idiot then, you are again and still are. Why do you keep tormenting yourself with that intellectual self mutilation? Why Stu?

    Nobody. absolutely noboyd (except you) ever argued different speeds. There are no different speeds, as even you know, when pushing a box along a straight line …

    Only you wanted there to be … still imagining such lunacy.

    And your derailing (your initial misconception) doesn’t even involve physics .. just comprehension of a simple sentence of a hand pushing a box ..

    Look kid ..

    Nobody asked you to jump in in a discussion (about simple laws of physics etc), you did so of free will. Obviously, your descinion was prompted by the loony notion of different speeds/hand/box …

    You made a (slight) fool of yourself there, but were kindly guided in the right direction. Apparently your little fragile ego couldn’t hande this though. Hence the yearlong derailing … now trying to thorw in more and more lies to cover up and confuse …

    What a pathetic little man you are Stu. Even more tragic that you openly display this here …

    And, I asked if you could pose a relevant question without your usual childish tripe. Apparently that was too difficult too.

    Do you think you are capable to for once behave like an adult? Aks a relevant question (relevant for the main topic here)? Give it a try. And if you are trying with the same question, I would like to know why you believe it is relevant?

    Is that too difficult, Stu? Writing one comment with a question properly? Without the nonsense drivel?

  69. #72 Jonas N
    January 26, 2013

    Stu #5668 … linking to your own garbage and outright lies in order to convince yourself?

    ;-)

    That has been your method the entire time. Believing your own nonsense and strenthening that belief by repeating it. Same with Jeff Harvey … he also invented ‘facts’ and repeated them.

    You guys are such total jokes it is a travesty of delusion …

    And you both of course are staunch believers in the climate catastrophism … Well at least that figures.

    ;-)

  70. #73 Stu
    January 26, 2013

    So let me get this straight. I explain to you — at length — why bringing up the hand is dumb, and you reply with…

    Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force, therefore your hand needs to accelerate as well

    The reversed causality alone is enough to drive a physics teacher to drink. If the hand moves at a different speed, you’re not pushing the box. If you’re not pushing the box, you’re not doing the experiment as described. By now the lint in my belly-button has figured this out. You’re a moron, Jonas.

    Also, what is your educational background? You brought it up, answer the question.

  71. #74 Wow
    January 26, 2013

    Also, what is your educational background?

    Like in Tropic Thunder: Full Retard.

  72. #75 Stu
    January 26, 2013

    Okay, so let’s recap for you, Jonas. Let’s see what the denialist consensus is.

    1) Has the pH in oceans dropped in the past century?
    2) Does this or does this not have consequences for living creatures in the ocean?
    3) What is the difference between acifidication and loss of alkalinity?
    4) What does a 0.1 change on the pH scale mean?
    5) Was the past decade the warmest in recorded history or not?
    6) How did the past decade rank in record-hottest years all-time?

    oh, and of course

    7) What is your educational background, Jonas?

  73. #76 pentaxZ
    January 27, 2013

    stu #75

    1 through 6. Totally irrelevant questions. Simply because you first have to prove that it’s not due to natural variations, which you of course can’t. And second, you have to prove that the human contribution of co2 is the main driver of the climate change, and not natural variations. Which of course you can’t. So what’s really your case again?

    7 is even more irrelevant. I suppose it’s not nice to get ones ass spanked. And it must hurt even more if you don’t know who the spanker is. But I must admit, it was quite funny to see your asses get spanked. But honestly, it’s getting quite silly nowadays. You all are so unbelievable thickheaded and so indoctrinated in you belief that you refuse to consider the possibility that you perhaps are wrong about co2, despite that the evidence against co2 as the main climate driver is piling up right in front of you. Much like when Bagdad Bob refused to accept that Iraq had fallen.

    You know, proper science is not about clinging on to a hypothesis with teeths and claws to the bitter end, it’s about adjust or even discard it, due to new scientific evidence. If you don’t do so, it has become a religion. And it sertanely seems that that’s exactly where you deltoids are today.

