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 26, 2013

    chek # 98

    Oh yes. The frothy fringe of lying fuckwits are a rationalist’s best friend and finest tool for persuading the waverers.

    Nutters lose every time.

  2. #2 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    “Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation.”

    Really? Was there really SUVs back then? Oh, and you convenient forget that in long perspectives co2 lags behind temperature rise with a factor of 800 years? What a zany you are.

  3. #3 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    “Why the detrending? Please explain.”

    I just picked here and there to get a trend I liked. Just like you do. Linear trends in climate research are worth nothing, climate NEVER changes linear. Claming they are just show how shallow your understanding of the science is. What a joke.

  4. #4 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Really? Was there really SUVs back then? Oh, and you convenient forget that in long perspectives co2 lags behind temperature rise with a factor of 800 years? What a zany you are.

    During deglaciation, GHGs are one of a chain of feedbacks to orbital forcing. The much-vaunted time lag is a consequence of the chain of causality. Read the paper instead of posting ill-informed tripe on the internet.

    I just picked here and there to get a trend I liked. Just like you do. Linear trends in climate research are worth nothing, climate NEVER changes linear. Claming they are just show how shallow your understanding of the science is. What a joke.

    You faked a graph because you are a liar. You assert nonsense because you are a liar. I have done neither of these things, so the joke – such as it is – is on you.

  5. #5 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    These are the data and the trends. Your original – and demonstrably false – claim was that there has been no warming for 17 years.

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

    You have repeated this false claim yet again, despite repeated correction.

    You are a liar.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    June 26, 2013

    PentaxZ said:

    “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!

    PentaxZ, the relationship between time and CO2 concentration is almost perfectly linear, with an R^2 regression coefficient of 0.99. I’d have thought that you would be able to extrapolate from that, but I see the problem with giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    Never mind, I can do this directly, but I hope this doesn’t complicate it too much for you. Regressing temperature at time tx against atmospheric carbon dioxide at time tx gives a coefficient of 0.86.

    Tell me now – is carbon dioxide in your opinion not correlated with temperature?

  7. #7 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Linear trends in climate research are worth nothing, climate NEVER changes linear.

    Strawman. You are arguing that linear fits can only be applied if the data points all line up neatly. This is so obviously stupid it doesn’t need further comment. Except this – stop being such an arse.

  8. #8 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    I just picked here and there to get a trend I liked.

    No you fucking well didn’t. You detrended the data. I asked you why you did this and you have not answered the question.

    Why did you detrend? Come on, explain yourself.

  9. #9 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Look at this man. A liar who fakes graphs then denies that he is a liar who fakes graphs with the evidence sitting right there, in full public view?

    This is a pathology. We see a diseased mind at work.

  10. #10 Bernard J.
    June 26, 2013

    Freddy screams (as is his wont):

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

    FUCKWIT MORON!!!!

    Um, GISSTemp isn’t Phil Jones. It’s NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Phil Jones is with UEA’s CRU.

    So who’s the moron? I’ll give you a clue, it isn’t me…

    But pick whatever temperature record you prefer with which to regress with CO2. You’ll still get a correlation. Even Roy Spencer’s satellite dataset, with all of its instrumentation and other issues and with its ongoing corrections, still gives a coefficient of 0.52. And that instrumentation is not even measuring temperature per se!

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    June 26, 2013

    So, once more unto the breach…

    Freddy and PentaxZ. Are global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration correlated, or are they not?

    If you believe that they are not, how did you perform the analysis that indicates this? Can you show your working?

    Or is all this mathematistics stuff just too difficult for you?

  12. #12 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    “the relationship between time and CO2 concentration is almost perfectly linear”

    Yeah, to about 2000. And before 1900 there wasn’t much correlation either. After 2000 the correlation is nill. And as you should know, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

  13. #13 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    “GHGs are one of a chain of feedbacks to orbital forcing.”

    May be so, allthough I doubt they play any significant role. But one thing you managed to get right, “GHGs are one of a chain of feedbacks”. GHGs are nothing but minor feedbacks, never any major forcings.

  14. #14 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Radiative physics.

  15. #15 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    May be so, allthough I doubt they play any significant role.

    Reference? The mechanism of deglaciation under orbital forcing *requires* a globalising GHG feedback. It doesn’t work without it. You cannot remove GHGs and their climatological effects from paleoclimate.

    What you “doubt” is sublimely irrelevant. You are both a liar and ignoramus. More formally, your argument is from ignorance and incredulity and is therefore two kinds of logical fallacy.

    But one thing you managed to get right, “GHGs are one of a chain of feedbacks”. GHGs are nothing but minor feedbacks, never any major forcings.

    Reference? GHGs are*major* feedbacks to orbital forcing (Shakun et al. 2012). You again fall into the dual logical fallacies of argument from ignorance and from incredulity.

  16. #16 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Incomplete comment at # 13:

    And as you should know, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

    But we have a well-established physical mechanism in the radiative properties of CO2.

    You are arguing from ignorance and by assertion against well established physics. Which is another way of saying that you are spouting bollocks again.

    Tighten it up.

  17. #17 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Why did you detrend your graph?

