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 Olaus Petri
    January 31, 2013

    An authoritarian mind like Jeffie’s is gullible. Its predisposition for “direct action” makes it prone to embrace without question anything that sounds “good”. As long as there is something evil around, no questions asked! True to form Jeffie also invents something “evil” that lies in the way for his “utopia”. This obstable, in turn, justifies and enhance his strong and hateful lithanies. I’m sure Adorno would have had a field day with the him and the rest of the deltoid pack. ;-)

    The result of Jeffie’s “thought process” resemblence very much the outcome of the commie way of pointing out enemies. The commies see something good far, far away, but something really, really bad is blocking the path: The evil blood sucking superstructure of capitalism (bourgoisie and banking) which exploits and opress the good proletariat.

    But they don’t only hate only “capitalists” (whatever that is). Its worse than that. Since the definition of “superstructure” is an abstraction of the historically constructed quality ot the Jew, they don’t flinch when there fight agianst the “superstructure” takes ethnic shape – pogroms.

  2. #2 chek
    January 31, 2013

    Have you ever considered admitting yourself to psychiatric care, Olap? Your thought processes are all over the place.

  3. #3 Olaus Petri
    January 31, 2013

    Dear Chek, my thought process is very clear and on target, thank you. Antything wrong with it? Or are you just angry with me again for not mentioning your name?

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2013

    Chek,

    Agreed.

    Look at the last posting by Olaus. Pure drivel. Says nothing. But hardly surprising that a whackjob like this is on the side of Jonas. Par for the course.

  5. #5 pentaxZ
    January 31, 2013

    Ah, a new book written by a warmist. And what does Dieter Helm say?

    “Well, disaster? Is climate change really the threat that many people say it is? Helm notes that the public has become more sceptical in this regard – or more fatalistic, with the same effect. To his credit, he does not blame the “climate sceptics” or ExxonMobil for this. On the contrary, ‘green’ NGO’s and climate scientists deserve a lot of the blame, as they are frequently guilty of alarmist predictions and pretending to be certain about inherently uncertain things.”

    Read that again, “…pretending to be certain about inherently uncertain things”

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/30/wave-of-climate-science-criticism-dieter-helms-new-book-calls-global-climate-policy-outright-failure/

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    January 31, 2013

    Pentax linking to another outrageously crappy denier web site.

    Get a life, P. Is this all you do? Surf through the denier sites all day to feed your ignorance?

  7. #7 chek
    January 31, 2013

    It’s their faith against all the evidence that the deniers are correct, even when it’s plain what the denier sites do to present that conclusion. Creating your own reality has become the psychosis of the right wing, which is why it attracts such headcases.

  8. #8 Stu
    January 31, 2013

    My educations is more than sufficient.

    Oh, the irony….

    And it is cute how many of you seem utterly obsessed with my intelligence and the minute details of my education.

    Wait, what? You’re the one carping about how superior it all is. All you need to do to prove that is share, Jonas.

    What is your education?

  9. #9 Stu
    January 31, 2013

    Umm Olaus:

    Since the definition of “superstructure” is an abstraction of the historically constructed quality ot the Jew, they don’t flinch when there fight agianst the “superstructure” takes ethnic shape – pogroms.

    You are saying that this strikes you as a coherent and sane sentence?

  10. #10 pentaxZ
    February 1, 2013

    And yet another posting from a bad site. My guess, no one from the regulars will touch the topic:

    “The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

  11. #11 pentaxZ
    February 1, 2013

    More:

    “There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html

  12. #12 pentaxZ
    February 1, 2013

    “If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the
    “Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role.”

  13. #13 Jonas N
    February 1, 2013

    Stu

    Whenever there is somebody who is actually discussing, debating or challenging various relevant on-topic issues here ..

    .. I not only back up that assertion, I demonstrate it and what it’s worth.

    At one point you were standing right next to it, even dared to chirp in on a corner (about a hand pushing a box etc).

    I showed there and then exactly what it was worth, and effortlessly so. And everybody was allowed to see it. Live and first hand. I also demonstrated (indirectly) various holes and gaps, and lack of understanding among a few others by making them ‘show their hand’ .. you were there too.

    That most certainly is not all I can do, but it is nevertheless important. Because if you want to do science (or only discuss it) you need to be exactly as meticulous and rigorous with the details as I was (and others weren’t).

    Point is: If you are sloppy like that on one detail, when your are doing or arguing science, the whole endevour loses all its value and essentially becomes meaningless.

  14. #14 Olaus Petri
    February 1, 2013

    Sorry Stu, my hand was pushing a box. I’m sure you know how it is. ;-)

    And Imelda Harvey keeps on living inhis own little world. :-)

  15. #15 Stu
    February 1, 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?

  16. #16 Stu
    February 1, 2013

    Pentax, do you know what false equivalence is?

  17. #17 Olaus Petri
    February 1, 2013

    Stu, I’ll help you out of your misery. Read after me: “Sorry Jonas, I was way out of line with the hand-box thing. My understanding of physics wasn’t up to par and I made a fool out of myself. Can we please stop talking about it?”

    There! :-)

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    February 1, 2013

    “And Imelda Harvey keeps on living inhis own little world”

    Its a lot bigger than yours, pal…

  19. #19 Olaus Petri
    February 1, 2013

    Please stop bragging about your shoe rack Imelda! ;-)

  20. #20 pentaxZ
    February 1, 2013

    stu, do you know what science is?

