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 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    Tampaxz says,

    Becaus you really look redicolous

    …and I fell out of my chair laughing.

    Yes, any day now the whole world will come around to your way of thinking.

    Any day now

  2. #2 Vince Whirlwind
    January 29, 2013

    I think Jonas is no worse than many of the idiots appearing on the other threads, and better than some, even.

    Chameleon, for example – what a vapid, brainless ninny she is. At least Jonas can demonstrate *some* sort of thought process occurring, however deluded and pathologically dishonest it may be…

  3. #3 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Vince …

    I agree that there are quite a lot of idiots, or at least individuals who here behave and comment like full blown idiots …

    Some for instance think that bringing up Breivik somehow strengthens their case.

  4. #4 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Jeff ..

    Inventing your own nonsense again?

    Have I ever said that there are no true environmental problems?

    and I’ve already informed you of my education by far tops yours for every relevant topic I have addressed here. And proven it time and again ..

    You on the other hand have blindly, desperately sided with the utter bottom feeders here … hoping (without any method to find out) that whatever they throw at me somehow is valid.

    Jeff Harvey, the fact fabricating, faith-guessing and CV-waiving so called ‘scientist’ …

    Making own goals again, as in almost every one of his comments. What a joke … but a perfect match för Deltoid!

  5. #5 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    Well, Stu, looks like the paper given is accepted by Joan and Tampax as understood and valid.

    Plenty of time to say otherwise, but they preferred to play games with you instead.

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Good old lying Jonas. He writes this,

    “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’

    The he writes this:” Have I ever said that there are no true environmental problems?”

    Gee, it seems like he says one thing and then another. In keeping with his lack of pedigree. But wait! The he says this:

    “and I’ve already informed you of my education by far tops yours for every relevant topic I have addressed here. And proven it time and again ..”

    With no proof ever provided except for hos own assertion. Does Jonas have a PhD? Well, all signs are that the answer is NO. If he did, this bloated egomaniac would have told the world about it by now. Instead, we get constant self-references to his great wisdom, but no baonafide proof other than he is telling us so. In other words, the debate stule employed by our Swedish meatball is that he is brilliant and knows more than me or anybody else about science because – wait for it – he says so. End of debate. No proof required aside from, ‘please look at the last 16 months of posts on the Jonas thread’ followed by more self-assertions.

    Jonas, you are as mad as a loon. Its a laugh to watch you employ the first party technique of debating. The ‘I know I am brilliant because I said so”.

    As usual, we also get this:

    “Jeff Harvey, the fact fabricating, faith-guessing and CV-waiving so called ‘scientist’ …”

    Do you ever give up with this nonsense Jonas? You are like a broken record. I know you envy me being a qualified scientist and all, but enough is enough.

  7. #7 pentaxZ
    January 29, 2013

    Jeffie, a true scientist would know the difference between the enviroment problems and climate. But as we allready know, you are nothing else but a pseudoscientist.

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    “But as we allready know, you are nothing else but a pseudoscientist”

    HA! You are comedy gold, Penty. Who already knows? You and your puppet-master? Omigosh! I feel really threatened! Boo!

  9. #9 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    panties is a bit like the black night, isn’t he.

    “No it isn’t!”
    “What’s that then?”
    “It’s just a flesh wound!”

  10. #10 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Jeff H

    The existence of environmental probles is not the same as we are racing towards a cliff ans will be going over it ..

    Which is what you have argued (quite literally) several times.

    Regarding my education Jeff, I have told you many times how things should be done, what arguments are valid and which are not (fabricated facts, for instance, never are).

    If anybody has been lying, it is you who in essentially every post (to me) make false assertions and statements and push fabricated ‘facts’

    Before you start behaving like a scientist and do so consistently, I will remind you of that what you have performed here for over 1½ years is pathetic, and has nothing at all to do with real science. Nothing, Jeff!

    You conclude with another instance of your self-affirming invented ‘knowledge':

    I know you envy me being a qualified scientist and all

    There is really nothing I envy you for Jeff … I have (and everyone has) seen how much you would like to label yourself and what you do as ‘science’ … but everytime I point out where you deviate from arguing like one, you either run away or start derailing about something irrelevant.

    Look at yourself Jeff! I don’t know what you consider ‘proof’ in a debate. But you definitely have proven(!) that you are unfit to debate or only read what is debated. Further, you are unable to read the science behind the various climate claims, and apparently have no clue whatsoever what it takes to establish (or only support) a proposed scientific hypothesis.

    And still you are yelling and yapping ‘Dunning Kruger’ and ‘Denialist’ or ‘Anti-Science’ like a little schoolboy.

    I have no clue to why you’ve chosen this method but it looks outright stupid (and nothing else) from the outside, and I would say from any professional viewpoint, not only real science (which you apparently aren’t familiar with at all)

    Real Science: Strictly and consistently adhering to the scientific method!

    You have proven here, time and again, that you are unable to do so (even are unaware of what it entails). I on the other hand have shown here, essentially in all the topics I have argued that I can stay on and master the topic, argue the merits. Demonstrated, Jeff, over and over again!

    True, those who allegedly spent six years studyin physics, but didn’t learn even what was taught freshman year, those of course cannot recognize that. Or those who aren’t trained in har science or never practiced any real science.

    I guess that all those can do is shout and cuss … as they indeed do!

  11. #11 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    BTW Jeff …

    You have several times claimed that I loathe academics! Again, idiotic fabricated fiction emanating from that cavity between your ears.

    I don’t. On the contrary. And I have never said anyting like that or anything that may be interpreted like that. so where does this particular piece of fabricated nonsens come from Jeff?

    Is lying the only way you can argue … not any relevant issue here, but only … the position that you have a position here?

    What’s wrong with all you who compuslively start lying the moment you are out of arguments .. which essentially is right from square one (for most)!?

    Is your life that difficult? Are your egos so threatened by someone pointing out facts and expressing opinions contrary to the faith and beliefs you hold?

    The loathing, Jeff, I would say is very much on your side, and among those on your side.

    Me, I just don’t buy bullshit arguments, and false logic. Which apparently is sufficient to send quite a few of you over the deep end …

  12. #12 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    You have several times claimed that I loathe academics!

    Another lie.

    Comes easy to Joan. Facts are inconveniently against him.

    PS Note how he accepts the paper as proving AGW:

    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. Burkhard, John V. S. Lochhead, and Claude M. Penchina

  13. #13 Stu
    January 29, 2013

    So Jonas, your answer to me asking what your educational background is that I would not understand the answer?

    I ask merely for confirmation.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    My meatball comedian gets even funnier:

    “Regarding my education Jeff, I have told you many times how things should be done, what arguments are valid and which are not (fabricated facts, for instance, never are)”

    This again is your own self-perception. Good grief, you act like a pysychopath. You BELIEVE that your arguments are superior. You BELIEVE that this proves you are correct. But many others here – most in fact – don’t BELIEVE you. Education is not what a person thinks about themself, Jonas. ts what has been proven to peers.I have the bonafides in my career record; you have rants on Deltoid. Several of us have repearedly asked you to support your self-aggrandizing confidence with further evidence of your brilliant education. Telling us where you went to university, what you studied, your academic achievements will do. But this relevant area is constantly avoided, ignored, over-ruled. Its always back to the same refrain, “I have proven my brillance on Deltoid”.

    You know what? Two things. First, you’re boring. And second, you’re clearly not qualified on paper. If you were, you would have told us what your educational background and qualifications were. Instead, you are back to the same refrain.

    You are full of self-valorization. “I am great” you are saying. “I am better educated” that anyopne else on Deltoid you opine. Proof? “Because I say it and have proven it with my wisdom” you retort. Anb that’s all we are ever gonna get from you.

    The this:

    “There is really nothing I envy you for Jeff … I have (and everyone has) seen how much you would like to label yourself and what you do as ‘science’ …”

    Who is ‘everyone’ Jonas? Who? You can’t speak for the other commentators on Deltoid. The vast majority don’t agree with you or with this statement. Only a couple of equally unhinged Swedes and that is about it. Most here think you’re a quack. As Stu said, you constantlay ask us for evidence. For scientific papers. We supply them. Without any kind of scientific appraisal, you summarily dismiss them. All of them. Then you go back to the same point.