    Answer the question.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2013

    Golly gee, Pentax, you are such a scientific whizz kid; so why aren’t you employed by a major university or research institute, and why isn’t the theoretical or empirical literature full of your studies? Are you a regular on the lecture circuit? Where can I find your TED lectures on Youtube?

    Back to reality, our resident whizz kid thinks linearity operates at very short time scales.He clearly does not understand the concepts Bernard has been throwing at him such as ‘noise’ and ‘signal’. He clearly does not know when or at what spatial and temporal scales a stochastic process becomes more deterministic.

    This is all hardly new for the Dunning-Krugerite army of deniers who think they know much, much more than they actually do. It also explains why they are consigned to blogs. In a scientific arena they would be laughed into oblivion. They are into ritual humiliation on blogs as well, but they get away with it, because they are anonymous and can endlessly get comments pasted on discussion forums no matter how innane they are.

  19. #19 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    “And as you should know, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

    But we have a well-established physical mechanism in the radiative properties of CO2.”

    The last decade and a half, there is no correlation between co2 and temperature. The hypothesis that co2 is “warming” earth is therefore wrong or grossly exaggerated. It does not matter that you hide behind trendlines, that’s facts. But you are propably so soked in CAGW dogma that you can’t grasp that. Therefore I urge you to get more help from the men in white coats.

  20. #20 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    Only for you, jeffie. If the withe men let you read it:

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

  21. #21 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    The last decade and a half, there is no correlation between co2 and temperature. The hypothesis that co2 is “warming” earth is therefore wrong or grossly exaggerated.

    Oh for fuck’s sake. How many times have I told you now:

    The troposphere ≠ the climate system.

    You are arguing from false equivalence. You either do not understand or are deliberately misrepresenting the way energy is *actually* accumulating in the climate system as a result of radiative imbalance caused by increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

    Look at the ocean heat content data.

    OHC 0 – 2000m

    Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a consequence of radiative imbalance is in the oceans (Levitus et al. 2012).

    Here is a pretty picture which illustrates this very clearly.

    A recent, minor increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake has slowed the rate of atmospheric warming temporarily. That’s all there is to it. Try to understand the facts instead of making up a nonsensical, unphysical, reality-warping denialist narrative.

  22. #22 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    This shit will now get the treatment it deserves:

    The last decade and a half, there is no correlation between co2 and temperature. The hypothesis that co2 is “warming” earth is therefore wrong or grossly exaggerated. It does not matter that you hide behind trendlines, that’s facts. But you are propably so soked in CAGW dogma that you can’t grasp that. Therefore I urge you to get more help from the men in white coats.

    Stop repeating lies. All this rubbish has been dealt with, *repeatedly*, in early comments.

    Re-iterating shit doesn’t transmute it into truth.

    It is still just shit.

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    June 26, 2013

    PentaxZ said at #11:

    “the relationship between time and CO2 concentration is almost perfectly linear”

    Yeah, to about 2000. And before 1900 there wasn’t much correlation either. After 2000 the correlation is nill [sic].

    Really?!

    With reference to these data and any statistical analysis that you might care to use (not that you’ve ever done so to date…), please demonstrate why there is nil relationship between time and CO2 concentration.

    As to the period before 1900, you’re wrong on that count too.

    Proxies demonstrate that the increase has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Before that time though you’re correct – atmospheric CO2 was remarkably stable for millenia… which is in direct contradiction to those Beckites amongst your knuckle-dragging crowd who think that over the course of mere decades CO2 wiggles up and down by dozens, if not hundreds, of parts per million.

    You do excel at one thing PentaxZ – you manage to be almost perfectly wrong whenever you offer your commentary. That takes a great amount of antiskill.

    Your mother must be so proud.

  24. #24 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    bernard-trolls

    “… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    “… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    “… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    only complete idiots rely and believe on proxies

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

  25. #25 Jonas N
    June 26, 2013

    Jeffie, Bernard, BDD, chek and the others …

    I think Wow nailed it …. at least he nailed something. Don’t you think?’

    ;-)

  26. #26 chek
    June 26, 2013

    bernard-trolls “… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha“… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha“… … bla bla bla… proxies … bla bla …. ”hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha”only complete idiots rely and believe on proxieshahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    only complete idiots rely and believe on (sic)proxies

    I’d have though only the most dire cretin would sit there tapping out all those ‘hahahas’ for people who aren’t going to read them.

    The sheer know-nothingness of the one semi-intelligible phrase (a complete sentence requiring more and likely too much skill and effort in construction) requires no further comment for those who parade their ignorance as a badge of denier honour.

    Take a tip Freddy and PantieZ.
    Fuckwits like you are never going to influence the world or anybody in it. God only knows what you *think* you’re achieving, because you’re not..

  27. #27 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    ” Before that time though you’re correct – atmospheric CO2 was remarkably stable for millenia”

    Ant yet the temperature varied even more than today ( if you aren’t a religious hockey stick believer, that is). As I said, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

  28. #28 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    Take a look at this graph. A really, really good look. And then tell me why all the models diverge so capital from each other if they all use the same data. And why they totally diverge from reallity. Is the models or reallity flawed?

    http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

    It’s worse than ever. With the CAGW mongers that is. There simply isn’t any CAGW to be found anywhere, it’s a bladt from the past.

