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 29, 2013

    Why has Pentax run away, I wonder?

    I was so looking forward to a chat with him about those satellite data that Christy averaged together for his pretty picture.

    We could have had a lovely giggle over that little trick. But Pentax has gone.

    :-(

  2. #2 chek
    June 29, 2013

    Mixing with we ‘zealots’ is dangerous. The mind is a porous thing, and maintaining ideological purity likely became difficult even for a dumber-than-dirt third rate repeater like PantieZ. He may avoid reading RealClimate, but its presence becomes much less abstract the longer he dallies here.

  3. #3 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    :-)

  4. #4 Olaus Petri
    June 29, 2013

    The new Yamal looks very much like Steve’s audit. Glad that we can agree on that. Or perhaps it is the other way around, as suggested by a commenter: Steve plagiarised Briffa’s Yamal of 2013 as early as 2009! ;-)

    :-)

  5. #5 BBD
    June 29, 2013

    Very poor reading comprehension, Olaus.

    Who cares? Denier fake controversies are irrelevant.

    Read the words.

  6. #6 chek
    June 30, 2013

    ‘Looks like’ is all it takes to fool a denier moron like Olap et ilk.

    Perhaps that’s why they keep backing donkeys, which sort of look like race horses, if you know less than fuck all about horse breeds.

  7. #7 Jonas N
    reclaimreality.blogspot.com
    July 1, 2013

    Testing testing …

    A couple of my comments have disappeared now.

    As seeminly commenter hero-troll Wow ..

    BBD still thinks ‘denier’ and ’cause I said so’ are arguments. He even thinks that makes him a ‘player’.

    It’s quite entertaining what the believers will argue to defend their faith:Now Briffa et al ‘tells us nothing we didn’t know already’. Apart from that McIntyre was right all along, and therefor it must be nonsense ..

    Yoou couldn’t make this up.

  8. #8 Jonas N
    July 1, 2013

    Another blurp from BBD:

    “Bernard J, like Jeff Harvey, brings expert knowledge to the table. I have no doubt that many here are grateful for the opportunity to learn something”

    It is really really funny to watch him trying to pass off as someone knowledgable, but nowadays mostly frequents alarmist sites where the regulars are like here. Perhaps because those are the only ones he can still ‘impress’ (and get some flatter from.

    And as Jeff says: Support here, for his position shows how right his opinion must be, he is arguing the Detloid consensus now .. That’s getting close to Cook and Lewandowsky.

    And if those guys are on your side … what could possibly go wrong!?

    :-)

  9. #9 Jonas N
    July 1, 2013

    Yes, another comment (allegedly ‘in moderation’) has now disappeared.

    That too of course is needed to assert the correctness and righteousness of believing in CAGW ….

  10. #10 freddy
    July 3, 2013

    bbd asshole, ahhh, only the prophecies of your holy church count

    poor faithful moron

  11. #11 Craig Thomas
    July 3, 2013

    Why is it that deniers who can’t write English, don’t read any source material, and don’t even understand the chum they regurgitate from their favourite kook blogs can’t put finger to keyboard without mentioning religion?

  12. #12 freddy
    July 3, 2013

    craigtroll, very good self-description of one of the mentally impaired climate twerp bonkers

    you are a lost case: shit whatever you ” write ” in poor english

  13. #13 chek
    July 3, 2013

    Could it be that it strikes a chord with their exact approach to climate science?

    Hysteria and projection, handed down stories, myths, interpretations of interpretations etc. etc. It all comes across as quasi-religious to me. Irrational at the very least.

  14. #14 freddy
    July 3, 2013

    chek, you excel for once in describong the climate scientology church with its countless superstitions, hallucinations, myths, delusions, and you are one of its low-gifted pupils without any knowledge in meteorology

  15. #15 pentaxZ
    July 3, 2013

    “I gave you an alternative option.”

    Really? I didn’t know there was room for any alternative opinions in the ipcc church.

    “Why has Pentax run away, I wonder?”

    You know, here in Sweden we have legal right to five weeks payed vacation each summer. You really think I bother much about this zealot blog, especially during my vacation, dumb ass?

    “Who runs WUWT, freddy? A scientist?”

    Owngoal of the year! Who runs ipcc, vw? A scientist? Or is it run by a ecofascist wannabe who worked as a railway engineer for a few years?

    “….can’t put finger to keyboard without mentioning religion?”

    Because a realist knows that the whole CAGW dogma is built on pure belief and nothing else. If you don’t see that you truly are an idiot big time.

  16. #16 pentaxZ
    July 3, 2013

    “Hysteria and projection, handed down stories, myths, interpretations of interpretations etc. etc. It all comes across as quasi-religious to me. Irrational at the very least.”

    Do you realise that you just described the religious CAGW dogma? Good work!