  74. #77 Jonas N
    January 27, 2013

    Really Stu!?

    Are you kidding me? ‘Causality’!? And again linking to your own dumb-fantasy-nonsense-inventiong-history-revision?

    Nobody is interested in what you think is dumb or not … those thaughts are best left inside your head!

    The question was why you you derailed over a imagined speed difference between hand/box …. when nobody (except you) ever was close to anything alike. Why!?

    The key words are: Different Speeds between hand and box!

    Why would you spend over one year derailing over a by only you invented projection?

    The really dumb thing is you obsessing about that, imagining that others were arguing the exact opposite of what they wrote to you explicitly.

    And regarding ‘causality':

    Everything. Every single and every dumb remark and comment wrt this was made by you after this was explained in plain language and thus settled.

    Every dumb thing you tried thereafter, including your ‘dependent variable’ or ‘why you thaught the hand speed was dumb’ or ‘formally introduced equations’ and now ‘causality’ and ‘drinking physics teachers’ ,,, and of course:

    Different Speeds between hand and box

    All that and everything, came out the cavity between your ears after your first misconception was settled immedeately. You and you alone!

    But in your customary fashion, you need to invent the blame for your dumb year-long derailing … and say it was somebody else’s fault.

    But no, Stu. It wasn’t! You were the idiot then, and seemingly still want to be really really bad!

    I just wonder why!?

  75. #78 Jonas N
    January 27, 2013

    And Stu # 5675

    It is really too difficult for you to ask a relevant question in a manner as if you were an adult, isn’t it?

    What would ‘denialist consensus’ even be? Both those words are used excessively (but seperately) on the CAGW side for lack of better arguments. What do they even mean here? And why would anybody claiming to ‘ask relevant questions’ invent such dumb terms, or bring them up?

    PS Neither do I understand the ‘recap’ part wrt to many in your list. I have not touched upon several of these topics. And ayway, your list doesn’t come across as relevant questions. It looks like the usual petty posturing hoping to land some tiny gotcha-point … quite stupidly.

  76. #79 Jonas N
    January 27, 2013

    Contd. Stu, Re: your #5673 because it is almost surreal how dumb it is:

    You think you ‘explain’ something?

    You think because you misunderstand a simple sentence, somebody else must be ‘dumb’?

    You think it is importoan for others to understand or follow why you derailed over the wordings of a simple sentence?

    You think your ‘dependent variables’ or whatever is ‘not needed’ is relevant in any ever so minor way?

    You, Stu, with your presence here, arguing ‘what is not needed’?

    After you jump in in a slightly technichal discussion about friction, and badly exectued laws of motion, feedbacks, and other stuff you did not understand the first thing of?

    Suddenly, what you think ‘is not needed’ somehow should divert the world (or only the participants here) to follow your nutty imiginations of what you imagined people meant?

    Even then you were going on about different speeds/box/hand for weeks (without anybody else’s input) working yourself int o a frenzy. You still haven’t recovered from more than a year later.

    And you think anybody really really badly needs to know whatever you think is ‘dumb’ or ‘not needed’ inside that cavity of yours?

    Have you ever thought about how large a portion of your comments is completely and beyond any margins of error (or semantic misconception) dumb, and dumb beyond belief!? Have you?

    And here you are telling us about your ‘explanation’ about the simplest little thing you still managed to misunderstand`? And misunderstand completely!

    In a discussion where you couldn’t see anything wrong with all the nonsense-physics of luminous.

    You really are something else Stu … you really do belong here, together with so many others.

  77. #80 Stu
    January 27, 2013

    Oh dear! Denialists once more dismissing questions they don’t like as irrelevant! I am shocked!

    pentax:

    So now you are saying knowing whether the oceans are acidifying, or whether the climate is changing is irrelevant because you’d FIRST have to prove it is anthropogenic. Without quantifying the phenomenon.

    Right.

