Jonas Thread

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


  1. #1 chek
    April 9, 2013

    … and Jonarse is also reduced to the ‘AGW will fall… any day now’….. without a scintilla of …anything at all except the vacant crowing he’s indulged in for almost two years now.

    I really wish I had a GBP for every time the desperate old (and it got old a long, long time ago) ‘final nail’ or variation thereof was uttered by some crank or other.

    I can only presume it’s not for the benefit of the rational, but only aimed at his ever more meat headed posse.

  2. #2 Jonas N
    April 10, 2013


    it is certainly true that you have not seen any proof of any eduction I have. But that is because you don’t have the slightlest clue about what knowledge actually is, and how educated knowledge is used. As you said yourself:

    It was spelled out in detail right under your nose. And every time you failed to see it.

    And yes, my dear Wow .. what I have produced here, when someone actually tried to argue som minor scientific points, is exactly that: Proof of that I master the things I am talking about.

    What you have proven … Well, rather not go there!


  3. #3 Jonas N
    April 10, 2013

    chek ..

    vacant crowing .. for almost two years now

    I think you have been hanging here much longer than that. And not even been close to addressing any relevant issues.

    But seriously, why is it that (almost all of) you regulars here are so patently incapable of comprehending what is actually argued (by others)? Why is that? Why is almost every comment from you regulars nothing but a long parade of strawmen, invented idiocy and mouth frothing but childish attempts at insults?

    Are you (all) real as incapable of arguing one single point properly as you (all) demonstrate here?

    I think the closest you’ve ever been to any relevant substance was when you argued that indeed many people live in Bangladesh and India plains ..

    Yes they do, but that doesn’t make glacial melt their fresh water supply. Which was the idiotic AGW-scare you tried to argue or support back then.

    But I do believe that you “really wish [you] had a GBP for every time ..”. That seems more like your general method, wishing for things … and being angry because they ain’t so ..

  4. #4 Jonas N
    April 10, 2013

    Ah Jeff …

    Maybe you missed it, and thus I repeat it once more. If there ever was a good example of DK, David Roberts ‘explaining climate science in 15 minutes’ was one of the better displays.

    As were you, when you hailed his absolute nonsense and even claimed that your ‘understanding’ of this was due to your claimed ‘scientifif literacy’.

    The exact opposite is true, my dear Jeff. Roberts many claims were absolute hogwash, they were the atithesis of scientific literacy, and only complete fools or ignorants would by into his claimed ‘future assertions’, especially based on the arguments he delivered.

    And that one of those even and explicity claimed that only the ‘scientifically illiterate’ would fail to be swayed by his ‘arguments’ was the killer …

    Man Oh man … if there ever was a DK-syndrome posterboy, or if one would like invent a charicature of one, that would be it Jeff. That would be you, hailing David Robers future-predictions and even claiming this was real science …

    You nailed it Jeff, you really did!


    Just as when you wrote that “Stu nailed it”, you proved beyond any doubt that you are completely incapable of judging anything relevant to real science …

    Another funny example of your complete lack of selfawareness was when accused someone (don’t remember who) of resorting to insults when he ran out of arguments. You Jeff!

    You accused others of resorting to insults for lack of better arguments! Again, you nailed it, Jeff. absolutely priceless.

    But actually, I don’t think Dunning and Kruger really were envisioning you and your problems when they wrote that paper. Your affliction seems to be something way beyond only not understanding what knowledge it is you don’t have.

  5. #5 Wow
    April 12, 2013

    “it is certainly true that you have not seen any proof of any eduction I have.”

    Yes, the cause of which is you never having put any of it on here.

  6. #6 Wow
    April 12, 2013

    “It was spelled out in detail right under your nose.”
    Nope, it was never put in ANY detail on this thread.

    “And every time you failed to see it. ”

    Yes, imaginary postings are not seen by those not hallucinating.

  7. #7 Jonas N
    April 15, 2013

    Exactly Wow …

    You are completely incapable here, failing already at the first doorstep, unable to even see the posts where points are made.

    No surprise there. I just hope that Jeffie (or somebody else who ignorantly pretends to speak for ‘the science’) comes and proclaims: ‘Wow nailed it!’

    It happened for Stu, and I’ll remind him and Jeff about it … until they take their nonsense back. Which in all likelihood is never!

  8. #8 Wow
    April 26, 2013

    Yes, exactly.

    Something you never wrote can never be seen, therefore my inability to see invisible writings is not my problem.

  9. #9 Jonas N
    May 6, 2013

    We already see that you cannot see, you see

  10. #10 Jonas N
    May 7, 2013

    Again .. simple comments held up for 24+ hours …

    I guess it’s for the ‘protection’ of the sensitive souls here ..

  11. #11 Jonas N
    May 9, 2013

    OK … it was for more than three days! Those poor Deltoids must need som serious protection. And I kinda agree ..

  12. #12 Wow
    May 10, 2013

    Yes, not seeing something not there is fine.

    Seeing something that is not there is a sign of mental instability.

  13. #13 Stu
    May 10, 2013

    It happened for Stu, and I’ll remind him and Jeff about it … until they take their nonsense back.

    Medication, Jonas. Take it. Good God you are delusional. And knock it off with your pathetic persecution complex, you pathetic little liar.

  14. #14 Jonas N
    May 13, 2013

    Stu … according to the resident nonsense-inventor ‘you nailed it’! When yo too made invented absolute nonsense-claims. That’s because both you and Jeffie so desperately want to believe in an alternate universe. I think Wow is too delusional to know which one is which. Seemingly both his fantasy and the one he resides in are the same

    I see you are coming to the rescue or at least support of Wow here .. Why don’t you proclaim that Wow nailed it, Stu?

