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 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    pentax

    Come on. Get on with it:

    – Admit that you were wrong to claim that fitting linear trends to climate temperature time series is “totally pointless”.

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1979 – present; OLS linear fit

    * * *

    – Admit that your repeated claim that there has been no warming over the last 17 years is false. Here is actual data flatly contradicting your lies presented using WfT – apparently your own preferred data visualisation tool:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

    How long is this going to take FFS?

    Come on./b>

  2. #2 pentaxZ
    June 24, 2013

    Fitting linear trends to temperature time series IS totally pointless since climate variarions are never linear. Allthough it’s a convenient way to hide the decline so ones CAGW faith doesn’t get demolished. And a practical tool for alarming the public and politicians.

    You zealots claim that a rise in temperature less than 1 deg C in a century is manmade and catastrophic. Yet no one of you can provide any facts to support that claim. Model scenarios from unvalidated GCMs are NOT scientific proof of anything. The models and reallity diverge more and more for every day. When are you going to admit that they are pretty much useless? And where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Where are all the millions of climate refugees? Where are all the islands supposed to be drenched in the Paciffic? Why are there more polar bears than ever splashing around at the north pole? Why has the earth gotten greener the last decades? Why don’t the Earth and nature comply with the CAGW hypothesis?

    And you clowns don’t realize you are the worlds laughing stock? Unbelievable. Really unbelievable. And hilarious.

  3. #3 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Fitting linear trends to temperature time series IS totally pointless

    Argument by assertion. Argument from ignorance. Contradicted by standard practice. No supporting reference.

    In a word, bollocks.

    Admit that you are wrong instead of repeating your lies.

    And a practical tool for alarming the public and politicians.

    Conspiracist ideation. You sound like a crank.

    You zealots claim that a rise in temperature less than 1 deg C in a century is manmade and catastrophic. Yet no one of you can provide any facts to support that claim.

    More assertion, ignorance and bollocks. There is a wall of evidence. Pretending it does not exist is being stupid and dishonest in equal measure. Get a grip.

    Oh fuck the rest of your tripe. It doesn’t even merit a response. It’s only a distraction tactic anyway. You are trying to avoid admitting your errors and lies and it won’t work with me.

    Time to face up to your own miserable behaviour on this thread. Admit your lies instead of repeating them. Start with lie about linear fits, then the lie about no warming for 17 years. Come on. Stop trying to skip past the problem.

    How low will you go FFS?

    Come on.

    You zealots claim that a rise in temperature less than 1 deg C in a century is manmade and catastrophic. Yet no one of you can provide any facts to support that claim. Model scenarios from unvalidated GCMs are NOT scientific proof of anything. The models and reallity diverge more and more for every day. When are you going to admit that they are pretty much useless? And where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Where are all the millions of climate refugees? Where are all the islands supposed to be drenched in the Paciffic? Why are there more polar bears than ever splashing around at the north pole? Why has the earth gotten greener the last decades? Why don’t the Earth and nature comply with the CAGW hypothesis?

  4. #4 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    There’s so much *rubbish* in your comment I managed to miss this:

    You zealots claim that a rise in temperature less than 1 deg C in a century is manmade and catastrophic.

    No, you dishonest buffoon. POTENTIALLY catastrophic if there is no policy response to AGW. Yet another very crude strawman from you.

    Stop it.

  5. #5 pentaxZ
    June 24, 2013

    Where has it become unbearably hot due to AGW? Where are all the millions of climate refugees? Where are all the islands supposed to be drenched in the Paciffic? Why are there more polar bears than ever splashing around at the north pole? Why has the earth gotten greener the last decades? Why don’t the Earth and nature comply with the CAGW hypothesis?

    Any answers?

  6. #6 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Not until you admit your errors and lies.

  7. #7 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Start with lie about linear fits, then the lie about no warming for 17 years. Come on. Stop trying to skip past the problem.

  8. #8 pentaxZ
    June 24, 2013

    “There is a wall of evidence”

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

    30 years of data massaging, cherrypicking, ignoring contradictory research, tweaking computer games to fit a belief and lying through the teeth. And you call it “a wall of evidence”? Priceless, absolutely priceless beyond belief!