    Good thing you’re not ideology-driven, right? Do you also still stand by your statement that the oceans are not acidifying, merely becoming less alkaline?

    Oh, and me asking Jonas for his educational background is completely relevant, since he has repeatedly asserted it is better for doing “real” science… without telling us what that magical background is. Jonas brought it up, Jonas made it relevant,

    Jonas:

    No matter how much you whine and bluster, I’ve summarized the hand-box discussion here. The discussion is over. Take your meds and stop trying to go around in circles, it is pathetic.

    Instead, why don’t you grow up and answer a question? Let’s start with a simple one:

    Jonas, what is your educational background?

  78. #81 pentaxZ
    January 27, 2013

    stu
    “don’t like” has nothing to do with it, though I don’t expect you to understand that. As pointed out to you above, if you can’t prove that human co2 is the main driver of the climate cange, and all the other stuff you claim human activity is to blaim for, the questions are indeed irrelevant. How do you know they aren’t perfectly natural variations?

    “So now you are saying knowing whether the oceans are acidifying”

    Correct. When the oceans PH drops below 7, then the correct term is acidifying. To say that a alkaline ocean gets a tiny amount less alkaline “the oceans are acidifying” is just alarmistic bullshit to scare common people.

    “or whether the climate is changing is irrelevant because you’d FIRST have to prove it is anthropogenic.”

    You really are stupid, aren’t you? Do you let a doctor treat you befor he has made a diagnosis?

    All the historical, empirical data shows nothing at all, not a tiny little bit, that’s unpresedented with our current climate change. Unless, of course, massage data untill it shows the result you want to see, like the mann and hansen way.

    The AGW hypothesis is dead. Deal with it!

  79. #82 Stu
    January 27, 2013

    I understand now. If I look at a thermometer and say it is warmer, you will argue it is merely getting less cold.

    I ask questions about what you know about ocean acidification, you dismiss those questions as irrelevant because they could be natural variations. Please note that I did not ask you what caused ocean acidification, I asked you what you know about it. Don’t bother answering now though — of the questions, you’ve already confirmed 1), haven’t a clue about 2), don’t understand 3) or 4) and will avoid answering 5) and 6) until you are blue in the face.

    Braver than Jonas’s complete weaseling, but not too bright.

    All the historical, empirical data shows nothing at all, not a tiny little bit, that’s unpresedented with our current climate change.

    Not a soul is disputing that the Earth has been hotter before, and that there have been higher CO2 concentrations before. Again, the climate we are heading towards is actually very desirable if you are a dinosaur or a large fern.

    Are you a large fern, Pentax?

    What is unprecedented is the rate of climate change. Evolution does not work on this compressed a time-scale, as is obvious when you look at places like the Great Barrier Reef. If you see nothing wrong with mass extinction, by all means, say so — but you don’t, so you’re in denial, and being massively dishonest.

    Unless, of course, massage data untill it shows the result you want to see, like the mann and hansen way.

    Really? Prove it. Don’t wave your hands and whine about averaging proxies like Jonas, pick a specific paper, a specific dataset and show how their numbers are invalid.

    Back up your assertions or admit you are lying.

    First though, please examine the irony of that allegation coming from someone repeatedly quoting discredited sources who bleat on about an alleged hiatus, without ever noticing why they always use a 16 year time-span. Not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30. Always 16. Do you not understand why they pick 16 years, Pentax? Do you not understand how profoundly dishonest that is? Do you even care?

    The AGW hypothesis is dead

    Says who? Pathological liar Monckton? Incompetent shills Watts and Curry? A few off-their-meds Swedish trolls on this blog?

    Why haven’t you produced a scientific paper proving it all wrong, Pentax? Why hasn’t Jonas? Why hasn’t Monckton? Why hasn’t Watts? Why hasn’t Curry? Why do you all confine yourself to whining on blogs? Wouldn’t you love to win a Nobel Prize?