    He says all kinds of things that you too would say (and then some). You three (and there are more) could easily form a ‘consensus’ which you could use to even further bolster your beliefs in its veracity!

    After all, that’w what you are all about: Believing things without evidence!


  15. #15 Jonas N
    May 13, 2013

    Wow … Stu couldn’t see anything wrong with luminous’ ramblings. You couldn’t even see where I told him he was wrong.

    I believe you. You are exactly that kinda guy … unable to see things out there in plain view .. The idea that you would understand any of the finer points discussed here or anywhere else …

    Well that’s plainly laughable. And you don’t. And no, one shouldn’t laugh at your predicament. I am just hoping that one of the others comes along and claims: “Wow nailed it!”

    That would top it off for me!


  16. #16 Jonas N
    May 16, 2013

    Again .. it ‘took’ trhee days for those last two post to ‘appear’ … You poor deltoids really need to be fed it slowly …


  17. #17 Wow
    May 17, 2013

    Joan, we’re not saying anything about Luminous.

    We’re saying YOU have never shown anything wrong with Luminous’ posts.

  18. #18 Wow
    May 17, 2013

    So stop changing the topic and show us your proof.

  19. #19 Jonas N
    May 19, 2013

    Wow ..

    I totally believe that you never saw anythiong wrong with whatever luminous wrote, that you didn’t even could see where I pointed out his many errors.

    You are just way too dumb too being capable of anything lika that. But I am still hoping that some of the others ‘endorses’ your idotic rantings and claims ‘Wow nailed it!’ just like Jeffie, the DK-loonie hoped that ‘Stu nailed it!’

    You ar such a pathetic bunch of know-nothings it defies belief! But them you believe in every syllable of the CAGW-scare too. And think you are a vast majority …

    There are clinical terms for such beliefs …

  20. #20 Wow
    May 20, 2013

    I totally believe that you never saw anythiong wrong with whatever luminous wrote

    Who cares?

    What you haven’t done is actually shown anything wrong with whatever luminous wrote.

    And you know this, which is why you keep changing the topic.

  21. #21 Jonas N
    May 23, 2013

    Wow .. Oh no!

    I showed to everybody who only has a basic understanding and knowledge of elementary physics how and why luminous was wrong.

    I never expected you to be among those. Never! But as you inform us, you weren’t even capable of identifying where I pointed out his many mistakes.

    That is a record even by Deltoid-standards! 🙂 Your Stu-buddy at least tried to challange some of the instances, and spent a year lamenting about different speeds. (Because hes deluded mind imagined others argued such).

    I hope Tim, Stu, Jeff, Bernard, chek are proud of your presence here.

  22. #22 GSW
    May 23, 2013


    “Who cares?”

    Not you obviously wow. School level physics isn’t your strong point (or anything else for that matter), weak on everything, hence the rants in defence of apocalyptic global warming soothsaying. Science matters wow, the fact you don’t give a jot explains a lot of what you post here.

    How are things with you Jonas?

  23. #23 Wow
    May 23, 2013


    “Who cares?”

    Not you obviously wow.”

    Well, duh.

    That’s what “Who cares?” means. I KNOW that you’re really really proud that you’ve managed to read a sentence of two whole words, but that’s not, in the real world, much of an achievement.

    Who cares that you’ve managed to understand a sentence?

  24. #24 Jonas N
    May 26, 2013

    Wow ..

    “you’ve managed to read a sentence of two whole words, but that’s not, in the real world, much of an achievement.

    Who cares that you’ve managed to understand a sentence?”

    But as you’ve told us, you haven’t even seen the sentences at hand. That indeed is an achievment Deltoid-style even in the real world!

    GSW, I’m fin thanks. In the real world climate hysteria and dito politics, and also alarmist climate science is taking a beating, or quietly trying to sneak out the backdoor ..

    Although I wouldn’t expect the few remnants of that belief system really noticing.

    And Tim is keeping my comments in quarantine for some 2-3 days before Wow, Stu and the others are deemed ready to handle a response … And for obvious reasons.

    BTW have you noticed that Jeffie, is trying the same uniformed spiel with others too? I guess the strategy of keeping every sound voice in a separate thread is another method of keeping up the pretence …

  25. #25 Wow
    May 27, 2013

    “But as you’ve told us, you haven’t even seen the sentences at hand”

    Yes I have. “Who cares?” was the sentence at hand. I said it. I totally saw I said it, saw it was read and responded with not only a re-affirmation of saying it (twice now) but a quote showing I said it (twice again).

    So the sentence at hand HAS been seen by me.

    How on earth can you come to a conclusion I haven’t seen me post my own sentence???

  26. #26 Olaus Petri
    May 27, 2013

    The krauts have a hard time with global warming:

    Is it a scale thingie again wow? 😉

  27. #27 chek
    May 27, 2013

    Is it a scale thingie again wow?

    Indeed it is Olapdog.
    After repeated entreaties not to confuse climate (+30 year trends) with weather (transient) you continue to do so.
    As a result,. your previous double-digit IQ reckoning has now slipped down through single figures and slid off the scale. In much the same way as Jonarse the Pointless here.

    Don’t say you weren’t warned.

  28. #28 GSW
    May 28, 2013


    Glad you are ok Jonas. The extended comments in moderation, doesn’t really help things move along. It’s a bit like the attitude to CAGW as a whole for the believers; dispense with “honest endeavours” (long ago) and keep your thumb on the scales when weighing the truth. It’s the outcome that’s important apparently, so imposing ad hoc rules as to who is, and who is not, allowed to express a view has become the norm.