    “POTENTIALLY catastrophic if there is no policy response to AGW”

    Help politicians, please save the world from the evil CO2 devil.

    Please stop before I get a laughing spasm.

  9. #9 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    You haven’t admitted to your lies.

    Start with lie about linear fits, then the lie about no warming for 17 years.

  10. #10 chek
    June 24, 2013

    <Hahahaha etc. etc. etc..

    It seems PantieZ best argument is pounding his keyboard like an epileptic woodpecker. Then projecting the appalling behaviour of the denial cult on to the world’s scientific community without bothering with evidence.

    “POTENTIALLY catastrophic if there is no policy response to AGW” Help politicians, please save the world from the evil CO2 devil.

    PantieZ thinks that being in flight after driving over a cliff edge is the only time it’s valid to consider the problem of driving over cliffs.

    That PantieZ “intelligence” is not his strongpoint or indeed that any abstract problems are beyond him comes as no surprise whatsoever.

  11. #11 freddy
    June 24, 2013

    @chek

    “world’s scientific community”

    you mistake methodologically rotten “climatology” with “world’s scientific community”

    are you insane or otherwise out of bounds ill?

  12. #12 chek
    June 24, 2013

    “Freddy”, only fuckwit deniers have a problem with climate science. The global scientific community does not.

    I haven’t yet heard of a single National Academy of Science disassociating itself from the IPCC, and neither have you. What you’ve got instead is the usual denier smear, innuendo and zero produced by fuckwits, for fuckwits.

  13. #13 freddy
    June 24, 2013

    @chek: “I haven’t yet heard of a single National Academy of Science disassociating itself from the IPCC, and neither have you”

    are you an idiot or do you just try to imitate an idiot?

    “climatology” is NOT THE center of science at all. opinions about weather and climate of scientists from other disciplines, eg a brain research scientist, are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT

    you must learn this lesson, as you are totally mistaken by your climate church guru who deny standard scientific methodology. you true science deniers should first lean what real science is, as you consider science as means to enforce your nasty green-socialist world riot. you climate church acoytes suffer from severe conspiration theory syndrome that decent citizens with a sense of realism oppose your warming hallucinations which will never become realliy in thousands of years. everybody except you knows this

  14. #14 chek
    June 24, 2013

    Keep pounding that table Freddy. Like all deniers, your own worthless, hand-me-down, uninteresting opinion is all you’ve got.
    PantieZ might be impressed though. He goes all googie eyed and wets himself over empty rhetoric.

  15. #15 Jonas N
    June 24, 2013

    chek

    “I haven’t yet heard of a single … ”

    That’s probably true, since you miss out on most essential details, or just ignore them and/or invent som convenient factoids instead .. like so many others here.

    But neither have you ever seen, read, or even met anybody who knows of that alleged science behind that infamous AR4 claim. In spite of this obvious lack of (existing) information, however, you keep on pounding that it should be believed anyway. Why is that, you think?

    You say you don’t know ” a single National Academy of Science disassociating itself from the IPCC” and that’s probably true too, since there is not really much you do know about any such matters. But do you know any single national acadamy which has properly polled i’s constituency for a properly stated position about anything wrt climate/IPCC?

    No, you don’t know that either. Point in case: You just don’t know. Hence your inane droolings here, afraid of engaging even with the few non-faithers around …

  16. #16 freddy
    June 24, 2013

    chek, you science denier and climate pagan will bite your table when you face the solutiin of your life lies. your opinion is completely irrelevant since you are unable to admit that global temp and co2 are not correlated.

    YOU ARE A PRIMITIVE REALITY DENIER IN PREFER TO LIVE IN YOUR FALSE VIRTUAL REALITY

    poor. idiots

  17. #17 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Fucking hell. Another bozo.

  18. #18 chek
    June 24, 2013

    Another bozo.

    …with the same old shit.
    And argument by capitalisation – likely even stupider than PantieZ.

  19. #19 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Check out Betty on the other thread. He’s trying to claim that what he does isn’t lying. I’ve pointed out that intellectual dishonesty takes various forms, but we can call it “lying” to keep things simple.