  21. #21 pentaxZ
    February 1, 2013

    Oooops. Does anybody think that this finding will remain in the ground? An abundance of fresh hydrocarbons just waiting to be used. Jummy!

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-gas-extraction-methods-alter-global-balance-of-power-a-880546.html

  22. #22 Stu
    February 1, 2013

    Olaus, I already explained the hand-box thing here. I’m sorry you are unable to understand it. But do tell us more about pogroms, it was fascinating.

    pentax:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_States

  23. #23 Jonas N
    February 1, 2013

    Nope Stu … but I’ll gladly remind you again:

    You carefully avoided the core part, the one were you imagined that others argued different speeds among hand/box. And why you kept claiming they did, when in fact the’d told you the exact opposite within minutes.

    You still are in denial about this one (too). Trying to blame others for your own nonsense.

    Further Stu, in order to explain something you need to both know and understand, but also master it well. Regarding physics and math, there is no discussion at all. But it seems that you don’t even master your own thought processes, since you are unable to explain even your own ‘arguments’ …

    But that’s OK, Stu. It is not very difficult to accept the notion that you don’t really know and understand your own thoughts. Rather, it makes more sense reading your many comments keeping that in mind.

    For instance: I not onlyu answered your questions, I demonstrated the veracity several times, in your presence even (partly) directed at you.

    The one where you couldn’t see anything wrong …

    It’s funny (but understandable given your predicament) that you really were completely unable to see anything wrong, even after it was pointed out in detail …

    Maybe it’s no wonder you imagine all kinds of stuff where understanding even the simpler terms and preconditions only are vague and nebulous words and phrases ..

    Such a complete lack of self awareness and comprehension would also explain why someone like you even thinks he can tell me anything at all in a slightly technical discussion here …

    Without some deficiency of that (or simila) kind, any rational being would stop making such fools out of themselves, if not after a few attempts.

    Even our own Jeffie here is very careful never to go near any topics. And he for one thinks that CVs and formal dimplomas etc not only are important, but settle scientific matters and decide what are ‘facts’ …

    But then Jeffie, who thinks that a formal education and a displayed CV are so important, without hesitation proclaimed:

    Stu nailed it !

    When our Stu here, pulled yet another nonsense statement out of his (thinfoil?) hat ..

    It’s just hilarious! But then again, being consistent in almost any of ‘arguments’ being pulled up here … is asking for a little too much.

    No wonder you guys landed where you did … Deltoid is the right place for you …

    :-)

  24. #24 chek
    February 1, 2013

    “But then Jeffie, who thinks that a formal education and a displayed CV are so important, ”

    Give it a rest Jonarse. You are the one proclaiming having a superior education that somehow magically allows you to discount the science underlying AGW.

    The only problem here is that your claim is not believable.

    Doubling down and relying on your moron army echo chamber to agree with you is fooling nobody. You’re treated as an incompetent nutter idiot because that’s what the actual existing evidence provided by thousands of your own words clearly describes.

    I also consider you in light of your constant evasion to be a liar and your education (as has been readily apparent from the start) is way, way less than the ‘superior’ that YOU constantly claim it to be. Therefore it’s not unreasonable to ask in what way. Not that you claiming some unprovable and outlandish CV will make the slightest bit of difference to your previous poorly expressed gibberish.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    February 1, 2013

    Pentax quoting from another NoValue site:

    “The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?”

    WTF! As opposed to this Shocker? Psychotic Billionaires Fund Climate Denial which is not news to most of us which is not news with the only quibble I have with the title element being Shocker?’ – probably used as irony, and is only one source of the funding.

    Also what do you think keeps the Science and Public Policy lying hounds in business?

    You lot really are ignorant simpletons.

  26. #26 pentaxZ
    February 1, 2013

    Yawn, stu. You’re so 2012. No different enviromental issue with fracking than with conventional energy sources. CAGW propaganda is what it is. You seriously believe America won’t use shale oil? Dumbass.

  27. #27 pentaxZ
    February 1, 2013

    Sorry lionel, but one can’t rely only in scs or rc for news and information. They only serve CAGW propaganda. But hey, pseudoscienceblogs do just that.

  28. #28 chek
    February 1, 2013

    “They only serve CAGW propaganda scientific research. But hey, strike>pseudoscienceblogs blog posts by world renowned research scientists do just that!.

    FTFY PantieZ.
    Way to go – stating the bleedin’ obvious, once the denier filter is removed.

  29. #29 chek
    February 1, 2013

    “They only serve CAGW propaganda scientific research. But hey, pseudoscienceblogs blog posts by world renowned research scientists do just that!.

    FTFY PantieZ.
    Way to go – stating the bleedin’ obvious, once the denier filter is removed.

  30. #30 chek
    February 1, 2013

    Third time lucky….
    “They only serve CAGW propaganda scientific research. But hey, pseudoscienceblogs blog posts by world renowned research scientists do just that!.

    FTFY PantieZ.
    Way to go – stating the bleedin’ obvious, once the denier filter is removed….. and not something your pal Jonarse will ever be able to claim in a million years.

  31. #31 pentaxZ
    February 2, 2013

    Hahaha….guys, your panic is shining through.

    “…by world renowned cheating research scientists.”