    A Consensus wouldn’t build itself afterall, not without the marginalising of dissenters 😉

    Yes, jeff has reverted to type, still very impressed with himself, others are obviously less so, hence the constant reminding.


    Nice post Olaus, liked the “Climate experts running out of arguments”, perhaps they should take a leaf of Jeff’s book and start telling people about their CV and that they go to conferences and everything.

    Thanks both!

  29. #29 chek
    May 28, 2013

    ““honest endeavours”

    Ain’t no such thing in denierworld Griselda.
    Lying and shilling is all there is for you and your ‘content providers’.

  30. #30 Jonas N
    May 28, 2013

    chek …

    We have seen plenty of dishonesty in this thread, and in other ones (sometimes indistinguishable from pathological mythomania).

    My take on this is that your preferred ‘religion’ is falling apart, and can only be patched by more and more untruths and outright lying …

    Look fellows, you have still and now six years after the fact, not come to terms with the IPCC essentially lying you all of you, and the press all over the world about what was based on science, and what hopeful and shoddy opining about certainties.

    Some people (quite a few!) are still in denial over this, on a level comparable to ‘different-speeds-among-hand-box).

    I understand that it sucks to have been played and to have been the sucker … but attempting to redefine history won’t change any of that!

    From the very beginging (and long before I got my ‘own’ thread hear, where Tim still thinks I am too dangerous for the rest of you) I noted that people who use ‘denier’ as a central part of their argument have absoultely nothing to contribute. They are just rehashing memes and talking points they’ve picked up elsewhere.

    You and Jeff are perfect examples of that. And asked directly what your best arguments would be … the only ‘answer’ is more of the idiotic Jonarse- och DK-sniveling.

    Deltoid is the perfect place four sissies like you. Because in a scientific discussion you guys have absolutely nothing but such idiotic shouting. Most often not even knwoing what position you would argue …

    It is truly pathetic, but then again, your number is shrinking and even the politicians have realized that the feast is over soon and ar moving on to new scare stories ..

  31. #31 Jonas N
    May 28, 2013

    Haha … Hilarious chek

    I see that your drivel-buddy Jeff Harvey is lying through is teeth in other threads, and again making completely false claims about me and what I’ve said!

    The guy is propably a clinical mythomaniac, making up stuff he ‘needs’ as he goes.

    And you charge others with ‘lying’!? Really!?


    What a joke!

    Jeff, who still does not know (of?) the scientific method, claims I demanded his credentials! What a twisted sick little man he must be …

    Deltoid is certainly the place for him. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he lies about everything else too. He certainly needs an alternate universe to fit his fantasies.

  32. #32 chek
    May 28, 2013

    Between your sense of self-importance and your martyr complex it’s no wonder you’re left gnashing thin air and proclaiming victory ‘any day now’, as you deniers have been doing moronically for year after year now.

    In reality it’s your meme which has shrivelled and died only ever having gained any traction with your idiot denier clique that accompanies you.

    If you’d had any substance, you would have published multiple papers by now. As it is, you haven’t because your little meme (being merely an appeal to ignorance) doesn’t make the grade and all you can do is bitch away on the sidelines of other peoples’ blogs getting nowhere. Which is all you can do, and all you’ll ever do.

  33. #33 Wow
    May 28, 2013

    We have seen plenty of dishonesty in this thread, and in other ones (sometimes indistinguishable from pathological mythomania).

    Yup, you definitely managed to do all that.

    Ever thought of NOT being dishonest? I know it’s devastating to your perception of self, but give it a thought, if poss.

  34. #34 Stu
    May 28, 2013

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

    In the end, it’s probably just too complicated for you. Something must be lacking in your education.

    Speaking of which, you pathetic lying little weasel, what IS your education?

  35. #35 Jonas N
    May 28, 2013

    Stu, yes you tried that. And it still doesn’t change any single tiny bit of your fiasco …

    And you too couldn’t see anything wrong with luminous drivel, albeit of attending highschool for six years 🙂

    But of course, that’s way ahead of Wow who couldn’t even find the instances where I pointed out his multiple failures. You only tried to challange one of them (well actually GSWs) in the most moronic way.

    BTW What is it with you climate scare faithers? Are all of you really as incapable of adhering to the truth? (Well, I guess thats what it takes to swallow so much garbage in blind faith .. and creating a fair amount all by your self in the process)

    My education? You really are a slow learner! I master the things I’ve told you here without effort. But then again, I am up against highschool-physics keyboard cursaders .. who didn’t even get their highschool-physics right.

    Or agains angry CV-shaking lying mythomaniacs …

    Do you think DK-suspect Jeffie has a diploma showing he’s such an ‘expert’? Of course, you wouldn’t even have the slightest clue what the scientific method means … But Jeffie, in spite of being as clueless as you, wants to call himself a ‘scientist’ …

    A guy patently incapable of behaving like an adult. And need I remind you that Wow is one of you here?


  36. #36 Jonas N
    May 28, 2013

    And even Tim thinks you need ‘protection’ from my words. Somtimes for up to three days! Sensitive souls, these climate scare faithers … aren’t they?

  37. #37 Jonas N
    May 29, 2013

    In the other threads, the remnant Deltoid commenters are falling over their heads and screaming:

    ‘Because I said so’, ‘because the consenus is’ ‘ you are not allowed to question the consensus’ and of course ‘because nobody else has any formal education …’ ‘because I said so!’

    It sure looks like an asylum, and surely hasn’t improved.