  29. #29 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Mainly precessional forcing which predominantly warmed the NH, fading from ~6ka. There was the 8.2ka event – also NH and centred on the N. Atlantic – but that was almost certainly abrupt proglacial lake drainage temporarily halting the AMOC.

    You are still denying the physical mechanism by which CO2 *must* cause warming. You are denying essential physics (see # 20). You are ignoring the way the climate system really works (see # 20). All this is absolutely diagnostic of advanced crankery.

  30. #30 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    # 27 in response to:

    Ant yet the temperature varied even more than today ( if you aren’t a religious hockey stick believer, that is). As I said, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

    The Christy misrepresentation is meaningless. It’s just the latest version of an old trick Christy and other arch-deniers Singer and Douglass tried out several years ago. So stop waving it around.

    Admit to some of your lies instead.

  31. #31 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    You may be losing track, so here’s an updated but not exhaustive list of your lies:

    – the lie about linear fits

    – the “17 year” lie

    – the ARGO lie

    – the AGW-isn’t-a-theory lie

    – the “I’m not a racist” lie

    – the detrended graph lie

    – the CO2 = minor feedback lie

    – the pretend-OHC-doesn’t-exist lie

  32. #32 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    one of the reasons why intelligent people detest “climate science” is that it’s central message is of utmost primitivity

    “it’s getting warmer”

    what sensational relevation!!

    if you look at the achievements of other science disciplines and compare to “it’s getting warmer” you can only laugh

    the complexity of logical content of “it’s getting warmer” is at the level of “i clean my asshole”, “tomorrow is thursday”, “his mother is in the hospital”

    great science: “it’s getting warmer”

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, HA!
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, HA!

    science for mainstream idiots who want to be deceived by climate scoundrels: “it’s getting warmer”

  33. #33 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    @chek self-description

    “Fuckwits like you are never going to influence the world or anybody in it. God only knows what you *think* you’re achieving, because you’re not”

    for once i agree to your self-reflexion, but i have to add that your descendants will curse you to hell because of the shame you have brought to your families: fuckwits

  34. #34 chek
    June 26, 2013

    Wanton self-deception seems to be a denier trait .
    Did POTUS spout any of your denier myths yesterday? No.
    Does any government or University in the world? No.
    Self-deceiving word games are the upper limit of your achievement Freddy Fuckwit.

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2013

    Freddy, if you had an ounce of brain in your tiny head, you’d realize that scientists are investigating what the longer term consequences of warming are on both managed and natural ecosystems. Species within them are adapted to respond to variation within certain limits, but beyond that there are likely to be metabolic trade-offs on different functions and this will affect a range of behavioral, physiological and biological processes as well as intra- and interspecific interactions. Scaled up, we are seeing the potential unraveling of food webs and a reduction in systemic resilience, resistance and stability.

    The kinds of changes humanity is inflicting across the biosphere are not trivial. Climate change also exacerbates other anthropogenic stresses, including habitat loss, invasive species and various other forms of pollution. Nature already has a reduced capacity to support man. Humans have greatly simplified vast swathes of the biosphere and climate change adds to that.

    You are one of the minions who thinks that humans are exempt from the laws of nature. Most climate change deniers are, given their understanding of environmental science is virtually non existant.

    So all you have in your puny intellectual arsenal are smears and innuendo. Any real scientific discourse is absent.

  36. #36 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    You are one of the minions who thinks that humans are exempt from the laws of nature.

    I wonder if our freddy thinks that man was “given dominion over” the world and everything in it?

    Is that what you think, by any chance, freddy?

  37. #37 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Teh Stupid says:

    science for mainstream idiots who want to be deceived by climate scoundrels: “it’s getting warmer”

    And it is getting warmer.

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; full series; 5 year running means

    The science of physical climatology provides detailed explanations of the mechanisms that explain why. This is far from trivial, as anyone who has ever pondered the line by line radiative transfer equations will tell you.

    deceived by climate scoundrels

    This unhinged paranoid conspiracist ideation is puzzling. What makes you think this way? Are you a free-market fundamentalist unable to accept that climate change represents the greatest market failure the world has ever seen?

    Or is it even more fundamental than that? Does climate change represent a threat to your belief system?

    Let’s examine why you feel as you do. It may be more productive than listening to your views on the science of physical climatology.

  38. #38 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    bbd troll: “…. radiative transfer equations will tell … bla bla …”

    radiative transfer equations ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, the only thing which counts is TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS, stupid

    you are unable to think logically and have no clue what a scientific proof is, you immoral fuckwit

  39. #39 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    bbd troll

    only a stinking arsehole communist can say what you excrement:

    “This unhinged paranoid conspiracist ideation is puzzling. What makes you think this way? Are you a free-market fundamentalist unable to accept that climate change represents the greatest market failure the world has ever seen?”