    Closer to the truth.

  32. #32 chek
    February 2, 2013

    That’s a slander you love to believe in because you’e a wingnut moron. But it’s impossible for you to prove, because it’s not true.

    That’s the fantasy world you’re living in, PantieZ.

  33. #33 pentaxZ
    February 2, 2013

    James Annan:

    ”The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action”

    Says a lot, doesn’t it?

  34. #34 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    But then Jeffie, who thinks that a formal education and a displayed CV are so important,

    I told you lads, and now Joan has said it: he doesn’t HAVE any education.

    The boy is simply an idiot.

  35. #35 pentaxZ
    February 2, 2013

    James Annan continues:

    “Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported ”this is what we think, because we asked our pals”. It’s essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing ”la la la I can’t hear you”.

  36. #36 chek
    February 2, 2013

    “Says a lot, doesn’t it?”

    Yes – it says that science is self correcting.

    Wow – yes, ‘formal’ is the giveaway.

  37. #37 pentaxZ
    February 2, 2013

    Proper science that is. Not “science” the Team style.

  38. #38 chek
    February 2, 2013

    S’funny – I thought James Annan was on ‘the team’.

  39. #39 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    in other words, panties says ”la la la I can’t hear you”.

    you define proper science as “that which you like”.

    Extremely stupid.

  40. #40 Jonas N
    February 2, 2013

    chek …

    Again, you are holding the mirror upside down, and missing the plot.

    I am not the one obsessing about having to show my CV as apart of the argument. That would be one of the faith-shouters.

    And the point was that the same shouter immedeately jumped on the assertion of one of the other demonstrably uneducated shouters, with: “Stu nailed it ..”

    And you are lie up with Wow here, who is (if possible) even more behind the curve.

    That ‘belief’ is what you go by, however, does make all the sense. You have been writing all kinds of nutty idiotic beliefs you somehow want to be accurate. But I doubt you even believe it yourself. People just aren’t that crazy as almot all your comments indicate. If you did worry about idiotic rantings, You would most certainly not bring up Wow as your argument …

    But inconsequential own goals is what you can perform here .. and silly childish attempts at insults.

    For instance, look at Jeff. He has been trying that silly Dunning-Kruger stuff almost since day one. And if there wever were any DK-candidates, those would be luminous and Stu. Whol tried and tried and tried arguing stuff they had no grasp of ..

    And Jeff jumps right in with them … DK-ranting Jeff … It’s just hilarious what you guys manage.

    Nad you guys somehow think you can judge real science? And determin what is relevant and not? Guessing and believing … and cussing and shouting. Like little children …

  41. #41 Jonas N
    February 2, 2013

    Lionel

    You claimed to ‘understand’ things, and even tried to be cocky about (whatever you think is and you call) your ‘understanding’

    But you quote Peter Sinclair and his ClimateCrocks? (You’ve tried SkSc and other similar activist sites too).

    No wonder you are so far off the mark, and are unable to argue deal with almost any issue, and only refer back such sources … That’s like refering to Deltoid as an authoritative source for anything about real science …

  42. #42 Stu
    February 2, 2013

    I am not the one obsessing about having to show my CV as apart of the argument.

    You argue that your education is superior. You refuse to prove it. That makes you a coward, a liar, and most likely both.

    Nad [sic] you guys somehow think you can judge real science? And determin [sic] what is relevant and not?

    Better than a yokel who is too dumb for basic physics and cannot spell, yes.

    Hey Jonas, you pathetic little coward, what is your education?

  43. #43 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    Again, you are holding the mirror upside down, and missing the plot.

    Holding the mirror upside down doesn’t change what it shows.

  44. #44 chek
    February 2, 2013

    Holding the mirror upside down doesn’t change what it shows.

    If optics were covered by physics, I’m sure Jonarse superior edubecatedness would have known that already.

  45. #45 Wow
    February 2, 2013
  46. #46 Stu
    February 2, 2013

    Wow: it will if it is a “real” mirror! So there! I dun proved it!

  47. #47 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    That’s the danger, Stu.

    You’re beginning to think like Joan.

    Joan, being a damn fool, won’t notice (or deign to notice) the irony.

    I guess whilst Tim is slacking off on his part, I guess you have to find a way to do what you can to counter his pestillential “reasoning”.

    Since Joan is down to, for several months now, merely ridiculous insanity, bollixing up whatever this thread is about by posting inane stuff and demanding an answer from the idiot-in-residence and then propounding even more ridiculous claims toward his insanity may just have a chance of making the poor little fucker pop his clogs in an aneurism.

    It may be the only hope this site has got left, really.

  48. #48 Stu
    February 2, 2013

    It’s okay. Soon, Jonas will stop being a sniveling coward and give us his educational credentials OR retract his assertion that his education is superior to that of everyone here, so that the discussion can move forward.

  49. #49 pentaxZ
    February 2, 2013

    check

    “S’funny – I thought James Annan was on ‘the team’.”

    Exactly, stupid. A team member says that the team are lying and cheating. What does that tell you?

  50. #50 Jonas N
    February 2, 2013

    Stu …

    In case you haven’t noticed, or in case you were incapable of noticing: I have proved it it superior to everyone who even thought of challenigning me ..

    And yes, I can judge real science, and of course also simpler physics, and you cannot. You’ve already have provend that!