    Well at least, I can proud my self of having elevated the level (substance and scientifically) at least for some time and some topics …

    But the ceowed here really rather wants to be ranting at the bottom, just look at them in the threads and those who are encouraged to post …

  38. #38 Wow
    May 30, 2013

    What fiasco, Joan?

    You’ve made an awful lot of alarmist and hysterical CLAIMS of a fiasco or error in others but nowhere have you shown that they exist outside your brain.


  39. #39 Wow
    May 30, 2013

    ‘ you are not allowed to question the consensus’

    Uh, another made up quote. Just like the rest of your insane ranting. Sad.

  40. #40 Jonas N
    May 30, 2013

    Wow … arguing facts just isn’t your thing, is it?

    FYI quotes are marked with quotation marks, parapharasing the rantings of you and the others is something else.

    And yes, you lot (who seem patently incapable of arguing even the simplest things) do a lot of ranting about ‘insane’ ‘idiot’ ‘mentally ill’ ‘deranged’ etc.

    Alongside with you hardly ever getting any arguments of substance right. That’s what I’m heckling you for ..

    And you say you haven’t seen Stu’s fiasco either!? Well Wow, you both described it correct and entirely wrong when hoping to support him.

    But I don’t know if ‘sad’ is the correct description.

    Have you forgotten that you brought up monsoon-patterns by Pielke as your ‘science’ backing that famous AR4 claim? Or hare you incapavble of seeing your own fiascos too?

  41. #41 Jeff Harvey
    May 30, 2013

    ….But Jeffie, in spite of being as clueless as you, wants to call himself a ‘scientist’ … ”

    I don’t want to do any such think you brainless idiot. That is what I am, whether you like it or not. Or does the view of a single twerp (meaning you, Jonas) alone trump what thousands of my colleagues with similar degrees acknowledge? I guess all of those universities to which I have been invited to present lectures, all of the conferences at which I have spoken, all of the journals that have published my work, and the scientists that have reviewed my papers have been somehow ‘duped’. Or are scientists only real when you alone declare them to be properly ‘qualified’? Its hilarious that your small band of slavish admirers forever berate me for being ‘self idolatrous’ and ‘CV waving’ when IMHO and that of most others here the most self-righteous arrogant prick on Deltoid is you, Jonas.

    And who discovered this ‘fraud’ of me being not a ‘real ‘scientist? Was it some scientific committee, who adjudicated over my qualifications and degree? Was it an expert in my field of research? NO! Insteead it is a lonely Swedish meatball who refuses to tell everyone what his illustrious qualifications are, even though he has told us all many times how much smarter he is than everybody else on Deltoid (an assertion reinforced, of course, his small band of cult-like worshippers).

    And then he chides in with a comment about acting like an adult?!?!?!?!?! And it gets even more bizarre: he tries to turn the Dunning-Kruger study about arse-face to give the impression that it wasn’t intended to describe people like him who claim to know it all whilst possesing no formal qualifications in any field of science (so what exactly IS your professional background, Jonas?) but scientists like me who bothered to spend years at universities studying for higher degrees. We’ve asked Jonas a million times what unqiue scientific background Jonas possesses with only snide retorts avoiding the question.

    You know what I think Jonas? In my opinion you’re a top level fruitcake. You can jump into a lake and take your stunning brilliance with you.

  42. #42 Jeff Harvey
    May 30, 2013

    yup, Jonas, and you can ‘proud yourself’ [sic] all you like while doing it…

  43. #43 Jonas N
    May 30, 2013

    Jeff …

    Yet another rant about your CV?

    What is the strongest argument you’ve ever made here in any discussion about the science? wrt climate change

    It most certaingly is not your CV. It is not the term ‘denier’ or ‘idiot’ och ‘fruitcake’. Neither is it ‘Dunning Kruger’ or anything else of the kind. And it is not any othe other irrelevant ranting and wishful fabrication of alternate ‘facts’ inside your head. Most definitely not!

    So, if we subtract all of that idiotic (Yes, Jeff, idiotic!) ranting of yours here for the last two years. What remains?

    Well, there are som things you’ve said that sounded reasonable, even a few where I agreed. But those where not really in contention. Mostly I even detailed where we were in agreement (and at times you couldn’t handle that either)

    So I ask you again: What has been your most valid (scientific) argument here where you challenge my ‘world shattering views’!?

    I have about a dozen times asked you what those alleged views were, and you could never specify them. Oh yes, you have accused me of all kinds of views I don’t hold, and many times explicitly stated the opposite. That hasn’t kept you fram your mothfrothing nonsense.

    Well, if you allow me to present your ‘best argument’ you’ve managed at least to half-assedly formulate, it would be your statement that you don’t have a clue, that you realize that, and that you hence defer to others whom you believe are ‘experts’ on various things you understand equally poorly, and that you therefor chose to believe what some others claim.

    And I granted you that, but it has nothing to do with science. It is an argument based on ignorance. It is a statement of belief or in alleged authority which you are unable to confirm. Heck you even admit that your belief is based on the affirmation of others whom you are equally unfit to assess your self.

    And that where you are, Jeff. Have been for the last two years. Believing things, and throwing fits if anybody in the room says that and why he doesn’t agree with your beliefs.

    That’s where you still are. And it is not a crime to be ignorant, or poorly educated, or clueless when it comes to hard sciences.

    But being unaware of this, while angrily bearing the irrelevant CV-drum, wanting to be listened to because of your self-labelling as a ‘scientists’ but never being able to make any scientific argument or even displaying a hint of such an attitude ..