  20. #20 freddy
    June 24, 2013

    bbd, i agree totally with you: check is really another bozo and fuckwit science denier without intellect and knowledge

    thank you for your valued support.

  21. #21 chek
    June 24, 2013

    #18 – Now that’s what I call grade ‘A’ fuckwittery.

  22. #22 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    freddy, your #14 would embarrass a pig. Don’t even talk to me.

  23. #23 freddy
    June 24, 2013

    climate education for denier check:

    noaa admitted that 2013 so far is by far not the hottest year. therefore global temp is not increasing since more than 15 years

    WHAT A CATASTROPHIC RESULT FOR WARMING HYSTERICS

    hahaha, you have lost your deceiving lobbying

    what will you do in the future. are you trying to lead a decent life with real work?

  24. #24 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    noaa admitted that 2013 so far is by far not the hottest year. therefore global temp is not increasing since more than 15 years

    Oh read the fucking thread moron. Your stupid lie disproved:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

  25. #25 chek
    June 24, 2013

    Freddy, do two things before you embarrass yourself further.

    1)Find where the IPCC claims that CO2 is the sole climate driver and global temperature will rise monotonically. Hint: you won’t.
    2)Check out signal to noise ratios which may (or likely won’t in your case) enlighten you as to why thirty year periods are required to see the climate signal.

    What you fuckwits do – and it does impress other fuckwits, no question about it – is analogous to claiming global cooling because this evening is cooler than this afternoon. Congratulations on collecting your utterly useless global community of fuckwits

  26. #26 freddy
    June 24, 2013

    bbd, chek trolls: do have an idea why you always lose the argumention with true scientists like me:

    BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT SCIENCE IS, YOU ARE 5th-ROW FOLLOWERS OF YOUR CLIMATE RELIGION GURUS WITHOUT INTELLECT, INSPIRATION AND SUCCESS IN LIFE.

    bbd, you should urgentky improve your language skills, as it is nearly impossible to understand your junk

  27. #27 chek
    June 24, 2013

    Ah yes, the one true scientist who speaks in all caps.
    Moron.

  28. #28 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    freddy

    Your stupid lie disproved at #22. Read the fucking words moron.

    God, and I though pentax was bad…

  29. #29 pentaxZ
    June 24, 2013

    “Not until you admit your errors and lies.”

    Ah, a convenient way for you not to have to answer to questions you don’t have any answer to since you damn well know I won’t admit to the thruth being a lie. You know, a hammer is a hammer, despite you calling it a rose.

  30. #30 chek
    June 24, 2013

    Ah, a convenient way for you not to have to answer to questions you don’t have any answer to since you damn well know I won’t admit to the thruth being a lie.

    No,, that’s what you do PantieZ. All the rest of your nonsense is diversion and shoddy ignorance that you pick up from denier sites without any information that withstands scrutiny.

    It does fool fuckwits like you and Freddy though.
    Perhaps you could serve as a litmus test for garbage.

  31. #31 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Admit your errors and lies and stop pissing around.

    We’ll move one once you demonstrate a bare minimum of good faith.

    Start with lie about linear fits, then the lie about no warming for 17 years. Come on. Stop trying to slide past the problem with one childish misdirection after another.

    And FFS get on with it.

  32. #32 GSW
    June 24, 2013

    @Jonas,

    See some of your posts got thru ;) The rule seems to be they’re allowed thru when that group of 100 posts comes to an end, i.e they dont appear on the current page (?). I mean, how “dangerous” can your words be Jonas? ;)

  33. #33 GSW
    June 24, 2013

    @Jonas

    Keep posting, they’re always worth a read.
    ;)

  34. #34 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    Jonas isn’t dangerous, GSW. He’s just a posturing, conceited clown and a pain in the arse. Nobody bar a few sycophants such as yourself is remotely interested in his content-free bloviations.

  35. #35 GSW
    June 24, 2013

    @BBD

    I enjoy them BBD and who cares whether you do or not? Beats your endless whining.
    ;)

  36. #36 BBD
    June 24, 2013

    I don’t whine. You however are a liar.