    NO MARKET FAILURE, YOU LOSER AND DECADENT DOOMER

  40. #40 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Teh Stupid rants:

    radiative transfer equations ARE TOTALLY IRRELEVANT, the only thing which counts is TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS, stupid

    Radiative transfer within the atmosphere determines radiative balance, which ultimately determines OHC and GAT. What you have just said is unbelievably, hilariously stupid and not even wrong.

    Teh Stupid continues:

    NO MARKET FAILURE, YOU LOSER AND DECADENT DOOMER

    Ah. So it is free market fundamentalism with you, is it? Not Jeebus? Denying that climate change represents the greatest market failure the world has ever seen actually indicates that your grasp of economics is as tenuous as your grip on the basics of physical climatology. In other words, you have absolutely no idea what you are frothing about. You are just frothing.

    I’m also wondering how old you are. At present, I’m thinking mid-teens with a very poor school attendance record. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

  41. #41 chek
    June 26, 2013

    At present, I’m thinking mid-teens with a very poor school attendance record.

    Interesting BBD – I’m thinking mid-fifties, also with a pretty piss-poor record all round.

  42. #42 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    bbd, chek: ask your computer models, you idiots

    “radiative transfer”: all your “radiative” bla bla is part of your hypothesis that it has something with your pledged warming, BUT IT IS NOT THE PROOF OF WARMING, YOU IDIOT. THE PROOF OF WARMING IS DONE BY READING THERMOMETERS AND REPORT THE RESULTS OF THIS IN A PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE, YOU ASSHOLE.

    since you are so unfamiliar with scentific principles you merit the distinction: “GREATEST UNDERPERFORMER OF TODAY”

    congrats

  43. #43 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Fuckwit freddy

    What the fuck does this look like to you?

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

    And I repeat, since you are buttock-stupid, atmospheric absorption and re-radiation of IR is what is making it get warmer. Something science has defined and quantified using the radiative transfer equations.

    You are way beyond normally stupid. Way, way beyond.

  44. #44 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    bbd troll, cherrypicking by warmists, you take the time interval which you like, take the temperature manipulations which you like most (jones, hansen) and then you think that this junk has any scientific value.

    i experienced on blogs like this that it is completely useless to discuss with morons like you of how a scintifically valid methodological setup should look like to explore the validity of the warming hypothesis. but you unintelligent non-scientific warming assholes are by far too limited, fanatic. stubborn and ideologically driven to understand.

    what you want is not science but a socialist revolution and harm to western societies.

  45. #45 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2013

    “what you want is not science but a socialist revolution and harm to western societies”

    Just what I said earlier. Freddy is a right wing wacko. A pseudo-fascist fruitcake. Certainly a Tea-Party member or former member who was booted out for being too stupid. And that is saying something.

  46. #46 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    “What the fuck does this look like to you?”

    And what the fuck does this tell you, zealot?

    http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png

    What does it tell you about computer games and reallity? What does it tell you about the games been validated? Sorry, but I don’t see any reason at all to say amen to the holy CAGW church. My life isn’t based on hysterical, fanatic beliefs. I stick to empirical data.

  47. #47 pentaxZ
    June 26, 2013

    “Freddy is a right wing wacko.”

    You know, I’m not born in Sweden, but in a communist country. And I must say, I really can’t grasp why in the hell your preferred utopia is so communistic? Are you totally brain dead? Rest assure, that’s no path a sane human willingly will go. Except wacko greenies who dream of a world governance. Damn stupid idiots!

  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2013

    PentaxZ,

    Grow up you silly, silly fool. Is one a communist if they oppose the rantings of someone on the far end of the political right? Someone who appears to spew out nonsense that would be hard at a Tea Party shindig? Who on Earth said that utopia is a communist country? You appear to think that unregulated, unlimited corporate capitalism is the only system available other than communism. Good Lord, are you that naive or just plainly ignorant?

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2013

    I’ll answer that: BOTH. In the limited world view of PentaxZ, if one isn’t a gun-toting, corporate axe wielding, right wing capitalist zealot, they must by definition be a ‘wacko greenie’ who ‘dream of world governance’.

    There is no middle ground for dopes like PentaxZ. Either you support the Sarah Palin’s or Michelle Bachman’s or their right wing acolytes of this world or by definition you are a communist.

    Its precisely this kind of insidious stupidity which makes we wonder why I waste my time with the Freddy’s and PentaxZ’s et al who are as thick as two planks. A waste of space.

  50. #50 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    #44 pentax

    It looks like a trick. Can’t you fucking read? Or are you so dishonest that you read my responses and deliberately ignore them?

    Try again:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/12/jonas-thread/comment-page-64/#comment-158510

  51. #51 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    Fuckwit @ 42

    bbd troll, cherrypicking by warmists, you take the time interval which you like, take the temperature manipulations which you like most (jones, hansen) and then you think that this junk has any scientific value.

    So Roy Spencer – vocal sceptic and critic of the IPCC – is producing bent satellite data at UAH is he?

    Look at the graph, you utter moron. Go on. Now. Look at the trend for GISTEMP and for UAH. The same. Identical. Exactly identical.

    Where does this leave your idiotic tripe about “Hansen and Jones”? In the shitcan is where.