    Essentially, most of us here believe that there is clearly something wrong with you. Tim thought so too, hence why he sent you over here. Now you will inevitably respond again with the same “I am great, no need to prove it as my words should suffice” gibberish, and then go on to say I am not a ‘real ‘scientist, I am a liar, I am illogical, hand-waving, CV-waving, ad nauseum. Same stuff as always. You are froever demanding answers from us but when we ask you stuff you spin and weave and avoid.

  15. #15 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Stu …

    I asked what part of my previous answers did you not understand?

    My education is way above the level I’ve been trying to explain statistics or simpler physics to some here …

    Way way way above Stu .. and it hasn’t even been challenged by anybody. So what was your point?

    And you asked about my ‘professional background’ too. And my response is the same: What part of what I’ve already answered did you not understand? And I also asked what is the relevance of this (or more precise information) to what is discussed (by me) here?

  16. #16 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    No Jeff …

    If you had been listening (reading), you would have

    1) Learnt somthing,
    2) Had the opportunity to answer or dispute things that were actually said or argued, and
    3) Hadn’t made such a fool of yourself so many times ..

  17. #17 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Jeff …

    We have seen (everybody who can read, and understands the meaning of words) that you make unsupported claims about reality wich you have no basis for other than your beliefs ..

    So whatever you believe is nothing else than that.

    I say, and repeat, that my education is far above and more suitable for everything I have discussed than yours, and in many cases superior to yours also for many other fields.

    Just remember the fact that I have to detail for you even some simpler aspects of the scientific method again and again, and you still cant help yourself, still need to fantasize in about half of everyone of your posts ..

    And your owngoals are just spectacular Jeff. Read this (your own) sentence slowly to yourself:

    You can’t speak for the other commentators on Deltoid. The vast majority don’t agree with you or with this statement.

    You don’t need to consider that that my answer was promted by you pretending to speak for me: “you envy me being a qualified scientist and all”.

    You don’t even need to consider that what you were trying to contradict, with the imagined (but false) consensus-argument was the following:

    YoI have (and everyone has) seen how much you would like to label yourself and what you do as ‘science’ …”

    Or are you actually making a full reversal now Jeff, after 1½ years, saying that you indeed not describing yourself as ‘a scientist doing science’!?

    Which way is it Jeff? (Or was that just one more uncontrolled impulse to start mouthing off before you’ve read the whole sentence?)

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Shorter Jonas:

    I am unqualified. What you see is what you get. A raving lunatic with delusions of grandeur.

    Boring.

  19. #19 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Jeff … if there is one lunatic amon the two of us, it definitely is not me.

    But this is the level you are capable of ‘arguing’ here. In short: Not at all!

    Why am I not surprised?

  20. #20 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    As I said .. lying is your method Jeff:

    Shorter Jonas:

    I am unqualified.

    The exact opposite is true, and I just informed you of this (again). And ‘denial’ is your repsonse.

    Why am I not surprised?

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    Me: Jonas, what is your educationsl background? Degrees? University? Expertise?

    Jonas: Ha! Jeffie, you are not a real scientist, you are into self-idolatry, and CV waving. Own goal after own goal! One and half years of inferiority! I am better educated than you! I know how science works! Ha!

    Me: Oh, well that’s all fine and well Jonas, but I only asked you a simple question. Now please, tell us… what is your professional background? Education?

    Jonas: I repeat! I am brilliant! I know more than you or anyone else here! I am a genius and you’d better believe it! You can’t debate! You don’t know anything! All you do is wave your CV about. Look at you! All alone in your simple world! And me? I am everything that you envy! Moreover…

    Me (Interrupting): Yes, yes, Jonas, but all I ask is that you tell me and the others on Deltoid what your qualifications are. Professional background, scientific training. Its not a hard question…

    Jonas: HA, HA, HA! Everything you say is false, Jeffie! Lies! Making things up! You aren’t a real scientist! I know! I know real science! I know everything! I am Jonas! Anyone can see who reads this thread that you, Stu, Vince, Chek, Wow and others cannot rival my intellect!!!!!

    Me: (SIghs). OK. If that is the way you are going to be. I guess you don’t have any professional expertise in science…

    Jonas: HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!! You are a lunatic Jeffie!!! You are afraid of me! Going to hide back in the other threads!

  22. #22 Jeff Harvey
    January 29, 2013

    It gets even funnier:

    Me: I guess Jonas is saying that he is unqualified.

    Jonas: HA!!!!!!! The exact opposite is true, and I just informed you of this (again)!!!!!

    Me: You only said that you are brillaint and better than any of your critics, Jonas.All we asked for was your professional background. Its not like we’ll find out who you are. Besides, you know who I am…

    Jonas: I told you Jeffie!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am smarter than you! I am better educated!!! !Can’t you read?!?! Isn’t that enough? Do I have to spell it out for you? I-AM-SMARTER-THAN-YOU-BECAUSE-I-SAY-SO. Understand?!

    Me: B-but I want to know what your degrees are, universities etc. Its not too much to ask is it?

    Jonas: Duh!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not listen? I say that I am better edeucated! End of story!

    I think one gets the gist.

  23. #23 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Jeffie … is that Stu-level you are trying?

    Making up, and now even spelling out strawmen statements?

    Neither Stu nor you have ever really argued anything where you are challenging me on the merits.

    Instead you spent 1½ years inventing strawmen. Why is that Jeff? Why the lying and fabricating? Why the constant misrepresenting, often outright reversing, what I actually say?

    Why are so many here at Deltoid som compelled to lie, Jeff?

    You need only to answer for yourself, Jeff. Although you cery often claim the opposite, I never believed that you really spoke (or were mandated to speak) for others …

  24. #24 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Well Jeff … sticking to the truth just isn’t your thing, is it?

    You have not been asking or guessing politely. You’ve spent 1½ years telling the answers to questions you didn’t ask!

    Or at least telling me what you so desperately wanted to be your (quite frankly totally moronic) narrative.

    You’ve made these claims(!) in no uncertain terms in almost every comment at me.

    And flilled the rest with equally idiotic and childish attempts to insult.

    And this while you have not been able to properly address almost anything I have actually said. Truth is that you mostly don’t even understand what I say, or just randomly invent some strawman-position you want (ie hope) that I represent.

    Are you now telling me that you made up all this out of your free and frantic fantasy Jeff? If so: Why?

    Is this because you hoped that it would lend you some ‘authority’ here? In matter where you have none, not even proper knowledge?

    I still wonder, why do so many here have to lie so much to argue their beliefs? (And as before, you only need to answer for yourself, because that’s all you can do at best. And I doub’t that you can do even this)

  25. #25 Stu
    January 29, 2013

    My education is way above the level I’ve been trying to explain statistics or simpler physics to some here …

    And we are to take this on the word of a proven pathological liar? Why don’t you just, oh, I don’t know, answer the question?

  26. #26 chek
    January 29, 2013

    Perhaps Jonarse isn’t too keen on waving his OISM diploma about in public.

  27. #27 Stu
    January 29, 2013

    *** Interlude ***

    For your entertainment: Lord Monckton, totally not an unhinged political hack.

  28. #28 chek
    January 29, 2013

    Good one Stu. Incidentally, are Lord Munchkin’s ‘hard left’ what are feared most in the whole wide world by impotent right wingers?

  29. #29 Wow
    January 29, 2013

    Come on, everybody.

    We KNOW why Joan doesn’t say.

    They don’t have any qualifications and are just an idiot troll (as opposed to an insane one). Why they think going “I is smarter than you, so you not unerstanding it, nya!” is of any point whatsoever completely escapes me. The workings of a diseased brain is obscure to even the highest of intelligences.

  30. #30 Stu
    January 29, 2013

    Please note how both pentax and Jonas are now desperately attempting to argue backwards and hope noone notices.

    “I don’t have to know anything about ocean acidification, because YOU have to FIRST prove it is man-made!”

    “I don’t have to give you my educational credentials, because I have already said they are better suited to REAL science!”