  80. #83 pentaxZ
    January 28, 2013

    Why haven’t you, stu, produced a scientific paper which proves that cAGW is real? Nobody else has managed it, so why don’t give it a try?

  81. #84 pentaxZ
    January 28, 2013

    By the way, I have won a Nobel prize. EU got one a while ago so that means every european citizen is a Nobel prize winner. If mann can, I can also.

  82. #85 chek
    January 28, 2013

    Why haven’t you, stu, produced a scientific paper which proves that cAGW is real?

    Why do you think you’ve been mobilised to be here when your time would normally be spent being a moron elsewhere?

    By the way, I have won a Nobel prize. EU got one a while ago so that means every european citizen is a Nobel prize winner. If mann can, I can also.

    Did the EU send you a personal certificate thanking you for your contribution to winning the prize? No, I didn’t think so either PantieZ.

  83. #86 pentaxZ
    January 28, 2013

    “Did the EU send you a personal certificate thanking you for your contribution to winning the prize?”

    No, nor did they do that to mann. ipcc did that all by them selves. And hou know, that doesn’t count.

    Mobilized? Hahaha, sorry “pal”, I’m here all by my self, just for fun. You know, it’s quite funny to watch a bunch zealots with foilhats pretending to be scientific making faceplant after faceplant.

  84. #87 Stu
    January 28, 2013

    Why haven’t you, stu, produced a scientific paper which proves that cAGW is real?

    Because I don’t have to. This is the same old, lame, tired tactic Jonas started out with.

    – Show me a paper that proves it.
    – Go look at the IPCC attributions.
    – No, I need you to show me a specific paper.
    – Why? There’s hundreds in there.
    – Nuh-huh. Show me one!
    – Here’s one.
    – That’s not “real” science!
    – Why are you doing this? You’re trying to dispute 30+ years of climate science. The burden of proof is on you.
    – Nuh-uh! Show me a paper that proves climate change!
    – It doesn’t work like that. Do you also ask for a paper that proves evolution?
    – Narf! You are stupid!
    – If you can prove climate science is wrong, why don’t you publish a paper how?
    – Narf! Show me a paper!
    Et cetera.

    But hey, you’re getting better at this Pentax — you’re bravely running away from your ‘becoming less alkaline is something different than acifidication’ doozy. There’s still hope for you becoming a true full-on whining, evasive, delusional douche-canoe denialist just like Jonas.

  85. #88 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Proof is easy to come by.

    This does it:

    American Journal of Physics — December 1972 — Volume 40, Issue 12, pp. 1794
    On the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law in a Nonequilibrium Environment
    Donald G. Burkhard1, John V. S. Lochhead2, and Claude M. Penchina

  86. #89 Stu
    January 28, 2013

    But Wow, that’s just natural variability! I DON’T EVEN HAVE TO READ THAT UNLESS IT PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE IS ANTHROPOGENIC. Hah!

    (And so the circle closes, morons go to sleep without a care in the world, and our ecosystem crumbles.)

  87. #90 Wow
    January 28, 2013

    Well, I already know what to say to that, but lets not give Joan a free pass, eh?

    That paper, though is the proof that AGW is real. Someone with A-level (High School) maths can prove it themselves with a calculator and a book on calculus.

  88. #91 Jonas N
    January 28, 2013

    Stu …

    Do you belive the nonsense you wirite?

    Do you really believe that there is one (or a few) paper(s) even attempting to establish that infamous AR4 claim?

    Just as you believed that anyboude else (but you) imagined different speeds?

    What a joke you are, and doubly since you display it here for everybody to see

  89. #92 Jonas N
    January 28, 2013

    Stu, I notice that you have accepted the proper level of company here … sharing ignorance with the likes of Wow must feel comforting for you after having spent 1½ years imagining that your idiocy about ‘the hand speed is not needed …. because it implies different speeds’ was in any way anyhow relevant to anything here … apart from the moron brigade proving it is indeed the morn brigade …

    SIx years of allegedly having studied physics … and the best you can come up with (in the face of luminous weeklong violations) is ‘you should not have brought up the hand …’

    And you wonder why I am mocking you? You utter idiotic fool?