    The more intriguing thing is that you thought you had anything to contribute, when you were totally lost, and that Jeffie too though that he would score betting on you, Stu. What morons you must be .. or DK-afflicties, using Jeffie-terminology, only doing it properly!

    :-)

  51. #51 Jonas N
    February 2, 2013

    chek … are you trying to be smart with ‘holding a mirror’? I think that’s more like what you can actually accomplish …

    You guys are just desperate to hold on to your (ofeten) deranged faith .. It really must suck to be there. Especially since you’ve had all the help you would have needed to get our of your misery ..

    Now you even argue that James Annans latest proclamations somehow prove that you alarmist activists have been right all along … It can hardly get more surreal!

  52. #52 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    “Exactly, stupid. A team member says that the team are lying and cheating. What does that tell you?”

    That either one person is lying or thousands.

  53. #53 Wow
    February 2, 2013

    “chek … are you trying to be smart with ‘holding a mirror’? I think that’s more like what you can actually accomplish … ”

    Yeah, see if you know how a bloody mirror works, then you’re “trying to be smart”.

    Really, he’s as much a problem because of Tim’s cowardice as his one psychopathy.

  54. #54 chek
    February 2, 2013

    “Exactly, stupid. A team member says that the team are lying and cheating. What does that tell you?”

    That science is self correcting, as it always must be. Which is the exact opposite of the pseudo-science that’s sold to paranoid nutters like you.

  55. #55 chek
    February 2, 2013

    I have proved it it superior to everyone who even thought of challenigning me ..

    You’ve already have provend that!

    To save you the trouble Stu.

    There are few things more amusing (in a demeaning kinda way) than being lectured by an incoherent moron wannabee idiot nutter with no edubecation..

  56. #56 pentaxZ
    February 3, 2013

    Oh dear, truth really hurts, doesn’t it?

    “That either one person is lying or thousands.”

    Or that enough is enough. Annan isn’t the first, and he certainly won’t be the last.

    The plug has been removed and the CAGW-ship is sinking. You better get your lifejackets on, tinfoil doesn’t floate very well.

  57. #57 pentaxZ
    February 3, 2013

    “incoherent moron wannabee idiot nutter”

    Heavy arguments, really.

  58. #58 chek
    February 3, 2013

    Heavy arguments, really.

    And accurate.

  59. #59 pentaxZ
    February 3, 2013

    Sure, for someone who has no real arguments such kindergarten arguments propably seems valid.

  60. #60 Jonas N
    February 3, 2013

    chek, did you really think you were ‘helping’ Stu (or luminous) with this remark:

    “There are few things more amusing (in a demeaning kinda way) than being lectured by an incoherent moron wannabee idiot nutter with no edubecation”

    You really have no clue what you are talking abou, do you? Especially if you (really?) think that your comments are both ‘heavy and accurate’.

    You know, in some (other thread’s) comments you gave the impression that you at least had an education (albeit not relevant to climate and nataural sciences and physics etc). But here you jump in, pretend (or even think?) you can distinguish knowledge from the lack of it and side with the likes of Stu and Wow!? Like Jeff, you too reveal how helpless you are here … Showing that whatever ‘education’ you recieved, didn’t help you the least.

    No, I’m quite certain: For most of you shouters, knowledge, education and understanding are just words you think are useful in a brawl. None of you shouters has shown any cognitive skills here ..

    Siding with luminos and the Wows and Stus of this site … just because you wanted their nonsense to be right!

    Priceless, chek! I can ask you the same (relevant) thing as I’ve asked Jeff: Are you as inaccurate in everything in your day job too, as you are here?

  61. #61 pentaxZ
    February 3, 2013

    chek

    With your “S’funny – I thought James Annan was on ‘the team’” you clearly state what you on the alarmistic side consider important, that it’s more important who says something rather than what they say, in other words, in your world authority is more important that facts. No wonder your worldview is so fucked up.

  62. #62 chek
    February 3, 2013

    in other words, in your world authority expertise is more important that (sic) facts ignorance”.

    FTFY.

  63. #63 pentaxZ
    February 3, 2013

    Alec Rawls:

    “This is anti-scientific in its own way. Scientists are supposed to be smart. They aren’t supposed to think that you have to slowly turn up the flame under a pot of water in order to heat it. You could collect every imbecile in the world together and not a one of them would ever come up with the idea that they have to turn the heat up slowly. It’s beyond stupid. It’s like, insanely stupid. And multiple chapter-writing teams are proclaiming the same nonsense? Fruitcakes.
    Okay, I guess that means I’m ready to wrap up. Y’all have taken all these tens of billions in research money and used it perpetrate a fraud. As I have documented above, you have perpetrated the grandest and most blatant example of omitted variable fraud in history, but so far only the skeptic half the world knows it. You still have a shot, before global cooling is an established fact, to make a rapid turn around and save some shred of your reputations. But if AR5 comes out insisting that CO2 is a dominant warming influence just as global cooling is proving that the dominant climate driver is our now-quiet sun, then you all are finished on the spot. You’ll still have your filthy lucre, but the tap is going to turn off, and your reputations will be destroyed forever.”

    Copied from the worlds leading blog on climate:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

  64. #64 Jonas N
    February 3, 2013

    Jeff #2024

    I see that you must be in your own protected zone when continuing to lie about almost everything, me in particular, and ask for Tim removing people when this is pointed out.