  37. #37 freddy
    June 24, 2013

    chek and bbd trolls are 4th class climate realism liars, scoundrels, deceivers:

    even your utmost superior and high guruh pajauri, ipcc presi and indian railway specialist without climate background, surrendered to the truth that global warming has stopped for over 15 years, like your three warming apostles phil collins, jim hansen and tom karl. AND YOU IDIOTS, HAVEN’T YOU HEARD THE GOSPELS FROM YOUR CHURCH BOSSES. you illiterate brats dare to oppose your warming church bosses.

    beware, you will be punished by them and thrown out of your pagan climate hystersm church if you don’t comply to the truth that global warming stopped despite 400ppm co2

    WILL THIS GO INTO YOUR FLAT BRAIN, YOU MORONS AND SMALL ROD FUCKWITS????

  38. #38 Craig Thomas
    June 24, 2013

    “freddy” is a trailer-park intellectual. He doesn’t seem to understand the difference between people who achieve levels of education above Primary-level and himself, which leaves him confused about the relative worth of educated people’s opinions as compared with his own completely worthless nonsense.

  39. #39 freddy
    June 24, 2013

    craigtroll, of all climate idiots here you are the one with the lowest intellect, by far

    you are so terribly silly that yoz cn’t even answer the following 3 questions :

    a) did phil jones disclose which land temperature stations he has used to calculate a phil jones land global temperature 2012?

    b) did phil jones disclose which sea temperature stations he has used to calculate a phil jones sea global temperature 2012?

    c) by how many millimeters is the average sea level every year faked up by the climate church in order to deceive the public?

    as you are by far the greatest climate idiot without any formation, knowledge and experience, you cannot answer my questions, YOU ARE A MORON WHO WASTES HIS TIME WITH CLIMATE FRAUD

  40. #40 Craig Thomas
    June 25, 2013

    a) Yes.
    b) Yes.
    c) nil.

    Next.

  41. #41 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    “craig” moron troll

    a) no
    b) no
    c) 2mm

    fuckwits like you cannot pass any exam

  42. #42 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    the truth that global warming has stopped for over 15 years

    The data do not lie freddy, so it must be you.

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

    More charitably, perhaps the problem is ignorance of the basics of physical climatology. Let’s sort out the mess:

    – The rate of surface temperature warming has slowed, but not stopped over the last decade

    – The rate of ocean heat uptake by the 0 – 2000m layer has slightly increased (OHC 0 – 2000m).

    – There is no mismatch with theory.

    – There is no “missing energy”.

    – AGW is not “falsified”.

    – There is no succour for climate change deniers, at least not those few who actually understand the basics of physical climatology.

  43. #43 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    bbd, so you dare to contradict your agw bosses?

    FUCKWIT MORON!!!!!!!!!

  44. #44 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    bbd, agw is no theory you ignorant. only a hypothesis or speculation. moron

  45. #45 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    bbd, so you dare to contradict your agw bosses?

    Why not just read what I wrote? It’s perfectly clear. I know you are desperately confused and I’m trying to help.

    bbd, agw is no theory you ignorant. only a hypothesis or speculation. moron

    No, it’s a theory. You are really quite funny!

  46. #46 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
    Hilarious!

  47. #47 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    Well done pentax! You’ve learned to spell “hilarious”.

    I am *so* proud.

    Now we need to deal with the, ahem, racist caricature and your avoidance issues. You still haven’t mustered up the courage to admit to your errors and lies, which is a great disappointment.

    Take it in baby steps. Start with lie about linear fits, then we can work up to the lie about no warming for 17 years. Once you get started, it will get easier and easier. Honest!

  48. #48 chek
    June 25, 2013

    so you dare to contradict your agw bosses?

    Care to show the alleged Pachuari quote?
    It’s OK Freddy – it’s a trick question, because it doesn’t exist.

    But you have to show it to claim it, that’s the way these things work when one ventures out of moronland.

  49. #49 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    bbd zealot says:

    – There is no mismatch with theory.

    Two faults in one centence. AGW isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis. Big difference. Second, http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

    – There is no “missing energy”.

    Really? No “predicted” hotspots? No warming detected from the ARGO bouies?

    – AGW is not “falsified”

    Correct. Something never validated can’t be falsified.