    You think you have ‘engaged’ in anything here, Stu?

    Even luminous, who most certainly wasn’t the sharpest wooden spoon in the drawer did better than you … and you imagine you have closed a discussion? A discussion you never were part of? But tried to enter with your idiotic different/speed/hand/box nonsenese?

    Haven’t you not mentioned self awareness too?

    ;-)

    Stu .. are you really wondering why you never were part of anything here? Why I am only mocking you for your stupidities? Why I am pointing out to you that you still only have your own stupid imagination to blame for making an utter fool out of yourself!?

    Is it really that hard to understand? Or is it the acceptance that hinders you? Denial in short?

  90. #93 Stu
    January 28, 2013

    Jonas, I already explained the hand-box thing here. I’m sorry your pathology won’t allow you to let it go. It’s just sad.

    Why don’t you get over it and answer a question? Like what your educational background is?

  91. #94 pentaxZ
    January 29, 2013

    Hahaha…it might just be so that deltoid will be the last CAGW bastion to fall. Unbelievable how thick headed you regulart deltoids are. I reckon the pope is jealous, we would certanely love to have such devotion among hes followers.

  92. #95 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Still in denial Stu? Your derailing was somebody else’s fault? And you call that ‘explaining’? Or whatever you tried ‘engaging’?

    :-)

    What a hoke!

    And how is your climate scare belief working for you nowadays?

    BTW what part of my previous answers did you not understand?

    How does one even begin to explain what education is to someone who claims to have studied six years of physics and not only is on the level you are, but on top of that feels the need trying to show off in an freshman-level example (where he couldn’t even see any of the many bad mistakes even after they were pointed out) but felt compelled to jump in with an utterly idiotic:

    ‘Ha you implied different speeds … No, you even argued different speeds hand/box for weeks’

    What idiot would try this, and even defend this nonsense for year?

    Ah yes, I forgot! This is Deltoid, Stu, and Wow’s your friend …

    :-)

  93. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    it might just be so that deltoid will be the last CAGW bastion to fall

    Yes, because any day now, the tin-foil-hat brigade will be recognised as having been right all along.

    Any day now…

  94. #97 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Vince …

    Do really you believe this? That there is a CAGW coming? That all the dire promises will come true … just not right now, but eventually? And it’s gonna be worse than we ever thought …

    That’s what your hoping for?

    Jeff Harvey hopes so. He has been promising that we are going over the cliff any time now .. However, not because of climate change itself but because of mankind … buh-hu .. because the world isn’t run according to his loony views

    :-)

  95. #98 pentaxZ
    January 29, 2013

    “Yes, because any day now, the tin-foil-hat brigade will be recognised as having been right all along.”

    Sorry, but that’s not gonna happend. Better if the lot of you actually take of you your foilhats and hide them in a dark place no one ever will find them. Becaus you really look redicolous in them.

  96. #99 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    the dire promises will come true

    And it’s gonna be worse than we ever thought

    Yes, the Carbon Tax will definitely put Whyalla out of business.

    What is it with you alarmists and your breathless panicky nonsense?

  97. #100 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Good to see Jonas showing his true colors again, his last post suggesting that there are really no serious environmental problems.

    But wait – didn’t our uneducated Swedish genius once say that his only criticism was against GW science? What gives?

    What gives is that Jonas is an anti-environmentalist, that’s what. Forget the fact that the scientific community pretty much as a whole agrees that humans are over-exploiting the planet’ecological life support systems. But hey – don’t say this is so to the uneducated Swede who has more qualificiations than 99.9% of trained scientists.

    Note alos how Jonas reads the other threads. He is not allowed to contribute to them because he has been banned for being such an arrogant, vapid ignoramus. So he snipes away here from his own jail with his cell-mates.

Current ye@r *