    Let’s just cross out Teh Stupid shall we?

    bbd troll, cherrypicking by warmists, you take the time interval which you like, take the temperature manipulations which you like most (jones, hansen) and then you think that this junk has any scientific value.

    There. That’s better.

    I repeat, you are in a stupid class all of your own.

  52. #52 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    pentax

    I stick to empirical data.

    No you don’t you lying sack of shit. You deny it. Over and over again. And you fake graphs. Your hypocrisy is sickening.

    Empirical data:

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

    Empirical data:

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

    Empirical data:

    HadCRUT4, GISTEMP, UAH TLT; full series; 5 year running means

  53. #53 chek
    June 26, 2013

    Except wacko greenies who dream of a world governance.

    This is really what motivates these morons, and is why they don’t care, or in most cases even realise that they are made to look absolute fools when they attempt to argue against the science case that demonstrates AGW is occurring.

    They’re also pitifully blind to the requirement of global solutions to global problems, but again in most cases this is not simply stupidity but also the repeating of received ideas from the political push by the right to liberalise and maximise capital.

    What the morons here seek to obscure in their babble about global governance – a phrase it’s pretty obvious would never otherwise be contained in the vocabulary of Prof. Freddy F. Fuckwit or PantieZ here without being planted there – is that global capital already operates a globalised system solely for its own benefit in privatising the profitability of its global enterprises, and socialising the costs. as it’s doing with every form of pollution it can get away with, from sinking toxic waste off Somalia, to breaking ships on Bangladeshi beaches, to dredging the life from the oceans, fouling the Niger delta, the Canadian tar sands, rural and urban rivers streams and water supplies worlwide and of course carbonising our atmosphere. For free.

    What it doesn’t want by any means is a global system of governance to regulate it from a position of equal or better than equal terms. Being able to play national governments off against each other as things currently are, is far more effective in maximising that privatised profitability.

    The irony is that had it owned up to its responsibilities and dealt with the messes created, the pressure to regulate it would be much less. As things are, it’s demonstrated it can’t to be trusted to do the right thing for anybody except it’s own investors (and even that can be a moot point) and so the consequences will surely follow.

  54. #54 BBD
    June 26, 2013

    chek @ 39

    I think you’re right about freddy’s age. Older. Kids don’t go around calling people, what was it now? Oh yes:

    a stinking arsehole communist

    Here, according to Teh Stupid, is my agenda:

    what you want is not science but a socialist revolution and harm to western societies.

    This mouth-breather probably won’t read, let alone understand what you say at # 51, which is a shame.

  55. #55 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    @all warming apes

    1. THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT AS CONVECTION IS POSSIBLE

    2. CARBON DIOXDE PROVIDES COOLING OF THE ATMOSPHERE SINCE CO2 EMITS PHOTONS TO SPACE IN HIGHER ALTITUDES OF THE ATMOSPHERE

    you cheks, bbd, bernards, you are all so uninformed that you don’t even know this elementary pieces of physics!!!

    FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!!

    go and learn what convection is!!

  56. #56 chek
    June 26, 2013

    @all warming apes 1. THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT AS CONVECTION IS POSSIBLE 2. CARBON DIOXDE PROVIDES COOLING OF THE ATMOSPHERE SINCE CO2 EMITS PHOTONS TO SPACE IN HIGHER ALTITUDES OF THE ATMOSPHERE you cheks, bbd, bernards, you are all so uninformed that you don’t even know this elementary pieces of physics!!! FUCKING MORONS!!!!!!!!

    Well, well a skydragon is in the house. A brand of anti-science loony (and the all caps style is only one of the giveaways) so toxic nether Williwatts nor Curry will allow it house room even in their own madhouses..

    go and learn what convection is!!

    Indeed you should Professor F.. And were there a reliable mehod I’d challenge you right now to nominate the other two methods of heat transfer without cribbing Wikipedia As it is, I already dealt with your piss-poor attempts already when I said at #51

    “This is really what motivates these morons, and is why they don’t care, or in most cases even realise that they are made to look absolute fools when they attempt to argue against the science case that demonstrates AGW is occurring.

  57. #57 freddy
    June 26, 2013

    mentally impaired climate tourists travel in thosands to “CLIMATE CONFERENCES” (durban, cancun, doha, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc) thereby spoiling their rotten ideology with extremely harmful personal carbon footprints: ARSELICKS!!!

    at these “reunions” the climate assholes waste taxpayers money with pagan drinking bouts, sex excesses and other disgusting scandals

  58. #58 chek
    June 26, 2013

    Professor Fuckwit, I understand the modern world is a confusing and scary place to you – but then that’s how you like it – being the paranoid arsewipe you are.

    I guess you’ve never actually been part of the process, but while video conferencing is useful, it doesn’t completely replace actual physical presence. Of course if you live your life through a TV or computer screen you won’t know this, but humans are social animals and what creates bonds and understanding can’t always be transmitted electronically. So we still need to convene in groups at a single location to intermingle, socialise and get stuff done. The value of the work done hopefully makes the carbon expenditure worthwhile.