  50. #50 chek
    June 25, 2013

    AGW isn’t a theory, it’s a hypothesis. Big difference.

    Don’ty try and be clever in a second language you have poor grasp of PantieZ. AGW is a well supported theory.

    Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word ‘hypothesis’).

    But as we already know you’re a moron, you can’t be expected to parse obvious differences in English.

  51. #51 chek
    June 25, 2013

    Oh gawd – PantieZ @ #47 is trying the Monckton Manoevre.
    I suppose it was just a matter of time before any available discredited junk shows up. God forbid he’d supply any acceptable science.

  52. #52 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    Oh dear.

    No admission of your lies’.

    Wrong about AGW *theory*.

    The Christy misrepresentation.

    A new lie about ARGO and OHC.

    That one is skewered directly above, at # 40, second link. More real world facts for you. More data.

    You don’t actually read anything I write, do you?

  53. #53 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word “theory” that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word ‘hypothesis’).”

    And there you have it, chek. finally you admit that the AGW “theory” is false. How does that feel?

  54. #54 chek
    June 25, 2013

    How does it feel?
    That you’ve confirmed you’re an ignorant moron?
    I lalready knew that, so no change.

  55. #55 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    bbd, there is no end to your lying and projections. I wonder, why so furiosly denie real world facts? Must be a zealot thing. There is help for you, men in white coats and padded rooms will certanely be of asistance if you ask gently.

  56. #56 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “Here come de heap big warmy. Is big big hot. Bigtime warmy warmy. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. De hot come go, come go. Not hot now. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.”
    Hilarious! So on the spot.

  57. #57 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    AGW is neither unproven nor speculative. Any more than the laws of physics underpinning the terrestrial greenhouse effect are unproven or speculative. AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis.

    Wrong *again* and still repeating your lies.

    What about the ARGO lie that I nailed above? I need to update the lies-avoided list:

    – the lie about linear fits

    – the “17 year” lie

    – the ARGO lie

    – the hypothesis lie

  58. #58 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    Obviosly you don’t have a god day, chek, if you even can’t understand your own writing. Maybe the men in white coats can help you too.

  59. #59 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    # 53

    I wonder, why so furiosly denie real world facts?

    That would be you projecting like a poisoned dog. I post graphs. I use real world data.

    You lie.

    And you are a fucking racist.

  60. #60 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “AGW is neither unproven nor speculative.”

    Problem with not only comprehension but with graphs as well? Call the men in white coats.

  61. #61 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “And you are a fucking racist.”

    And you base this accusation on what?

    You really need help since you obviosly are mouth frothing.

  62. #62 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    # 58

    No problem with comprehension nor with graphs. My graphs are repeatedly linked above. They demonstrate that you are a liar. Three times over.

    # 59

    Only racists think it is acceptable engage in cultural caricatures as you have done, incessantly, on two threads.

    So, let me update my conclusion:

    You are fucking liar *and* a fucking racist.

    ;-)

  63. #63 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    Oh, nearly forgot:

    AGW is neither unproven nor speculative. Any more than the laws of physics underpinning the terrestrial greenhouse effect are unproven or speculative. AGW is a theory, not a hypothesis.

    Wrong *again* and still repeating your lies.

    Updated lie list:

    – the lie about linear fits

    – the “17 year” lie

    – the ARGO lie

    – the hypothesis lie

    Let’s have some sort of admission that you are resorting to serial mendacity because you have no scientific case whatsoever.

  64. #64 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “Only racists think it is acceptable engage in cultural caricatures as you have done, incessantly, on two threads.”

    Hahaha, that’s a projection monumental style. Calling others racist is usually a zealots last resort, when the arguments are depleted.

    Sorry, but you haven’t proven anything. Ecxept that you seriously need proffesional help.

  65. #65 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “AGW is neither unproven nor speculative.”

    AGW is based on computer games. Ant they are NOT validated against reallity. So, how can you say “AGW is neither unproven nor speculative” without lying through your teeth? Especially since the projections and reallity diverge mor for each day? You really haven’t all horses in the stable.

  66. #66 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    Hahaha, that’s a projection monumental style.