    But you never were able to argue any position in the face of educated, informed and even only mild opposition.

    Regarding your (inital) points:

    1) Not true. I said that I was not convinced by the claims of high positive CO2 feedbacks claimed (but not observed) by the models. II am (for very good reasons) skeptical of such but never asserted anything I cannot support. You are once more making up your own straman.

    Further I did not attack people for having views different from mine, but repeatedly poited out factual errors, poor logic, and other fallacys (like your appeal to false ‘consensus’ or ‘authority’)

    2) Not true. I never brought up my education as any argument here. You (I think) were the one who kept harping on about this. Making one outrageous claim (about my education) after the other. Out of the (insane) blue.!My education still is not the argument. (But it sure helps exposing the lack of knowledge among you empty shouters).

    And I have answered the pertinent question. Those things I comment upon, I am well qualified to deal with. I can’t say the same about the (eg your) opposition.

    3) Irrelecant, and I am pretty certain that it is you (and others on your side) who constantly bring up ideology and even conspiracies.

    Further you are distinctly wrong on the ‘scientific’ part. I am telling you, even only the easier parts of what is required by doing real science, by ‘scientific method’, and you constantly fail to do so yourself, even to recognize what it is. You are unfit for real science in the hard physical sciences. Unfit!

    4) Nobody has denied you your beliefs in what you believe are the ‘authoritative experts’ and whata you believe they are actually saying. Those are your personal beliefs, and thus your own. However, all you’ve ever argued here (wrt climate) is that others should not only accept your (own version of your) beliefs, but demanded that they do and shut up, and spent 1½ years insulting them if they don’t comply. And I’ve noticed that this is what you try with everyone. And you are unqualified to assert what is wisdom and what is only consensus or opinion in this field.

    5) Ah, yes, your CV again. Irrelevant. Here, and even for any other scientific dispute. Real science never argues a stance based on CV or even previous accomplishments. A CV describes something very different.

    6) I have not seen any qualifications at all from you on any relevant issue or topic brought up here. And you fantasies about the (lack of) of qualifications of others are still just that. BTW the climate hasn’t been “rapidly warming” for quite some time now ..

    And you conclude once mor by just inventing your ‘facts’ which of course aren’t facts, only you own stupid projections and hopes.

    #2041

    1) Refering papers you/they haven’t read!? Do you seriously think this is an argument for your your beliefs not being based on faith and faith alone? And the consensus appeal which is neither based on polling their constituency, or even managed to define what they are ‘agreeing’ about (mostly just echoing the IPCC-SPM).

    And BTW, I already pointed out where I think the IPCC is wrong: When they claim that that prominent AR4 claim has any base in proper and published science.

    29 Not true again. You keep on harping about my education (of which you know nothing, aren’t even able to reocognize when I display parts of it). Further, you are just shamelessly lying when you say that I haven’t been reading and going through references. Blatantly lying! On the contrary, I have been checking those references whenever anyboyd only appearing halfway serious about his claims, who said that the foundation for that AR4 claim is to be found in it. And it never was! And the one referring me to it, usually ‘disapperared’ after me checking it. Like here! One even was one of those ‘climate scientists’ (according to his name)

    3) Again Jeffie-projection, non-sequitor, and irrelevant (if true which it is not). I ‘attack’ poor arguments, poor science, poor logic and lack of eveidence or empirical support. And I specify my criticisms, I point out where I think, am convinceed they are wrong, and specify why. Jeff resonds with taling about their CV:s. The reason I criticize specifics is because I understand what is required by science. The reason Jeffs ‘responds’ with appeals to CV is that he doesn’t.

    4) Ah, the CV spiel once more. And it still is not an argument! You being buzy with other stuf might be an excuse for being as uninformed as you are. But not for anything else you ‘produce’ here. And still (and in defience of anything I’ve ever claimed): I don’t claim to be an expert on everything or smarter than everybody, or having any answers I have not. However, I do say that the arguments and evidence presented for the climate scare case have not been convincing, and the lack of proper science behinde the most promient IPCC AR4 claim is one pretty darn strong demonstration of this!

    And not one single one believer has even come close to even trying to make a case to the opposite.

    5) You have been blowing fumes here, wrt to about every topic I ever touched upon. Not landed one singe hit. I haven’t even seen aiming at any topic. Just the incoherent irrelevant shouting. And siding with (but not restricted to) the proven DK-showcases like luminous and Stu …

    PS Tanks GSW and Olaus for your support, I think it is a bit overly flattering. But the lack of substance from the other side, compensates for that. I post this here first, because the shouters will certainly demand that Jeff shoud be allowed to spout his lies without opposition in his padded protection, and that all opposition should be banned. But hey, they already have. They really want to believe and are correspondlingly afraid of anything else … I post this ihere too and then under the Ridely thread. Where it probably won’t last very long. Jeffie needs the censor butten when he spouts his lies … Thats probaly why he detests reality! Because out there he would be nothing ..

  65. #65 Jonas N
    February 3, 2013

    Sorry if htis is not obvious, my above comment was in reference to Jeff ‘CV-waving’ Harvey’s continued lying in his padded protection about me.

    The guy just cannot help himself, everything he claims is either a lie, a total fabrication, or at best a distortion of reality and the facts beyond recognition.