  17. #17 pentaxZ
    July 3, 2013

    “It’s gone very quiet in here…

    So quiet…”

    Yes, it has. Only auto posted open threads. I wonder why tim doesn’t have anything to write about. Must be hard to beat real world facts with dogma fantasy.

  18. #18 chek
    July 3, 2013

    PantieZ, own goal indeed in believing your own myths.
    It’s obviously never been pointed out to you that the IPCC was previously run by a scientist, until the Bush administration pressed for someone who wasn’t to administer the organisation.

    Unfortunately for them, Dr. Pachauri took his job seriously and the rest as they say is history. Not the alternative history you brainless oiks invent to grease your religious beliefs and myths.

  19. #19 GSW
    July 4, 2013

    @Jonas

    Hi Jonas, I know you don’t venture over to realclimate (or at least don’t post there), so you may not have seen the recent rasmus “contribution”.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/a-new-experiment-with-science-publication/#ITEM-15551-0

    They’ve put together a new paper “Agnotology: learning from mistakes” for Earth System Dynamics. The journal is somewhat unique in that it invites on-line reviews which are here.

    http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/451/2013/esdd-4-451-2013-discussion.html

    As far as I can gather the paper’s been rejected by two other publications and they’re trying to get it thru here. It’s co-authored by the some of the sks crowd and very much at the bleating, lewandowsky, end of the market; science is never settled unless the majority say it is, in which case everybody else is supposed to fall into line, rasmus refers to the “usual suspects”, and there’s lots of handwaving (grand statements without substantive evidence, as we’re used to here) and counterfactual claims from the authors. It’s impossible to work out whether one (rasmus) or all the authors are mathematically illiterate – the definition of what a “Bounded function” is was breathtaking.

    The reviews/comments are quite entertaining Jonas, I particularly liked the one from the Norwegian mathematician who described the paper as a “cultural production of ignorance”. But there’s lots of others, worth a read thru.
    ;)

  20. #20 chek
    July 4, 2013

    Looks like the climatescam clubhouse is dead if the troll collective are using this place as a lost and found board.

  21. #21 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Pentax

    The silence I was referring to – as you know perfectly well – was yours following my question on the previous page.

    Let’s enjoy the sound of silence again.

    Tell me about the satellite data as presented by Christy.

    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.

  22. #22 BBD
    July 4, 2013

    Pentax?

  23. #23 pentaxZ
    July 5, 2013
  24. #24 pentaxZ
    July 5, 2013

    bbd, you just can’t accept real world facts. There is no warming the last decade and a half-ish. You are like a worm on a hook. Tragic.

  25. #25 chek
    July 5, 2013

    PantieZ stop thinking like a little totalitarian thug who’s been told what to think and LOOK at the fucking data.
    LOOK at the fucking news reports.
    Then LOOK at your own stupid beliefs based on stupid fucking blogscience.

  26. #26 pentaxZ
    July 5, 2013

    “LOOK at the fucking news reports.”

    So news reports is science? Idiot.

  27. #27 pentaxZ
    July 5, 2013
  28. #28 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Pentax

    Eyesight problems as well as the IQ of a gerbil?

    Try again:

    Tell me about the satellite data as presented by Christy.

    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.

    I’m waiting…

  29. #29 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    bbd, you just can’t accept real world facts. There is no warming the last decade and a half-ish. You are like a worm on a hook. Tragic.

    OHC, OHC, OHC.

    You are a climate illiterate gerbil.

  30. #30 BBD
    July 5, 2013

    Why can’t we talk about that Christy graph that you linked at least twice if not three times earlier on this thread?

    Specifically, about Christy’s handling of the satellite data.

    I want you to tell me what he did with the satellite data presented in the graph you keep on waving in my face.

    Get on and answer the question.

  31. #31 chek
    July 5, 2013

    PantieZ because you morons are such faithful little repeaters who don’t take a blind bit of notice anyway, I’ll just repeat this again from another thread:

    That is, every fatuous moron who believes the years of record Arctic ice melt (2007 & 2012) and the ten warmest years in the past 112 years (in descending anomaly order: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012) comprise a hiatus.

    And seriously arsehole, there no point in leaving an authoritarian regime if you still carry its ways inside your head.

    Or maybe you believe that ‘the free west’ was only ever about consumer goodies. Which wouldn’t surprise me, you do present yourself as being that shallow.

  32. #32 chek
    July 5, 2013

    So news reports is science?

    The European floods, the US wildfires, the Australian drought, the record Indian monsoons etc. etc. are events, and events inform science. Events can even inform you, if you take the trouble to inform yourself away from denier comic-book blogs, idiot.

  33. #33 GSW
    July 9, 2013

    @Jonas,

    Is this a new record for moderation? your posts from June 29th(?) and July 1st just come thru. Unbelievable!
    ;)

  34. #34 Jonas N
    July 9, 2013

    GSW

    It’s worse than that. This morning, comment from June 26 was still ‘in moderation’ … Thats two whole weeks! And labelling it ‘moderation’ is a mockery of meaningfull language.