    This happens a lot in high-school debate club — it’s the elementary mistake of trying so hard to debate a refutation of an argument you feel is iron-clad that you fail to make that argument in the first place. Respectively, pentax does a psychotic dance around whether ocean acidification (or in his world, alkalinity-lessening) is actually happening BECAUSE it has to be proven to him it is man-made first, and Jonas does not have to provide his educational credentials BECAUSE they are so much better than anyone else’s here (for bonus irony, scroll back to his attempt at lecturing me about causality).

  31. #31 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Stu … you do not have to take my word for anything … Not anywhere!

    My education is far far above yours, and you yourself have established that by trying to chirp in in a just slightly technical discussion about feedbacks, friction, the laws of motion and genereal physics …

    Your ‘contribution’ was to imagine utter nonsense, derail about it, blame everybody else for your idiocy, and remain the idiot, remain in denial for 1½ years … all by yourself. In the face of others trying to help your out of your stupid mistake within minutes. In stark denial in spite of several others guiding you away from in the right direction …

    Nobody, nobody apart from yourself is responsible for why you wnt there. Still isn’t.

    The word ‘lying’ has completely lost it’s meaning after every stupid thing you’ve tried. You may draw some comfort from having CV-waving Jeff on your side. But Í view it from the other side:

    The fact that Jeff needs to rely on, even draw support from you and your equally stuoid guesses about me (whom you are completely unable to argue any facts with) is embarressing to him, and indicative for you:

    Somebody who is totally lost on the simplest descriptions of the laws of motion, hopes to save face by holding hands with someone is even more inept regarding the simplest parts of real sicence … Someone who derails over ‘different speeds among hand/box’ all by his own ,,, and for 1½ years!?

    Do you even know what luminous was trying to argue to start with? You know, where he quickly started violating most of the basic princples pertaining to simple physics (which you never saw, not even after they were pointed out)?

    Not one of any of your feeble … challanges (for lack of a better word) … Stu .. have even been on the playing field.

    What was you best attempt? Dependent variables? Stu claiming to speak for physics teachers?

    What an utter joke!

    Instead it is Jeff, who draws support from you, who in turn lean on Wow and chek .. withoiut any at all connection or relevance to anyting discussed here …

    What a total joke … but then of course: This is Deltoid … And Jeff thinks that’s an argument for his faith!?

    What a total joke! And you bozos your stupidity can be saved by rounding up more morons? By repeating your idiocy again? By clinging to Jeff’s irrelevant but long-waved CV?

    I asked why idiocy and lying are the preferred methods among you CAGW cultists? Even when you demonstrably don’t have the slightest clue? When you don’t even understand the arguments from your own side? Is it because you think that many morons believing the same stuff unseen, strengthens this belief?

    At least this is what is looks like. This looks to be at the core of your belief … majoirty and uniformed consensus among the ignorant

  32. #32 chek
    January 29, 2013

    Your’e still (mis)using many, many words (not to mention your trademark execrable syntax) to say nothing then, Jonarse.
    Did you even finish school, kid, or is this some poisonous little PantieZ-level endeavour you’ve embarked on, hoping nobody is ever gonna be smart enough to scroll back?

  33. #33 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    Stupid Stu … whose ‘educational credentials’ allegedly are six years of studied physics .. is arguing with yet another fake quotation that I should top his idiot claim even when this already has been established beyond any doubt.

    And you Jeff, ask for my educational credentials after having sided with the proven lior and moron Stu and his idiocy regarding both what was discussed and education and training. You sided with the idiot, Jeff! And are trying to impress me with your ‘education’ and your CV!?

    After proving that you not only once, but everytime sided with the idiots!?

    Probably not even capable to identifying why they were totally wrong …

    Or is it worse than than that Jeff`That you believe that a formal CV makes idocy become true, because of it? Like the Hansen claim of future sea level rises? That’s at least what you’ve argued …

    The problem for you is that this stupidity abound among you and on your side. Deltoid is just one of the more obvious showcases …

  34. #34 chek
    January 29, 2013

    What you don’t seem to understand Jonarse, is that you are a nobody who knows nothing. Up against professional, proven scientists.

    That wins you nutters like PantieZ, GSW and Olapdog. But only them. Nothing more. You have nothing to offer but your stupidity.

  35. #35 Jonas N
    January 29, 2013

    chek ..

    Are you trying to say (claim) that you have said anything of substance here!?

    Although I don’t think you are quite as stupid as Stu or Wow, your contributions here have not been better than theirs.

    I have not seen you getting close to any topic at all … just barking stupid things like Wow and Stu … and siding with them. Do you think that this impresses anyone any where? Apart from the equally stupid?

    How do you think if you indeed think this?

  36. #36 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    chek … you here, among the Deltoids are telling me that I am a nobody? You who can’t even argue your own stance in a coherent manner?

    Professional proven scientists? Like Jeff with his idiotic rants you mean? Or Hansens with his future promises of sea level rise?

    There is not even a contest!

    But you seem to belive in sheer idiocy …

  37. #37 Stu
    January 30, 2013

    So you are saying you are too much of a coward to actually say what your education is, Jonas?

  38. #38 chek
    January 30, 2013

    Are you trying to say (claim) that you have said anything of substance here!? (sic)

    Yes, yes I am, Jonarse.
    You’ve contributed nothing to the world, unlike the aforementioned professional scientists whose work will outlive them in journals and reports for decades to come.

    Whereas you. …. have never achieved anything apart from a few non-sequiturial ,poorly worded blog splutterings here and there. But nothing of any consequence to me or anyone else.

  39. #39 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    chek ..

    You have absolutely no clue about what I ‘have contributed to this world’, none!

    You are just talking the same gibbersih as Jeff and many others.

    Only here, I have ‘contributed’ to demonstrating to everybody that the belief in that (in)famous AR4 claim is based ob bothing but faith.

    And you are one of the faithers!

    Not one single one of you has anything more than pure faith!

    And that’s just one of the things! Here! What joke, chek ..

  40. #40 chek
    January 30, 2013

    What joke, chek

    Words fail me, moron.

  41. #41 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    Most (if not all) things have failed you ever since you started, chek

  42. #42 Stu
    January 30, 2013

    So yes, you are to cowardly to simply state your educational background. You prefer to bleat about how it is OMG SO MUCH BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU.

    This is what happens when you avoid answering questions. This is what happens when you whine, bluster and dodge. Sooner or later, you’re confined to a corner, left to bleat like the sad little douchecanoe you are.

    You are pathetic, Jonas. I will no longer address anything you say until you address a simple, obvious, relevant issue… an issue you brought up, an issue you made relevant. Until you provide your educational background, this thread is dead.

  43. #43 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    Stu .. I don’t need to lie about having studied sic years of physics. But I would say that I am about 20 times ahead of you. And no, it didn’t take me 120 years …

    Stu, if you even think you have me in a corner, that shows how lost you are here. And I am not even asking your irrelevant (but possibly interesting) questions, because I know you’ll lie about most things, Your lack of understanding of even the simplest physics, you have demonstrated very well completely without my help ..

    And nowhere has it been anybody else’s fault!

    What you deliver here, is essentially what you’ve got: Different speeds among hand and box …

    On a level where only the Jeffies here side with you …

  44. #44 chek
    January 30, 2013

    On a level where only the Jeffies here side with you …

    .. and only the PantieZ ilk side with you. Game, set and match.

  45. #45 Stu
    January 30, 2013

    (By the way, how Freudian is “proven lior”?)

  46. #46 Stu
    January 30, 2013

    So yes, Jonas, you are still too much of a weaselly coward to state your educational background. It’s okay, it’s not like you brought it up yourself, right?

    But hey, do continue squirming. I’m sure you think you are fooling someone out there.

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    January 30, 2013

    I don’t need to lie about having studied [sic] years of physics.

    It seems that Jonas N is admitting that he hasn’t really studied physics.

  48. #48 pentaxZ
    January 30, 2013

    “I don’t need to lie about having studied [sic] years of physics.

    It seems that Jonas N is admitting that he hasn’t really studied physics.”

    Someone who’s brain is malfuntioning perhaps will made such nonsens up. But who’s surprised. It’s the deltiod way.