    .. undboubtedly makes you look a little foolish, and definitely does instill any any more confidence or give the impression of a sharp mind with scientific skills. Or that he is capable of contributing any intelligable substance to the topic.

    Because you aren’t Jeff. You don’t even know what the debate is about! Not in general, and most certainly not in the more technical details.

    Stupid, idiotic, mostly childish insults, that is content of your entire (non-) ‘scientific toolbox here, Jeff. And what a tool you are …

  44. #44 Jonas N
    May 30, 2013

    PS I haven’t accused you of fraud Jeff. I noted early on that whatever skills you might posess, it most certainly does not have to do with the hard sciences, and that you most certainly are not a real scientist. Partly because you so obviously are completely oblivious to even what ‘the scientific method’ is. But partly too because your rantings are nothing but incoherent loony drivel mostly emanating from only your fantasies. As I pointed out above, the signal-to-noise-ratio is exceedingly low. And whatever little signal there has been, it has not been relevant or contentuous.

  45. #45 GSW
    May 30, 2013

    You’re an ACTIVIST not a Scientist! You’re no more a Scientist than the creature with Big Eyes and Big Teeth that Red Riding Hood ventured across was her grandmother (hopefully the children’s story analogy will mean chek and wow are with us so far 😉 )

    You’re an ACTIVIST in grandmother clothing!

    That’s why whenever the debate touches on something in the least bit relevant, unable to cope, you high-tail it back to your safety zone- the dreamy world, defending yourself with your “trappings” (the very definition of the pseudoscientific endeavour).

    You don’t/can’t read any of the Climate Science papers, just rely on the unreliable prejudices of your bizarre politics. It may work for you, but to the rest of us you just come across as an unpleasant, uneducated, loon.

    Anyway, Enjoy!

  46. #46 Wow
    May 30, 2013

    Why are scientists and activists mutually exclusive, Gitter?

    Indeed, how the hell are either perjorative?

    And you claim that there’s been *something* relevant on this thread, yet are completely unable to point out what that might be.

    Why is that?

    Because you can’t see anything relevant either, but have to find a complaint somewhere, like the whining little pre-teen brat you are?

  47. #47 GSW
    May 30, 2013


    Don’t normally bother but,

    “Why are scientists and activists mutually exclusive, Gitter?”

    Its a bit like making Steve Mcclaren England manager, if you know what I mean. To quote Forrest Gump

    “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.”

    Well, sometimes the end result is not that much of a surprise.
    Born in York, (Yorkshire,England) Apparently he can speak English fluently as long as there are Cue cards.


  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    May 31, 2013

    “It may work for you, but to the rest of us you just come across as an unpleasant, uneducated, loon”

    Um, Rest of us. Who is gormless referring to? A small band of semi-literate (being kind) climate change deniers, none of whom has published anything remotely scientific in their lives, but as anonymous entities on weblogs never hesitate routinely smear statured scientists like Mann, Hansen, Santer, Trenberth et al.

    The truth is that the ‘rest of us’ in the gormless lexicon actually is a very small number. In reality, the ‘rest of us’, at least in terms of deltoid contributors, and certainly in science, support me and most of the ‘rest of us’ who have relevant degrees certainly agree that humans are the main drivers of climate change. The fact that gormless writes, ‘rest of us’ on the basis of a few outliers shows what a clot he is.

  49. #49 Wow
    May 31, 2013

    Gitter, you shouldn’t have bothered.


    No, honestly, you really weren’t done well by that effort.

    “Why are scientists and activists mutually exclusive, Gitter?”

    Its a bit like making Steve Mcclaren England manager,

    No it isn’t.

    It’s like having a hobby and a job.

    You know, like normal human beings.

    To quote Forrest Gump

    “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.”

    Well, that’s a PERFECT example of why you shouldn’t have bothered. It had NOTHING to do with your statement, therefore displaying that you quote things that are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the conversation, as if you’re really unable to think for more than half a sentence before your ADHD kicks in and you squeal “Look! Monkeys!!!”

  50. #50 chek
    May 31, 2013

    Griselda quoting The Stupidest Man in the Room is entirely fitting.

    As far as I can tell, the implied paraphrase is ” Add ‘x’ ppm of CO2, you never know what you’re gonna get”. Which is true according to Griselda’s protected World of Numpties, Shills, Corporate Interests and Fellow Travellers.

    Unfortunately, in the real world where people make it their business to obtain and calculate actual data, it is known.
    And being known, must be acted upon. By activists.

  51. #51 Jonas N
    May 31, 2013

    OK .. Two thins: Tim feels he needs to hold my comments in desper… ehrm … moderation for several days to ‘help’ the crowd with whatever stance they still might be climing to.

    And Jeff Harvey is once more lying through his teeth when referring to others as ‘climate change deniers’

    I still wonder why any grown up might make so stupid counterfactual claims. It seems that he, like an obnoxious child that has been snubbed, just cannot help himself anymore. And thus wants to proclaim an alternate ‘truth’ that fits his contorted hopes.

    Again he makes his nonsens claims which i just pulled out of that deep black hole which is his fantasyworld.

    And chek too wants to ‘reframe’ the discussion where he, Jeff and many others never really were able to step up to the table ..

    He postures about “obtain and calculate actual data ” … in a thread where his crowd has been running like scared chicken for some two years now, avoiding any real data … partly because of none of them (either!) ever having seen such – that infamous AR4-claim, remember?

  52. #52 GSW
    May 31, 2013

    @Jeff #48

    I think there’s a concensus building around the “you [jeff] just come across as an unpleasant, uneducated, loon” assessment. Only one dissenter so far, the ” unpleasant, uneducated, loon” himself.