    And he seems to believe his own nonsens, or otherwise have dug himself in so deeply that there is no way out of his delusion, that all he can see now are the walls of his self-dug and deep hole …

  66. #66 chek
    February 3, 2013

    Tell us about your CV/education Jonarse.
    I’m dying to see what ‘superior’ looks like, if you’d be so kind as to spell it out. (not sarcasm).

  67. #67 Wow
    February 3, 2013

    It looks like this:

    Born.
    Not dead yet.

  68. #68 chek
    February 3, 2013

    OK folks listen up: Bernard J’s challenge is now active.

    I suggest if by post 75 on this thread Jonarse has still achieved no meaningful answer to BJ, he forfeits whatever (minus) credibility is left and graciously admits defeat as the lying arsehole of humanitry that he is.

    So no further off topic posts, no hard-to-resist pops at the protagonist and no chewing gum!

    Cue wails from the vanguard of fanbois, but the post counter is clicking away…. Until post 75 is hit, the floor’s all yours, morons.

  69. #69 chek
    February 3, 2013
  70. #70 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    chek …

    like the others (Jeff, Bernard, and all the Stus etc) you are once again, and nothing but trying to construct a backawards and nonsense-argument for why you should have ‘won’ the argument.

    But that’s what little children do in the playground. And that’s really all you’ve been trying.

    “No further of -topic posts .. ”

    demands chek, who has not had one relevant on topic post for 1½ years. Oh the irony …

  71. #71 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    What <a load of uninformed BS, Bernard J

    It seems that you still, 1½ years later aren’t even aware of what that AR4 claim actually claimed. (Pssst: It’s not the existence of ‘attribution studies’)

    And it seems my suscpicion of where ‘Wyvern’ came from where correct. He certainly sounded like someone who had ben ‘prepped’ by one of the ignorant shouters here. And he and his ‘arguments’ deteriorated quite quickly once I pointed out how inconsistent his comments were.

    Well no surprise there. And BTW he never claimed to have read the papers he forwarded either. As is the case with most of you trying to drown out your nagging fear that I might have been correct the entire time.

    I certainly have been correct in pointing out to all of you that none of you has ever seen any real science establishing that AR4 claim. (But admittedly, most of you are unable to read and understand such science and what it would take. Hence, all the noise and no substance)

    I also like to point out that (unscientific) Bernard J, believs that the arctic ice is “the most obvious near-term indication of rapid (human-caused) global warming”

    This guy really doesn’t even know what attribution is. And still he talks (ignorantly) about it, dropping some names … hoping that this impresses som of the other Deltoids.

  72. #72 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    The above comment was also posted in reply to Bernard J’s BS in the appropriate thread. But will likely disappear as soon the henhouse starts to cackle again ..

    The funny thing is that Bernard J says he doesn’t read here. However he was familiar with one Wyvern trying his luck here before new year, and also telling us about his colleagues reading here (on his computer)

    And the sheer stupidity of the argument is just amazing.

    Bernard posts a long list of actions he demands I have to go through …. before I should be allowed to ask for the reference(s) which positively establish that prominent AR4 claim.

    And this is from a guy who (allegedly) works with science, but still hasn’t understood that this IPCC AR4 claim is something else than just various attempts at trying to support attribution by running GCMs ..

    Gosh! Well Deltoid certainly is the place for people like him with his stupid fantasies about ‘leagally binding wagers’ if I don’t respond. What a good example of the non-science found here …

  73. #73 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Two comments directed at fact-fabricator Jeff Harvey (in another thread, where Jeff already cries for help):

    Jonas N

    Jeff: “Help! The patient has escaped! He’s on the loose! Send out an APB!”

    Poor Jeffe … you don’t need to be afraid of me. I am just putting letters on a screen for you to see. I know you are afraid of words, and sentences that have a meaning … That’s why you produce so much of the opposite.

    But I promise, they won’t hurt you for real. Just your fragile ego that has sepent years building a padded wall around it by just inventing it and what it want the rest of the world to be.

    Inside that padded cell, you can proclaim: “Stu nailed it!” And insider it, this will probably remain to be believed true. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the ouside world. You can’t stand reality, that is why you need to shield yourself from it with your own inventions.

    Poor thing!

    #81
    Jonas N

    February 4, 2013 But Jeff .. I can even give you a tiny tiny bit of praise:

    You (and later even chek) seem to have become aware of, psossibly even realized that this AR4 claim is not a scientific claim, that the numers should not be interpreted as a result from proper and meticulously performed (real) science, but rather should be viewd as expert opinions.

    Your friend Bernard J does not have quite understood that this is what you are saying. And your other friends Stu and Wow … well … let’s not mention them. They rarely understand even what their own words mean.

    But regarding ‘expert opinion’, that is of course what you can get at every talkshow and panel in TV. Some of it might even be good and interesting, and prove to be correct later. But opinion is not and never was science.

    And that the IPCC presents its most prominent claim (made in the AR4) and feeds it to the press and policy makers, but somehow ‘forgets’ to mention that this never was any real science, just a bunch of selfselcted ‘experts’ opining …

    I find that rather peculiar. Or indicative. However, on your side there seems to be sheer desperation even if this only is pointed out by some indivduals ..

    And I still wonder: What is it you are so darn afraid of? The world notcoming to an end soon?