  49. #49 pentaxZ
    January 30, 2013

    “why is “one of the world’s foremost climate scientists” and “a leading expert on global warming” promoting it? Can he not tell the difference between solid data and green propaganda?”

    Why is deltoid regulars promoting it? Can they not tell the difference between solid data and green propaganda?

    No, because they themselves are promoting pseudoscience and green propaganda.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/25/meet-one-of-the-worlds-foremost-climate-scientists/

    And yeah, I know, stu and wow, you aren’t gonna touch the topics in the blogpost, instead you’re gonna ranting about what a shit hole blog nofrackingconsensus is.

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    January 30, 2013

    “you’re gonna ranting about what a shit hole blog nofrackingconsensus is”

    You betcha. Because the proprietor is not a scientist and does not understand the primary literature. Seems like the real ‘foil hats’, to coin your favorite term, are the people who depend on these wretched sites for their scientific information.

  51. #51 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    You have absolutely no clue about what I ‘have contributed to this world’, none!

    Incorrect.

    The answer is None.

    You’ve contributed fuck all to the world.

    You have no education.

    Stop trying to make up for it by pretending. Either it’s necessary and you need to go off and learn, or it isn’t and you don’t have to keep blathering on about it.

  52. #52 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    Stu …

    You at some point thought it was a good idea to claim that you’ve studied physics for six years.

    I don’t even know what that may or even could meYoan in your world after those few attempts to barge in on a topic …

    You never had any real point regarding anything, at least not that you managed formulate properly,

    No, buddy, finding typos is the closest to ‘relevance’ you’ve ever been here

  53. #53 chek
    January 30, 2013

    It’s relevant in that it underlines your sub-standard education, and your inability to think clearly which strongly suggests a lack of ability to understand issues requiring those attributes, particularly in view of your poor grasp of English language.

  54. #54 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    I realize that I was a bit unfair to Stu in my last comment.

    His actual relevance here is more than his clinging to typos and such ,,,

    He actually (but inadvertently) does a good job exposing the nutty level found here, and helping others to expose themselves. For instance when Jeff Harvey (who would like to see him self and even more to be seen, as very ‘competent’) claims ‘Stu nailed it’ in yet another of his nonsense statements.

    The guys here arguing ‘support’ from one another, even as the core of their argument (at times) really espose the level found here. And Stu is one of the better standard-setting indicators for that

  55. #55 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    chek … do you even believe your own drivel? Do you even read your own comments?

    What was you most on-topic contribution here? That glaciers are receeding? I think you even thought that threatened fresh water supply for millions …

    :-)

    Well if it’s any consolation, lots of lots of nutters believed similar things .. just because they had been repeated many times by other nutty believers.

  56. #56 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    The only recourse for Joan is to close this thread and ban the deluded nutcase.

  57. #57 chek
    January 30, 2013

    On topic Jonarse?

    From the troll whose main purpose here is to vainly (in both senses) snipe like an ant with a peashooter at the ankles of Jeff H and climate scientists in general?

    Do you even comprehend what the majority of your comments are about and how petty and stupid they make you look?

  58. #58 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    chek …

    “From the troll whose main purpose here is to vainly (in both senses) snipe like an ant with a peashooter at the ankles”

    says the troll whose strongest argument spells ‘Jonarse’
    I might have been mistaken, but I am pretty sure it was you who linked to three images, of steam/smoke and glaciers

    Heavy stuff …

    :-)

  59. #59 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    Jeff is harrangoing on about ‘the primary literature’ again ..

    However, when one asks for it (concerning eg that most prominent AR4 claim) or reading it in the rare event that one of the believers actually claims to have seen such claimed reserach … he scurries away or even derails over one of his own and many fantasies again.

    It’s such a joke

  60. #60 Jeff Harvey
    January 30, 2013

    CVs of Jonas and me

    Name: Jonas N
    Nationality: Swedish
    Age: I act like I am105 but I am younger
    Occupation: Can’t say out of embarrassment
    Professional Qualifications: None of your business but better than anyone elsé’s
    Scientific Background: Also none of your business but again I am a genius and know more than anyone else

    Me:
    Name: Jeff Harvey
    Nationality: British-Canadian
    Age: 55
    Occupation: Senior Scientist
    Professional Qualifications: BSc 1991; PhD 1995, 3 Post-docs 1995-1999; Associate Editor Nature 1999; Senior Scientist NIOO-KNAW 2000-present
    Scientific Qualifications: 126 peer-reviewed papers; h-factor 31; 2833 citations

    I have asked Jonas to fill in the blanks so many times I have lost count. So go ahead and make your comparison above who is the ‘real scientist’ and who is the wannabe (unless Jonas N proves otherwise).

    If I am not a real scientist, then every peer-reviewer of my work, every scientist I have collaborated with etc. must be making a mistake.

    As for post # 59, I recall Bernard, Wow, Lionel and others putting more than 200 scientific papers in front of Jonas and not a single one has been discussed by him except to be summarily dismissed. We all know that Jonas is not interested in discussing these articles – he’s lazy and expects us to go through them cutting and pasting the required bits for him to ridicule and dismiss. This has been his ‘debating’ strategy all along, if one can call it that.

    Oh, and to ridicule me as having no scientific pedigree until I presented my qualifications to him thereafter being constantly accused of ‘CV waving’. Old Jonas forgets how one builds up a CV to ‘wave’ in the first place. In my case through education and research. Two things he appears to lack.

  61. #61 Stu
    January 30, 2013

    Yes, Jonas, I took six years of physics in high school. That’s all. I’m not claiming that that makes my education better than anyone else’s here — that’s you.

    You claim you have an education better suited to “real” science than all of us. Put up or shut up. What is your education, Jonas?

  62. #62 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    Yes Jeff .. once more your CV ..

    But it’s still not an argument for anything here. And strictly mine isn’t either. That’s one of the reasons I don’t bring it up.

    And you (again) need to make up your own facts as you have been since day one. Why is this so central to your ‘method’ to your argument?

    And bringing up the nutters Wow, Bernard and their ‘list of twohundred papers’ they certainly haven’t read is just a farce.

    What is it with your nutters here? Copy-pasting a long reference list as a challenge?

    What idiocy is that? I was and still am asking if there is one single person who has read and understood that alleged actual science underpinning that most prominent (in)famous AR4 claim.

    And nobody has! Only a very few have even claimed that they’ve seen, read and understood it, prepared to argue its merits. But when put to the task they all faltered, they never came through ..

    This has been the case since 2007, and I have asked many believers since shortly after. None! Absolutely none can produce the science that allegedly establishes this 90% certainty claim.

    Jeff cheers on the sheer nonsense copy-pasted lists by Wow and Bernard, and says I am the lazy one!? What an utter joke Jeff!
    And (again) contrary to your claim, I have read those references when I deemed that they seriously were put forward as dealing with the core of that AR4-claim.

    And by ‘serious’ I mean people who not like Wow, Bernard or your Jeff, disqualify themselves by piling up utter nonsense for days and weeks (now years).

    And it may irritate you to the core, but I can and do read those and also quite quickly see if they at all attempt to do what was claimed by those who put it forward.

    Again, me doing what I say I do and doing it properly, in your twisted world becomes an accusation!? What a lazy and sloppy argument!

    It doesn’t work that way, Jeff! If you don’t agree with me, you have to argue the case. And since you never do, never can, I must assume that you are just mouthing of as an old bad habit, since there never is any substance behind it when you want to contradict.

    And that is very likely also the reason that you all the time want to switch topic to something, and are preoccupied with the silliest things imaginable, most of them sheer fantasy products ..

    And you are once more misstating the facts, or have completely forgotten, or are just habitually lying: Your first presentation to me here was:

    “As a senior scientist watching from the sideline …”

    No Jeff, as usual you get it wrong. I don’t have problem with the existence of your CV. However, it doesn’t constitute an arguemt for anything (except its existence). It doesn’t impress me, it is not relevant, and is invalid as an argument for anything. Further, people trying invalid arguments don’t impress me at all. Rather the opposite, they come off less convincing than others who just honestly can say, they disagree (without arguing why). And someone who for a year and a half angrily waves his CV in most comments quite convicingly to me shows he doesn’t have any real arguments regarding the matter. And you don’t!