    You are either having a laugh or you are insane. Either way, you are a fucking racist.

    AGW is based on computer games.

    Do read the words. AGW arises from basic physics which has been understood for over a century and extensively validated by ground-based and satellite-based instruments over the last several decades. It is neither speculative nor unproven.

    Only a liar or someone entirely ignorant of the basics – or both, as in your case – would make this claim.

    Projections and reality aren’t diverging. OHC, fuckwit, OHC.

    You just don’t understand how the climate system responds to a sustained and slowly increasing forcing. That’s a mess only you can mop up. I cannot do it for you. Meanwhile, the real world facts can be reviewed in various graphs linked repeatedly above.

  67. #67 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    Ah, forcing. That word hasn’t been heard for a long time now among climate mongers. Why? Perhaps because the co2 level is now above 400 ppm and the temperature refuse to rise.

    Laughing stock, zealot, laughing stock. Hahahahahaha….

  68. #68 chek
    June 25, 2013

    Perhaps because the co2 level is now above 400 ppm and the temperature refuse to rise.(sic)

    Repeating lies again and again does not make them true PantieZ.

    You need to show verifiable evidence, as BBD does. Being a liar (and cherry picking is a form of lying too) is nothing to be proud of, yet you seem to be very proud of it. Curious – but then you certainly are a curiosity.

  69. #69 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    ” Repeating lies again and again does not make them true PantieZ.”

    Exactly. Even 30 years of CAGW lying doesn’t make the hypothesis right.

  70. #70 chek
    June 25, 2013

    Even 30 years of CAGW lying doesn’t make the hypothesis right.

    Very true PantieZ. What makes it right is nobody has successfully challenged it.

    Not you, not Jonarse, nor Watts, not McIntyre, nor Curry, not Montford, not the Idso clowns, not Pat Michaels, not Bast and the Heartland Clwn Co., not CEI, not API, not GMI, not ICE. In short not any of the whole fucking circus you goons get your stories from and put your faith in.

    Take you as an example – a fucking disgrace of a human being reduced to lying for strangers for a pat on the bum from Jonarse.

  71. #71 GSW
    June 25, 2013

    @Jonas

    Your post at #14 got thru ;) On the current page as well, so I guess the theory at my #31 is wrong :| There’s definitely a human element to it, somebody likes to play god over who’s allowed to speak and who’s not. A sort of “Blog Review”, as opposed to “Peer Review”, “gatekeeping” you might say- everything thing will be ok – as long as you limit exposure to all the data and all views ;) But the truth will out, it always does! Gatekeeping is a losing strategy in the long run, does more harm to the “cause” than good.

    Yes, your #14, things that chek “doesn’t know about” or “hasn’t heard of”, from his performances here, It’s hard to believe the list isn’t pretty extensive.

    Do some more damage with those “words” Jonas!
    Enjoy! ;)

  72. #72 chek
    June 25, 2013

    somebody likes to play god

    … on a blog – not even that, on a blog basement comment section.

    You really are small-time creeps grateful for any contact with the outside world, aren’t you Griselda.
    Still, I’m sure Jonarse appreciates your heroic efforts.

  73. #73 chek
    June 25, 2013

    Enjoy!

    Indeed, enjoy every one of those infantile smiley face icons that highlight the grade of towering intellects you seek to cultivate Jonarse.
    Every one of them lovingly tapped out in terms of endearment especially for you, big fella. Enjoy!

  74. #74 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “…nobody has successfully challenged it. Not you, not Jonarse, nor Watts, not McIntyre, nor…yadayadayada.”

    In your deluded world that certainly is true. In the real world, you know, outside your padded room, it’s a totally different story.

    “…put your faith in.”

    Hehe. I’m not in any need of faith. The religious stuff is all you zealots thing. I thought we had settled that once and for all.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-62/#comment-158168

  75. #75 pentaxZ
    June 25, 2013

    “No link, fuckwit.”

    Sorry about that, dependent. Here it is:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/detrend:1/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1995/detrend:1/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1995/detrend:1/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/detrend:1/mean:12/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1995/detrend:1/mean:12/trend/plot/uah/from:1995/detrend:1/mean:12/trend

    Isn’t it nice. So, now you don’t have to worry about CAGW any more. Perhaps your doctors can cut down on your medication now?