  74. #74 Stu
    February 4, 2013

    I never brought up my education as any argument here.

    Obvious and stupid lie. You said it was superior. Prove it.

    What is your education, Jonas?

  75. #75 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Stu, you are so boring.

    My education covers those fields I have brought up and discussed. With a wide margin. As I’ve said before.

    ANd no, I never brought this up as an argument. This is in reply to those of you who cannot argue anything properly, who constantly are looking for an excuse, for a diversion, for some imagined way out …

    And I have proven that it is superior! By not making stupid claims and unspportable assertions. And arguing my case properly. And pointing out the flaws and fallacies of others.

    It seems that you (among many other here) are completely unaware of them. And also make up your own ‘alternate logic’ and even ‘facts’ ..

    I hope this never was part of your education, but rather you guys not being able to learn even what was taught there and then …

  76. #76 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Response to Jeff Harvey, who most often needs to make his ‘arguments’ at me from threads where he demands that my responses are erased (which they then are):

    Jeff, you say:

    “I am sorry to disappoint you and your cheerleaders, but non-peer reviewed opinions on blogs may influence public opinion but in the halls of universities and research labs they mean diddly squat.”

    Well, I would take issues with that, and even point out that it is in stark contrast to many of your own claims about ‘importance’. But let’s leave the poor execution and phrasing of your claims aside for a moment, and stick with the general tenor (which at least seems reasonable even if not as strict as you want to describe it.

    So just take that statement, and give it some (here) relevant context. Like:

    “I am sorry to disappoint you and your cheerleaders, but non-peer reviewed opinions [made in an IPCC SPM] may influence public opinion ..”

    Because so far I am kind of with you here. Opinions, especially, if their origin is not even presented, should weigh lightly. Or not at all when it comes to real science.

    Most certainly:

    ” .. in the halls of universities and research labs they mean diddly squat.”

    Again, I tend to agree with you there. But here is the problem:

    Quite a lot of people who have thought that this claim indeed was (not an opinion, but) based on properly vetted and executed real science, establishing those levels ..

    .. lots of people, in academia, at universities and in reserach labs, and purporting to be involved in science, seem to be unable to live up to those high standars you just described.

    Meaning, they seem unable to let go of the belief that these things are properly established by real science, in spite of them being opinions in non-peer reviewed summaries of a political bureaucracy.

    In fact, at every pro-climatescare site I have ever visited, all the proponents of the AGW- and CAGW-memes have done the exact opposite of what you now claim would be the proper response to such and (un-published) claim.

    And you might forgive them for initally having believed there was proper and published science behind those claim. But when this was challenged, when it became obvious that they never had even seen any such science making these claims ..

    .. again, they didn’t take the position you indicated (“they mean diddly squat”), and most often the exact opposite happened.

    You have seen this first hand here at Deltoid, you even were part of it. And I can promise you, the same thing happens at every pro-CAGW-site if you point this out!

    So what does this tell you, Jeff Harvey? Do you need to think a moment about it?

    And I am sorry, Jeff, but those you (erroneously) call ‘deniers’ and all kind of other things, generally are much better informed, better at the details and keeping their heads straight and arguing the substance … rather than their beliefs and projections.

    As you know, almost none here (on your side) has even gone close to the things I brought up and pointed out.

    Lots and lots of completely different, irrelevant, stupid and even worse things, yes! But challenging me (with substance) on what I’ve actually said about the matter, has been very thin …

  77. #77 GSW
    February 4, 2013

    @Jonas

    Sure you’ve seen this already Jonas ;)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/03/josh-on-lying-for-the-cause/

    A bit off topic perhaps, the value of “expert opinion” on Climate Sensitivity, rather than the “expert opinion” nature of the AR4 attribution claim that you have some concerns about. Makes you think though doesn’t it?

  78. #78 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    So, #75 passed and not a peep from Joan to answer.

    Just petulance.

    And irrelevancies.

    But these are the only tools of Joan the Denier.

  79. #79 chek
    February 4, 2013

    “Makes you think though doesn’t it?”

    Providing you have the apparatus to think. Which is quite a different activity to reflexively chewing on the scrapettes Watts throws down.

  80. #80 GSW
    February 4, 2013

    @chek

    “Makes you think though doesn’t it?”

    It certainly does chek. Imagine if the IPCC was chocka full of Greenpeace and WWF activists treading the thin line between scientific honesty and the needs of their “political motivations”. God knows what they would come up with, doesn’t bear thinking about.
    ;)

  81. #81 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    GSW

    Yes, I had seen that and it was truly entertaining. I think it was chek who tried to label this, either the exposition of ‘scientists’ lying for a political cause, or the cessation of covering up for the lying of others, or just the admission that one previously was exaggerating the scare a little because it was expected from him, and a more honest assessment of the situation wouldn’t have been well received ..

    .. I think chek called this ‘the self corretion of science’.

    And I think this was honestly meant. Lying is OK, if it furthers a cause. And stopping to lie, admitting that other were lying, admitting that one self was playing along too … is considered ‘science self correcting’ ..

    … by those claiming to be on the side of science. And I think chek meant exactly that. This is ‘the science’ he has been rooting for and still is defending.

    And while skeptics were saying the same things, this was called ‘denialism’ ….

    I don’t think all of them can blame incompetence and ignorance for what they sided with.

  82. #82 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Jonas N February 4, 2013

    Getting better by the minute ..