    Not even the simplest observations (what total shift vs present conditions it would require for Hansens ‘predictions’ to come true) can you understand even if they are spelt out for you in front of you. And instead we hear the tired old:

    Hansens CV is so long and fine, therefore he must be right and you wrong ..

    You really cannot argue anything at all, since you all the time need to return the the silly idea that your CV or others somehow settle things in the real world. In reality, wrt to nature and the laws of physics!

    It doesn’t work that way, and never did!

    And I have asked you much more pertinent questions that you, Stu, and the Wows and Bernards of Deltoid.

    I have asked you if you in your day job manage to be less sloppy with facts and logic, if you are an entirely different person when you do what you label as ‘science’ …

    And you couldn’t even affirm the positive …

    Well sorry Jeff, but I must assume that what you are showing here is the real Jeff. And convincing he is not. Most of the time he isn’t even trying, just shouting ..

    And the really sad thing is that I have to tell you what you aren’t allowed to do in science, and what arguments aren’t science or scientific, and what logic is false, and what you need to keep your eyes on when arguing a specific points. Simple things pertaining to real science Jeff ..

  63. #63 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    Stu …

    I guess it’s a language thing. People saying that they have studied a discipline for several years … in my world went to college or university and studied them as an active choice and out of interest.

    Someone having classes at highschool, I would describe as someone who went to school. And most of the time highschool kids aren’t really into it, into the learing things for real in order to master them, as a professional preparation.

    But you are being untruthful again: You have many times tried to tell me what I cannot … even what topics are ‘closed to me’. Which is/was quite amazing given the level you are at.

    But yes, what I argue here, what I critcize, the things I put forward .. all of them (apart from the length bickering with the trolls here) are based on professional background, extensive experience, and rock solid education.

    All of them!

    That doesn’t mean that I wont make mistakes. But I have no problem, like any real professional, admitting and correcting errors …

    Too bad only that I have seen almost no professional individuals arguing anything here!

    Sad!

  64. #64 Stu
    January 30, 2013

    Yes Jeff .. once more your CV .. But it’s still not an argument for anything here. And strictly mine isn’t either. That’s one of the reasons I don’t bring it up.

    Obvious and stupid lie. You claimed your education was better suited for “real” science. Jeff provided his, I’ve provided mine, where is yours?

    You made the assertion, weasel. Back it up. What is your education, Jonas?

  65. #65 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    But it’s still not an argument for anything here

    well apart from all your pishing about with your claims of how much smarter you are and how Jeff isn’t a scientist (which, being something on your CV can be shown a priori to be the case by “waving the CV around”.

    You know, that argument you keep bringing up.

    So, apart from that argument you keep bringing up about how much a scientist everyone is or is not, the CV showing Jeff is by occupation a scientist has nothing to do with any argument here.

    So maybe you should stop blathering on about it, hmm?

  66. #66 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    Stu, Jeff, et al, there’s no point asking Joan for his CV, he doesn’t have one.

    He didn’t go to school, didn’t learn anything other than what his pappy taught him (and what he picked up at TrollsRUs, teabagger wing).

    He has no education.

    None.

    Which is why you don’t need to ask him to show you his. Since it doesn’t exist, of course he can’t show it.

    So don’t bother asking.

    Just show that you HAVE been educated. Despite his claims to the contrary.

  67. #67 Stu
    January 30, 2013

    There are two ways out of this for Jonas:

    1) He provides his educational background
    2) He retracts his statement that his education is better suited for “real” science

    Anything else is weaseling.

  68. #68 Wow
    January 30, 2013

    Face it, neither will happen.

    #1 there’s nothing there.
    #2 he’s wedded to the idea he’s important.

    Which is why he doesn’t think he’s a weasel.

    You’ll just have to face it, the boy’s an idiot.

  69. #69 pentaxZ
    January 30, 2013

    stu, who allegedly studied physics for six years. Here’s a question for you. Did you actually learn anything during these six years?

    And jeffie, if I’m not mistaken, somewhere above you call yourself a “climate scientist”. But your impressive (not) CV says your are a biologist. To my knowledge a biologist is hardly the same as a climate scientist. In other words, you’re lying. The question is, why?

  70. #70 Jonas N
    January 30, 2013

    Stu, that is correct: My education i better suited .. And every time any relevant details actually have been discusssed I have proven this.

    Particularly when telling Jeff where he wnt wrong. If you were not able to see or understand this, this might depend on you not having any clue either ,,,

    As I said, my education is way above that, way above what I bring up here, and what I ever have been challenged about.

    You might know that the only one challengening me has been luninous with his nonsense physics, and a few others who really couldnt argue their case … and I don’t count you among those ..

    You asked about my background!? And I have told you long ago that what I have studied is way above attending classes in highschool … I had to attend for many years without really wanting to learn anything. Way above!

    What is your problem there? You aren’t even challening that ..

  71. #71 chek
    January 30, 2013

    Incredible.

    Oh and p.s. PantieZ, Jeff H has been at pains to point out he isn’t a climate scientist, but that even with his background he defers to the opinion of climate scientists. Like most sane people do, apart of course from you extreme right wing nutters whose insanity has them gullibly believing it’s all a left wing plot.
    In other words, you’re lying.
    The question is, why?
    Don’t answer that, because the answer is it’s all you’ve got to serve your corporate masters with. Just like your vague, woolly-minded fuckwit guru there.

  72. #72 Stu
    January 31, 2013

    pentax:

    And jeffie, if I’m not mistaken, somewhere above you call yourself a “climate scientist”.

    [Citation seriously needed]

    Jonas:

    Stu, that is correct: My education i [sic] better suited .. And every time any relevant details actually have been discusssed [sic] I have proven this.

    Only in your puny little mind. You don’t understand English, physics, math (especially statistics), logic and many, many other things.

    You are baldly asserting that your education is better. Are you seriously trying to say that you don’t have to back that up by actually sharing what your education is because of your performance in this thread?

    I sure hope not. You have been hopelessly wrong about just about every subject you have attempted to address. Of course, you’ll close the circle by saying that those topics were not “relevant” in Jonas-land. This is where your pathological delusions achieve full epistemic closure, and this is where I am now drawing the line.

    Particularly when telling Jeff where he wnt [sic] wrong.

    All you’ve told Jeff is how much it doesn’t matter that he is a scientist. If you think that counts, well, that’s a Jonas problem.

    If you were not able to see or understand this, this might depend on you not having any clue either ,,, [sic]

    Ah yes, yet another magical thing only Jonas with his superior intellect and education can understand. See, Jonas, we’re just DYING to know what that education is! Maybe, maybe, when we grow up, we can follow in your illustrious footsteps! All we need to know is where you got that marvelous education! I mean, if it is so superior, if it made you THIS smart, why would you not want to share it with the world? All we’d need to do is attend those magical illustrious institutions, and then even us plebes might be able to understand all those magical things you know but are unwilling to share!

    Why won’t you share, Jonas? Why are you so selfish?

    As I said, my education is way above that, way above what I bring up here, and what I ever have been challenged about.

    Holy crap. You must have throngs of scientists grovelling at your feet to grab just a nugget of your incomparable wisdom when you deign to impart some. Where is this happening, Jonas?

    You might know that the only one challengening [sic] me has been luninous [sic] with his nonsense physics, and a few others who really couldnt [sic] argue their case … and I don’t count you among those ..

    Amongst which ones, Jonas? So I am not amongst those who cannot argue their case? That must mean that I can, right? Or are you yet again re-inventing the English language, in all your splendorous magnificence?

    You asked about my background!? And I have told you long ago that what I have studied is way above attending classes in highschool …

    We know, Jonas. Your background must be absolutely awesome. All I’m asking is for you to share the bounty, the wonder that is the education of Jonas.

    I had to attend for many years without really wanting to learn anything. Way above!

    So wait, someone made you attend classes, but you didn’t want to learn anything? Well, that would explain quite a bit.

    But do share, Jonas. Way above! you say? I tremble with anticipation.

    What is your problem there? You aren’t [sic] even challening [sic] that ..