    The moderation thing is pretty bad, and again, very CAGW crowd like.They don’t welcome debate of any kind, Gore and Hansen are asked all the time and just refuse to be on the same platform as a “denier”. You’d think men of such conviction would have more faith in the cases they make, but no, head for the nearest exit as soon as someone approaches with a different view.

    I’m guessing Tim’s plan is to sneak your comments in unnoticed, your not banned or anything, that would be wrong, just effectively muted.

    You’ve had your own thread for some time now, and Deltiod’s not the place it once was. Do you think you’ve done some damage here? I think your efforts have certainly contributed to it 😉 The longest running “Denier” dominated thread ever – “Jonas, the undefeated Swede”

    There’s an expression in English, it may be the same everywhere I don’t know.

    “All over bar the shouting”

    It’s certainly appropriate for CAGW, and the regular Deltoids can be relied on to provide the finale shouting. Twas ever thus 😉

    Take care!

  53. #53 Wow
    May 31, 2013

    Aaawwww, come on gitters, we ALL know you don’t think, so stop pretending.

  54. #54 chek
    May 31, 2013

    Heh – and now Griselda presents this week’s edition of the final nail etc.. Part 865,422 of a series.

    Without realising that he’s projecting again and that the Cult of Half-Wit Deniers and Numpties was always going to fade away once their attention span expired, or their lips got tired from all the reading.

  55. #55 Jeff Harvey
    June 1, 2013

    “Only one dissenter so far”….

    .. and only one supporter you idiot. Besides, most sensible people don’t venture into this den of stupidity. They clearly realize a lot cause for what it is: soon it will be down to you adn Jonarse and you will then claim that, on the basis of n = 2 that you corner the wisdom market.

    What sad, pathetic losers you and your hero are.

  56. #56 pentaxZ
    June 12, 2013

    “…you brainless idiot.” Gosh, that’s really mature, jeffie.

    A question jeffie, is it totally impossible for you to write a post without CV waving? Are you even able to try to make a point without it? And without namecalling? In other words, behave like a true, adult scientist?

  57. #57 Wow
    June 12, 2013

    ‘sfunny how you don’t care about the childishness of your mates here, panties.

    Your disgust is fake, and you’re merely concern trolling because you’ve nothing left.


  58. #58 Jonas N
    June 12, 2013

    Well well Jeffie …

    So you declare vicotry over the ‘losers’ without ever daring to engage or even just addressing what is actually said. How typical and predictable.

    Have you even started to address your deep-rooted problem of making up your won facts to at all have anything to say or attack?

    You can hardlyclaim that it’s just been an occasional slip of the tounge or fingers. On the contrary, it is the very rare comments where you do not just fantasize up your own facts, that are the exception.

    Do you have any idea why you are patently incapable of arguing like a grwon up man? It baffles me that you even dare to speak of ‘science’ to me as long as lying and fantasizing is the only method you have while debating others (who don’t rely on blind faith)

    And do I need to remind you that you claimed ” Stu nailed it” when he was trying to get the the eggs of his face claiming (too) that he won any argument?

    Why is it Jeff, that you team up with total losers here, and even make their numbers a central part of your ‘argument’?

    Are you getting anywhere?

  59. #59 pentaxZ
    June 12, 2013

    wowie, jeffie claims to be a scientist and (I suppose) an adult. He’s behaviour here is hardly worthy an employee at a university. Well, not in the civilized world anyway. And about you and the rest of the regular zealots here, namecalling is all you have left. There is nothing left, there is no catastrophe. 17 years and counting. There is no ” worse than predicted, in ten years bla bla bla…” Grow up and deal with the hard facts.

  60. #60 Wow
    June 12, 2013

    panties, your butthurt is entirely fictitious and your petulant whining merely a smokescreen. They are entirely products of your inability to argue your case, therefore you play the martyr and moral guardian ™ instead

    Your complaint is meaningless and affects absolutely nothing.

    Which is why you don’t see anyone else complaining about the ill breeding of you deniers on this thread: it is irrelevant to the case, merely proof of your own hypocrisy.

  61. #61 pentaxZ
    June 12, 2013

    17 years wowie, 17 years. And the co2 level rising like never before. Ooops, did I just swore in the CAGW church? Sorry.

  62. #62 Wow
    June 12, 2013

    17 years and the temperature trend is 0.2C positive.

    17 years and despite the sun being far less active than it was 17 years ago, the trend is still 0.2C positive.

    17 years and the trend is still easily within the IPCC projections.

    17 years and still deniers have fuck all to say.

  63. #63 Wow
    June 12, 2013

    PS the CO2 is still rising, but at a lower rate than it has done previously.

    What a fucking moron you are, panties.

  64. #64 chek
    June 12, 2013

    PantieZ does his impression of the drowning man bragging between waves. There’s no problem that he can see.

    Until the next wave hits. And he and his coterie are too dumb to know that there’s always another wave coming, and another and another..

  65. #65 pentaxZ
    June 13, 2013

    “17 years and the trend is still easily within the IPCC projections.”

    Hahahahahahaha….you have a serious problem dealing with reality.

    And some straight lines, I know you love them:

    Now, where do you see the actual temperature readings being within the projections?

  66. #66 pentaxZ
    June 13, 2013

    Why not let phil jones speak on the matter?

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
    [A] “Yes, but only just”.

    I wonder, worried about what?

  67. #67 chek
    June 13, 2013

    I wonder, worried about what?

    That dimwits like you and your kind will do exactly what you’re doing now.