    Now that’s been explained to you as simply as possible, the rest of your superstitious envy-cloaked fantasies are too funny for words. Although you might want to look up Bohemian Grove and find out that there is some basis to your rant. I don’t think you’ll find any ‘Greenies’ have ever been invited there though.

  59. #59 Bernard J.
    June 27, 2013

    Freddy.

    Do you think that God will let you into Heaven with a lying potty mouth like yours?

    And what’s with the homophobia?

  60. #60 BBD
    June 27, 2013

    Teh Stupid continues his rant:

    1. THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE EFFECT AS CONVECTION IS POSSIBLE

    So why doesn’t surface temperature drop to ~-15K at night?
    And why is it getting warmer as GHG concentrations increase (see graphs at # 50)?
    You have also ignored the adiabatic lapse rate and the downward transport of heat from the top of the convecting cell to the surface. Oh, and the top of the convecting troposphere is *not* the TOA. You missed out some atmosphere!

    * * *

    2. CARBON DIOXDE PROVIDES COOLING OF THE ATMOSPHERE SINCE CO2 EMITS PHOTONS TO SPACE IN HIGHER ALTITUDES OF THE ATMOSPHERE

    CO2 absorbs and re-radiates in all directions equally. Your statement is entirely wrong because it is crucially incomplete.

    Fail.

    Go and do your homework, loon.

  61. #61 pentaxZ
    June 27, 2013

    “Is one a communist if they oppose the rantings of someone on the far end of the political right?”

    Of course. You claim by default realists being “on the far end of the political right” with no facts to support it with whatsoever. Don’t you tolerate your own medicine?

    But wait, you greenies want a world governance, for “nature’s” sake. You want to micro manage every humans live, for “nature’s” sake. You greenies think you have the problem formulation monopoly, for “nature’s” sake. Your colour is green, the communism is red, but the ideology is exact the same. So yes, you green activists are communists. In other words, watermelons.

  62. #62 pentaxZ
    June 27, 2013

    “It looks like a trick.”

    Sure about that, moron? Sorry to upset your cirkles. It’s facts. Computer games vs real worls measurements. Lick it up!

  63. #63 pentaxZ
    June 27, 2013

    Oops, a typo for you to hang on to. It’s on me, zealots.

  64. #64 BBD
    June 27, 2013

    # 60

    If you are (as I suspect) too stupid to understand what Christy and chums did, then you will be fooled. Try reading the RC article *carefully*.

  65. #65 BBD
    June 27, 2013

    If that all proves too much, look very closely indeed at these supposed “real world measurements”.

    Tell me what you see. Start with the “satellite data”. Tell me *exactly* what it is.

  66. #66 chek
    June 27, 2013

    PantieZ, stop spewing up what you’ve been fed. Reducing carbon entering the atmosphere is not a political act per se.

    It becomes political because the suppliers of that source of carbon are riding a gravy train producing riches the like of which the world has never seen before and likely won’t again. And they don’t want any interruptions preventing that.

    So – as has been the case since at least the days of FDR – out come the communist smears. Which you morons repeat, repeat, believe and repeat again.

    It’s you nutbags who’ve made it political in an attempt to marginalise opposition to the gravy train, but all that doesn’t prevent the world from continuing to warm dangerously.

    As I pointed out before, you’re a fucking disgrace of a human being lying for other people and about something you have not even less than zero knowledge of, but actively and carefully crafted disinformation.

  67. #67 freddy
    June 27, 2013

    @bbd fuckwit

    so you asshole contend that co2 emits photons to space, thereby COOLING THE ATMOSOHERE BECAUSE THOSE EMITTED PHOTONS LACK, LACK, KACK, LECK, LACK IN THE ATMOSPHERE, THEY ARE GONE, GONE, GONE, GONE, GONE, GONE, TO SPACE, TO SPACE, THIS COOLS THE ATMOSOHERE YOU FOOL, THIS COOLS THE ATMOSPHERE YOU FOOL:: STINKING MORON

    your other stupid question, devoid of any knowledge in the empty brain of an agw idiot: why does temp not sink to -15degC during the night: SIMPLE, STUPID, BUT FAR ABOVE YOUR LEVEL OF COMPREHENSION:

    BECAUSE THE SUN HAS HEATED THE AIR, YOU KNOW THE AIR, THE GAS MIXTURE OF THE 99.9+% WITHOUT CO2. NITROGEN, OXYGEN HAVE BEEN WARMED BY THE SUN, YOU IDIOT AND LOSER, THATS THE REASON WHY THE WARMTH IS CONTAINED IN THE AIR OVERNIGHT.

    IT IS SAD THAT ONE HAS TO EXPLAIN THESE SIMPLE FACTS TO THE INSANE CLIMATE IDIOTS, THE BBDS, ETC.

    MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!

  68. #68 chek
    June 28, 2013

    Professor Fuckwit, forgive me for asking, but is it the case that your central hypothesis is that in order to create new realities, all one has to do is to describe them in all caps format?

    Normally I’d respectfully request references for your extraordinary understanding of atmospheric physics. But then it occurred to me that they’d likely be in regular text, and therefore lack the forthright, all caps authority of your version.