  76. #76 chek
    June 25, 2013

    In the real world, you know, outside your padded room, it’s a totally different story.

    You really do live in a fantasy world completely described by your idiot echo chamber blogs, don’t you PantieZ.

    Otherwise you’d be able to reference all the retracted papers from all those scientists who got it wrong. But you can’t, all you can do is bray ineffectually like a dumb donkey’s asswipe. Which is at least very fitting and suits you to a tee.

  77. #77 chek
    June 25, 2013

    So, now you don’t have to worry about CAGW any more.

    Thus we get a glimpse of the world through the eyes of a moron. Except for the moron, the world really does go away when he shuts his eyes.

    With that slope PantieZ, we’ll be in an ice age by September!

  78. #78 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    chek, bbd, all other warming trolls:

    you could not better have shown your infinite distance from real science as you don’t know the difference between theory and hypothesis: agw is beyond any doubt a hypothesis.

    i woud not have accepted anybody of you idiots to qualify as candidate for a thesis under my guidance, since you don’t know even the most basic definitions of science.

    MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!! IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    June 25, 2013

    “i woud [sic] not have accepted anybody of you idiots [sic] to qualify as candidate for a thesis under my guidance”

    Good Lord, Freddy, none of us would want an illiterate loon like you to supervise our thesis. You clearly aren’t qualified in any field, with the possible exception of buffoonery.

  80. #80 chek
    June 25, 2013

    i (sic) woud not have accepted anybody (sic) of you idiots to qualify as candidate for a thesis under my guidance,

    Given that the most likely time for that to ever happen is the day after the sun becomes a red giant, I don’t expect anybody here gives a fuck what you’d accept. And with the massive damage you’re exhibiting to your um …communication skills, I’d say it’s time to get your special coat on again, “Professor”

  81. #81 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    jeff, bbd, chek: bullshit fuckwits without any substance, just nasty morons

    you have never create jobs, you don’t have money, you are ugly, nowhere really successful, just mediocre nobodies about which the world laughs

    hahaha, haha, they don’t even know the difference between theory and hypothesis, you assholes

  82. #82 chek
    June 25, 2013

    Those pesky post doc language skills are never there when you need ‘em, are they Prof? Anyway, thanks for the peek into your shrivelled psyche, I’ll bet it matches your shrivelled face and ballsack perfectly.

    Do be sure to call in again next millennium.

  83. #83 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    chek

    AAHOLE, go home sweaping to mommy, small boy

    you disqualified for a decent discussion due to continuing incivility and stinking

    and remember: NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GLOBAL TEMP AND CO2

    what blow to your old bones

  84. #84 chek
    June 25, 2013

    NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GLOBAL TEMP AND CO2

    You already tried that tired old meme and were blown out of the water. It must suck to have to repeat yourself and hope for a different outcome.

  85. #85 Jeff Harvey
    June 25, 2013

    “you have never create jobs, you don’t have money, you are ugly, nowhere really successful, just mediocre nobodies about which the world laughs”

    Old Freddy is a first rate loony…..

  86. #86 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    @ # 74 pentax

    Isn’t it nice. So, now you don’t have to worry about CAGW any more. Perhaps your doctors can cut down on your medication now?

    Fascinating analysis, professor. But you leave me baffled. Can you explain why you have detrended all time series and linear fits?

    If one eschews inexplicable detrending, you get this:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; annual means 1996 – present; OLS linear fit

    Why the detrending? Please explain.

  87. #87 freddy
    June 25, 2013

    bbd, you do cherrypicking to fit your ideology

    when until 2100 will the temps jump upwards to reach +4C from now? between 2090 and 2095, because then you are dead and cannot be shown how silly wrong you were?

  88. #88 BBD
    June 25, 2013

    # 86

    At last, a sensible observation. I have nowhere argued that GAT will reach +4C by 2100. I don’t see how it could.