    I am challenging EXACTLY that, you dimwitted douche-canoe.

    What is your educational background, Jonas?

  73. #73 Olaus Petri
    January 31, 2013

    Dear Stu, it goes without saying that Jonas, in certain areas, has knowledge far above yours and Jeffie’s. He has proven that over and over again. How could his formal education and diplomas add more credibility to his correct analyses of vital claims in climate scientology?

    If you don’t understand its probably because you think that your high school education is good enough to understand real science. But hey, why don’t you ask Jonas to elborate instead of going fetal? I’m sure you understand that Jonas diplomas can’t help you understand what you obviously have no clue about?

    Oh, sorry, he already did – many, many times. ;-)

  74. #74 GSW
    January 31, 2013

    @stu

    I’ve no idea about Jonas educational background, but he did get his physics correct. One of the guys on your team repeatedly tried to equate force (mdv/dt) and momentum (mv), Jonas pointed out that the analysis was just “gibberish”, which unfortunately it was. The dimensions were just wrong for one thing, a bit like answering the question,

    Q How much do you weigh? A. about quarter of an hour..

    You can’t express a mass in units of time, not only is the answer wrong it doesn’t even make sense!

    The surprising thing was the number of CAGWers who then leaped to the defence of the “gibberish”, claiming it was correct! Quite distressing to watch. Any claim that Jonas makes about his education being “better suited” has been more than adequately supported by discussions here.

  75. #75 chek
    January 31, 2013

    “He has proven that over and over again.”

    No, he most definitely has not . He’s asserted it, which isn’t the same thing at all, and it’s not a substitute.

    “How could his formal education and diplomas add more credibility to his correct analyses of vital claims in climate scientology”

    Ah – so he’s attacking an imaginary target that you nutters confuse with actual science. That makes much more sense.

    “But hey, why don’t you ask Jonas to elborate ”

    Yeah, why doesn’t he “elborate”? Whatever that is. On the other hand he could elaborate – but he won’t.

    “Oh, sorry, he already did – many, many times”.

    Not here he didn’t. Perhaps you’re confusing your nocturnal wet dreams with reality? It wouldn’t be the first time would it Olap.

  76. #76 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    chek …

    You are also one of those believing things on blind faith .. aren’t you? And disbelieving when you just want things to be different ..

    As I’ve said many times: Those are absolutely lousy methods to assess almost anything …

    And still you guys try it over and over again … with the same result. But then again, this is Deltoid … and there is a reason for you hanging here repeating your faith to one another

  77. #77 chek
    January 31, 2013

    The thing is Jonarse, you’re mantra goes down well with those of an IQ typical to PantieZ, GSW and Olap but it’s a fantasy world you’re describing.

    There are many areas of the modern world which we cannot have individual expertise in – nobody can, and the sane approach is to respect the opinion of those who do have expertise.

    Not everyone thinks that of course, which is why there are so many homeopaths and quack doctors and quack scientists and quack political hacks to exploit that, but the one common factor they have is they’re outside the envelope of mainstream opinion. Rather like Climate Scam and all the other astroturf sites promoting quack climate science by self-proclaimed quack climate experts with a thin to non-existent success rate in publishing. You claim to have the expertise, but no evidence for it has ever been produced nor is it the least bit evident in your language or abilities to express.

    You say you can’t locate attribution certainties anywhere in AR4, and it has been pointed out that the figure is a summation of best opinion based on the list of papers you blithely dismiss. So – as has been pointed out ad nauseam – if you want to challenge the figure, you’ll have to take the work supporting it apart paper by paper. Which you’re not competent enough to do, which has rather been the point here all along.

    Your claims to expertise are meaningless and false bragging no matter how much your fanclub prefers to believe otherwise, and your right wing politics have invalidated nothing. (But on the plus side, they have attracted you a less than flattering cohort of attendant idiots which illustrates the demographic of your appeal well to any interested parties).

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2013

    Excellent post, Chek. Spot on in every respect. This is what I have been saying for many months now, apparently to a brick wall of denial.

    To become an expert in any field, especially Earth and climate science, takes specialized training and many years of research. Gradually, over time, one accrues the necessary expertise to be able to verify the validity of certain theories and hypotheses. I have never, ever claimed here or anywhere that I am a climate scientist, nor that I possess the specialist training and research expertise to be able to confidently enter the field and to criticize the work of specialists in this field. I certainly can (and are) examine the ecological effects of warming, which are certainly being manifested on species, populations and communities. But I wouldn’t dare to be so arrogant as to jump head-first into the field of climate science and to belittle and smear people who did their theses and subsequent research in it, and draw conclusions opposite to theirs. Certainly not in a public forum. I would be eaten alive.

    Jonas and his acolytes hold no such reservations but only on blogs (an important point that, as they must know that they’d be cut down to size in a scientific arena). I have been merely asking Jonas what is educational qualifications are, and the way he’s weaved, dodged and evaded the question would make Barry Sanders look like and average running back.

    The reason is simple, and should be obvious by now: he has no relevant scientific background at all. Certainly not in climate science anyway, but likely not in any scientific field. He’s constantly pounded his chest in indignation over the question, getting more and more shrill in telling us how utterly brilliant he is, how much he knows more than anybody else about climate on Deltoid (hint: even more than Santer, Trenberth, Mann, Hansen et al. if one reads between the lines) whilst strangely refusing to say why most statued climate scientists would disagree with him were he to venture outside of the blogosphere.

    I am fully prepared for him to post a lengthy rebuttal to my post accusing me of lying, hand-waving, creating fantasy scenarios, waving my CV, and other usual stuff. Its all he has left in his arsenal. He positively cannot tell us what special expertise and training he has in a scientific field because he clearly does not have any. He has started saying some pretty bizarre things, like his ‘education is way above high school’ (what the hell does that mean?) and that he ‘had to attend’ (what?) for many years ‘without really wanting to’. I don’t have a clue what this means.

    I know how much his loving family here try and defend him, but this McCarthy-esque rambling is starting to unravel under metaphoric challenges from people like Edward R. Murrow. Its no small wonder we constantly evoke the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon. Jonas is a textbook case. And let’s be honest here: textbook cases of disorders are loathe to admit it.

  79. #79 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    Jeff …

    Still trying to convince yourself of your own made-up nonsens my repeating it over and over again?

    As I told you; This method does never work. And it looks really stupid!

    And you are scoring owngoals en masse

    I have been merely asking Jonas what is educational qualifications are ..

    Which is a boldfaced lie! You have spent 1½ years shouting out what you want the answer to be in almost every comment. Here again!

    And you are wrong every time. As I have told you long long ago and many times!

    What te heck is wrong with you? You aren’t even challenging the things I state, just shouting your nonsense beliefs that it must be wrong because pf your idiotic imaginations about something else! How idotic isn’t that?

    The only reason I can imagine why so many on your side are so obsessed with precisely everything else but the topic, is that you desperately want to get away from any of the core questions.

  80. #80 chek
    January 31, 2013

    And let’s be honest here: textbook cases of disorders are loathe to admit it.

    Exactly as you predicted Jeff, but also including simple comprehension failures too (simple comprehension leading by logical steps to a place the D-K doesn’t want to go).

  81. #81 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2013

    See Jonas’s last comment. He’s clearly losing it. Sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.

    First this:

    Me: I have been merely asking Jonas what his educational qualifications are ..

    Jonas: Which is a boldfaced [I think he means bald-faced but we know Jonas has an English translation problem] lie! You have spent 1½ years shouting out what you want the answer to be in almost every comment. Here again!

    Me: Check back over the past year. I have many times over (along with Stu) asked Jonas to tell us where he was educated and what his professional qualifications are, esp. those related to the topic of climate science. What do I always get in return? Well, this:

    Jonas: “Still trying to convince yourself of your own made-up nonsens my repeating it over and over again? As I told you; This method does never work. And it looks really stupid!
    And you are scoring owngoals en masse …”

    Me: Make what you will of that feeble little rant, but it does not answer my simple question. Which to repeat is, Jonas, what are your professional qualifications, training, education, whatever. And how do they relate to climate science or indeed any science? Is it really that difficult to answer? For our Swedish genius, apparently it is not only difficult, it is impossible. He must have blacked it out or have a short memory span.