    Now Jeff is disputing the recent temperature record

  83. #83 Stu
    February 4, 2013

    So you won’t list your education, Jonas?

    Why? Is it really that pathetic?

  84. #84 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Not only did I list it, I demonstrated it. Just not more than is necessary here at this place Stu …

    A cake walk thus far ..

  85. #85 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    I.e. the same place he “listed” them before: in the nonexistent aether.

    Because, like the aether, his education is a myth.

  86. #86 Jonas N
    February 4, 2013

    Stu, chek, Jeffie, Ian, Linoel and all others ..

    Let me rub this in your face:

    Wow is on your side here, He thinks that you are doing great, and (som of you) think that his support really means something ..

  87. #87 Wow
    February 4, 2013

    Like a soft, freshly washed blanket.

  88. #88 Stu
    February 4, 2013

    So you’re not listing it because you are a coward. Okay, gotcha.

    Jonas, please let us know when you gather up sufficient courage to share what your superior education consists of.

    Until then, you pathetic little weasel.

  89. #89 Jonas N
    February 5, 2013

    Stu ..I already did, just not all of it. And you of course missed it. That is a generic problem with not being able to read and learn … and explains quite a bit. For instance those six years spent .. without leaving a mark.

  90. #90 Wow
    February 5, 2013

    Nope, you were told to put it before comment 75.

    It isn’t there.

    Doesn’t exist.

    Your education, that is.

  91. #91 Jonas N
    February 5, 2013

    Wow .. and you really think I do things just because the nutters here demand I do it?

    Did you not even notice that chek’s ‘demand’ was for an answer to Bernard J’s so called ‘challenge’ and his ‘demands’!?

    Ghoad you guys are really something else ..

    Now, a whole lot of you are trying to convince yourself of yet another nonsense-claim!? Do you guys ever stop digging at the bottom of that ill-informed hole?

  92. #92 Wow
    February 5, 2013

    No, we think you do things because you’re nuts.

  93. #93 Jonas N
    February 5, 2013

    Good job, Wow …

    You think the things you think, because you think I am nuts … and think you speak for many

    Good job!

  94. #94 Jonas N
    February 5, 2013

    In response to Bernard J’s drivel (in another thread):

    February 5, 2013 Bernard J

    Have you (or anybody else) seen, read and understood any science establishing that (in-)famous AR4 claim?

    It’s a Yes/No question. And I think in your case the answer is pretty obvious, although you (and others) have spent 1½ years trying to make it about something completely different.

    And no, I never claimed to know who made up that attribution claim. Quite a few individuals were involved, not all of them listed as authors.

    And my ‘grievance’ is and has been (since 2007) the absence of any (by then) published science establishing or even just making that claim. The issue is the claimed very high certainty of such an attribution(*).

    And you know that! And your attempts to point at the existence of ‘atrtibution studies’ are just feeble (or uniformed). As are the attempts att ‘drowning’ me with papers you haven’t read. Or the ‘ideology’-drivel. But that’s what you have to resort to.

    As for the trolls, those who either write utter gibberish, invent nonsense, throw around invectives and cannot deal with the issues? Yes, those are quite a few. None of you seem very bothered by them, and the amount of irrelevant nonsense they produce. So the played ‘indignation’ here looks more like posturing than convincing ..

    (*) If there had been, I could and would have scrutinized such work, to see if it really holds water

  95. #95 Wow
    February 5, 2013

    You think the things you think, because you think I am nuts

    No, that you managed to read that from a sentence that in the real world said “No, we think you do things because you’re nuts.” is merely proof of your insanity.

  96. #96 Jonas N
    February 5, 2013

    Yes Wow, you are displaying your own thoughts. Nothing more, there is not even a ‘we’ there. And you most certainly look like you believe you can establish facts by just imagining them.

    Wow things so, ergo Wow thinks it is therefor a fact.

    But thanks for demonstrating that once more again. (If anybody ever doubted that before. You excluded of course :-) )

  97. #97 Wow
    February 5, 2013

    Sorry, is that how you explain explanations now?

  98. #98 GSW
    February 5, 2013

    @Jonas

    You’ve been busy ;)

    Are you looking forward to the annual realclimate “Turd Polishing” (aka How are the models doing?) It must be about due.

    The conclusion, as always, will be “They are doing Brilliantly!”

    The entertainment is not in that, rather the plethora of excuses (some old, some new) for what could otherwise be viewed as a”Dismal Showing”. Last year, the lack of warming solicited an appearance of the Rahmstorf adjusted temperature index – it’s like a normal global temp series, but has bits taken out and warmer bits added and has nothing to do with the real world at all. It’s the preferred metric for the Climate modelling community for benchmarking their work.

    In an otherwise unremarkable year, expect arctic ice to get more than a passing mention, also the fact it was a bit hotter in the part of world that gavin inhabits (the US), colder in other places I would imagine but interested to see if they get the same sort of coverage.

    Well it’s something to look forward to at least, the BBC’s Comic Relief is a few months away yet.
    ;)

  99. #99 Jonas N
    February 5, 2013

    Wow .. you have never been near any ‘explanation’ here. Ever …

  100. #100 Wow
    February 5, 2013

    Nope, you’re still full of bullshit, Joan.

    And GSW keeps packing that fudge in for you…

Current ye@r *