  69. #69 freddy
    June 28, 2013

    check small: you resist to learn the education i have given to monkers like you!

    co2 emits photons to space thereby cooling the atmosphere. if you arselick don’t believe me, ASK KEVIN TRENBERTH, he will tell you the same

  70. #70 Craig Thomas
    June 28, 2013

    But, “freddy”, CO2 emits photons downwards, thereby heating the Earth.

    Or do you contend the CO2 molecule understands the difference between “up” & “down” and only wants to re-radiate upwards?
    It does seem likely the sort of thing *you* and other braindead trailerpark trash could believe.

  71. #71 pentaxZ
    June 28, 2013

    craigh, co2 emits photons in ALL directions, not only downwards.

  72. #72 pentaxZ
    June 28, 2013

    “out come the communist smears. Which you morons repeat, repeat, believe and repeat again.”

    Again, a hammer is a hammer. You can’t argue with the truth.

  73. #73 chek
    June 28, 2013

    PantieZ, it is immediately obvious given the context of Craig’s post that he’s correcting Freddy Fuckwit who claims that it only emits upwards into space.

    Or did offering that fragment of redundant information make you feel all sciencey for a few seconds?

  74. #74 pentaxZ
    June 28, 2013

    Only for you, zealots.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0&feature=player_embedded

    “Try reading the RC article *carefully*.”

    You moron really think I care to read anything at all at one of the most CAGW alarmistic sites around? Idiot. I have better use for my time.

  75. #75 freddy
    June 28, 2013

    check stinking arselick

    “That the Earth’s temperature is rising is no longer in dispute”

    bullshit, there are faked up temp series from warming hysterics and green activists (jones, hansen)

    AND BY FAR TOO INSUFFICIENT DATA FROM WIDE PARTS OF THE GLOBE (oceans, southern hemisphere)

    the methodology to calculate a global temp, on which you idiots depend, is a joke, pure scientific junk. only in a dirt science as “climatology” this can happen: CLIMATE FRAUDULENTS INTENTIONYALLY DECEIVE THE PUBLIC WITH FAKED EARTH AVERAGE TEMPERATURES BASED ON MISSING DATA

    FUCKWITS!!!!! MORONS!!!!

  76. #76 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    You moron really think I care to read anything at all at one of the most CAGW alarmistic sites around? Idiot. I have better use for my time.

    You silly little dupe. Where’s your intellectual pride?

  77. #77 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    @ 65

    You were wrong as I explained at #58.

    CO2 radiates in all directions NOT JUST “upwards” into space. If you stopped bawling and thought about this for a moment, you would see that it fucks up your “analysis” completely.

    The atmosphere would cool very rapidly were it not for the absorption and re-radiation of IR by the GHGs it contains. This is why surface temperatures don’t fall well below freezing at night. You don’t need to take my word for it – check in any climatology/atmospheric physics textbook. Go on, I dare you.

    * * *

    You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about and you are – apparently – insane. This doesn’t make for fruitful discussions.

  78. #78 chek
    June 28, 2013

    PantieZ, you can’t argue at all.
    Assertion according to your whacko belief system is what you do.

  79. #79 chek
    June 28, 2013

    Prof ‘Freddy’ Fuckwit, like PantieZ and a vast majority of deniers, you make grand claims about scientific misconduct that you’re totally unable to substantiate.

    How do all the different temperature series – even the ‘sceptic’ ones – all substantially agree if their measurements are not objective?

    There are two possible answers – my guess is you’ll instinctively choose the looney-tunes one.

  80. #80 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    Sorry – just catching up and the coffee hasn’t hit properly yet…

    Teh Stupid foams:

    bullshit, there are faked up temp series from warming hysterics and green activists (jones, hansen)

    AND BY FAR TOO INSUFFICIENT DATA FROM WIDE PARTS OF THE GLOBE (oceans, southern hemisphere)

    the methodology to calculate a global temp, on which you idiots depend, is a joke, pure scientific junk.

    Now this is annoying. I pointed out at # 49 that the satellite data are in very close agreement with the surface temperature reconstructions despite being synthesised from MSU measurements rather than measured by direct thermometry.

    Here – again – is what I said:

    “So Roy Spencer – vocal sceptic and critic of the IPCC – is producing bent satellite data at UAH is he?

    Look at the graph, you utter moron. Go on. Now. Look at the trend for GISTEMP and for UAH. The same. Identical. Exactly identical.

    Where does this leave your idiotic tripe about “Hansen and Jones”? In the shitcan is where.”

    Surely that left no room for misunderstanding? So why the fuck are you repeating rubbish claims? Why?

    Here, again, is UAH (satellite) lower tropospheric temperature vs HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP (Phil ‘n’ James). See for yourself.

    Look.

    UAH vs HadCRUT4 and GISTEMP, 1979 – present

  81. #81 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    Chek says:

    How do all the different temperature series – even the ‘sceptic’ ones – all substantially agree if their measurements are not objective?

    There are two possible answers – my guess is you’ll instinctively choose the looney-tunes one.

    You… you mean they got to Roy as well??

  82. #82 pentaxZ
    June 28, 2013

    “You silly little dupe. Where’s your intellectual pride?”

    It’s my intellectual pride that prevents me from reading on such propaganda sites, you stupid zealot.