    Then we get this final little spiel:

    Jonas: “What te heck is wrong with you? You aren’t even challenging the things I state, just shouting your nonsense beliefs that it must be wrong because pf your idiotic imaginations about something else! How idotic isn’t that?
    The only reason I can imagine why so many on your side are so obsessed with precisely everything else but the topic, is that you desperately want to get away from any of the core questions.

    Me: Not at all Jonas. But I believe that it is important for one to possess specialist training in a field to become an expert at it. I am not from the school that any old Tom, Dick or Harry can get interested in a complex field, read a few books on it and become a master. Otherwise, we might as well do away with universities and degrees and research schools. Certainly doing a degree and going on to do post graduate research in order to embark upon a career would be a waste of a decade or so, if you are to be trusted. I am not alone in saying that qualifications matter. I am much more likely to trust the medical opinion of a trained surgeon than a layman who has read a few books or articles online. It is you who are making bold assertions and attacking some of the world’s leading scientists. Not me. You appear supremely confident. So I’d like to know what sources you have used to become the expert that you think you are. Clearly having an education in science would be a major step. Having an educaton in climate science would even be better still.

    The fact is that the reason you don’t answer this simple question is because the ground on which you stand will collapse under you. Every response you make to me is further proof that you have no formal scientific qualifications. If you did, seeing how arrogant and self-righteous you are, you would have told us at the very beginning, let alone after almost a year and a half. This is why the question Stu and I pose stings you so much and why your answers are bitter, desperate and sarcastic. Just admit it Jonas: your great skills in science are self-taught. That’s not hard to say is it? Then tell us that your brilliance and superior intelligence are innate gifts, courtesy of your reading comprehension skills and photographic memory. Tell us that you don’t need to have been formally educated in science because you are ‘a man apart’.

    Until then, you can stew in your own juices. You have been cornered and don’t like it.

  82. #82 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    Jeff

    You have been telling me what my qualifications are! In almost every comment! Or more precisely what you wanted them to be. Or even more likely, what you would like others to believe they are. Because even you cannot possibly be that dumb that you really believe all that shite … that I have no education, traing, skills etc (or can you be that deranged, Jeff? Can you)

    Like a raving lunatic, you’ve repeated your idiocy for 1½ years. And filled the rest with childish attempted insults, and uninformed nonsense rarely ever on topic.

    The question rather is why you so desperately want to defy or deny reality? Why this is the ‘method’ you’ve chosen to hang on to your beliefs which you cannot even argue (other that that it’s faith, and you believe in what you think i authority)

    And I haven’t even challenged your faith! If this is what you want to believe, feel free. But since I know what real science is, I don’t accept faith or claims of or appeals to authority.

    And whenever I check any detail … the substance behind is often weak or speculative or unfoundend .. or worse.

    Hence, I don’t share your (ungrounded faith). And this drives you crazy. So bad that you are still shouting Jeff …

    And nothing else!

  83. #83 GSW
    January 31, 2013

    @Jonas

    Still educating the heathen Jonas?
    ;)

    @jeff

    Come off it jeff, this is the same “ploy” you’ve used all along. Rather than argue the science, you’ve taken to passing off the counterfactual bollocks you spout as being worthwhile because you are “a scientist”.

    The bad news for you is “bollocks is still bollocks” no matter what the source. Your “show me your bonafides” is just a pathetically obvious attempt to establish truth by CV.

    Truth is only arrived at thru evidence, nothing else, not by your CV, shoe size, whether you have a high fibre diet or the smoking habits of one’s relatives. Evidence jeff, Evidence. Something you have repeatedly demonstrated as being the least capable person here of actually addressing.

  84. #84 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    GSW

    The more intriguing question is why so many on the climate scare side share this treat, why their chosen method is screaming. avoiding all substance and inventing their alternate universe, while continuing to shout.

    From failed ex-VEEPs all the way down to the gutter-dwellers here at Deltoid.

    Jeff just is a more obvious ‘specimen’ of that tribe. But the behavior, the (lack of) method, the faith, the appeals to perceived authority, often not even knowing what those do say, the anger over the faith not being shared, the desperate need to levy personal attacs, to mischaracerize, to invent completely loony alternate worlds/narratives ..

    .. and also the glaring contempt for facts, logic and the truth, as well as any information not conforming with that faith.

    This is what I would expect from extremist polical cult and its followers … but none of this has any place in science.

    But honestly, I don’t think even Jeff really believes the shite he’s been pedding. Of course he is aware of his side here has not been that .. ehrm .. ‘lucky’ … with their arguments, that
    the embarrassment has been on his side … where he actively thought the likes of Wow and Stu and many others strengthened his case. He cannot be that stupid really, can he?

    :-)

  85. #85 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2013

    Sorry GSW, but arguments are more often than not based on experience and expertise which comes from having the proper education and professional qualifications.

    You only support Jonas because you share his AGW denial views. Besides, you wouldn’t know the science any more than he does, because you also are not a bonafide climate scientist. Of course being trained in an area is important. Otherwise we wouldn’t send doctors to medical school or engineers to get the proper training. You are as full of it as he is.

    You’ll notice that in the political arena very few untrained people are invited to give presentations on relevant scientific areas to government commissions. If that were the case, we’d have quacks like you and Jonas testifying before Congress. Education and professional qualifications matter and always will.

    Jonas is cornered and he knows it. Is it such a difficult question to answer where he got his professional expertise in science? It should be a snap. Let him tell us he read some books. Or reads stuff on the internet. Or else went to university the same way that most of the well known climate scientists did. Of course I trust them over Jonas because they have th pedigree to prove it.

    You guys are lost. Defeated. Its over. Jonas has – through his refusal to answer the most basic question – proved that he has no bonafides. That being the case, you expect that we have to take at face value that he is an expert from being ‘self-trained’. If this is so, then he should tell us.

    Please don’t waste any more of my valuable time with this nonsense. I went through the proper channels to get where I am and I can tell you that the 7 years it took me to get my BSc and PhD were critical. Any trained scientist will tell you the same thing. So cut the crap and try and pull another one.

    Now let me relax and let Iced Earth blast out through my speakers – far more logical than anything you or Jonas say.

  86. #86 Stu
    January 31, 2013

    Oh, how cute. Jonas gets backed into a corner and POOF goes the bat-signal to his sycophants. A few posts later, they’re mostly talking to each other. Anything for Jonas to avoid answering the simple question….

    What is your education, Jonas?

  87. #87 pentaxZ
    January 31, 2013

    “and it has been pointed out that the figure is a summation of best opinion based on the list of papers you blithely dismiss.”

    “best opinion”?

    So that’s the “science” the AR4 claim derives from? A guess? And that’s what you call “the best science avaliable”? What a joke, what a hilarious stupid joke you are. deltoid, the Foil Hats’ association Inc.

  88. #88 pentaxZ
    January 31, 2013

    jeffie

    “You’ll notice that in the political arena very few untrained people are invited to give presentations on relevant scientific areas to government commissions. If that were the case, we’d have quacks like you and Jonas testifying before Congress. Education and professional qualifications matter and always will.”

    And that of course goes for the high priest al gore as well? Oh wait, no, of course not, he is preaching the holy CAGW gospel, so he’s an exception.

  89. #89 GSW
    January 31, 2013

    @Jonas

    “He[jeff] cannot be that stupid really, can he?”

    Well yes he can. ;)

    ” I can tell you that the 7 years it took me to get my BSc and PhD were critical”

    It does help if, during those 7yrs, you actually manage to learn something, what science is and is not would have been a start. Standing in the corner saying we are all doomed, because of feelings, prejudices or just general ignorance is not science.

  90. #90 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2013

    GSW, you write as if you and the Swedish boys hold all the scientific cards. Gee, last time I looked, the vast majority of expert opinion amongst climate science and major scientific bodies was that humans are the major forcing agent behind the recent warming.

    You seem to think the outcome of the GW debate hinges over discussions involving not a single climate scientist on Deltoid. Either you are as thick as a brick or naive as hell.