    But +2C or thereabouts with a continuing increase to ~4C by the mid-C22nd, that I can see without squinting:

    If ECS/2xCO2 = 2.8C then for CO2ppmv = 800

    dT = 2.8ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 4.2C

    If ECS/2xCO2 = 3.0C then for CO2ppmv = 800

    dT = 3ln(800/280)/ln(2) = 4.5C

  89. #89 chek
    June 25, 2013

    … and with BBD’s calculation, I’m sure that if you were to ask Jeff and Bernard nicely – nicely, mind! – they’d be happy to provide a broad outline of what such changes would mean for our biosphere. Y’know, the only one we (by which I mean all life on Earth), that we live in and are 100% dependent on.

  90. #90 Bernard J.
    June 26, 2013

    Freddy screamed:

    NO CORRELATION BETWEEN GLOBAL TEMP AND CO2

    Hmmm…

    A wise person once said that it’s better to shut up and be thought a fool that to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. In freddy’s case not only did he open his mouth, he sprayed the vacuous, foolish festering contents for all to see.

    The problem for you freddy is that basic mathematics show your error for the egregious claptrap that it is.

    I took the latest GISSTempt data and regressed both the monthly and the yearly temperature data against time.

    For the period 1880 to present the monthly regression coefficient (R2) was 0.63, and the yearly regression coefficient was 0.76.

    For the period spanning the last fifty years the monthly regression coefficient was 0.69, and the yearly regression coefficient was 0.82.

    If freddy hasn’t yet seen the brick that’s hurtling straight between his eyes he might want to consider what first year undergraduate students (and indeed even high school students) are taught about the interpretation of correlation coefficients:

    0 – 0.2 = weak
    0.2 – 0.4 = modest
    0.4 – 0.6 = moderate
    0.6 – 0.8 = moderately strong
    0.8 – 1.0 = strong

    I will leave it to the reader to decide if freddy is correct when he says there is no correlation, or if he is in fact no more than a raving nutter who borders on the pathetically psychotic.

    Freddy’s only consolation is that he is so bloody stupid that he won’t ever know that his brains have been dashed from his skull by school-level mathematics – the difference to his intellectual capacity before and after such blunt-force lobotomy is effectively unmeasurable…

  91. #91 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    “A wise person once said that it’s better to shut up and be thought a fool that to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

    And yet you speak? Bernie, the master of own goals!

  92. #92 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    bbd, I know you are fond of straight lines. So I maked some. Not happy? Ask your doctor for some more happy pills.

  93. #93 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    jeffie, have you created any jobs (exept for your self)?

  94. #94 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    bernard-troll: you regressed faked temp data from phil jones???

    FUCKWIT MORON!!!!

    learn to be a decent person who is not willing to deceive the public

    MORON!!!!!!!!!!

  95. #95 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    pentax

    bbd, I know you are fond of straight lines. So I maked some. Not happy? Ask your doctor for some more happy pills.

    You have responded to a clear, correct graph with deliberate, considered misrepresentation. This should horrify you.

    Does it? If not, why not?

    Aren’t you sickened and ashamed by what you have done?

    If not, why not?

  96. #96 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    bbc troll

    all your “straight lines” point directly to your asshole bcos there its warmer than around co2

    a new hypojesus, proof it, fuckwit

  97. #97 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    I think you should go now, freddy. You are making a sad spectacle out of yourself.

    Take this with you for bedtime reading: Shakun et al. (2012) Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation.

    Paleoclimate is the key to understanding future climate. Learn, instead of posting deranged shite on the internet.

  98. #98 chek
    June 26, 2013

    you regressed faked temp data from phil jones

    Wrong. This is just another smear campaign which you think is fact but isn’t. The most noticeable thing about all the global temperature record series – even the sceptic approved BEST study – is how much in agreement they are.

    That the Earth’s temperature is rising is no longer in dispute, except of course amongst uninformed hard-core fanatic nutcases.

  99. #99 chek
    June 26, 2013

    It’s great to see so many deniers utterly unconcerned with appearing to be ignorant, know-nothing, lying morons.

    Their impact on any uncommitted but intelligent observers must be extraordinary.

  100. #100 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    GAT vs forcings.

    Evidence vs insane frothing by online nutters.

    Nutters lose every time.

Current ye@r *