  83. #83 Jeff Harvey
    June 28, 2013

    “But wait, you greenies want a world governance, for “nature’s” sake” et al ad naueseum.

    PentaxZ (Penty) here is some unbridled truth: you are crackers. A fruitcake. Bonkers. Nuts. Loony.

    Need any more appropriate epithets or metaphors? Clearly, one downside of living under communism (and there were many) is that many people – like you, Penty, as is evident from your wacky posts – emerged from that bankrupt system to embrace another bankrupt system (unregulated corporate capitalism) as if this is a Manna from heaven. Anyone who opposes the wholseale appropriation of resoruces and capital for profit to benefit a very small minority is deemed a ‘greenie, commie, Marxist’ who wants ‘world government.

    I don’t know whether this is just some form of paranoia or outright insanity, but you certainly reveal traits of both, Penty. Sadly, I have met a number of people who grew up under communism who have this warped view of the world, one in which any form of government regulation is viewed with panic and considered to be ‘communism’. I am sure that Penty thinks Obama is a communist (David Duff alluded to such a crazy notion once, but we all know how far out he is). Obama, if truth be told, is as embellished in the corporate establishment as Bush and the Republicans are. His policies appeal to the corporate-state power brokers.

    But I may as well be discussing this with a kindergarten child. Penty’s discourse is that banal and simple. It would be funny if it weren’t true.

  84. #84 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    It’s my intellectual pride that prevents me from reading on such propaganda sites, you stupid zealot.

    A pathetic excuse. But anticipating such dishonesty, I gave you an alternative option. See # 63.

    You have dodged my question. Why is that?

  85. #85 chek
    June 28, 2013

    It’s my intellectual pride that prevents me from reading on such propaganda sites

    PantieZ handlers and inspirers ensure that any real, actual science from real, actual scientists is kept well away from fragile flowers like PantieZ.

    Much better to have faith in self-appointed, corporately sponsored fake experts. ‘Symbol of Free West!, to quote Alexei Sayle’s memorable Eastern Bloc character Jerzei Balowski.

  86. #86 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    Tell me about the satellite data as presented by Christy Pentax.

    I bet you haven’t even looked at the labels on this confected non-evidence, have you? Yet you think it “falsifies AGW”. You accept it utterly, without the faintest trace of scepticism. Gerbil-witted prat that you are.

    Now, go and look at the pretty picture again. Tell me about the “satellite data”. What *exactly* is shown?

    Tell me.

  87. #87 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    It’s gone very quiet in here…

  88. #88 BBD
    June 28, 2013

    So quiet…

  89. #89 freddy
    June 29, 2013

    bbd fuckwit

    do something to improve your rotten education and learn what truth is:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

    you agw morons need to be educated

  90. #90 freddy
    June 29, 2013

    bbd fuckwit, are you intelligent enough to catch the wisdom:

    “The entire AGW conversation battens on the fact that the climate has warmed by quasi-oscillatory happenstance. Climate models are made to make happenstance look like CO2-driven causality”

    from wuwt

    AGW FUCKWIT MORONS LIKE YOU, JEFF, BERNARD ETC. MUST LEARN TO THINK AND BEHAVE HONESTLY AND DECENTLY

  91. #91 Vince Whirlwind
    June 29, 2013

    Who runs WUWT, freddy? A scientist? Or is it run by a university dropout who worked as the TV weatherman for a few years?

  92. #92 freddy
    June 29, 2013

    vince troll, who has asked you??

  93. #93 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Professor Fuckwit, what you’ll notice is that Williwatts quotes The Australian paraphrasing Dr. Pachauri. But can’t actually quote Dr. Pachauri.

    Why do you suppose that is? The standard answer – because that’s what liars do – is only part of the answer.

  94. #94 Jonas N
    June 29, 2013

    Question to all:

    How many of you (still) arent aware of and don’t know that ‘dendroclimatology’ never had any place in real science?

  95. #95 freddy
    June 29, 2013

    vince fuckwit, you don’t like this

    ““The entire AGW conversation battens on the fact that the climate has warmed by quasi-oscillatory happenstance. Climate models are made to make happenstance look like CO2-driven causality”

    because it is from a source you don’t like

    ASSHOLE CHERRYPICKER AND UNTRUTHFUL WOMBAT

  96. #96 Olaus Petri
    June 29, 2013

    Fellas, is Briffa’s new Yamal non-stick taken from Climate Audit?

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/06/28/cru-abandons-yamal-superstick/#comment-424827

    ;-)

  97. #97 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Of course not, you dumb fuck repeater.

  98. #98 Olaus Petri
    June 29, 2013

    Dear chek, cursing isn’t an answer.

    :-)

    Yamallah akbar! ;-)

  99. #99 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    # 87

    The truth? At WTFUWT?

    Grow up, fred-fred.

    Radiative physics is “the truth”, or as close as we get. Forget Willard Tony. He’s just a paid liar.

  100. #100 chek
    June 29, 2013

    The ‘cursing’ (sic) wasn’t the answer, you dumb fuck.

    But of course pretending it was is all you can do.

Current ye@r *