    You, Jonas and PentaxZ don’t qualify. But by all means keep an eye on Deltoid in case your self-righteous hero needs to be dragged out from the pit in which he has dug himself. And as I said before, we all know the reason why Jonas won’t answer a very simple question. Its because in answering it he thinks he will lose whatever pittance of credibility he has on his own thread now. I don’t know how that is possible, given his histrionics, but if he was so confident he’d say that he doesn’t need a degree or formal education in the field of climate science to be an expert. Heck, in his refusal to answer a simple question whilst telling us over and over how smart he is, he is effectively saying that, isn’t he?

    You three clowns can stick on your sinking ship. You belong together.

  91. #91 chek
    January 31, 2013

    So that’s the “science” the AR4 claim derives from? A guess?

    This is where your low IQ and lack of education lets you down PantieZ.

    A “guess” is not the same as an informed opinion based on observed data and calculated probabilities, no more than your brain surgeon’s “guess” would be that removing a tumour might save your life. And multiple informed opinions also based on those criteria are safer than a single one. Of course the statistics involved in making the call are beyond you (and me) so your understanding is very limited if the extent of your normal guessing is what you might have for dinner tomorrow.

    Possessing the knowledge to make the call is important too of course – and you don’t get it from reading blogs. Especially not the shit ones you read PantieZ.

  92. #92 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    Jeff, you utter moron …

    Is there anything you can even read correctly?

    How can anybody claim to be a ‘scientist’ who cannot even read, comprehend and correctly address simple short comments hardly of any technical complexity? Is misinterpretation anad misrepresentation another one of your (anti-) ‘scientific’ methods?

    Is there anything you can manage here Jeff? Anything at all?

    I’ve asked you five times (or more) what you meant my allegedly ‘earth shattering views’ here, since you’ve returned to that many times. No answer!

    (You probably don’t even know what you meant yourself. Just the usual incoherent mouth frothing … )

  93. #93 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2013

    Jonas, You are an AGW denier. Or at the very least an AGW down-player. You have attacked scientists with years of experience in the field. That alone takes remarkable hubris. Unless, of course, you are also an esteemed expert in the field.

    So, given your confidence in attacking people with scientific pedigree, I simply asked what relevant qualifications you possess.

    Apparently, given your immutable self-belief, I’d expect nothing less from you than to be able to answer this extremely simple question. Shock! Horror! You can’t! Or, more likely, you won’t.

    Why not? Don’t give that b* that it isn’t relevant. That’s your get-out-of-jail free card. Of course its relevant. If every person who thought they were experts in various fields was taken seriously, then the world would be in a worse mess than it already is.

  94. #94 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    chek … #5777
    Your comments have hardly been IQ-appealing or IQ-revealing kind.

    But if you are a ware of or have realized that this most pprominent AR4-claim never was based on real science, but rather should be seen as the opinion of a range of individuals who believe that they are expert opiners …

    .. then that would be a huge step forward.

    It is (by now) bleeding obvious that those very specific and quantified claims are not (and cannot be viewed as) scientific claims or veryfiable facts. Because there is no science behind it that can be checked and evaluated by others.

    And that was my contention the whole time: That this claim isn’t based on real science that anybody has seen. That acceptence of the claim is at best faith in the ability of others to guess correctly ..

    And you might have what massive derailment this caused at Deltoid! And I didn’t even point this out, I just asked if anybody has seen the science behind this, and asked to see it, pointed towards it, preferably by someone who had seen, read, understood it and could argue the merits after I too had read it.

    And what followed is history! 1½ years of the silliest shouting game and worst denial you can imagine, even by people who call themselves scientists.

    And this of course elucidates the obvious: Not everything said in the name of so called ‘climate science’ is really science. And I’d say even less is real and proper science.

    But you bozos just can’t handle the facts. But that’s hardly my fault or problem … is it?

  95. #95 Lionel A
    January 31, 2013

    Jonas and his alternative universe:

    …and uninformed nonsense rarely ever on topic.

    So O’clever one, what is the ‘on’ topic here?

    …all the way down to the gutter-dwellers here at Deltoid.

    Well, to be sure, we sometimes have to get down to your level. Which is unfortunate as you are one of the pigs who likes wrestling in it. How else could this thread keep going?
    And as for froth, more than enough evidence of rabid mouthings from you.

    BTW Jonas, GSW, Pentax &co. our position comes from understanding it is yours that is based on faith (that you for ever harp on about – keep practising, harp skills may be of some use to you in the future). That is the only possible explanation Occam’s Razor and all that.

  96. #96 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    Jeff

    I noted long ago that peole (like yourself) who throw around terms like ‘denier’ or ‘creationist’ or ‘fossil fuel funded’ or ‘tobacco lobby’ or ‘Dunning Kruger’ etc ..

    .. that they have absolutely zip to contribute in any discussion about the climate. Nothing! The only thing they can do is repeat things they (think they’ve) hear or read. Often the silliest things you can imagine.

    I think you, to date, have been the best demonstration of that observation. And for this I am thankful. The best demonstration, but among very many. And not once has my hypothesis been falsified.

    The reason is quite simple, I think: Those who really believe that asking legitimate scientific questions, pointing out that there are huge holes in the argument or hypothesis, bringing up facts and observations that don’t confirm or, disagree with or even falsify the ‘consensus’- hypothesis, never were trained in real science anyway. Just the fact that they believe a ‘consensus’ somehow qualifies as a scientific argument is laughable. And when it’s a false consensus, even more so.

    Another thing you should learn is that questioning and challenging claims made by other scientists is a central part of science. Your eternal demands that things should be just accepted, and on top of that, your interpretations (that would be your beleifs) because the alleged expertise of certain individuals of your choice … that’s just laughable too.

    This has absolutely no place in science. None. Science neither deals with beliefs nor with consensus or any other majority decisons. Real science is based on observations, on testing hypotheses, checking if they can be used for consistent predictions, and on falsification. Science actually progresses by falsifying hyptheses that don’t hopd up.

    But I’ve told you all this already. But you don’t seem to get it. Here you are 1½ years later, still arguing that ‘authority’ (wich in your case seems to equal CV) is how scientific matters are both debated and settled. Bu they are not! Never were and never will be!

    Get this into your head .. because otherwise I will remind you of this, as of course every real scientist around you would do anyway, wouldn’t they Jeff?

    ;-)

  97. #97 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    Lionel A

    I seem to recall that you adamantly argued that (at least a part of Sandy) could positively be attributed to human activities, ans more specifically CO2 emissions.

    And you now say that your position ‘comes from understanding’!?

    If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that signature ‘chek’ here, whose strongest argument so far spelt ‘Jonarse’ actually said something sensible. Incidentally something sensible I said here alreadyu 1½ years ago. Namely:

    That this prominent AR4 claim about attribution certainty is not a scientifically established and quantified statement, but it should be viewed as an expression of opinion, and opinion of those who some say should be regardes as the finest opiners on the matter …

    But nevertheless an opinion.

    And I agree. And this was by far the most sensible thing chek has said, at least in my presence.

  98. #98 chek
    January 31, 2013

    Real science is based on observations, on testing hypotheses, checking if they can be used for consistent predictions, and on falsification.

    Yawn, yes Jonarse, the problem is that your lowly level of intelligence doesn’t permit you to comprehend what that actually means. Nor can you say how climate science doesn’t meet those criteria. Your idiocy is critically limiting your ability to think clearly, all of which is only compounded by your lack of education. .

  99. #99 Stu
    January 31, 2013

    Jonas, you claimed your education is superior. Back up that assertion or retract it, you pathetic coward.

    What is your education?

  100. #100 Jonas N
    January 31, 2013

    chek ..

    Of course I know what it means. It means that you cannot make claims like the one in the AR4 SPM and say it’s based on science.

    And as I have told you guys more than once. My educations is more than sufficient. Heck, I have been telling you guys how it’s done, and more importantly how it isn’t. How it never must be done.

    And it is cute how many of you seem utterly obsessed with my intelligence and the minute details of my education. And spend months and years guessing, speculating and trying to conjure up an alternate reality …

    How is that working for you? And do you eve know why?

Current ye@r *