  68. #68 Wow
    June 13, 2013

    GISS dataset shows a 0.2C increase over 17 years.

    There is no statistically significant pause over the last 17 years.

    But you’re clueless, aren’t you panties.

  69. #69 Wow
    June 13, 2013

    “Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005”

    Yup, the trend is positive and statistically significant over the 17 years previous to 2005.

    “Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009”

    Yup, the previous 17 years trend is positive and statistically significant over the 17 years previous to 2009.

    “Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    The trend is a warming trend.”

    Agreeing with me.

    “Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
    [A] “Yes, but only just”.

    And nothing there about the TREND, just the statistical significance of it, panties. The trend at that time was +0.17C per decade.

    The last 17 years shows no statistically significant pause.

  70. #70 Wow
    June 13, 2013

    And you’re demonstrating how dumb you are, panties, when you insist that ONLY CO2 can have an effect on the earth’s temperature.


  71. #72 pentaxZ
    June 13, 2013

    Haha, so now, finally, you zealots admit that the sun have something to do with earths temperature! That’s about time.

    Now, how is it, is the real world data and the plethora of model scenarios in sync or not?

  72. #73 chek
    June 13, 2013

    Haha, so now, finally, you zealots admit that the sun have something to do with earths temperature!

    So you are now admitting that you know nothing about the IPCC reports, and that you get all your info from twisted denier comics and liars.

    It comes as no surprise at all.

  73. #74 Wow
    June 13, 2013

    Hahaha! So you denier idiots FINALLY recognise that “it’s been flat!” is

    a) wrong
    b) no disproof of AGW

    but you still try desperately to find a “reason” to make it someone else’s fault.

    Because YOU being a fuckwitted idiot is just *unpossible*, right?

  74. #75 Wow
    June 13, 2013

    So lets recap.

    panties now admits they were wrong to claim that the temperature trend is zero for the past 17 years and admits that even if it were true, that does not disprove AGW if some other important factor has reduced.

  75. #76 Jonas N
    June 13, 2013

    I see that once more Jeffie feels he needs to lie ying and rewrite history (in the June 13 open thread):

    I was harangued over and over again by Jonas and otrhers that I am not a ‘real scientist’. So, to prove I am, I gave a brief olverview of my CV including publications, citations, h-factor, etc. Thereafter I am constantly accused of ‘waving my CV’. That continues to this day

    However, here is Jeff’s very first comment to me. Already there he was going on about his CV and asking for mine:

    As a senior scientist watching from the sideline, your ducking and weaving strategy is clearly obvious, as is your singular obsession with the Nature article by Mann et al. (1998) …

    More importantly, Bernard posed a straight question to you that you have repeatedly ducked. That is, what exactly are your qualifications in the field of climate science, or, if that is lacking, in any field of science? This is an important question.

    Already in his second comment, he completely lost it (and started to fabricate his fantasy drivel). And described his own actions as “TRYING TO WIN A PISSING MATCH”

    And now almost two years later, he’s still waving his CV, hoping that it somehow (I have no clue how, though) ‘validates’ his rantings. And this while lying about his own CV-waving …

    You can’t make this guy up … even if you tried!

  76. #77 Jonas N
    June 13, 2013

    Addition RE: Jeffie’s CV-waving:

    And I think there is (in more than one way) something pathological, meaning not quite sound, with Jeff Harveys compulsive lying and fabricating ‘facts’

    Because I have seen him trying the exact same spiel (with his CV) towards others as too. Telling them to shut up, and/or believe/accept the faith because of his CV.

    My interpretation is that the guy just cannot help himself.

  77. #78 pentaxZ
    June 14, 2013

    And still there’s no warming the last 17 years. And the CO2 levels are rising as usual, 400ppm now. Hello armageddon, where are thou?

  78. #79 Wow
    June 14, 2013

    So you’re saying that the sun has no effect on the climate, panties?

    What a moron!

  79. #80 chek
    June 14, 2013

    PantieZ hasn’t noticed that the squiggly lines on graphs can go up and down whilst simultaneously rising inexorably. But then again he’s already told us he doesn’t understand lines.

  80. #81 pentaxZ
    June 14, 2013

    400 ppm CO2 and rising but no rise in temperature for 17 years. That’s the facts. Comment on that?

  81. #82 pentaxZ
    June 14, 2013

    I wonder woowie, who claimed that the sun is the main climate driver and responsible for variations in climate, a year ago or so, you or I? But of course, it’s exactly the same when alarmists call it weather when it get cold and climate change when it get warm. The way of the zealot.

  82. #83 Wow
    June 14, 2013

    So you’re saying that the sun has no effect on the climate, panties?

    Hahahahahaha! You deniers are SUCH idiots!!!!

  83. #84 Wow
    June 14, 2013

    panties, I wonder who it was who thinks that only CO2 effects the climate?


    Because that would mean that CO2 going up has stopped the climate cooling as fast.

    Note, though, the average temperatures have risen a little over 0.2C. That’s NOT flat.


    So bunched.

  84. #85 Wow
    June 14, 2013

    Hey, panties, if you have a cooling trend from the sun and a warming trend from the CO2, what does a warming trend of over 0.2C over those 17 years tell you about the relative strengths of those factors?

  85. #86 chek
    June 14, 2013

    PantieZ is confused because he doesn’t know what a single report from the IPCC actually says.

    He only knows what shills and liars have told him to think. And so he does, without question.

    The funny thing is, all those reports are only three clicks away, but it’s much, much easier – if you’ve the type of barely functioning brain like PantieZ-head here, to just go along with what you’ve been told.

  86. #87 pentaxZ
    June 15, 2013

    And still, no warming in 17 years despite rising CO2 levels. It doesn’t matter how oftwn and how far you move the goalposts, facts is still facts. Hey, Armageddon, where are thou?

  87. #88 Wow
    June 15, 2013

    Around +0.22C of warming is not “no warming”, you innumerate plonker.

  88. #89 Wow
    June 15, 2013

    Despite 17 years of a cooling sun, the temperatures are going up faster than ever before mankind was around.

    Because we’re pumping out more and more CO2.

  89. #90 chek
    June 15, 2013

    For you, PantieZ, although I’m not convinced you’re capable of even the simple arithmetic for seven year olds required to explode your stupid ’17 year’ meme in your stupid face.

    “The Arctic’s sea ice melted at a record pace in 2012, the ninth-hottest year on record, compounding concerns about climate change underscored by extreme weather such as Hurricane Sandy, the UN weather agency says. In a report on the situation in 2012, the World Meteorological Organisation said on Thursday that during the August to September melting season, the Arctic’s sea ice cover was just 3.4 million square kilometres. That was a full 18 per cent less than the previous record low set in 2007. WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud dubbed it a “disturbing sign of climate change.”

    You can read more here if your lips aren’t too tired yet.

  90. #91 GSW
    June 15, 2013

    @Jonas #76 #77

    Not been following much lately, but has Jeff been claiming that CV waiving has not been his only argument? I thought we’d established that beyond reasonable doubt for anyone ages ago. 😉

    Usual MO goes like this; imploding foodwebs.. misrepresent every current ecological concern as being due to CO2.. back off when challenged with references to the “primary literature”, as he calls it, “it’s a stressor” (ie.He can’t back the claims up).. whine incessantly about “transnational elites” out to destroy everything.. his political views are even more bizarre than the man himself.. oh yes and finally “the end is nigh”, just in case a summary was required for the simple folk, chek and wow.

    Now all this drivel is bad enough, but he then tries to justify all the crap by claiming “he’s a scientist”, he goes to conferences and everything. “Forget evidence, just look at my CV!” If Jeff’s CV is evidence of anything, it’s the deplorable state of what passes for an education in the “Sciences” (at least in some fields.)

    Glad you are still going Jonas!

  91. #92 chek
    June 15, 2013

    Heh – it seems the troll collective’s climatescam home is dying a slow death.

  92. #93 Wow
    June 15, 2013

    Gitter, you seem to have joan mixed up with jeff there.

    After all, Joan is the only one saying “You must believe I am right because I’m far more scientist than everyone else”.

    But your confusion is very understandable: you’re a moron after all.

  93. #94 chek
    June 15, 2013

    “You must believe I am right because I’m far more scientist than everyone else”.

    Just had to congratulate you on perfectly capturing Jonarse’s spectacularly uneducated syntax there, Wow.

  94. #95 Jonas N
    June 17, 2013


    Jeffie has (several times) made the claim that his CV-waiving only as been in response to others questioning its existence(!), which (as almost everything he spouts) total hogwash … shown in some links abowe to be total BS.

    And he tries similiar appeals to his own ‘authority’ (meaning CV-length) with most newcomers here, shortly whereafter he starts fabricating ‘facts’ about others and all that they don’t are/know.

    The MO you describe usually comes far later, and could (streneously) be regarded as ‘argument’, however not for anything relevant to the climate change discussion. There he has nothing at all to say (except stating his beliefs, usually in the CV-length of some notorious climate loudmouth).

    No, the guy doesn’t know anything about real and hard sciences. Doesn’t even know what those are when told, doesn’t know what quantification means or the laws of (simple physics) and how they cannot be cheated with. He doesn’t even know what the scientific method means, not even in it’s weaker forms.

    It is indeed very difficult to extract what at all he might be trying to say and accomplish here. It looks mostly just like frustrated angry barking at a world he does not understand.

    And the last sentence is the key pharse here:

    He does not understand major parts of the world, of reality, of why people don’t share his utopian nonsense fantasies about neither world, politics, nor other people. He does not know what (real) science is, how it works and how it may accomplish advancement, and what such may be.

    I think that is why he is shouting so much, and here. Where most of the others are in the same situation. Meaning (amonst others) totally incapable of articulating and argument worth listening to …

  95. #96 pentaxZ
    June 17, 2013

    And now, let’s see what real scientists say:

    “Surely a few more years of cooling will leave only the true believers in their misanthropic ideology, and the truly idiotic”

    ““All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.”

    I know, a lot to read for you small minded, but give it a go.

  96. #97 Wow
    June 17, 2013

    Panties, we already know that you are wrong on what a real scientist says.

    Linking to climate depot and calling curry-favour’s *opinion* as if it were scientifically valid indicates that nicely.

    Hell even your fellow deniers don’t think that is her SCIENTIFIC conclusion:

  97. #98 pentaxZ
    June 17, 2013

    I knew it, to much text for the zealots to comprehend.

  98. #99 Wow
    June 17, 2013

    Too little factually based bullshit for any sane human to comprehend.

    Then again, incomprehensibility is how you roll, isn’t it, panties. Because if you make a statement that makes NO SENSE then it either goes unanswered (“CAN’T ANSWER, HUH???”) or it has to be inferred what you meant (“I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!”).

    And post 97 contains too little content to comprehend.

  99. #100 chek
    June 17, 2013

    To echo PantieZ @ #97, anybody would have known that old Pants would be totally unable to think through what #90 means due to the shortcomings described in #98..

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.