    Further, some comments where deleted (i.e. seen and acted upon more than a week ago, while the others were left hangning …

    :-)

    But hey, this is Deltoid, and the crowd here ‘demands’ this kind of ‘protection’. And their words and arguments are the same kind of mockery of language and reason. And science has no place here, most of the regular don’t even know what it is (some think that a academic position, a CV or a publication also is ‘science’ … but little do they know)

  35. #35 Jonas N
    July 9, 2013

    BTW GSW

    I looked through the comments at ESDD, and Benstad et al’s attempted smug musings are just yet another example of intellectual featherwheight jabbings … just like Cook, Lewandowsky, Anderegg and what they manage to get in print …

    Essentially they are trying to escape the requirements of real science by replacing it with pseudointellectual waffle. Most of the time completely unaware of the weaknesses of their own beliefs ..

    But then, what else to expect when you take the tupes of Nuccitelli and Cook onboard

    (The RC-thread again does not provide any insights at all, just heavily censored self-confirmation)

  36. #36 pentaxZ
    July 10, 2013

    “…and LOOK at the fucking data.”

    Yes, look at the actual data, zealots!

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/06/global-warming-in-a-few-slides.php

  37. #37 GSW
    July 10, 2013

    @Jonas

    Moderation policy is really bad, any idea why some posts were deleted? Foul language seems to be tolerated, just censorship of “dangerous ideas”, an on-line Goskomizdat.

    “Essentially they are trying to escape the requirements of real science by replacing it with pseudointellectual waffle.”

    Yes, I think the Norwegian mathematician had it right, a “cultural production of ignorance” or, put another way, seeking to legitimize ignorance by parading it as “science” (it’s in a Journal and everything!), as Jeff here does.

    The review comments for the paper were entertaining, the “believers bubble” meets reality.
    ;)

  38. #38 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    About that satellite data, Pentax? Answer the question please.

  39. #39 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    Nobody here needs “protection” from a content-free, reference-free blowhard like you Jonas.

    You are, however, tedious, and being boring is a high crime. Perhaps that is why you are now being moderated.

    One can but hope.

  40. #40 Jeff Harvey
    July 10, 2013

    It is kind of ironic how much know-nothings like Jonas, GSW and PentaxZ make a big deal about how insignificant Deltoid is yet they write here as if their lives depended on it.

    The reason is simple: in the big world of science these people are hapless wannabes. Blips so small that they are invisible. They don’t do science, they don’t publish scientific papers and they don’t attend workshops and conferences where these issues are debated and discussed amongst the people who actually do scientific research.

    So that leaves them as veritable nothings sniping away at the sidelines, desperate to get any attention they can. I have asked many, many times when we can expect Jonas to submit his groundbreaking, Earth shattering tome that will change the way in which AGW is viewed. Heck, let me throw in GSW, who also thinks he is a whizz, and Pentax into the pot. When are these self-professed geniuses going to publish their seminal artricle? I assume it will be titled, “Why AGW is unproven poo-poo” by *Jonas Nincompoop, Panties Xylophone and Gormless S. Wanker, to be submitted to “Journal of Self-Righteous Denial”, impact factor 0.000000000000000000001.

    *Correspondence author. Address: Somewhere in Sweden.

    And what is the consistent response of these three wise men? To attack me as being ‘not a real’ scientist, and other usual smears, accompanied by more self-righteous chest pounding and more smears. I have to admit that these guys are a real hoot. And their fellow brorthers and sisters in denial on other threads – Betula, Karen and Rednose are not much better.

    If these people represent the foundation of ‘intellectual discourse’ amongst those in society who downplay or deny AGW, then no wonder that lot is in so much trouble.

  41. #41 Jonas N
    July 10, 2013

    Well BBD

    Do I need to remind you of your ‘energetically insufficient’ argument regarding UHI? Or that you (for a while) believed that the winter to summer temperature difference proved the high sensitivity to CO2?

    Or that if the term ‘oscillation’ occurs in the description of an phenomenon, its effect must amount to zero over arbitraryly chosen time periods?

    Or that you argued ‘does not contribute any additional energy’ in a thread where you wanted to attribute extra energy to CO2?

    I think the list is longer BBD, and contained much more waffle and examples of you not understanding even the simpler parts of hard sciences.

    And that isn’t even the point. Being poorly informed, insufficiently educated, even wrong at times when you should have known better is not particularly serious or bad. However, if you don’t even understand why your arguments are not valid efter it has been explained several times, and by others (obviously far) mor knowledable than you ..

    That reveals muych more. It shows that you are just an eco-chamber of copied or memorized talkning points and phrases you somehow hope make your case.

  42. #42 Jonas N
    July 10, 2013

    GSW

    I think it is really a sign of severe (and proably even to them dawning) weakness that they have to resort to Lewandosky-style fake science to reinforce their crumbling base and including schmucks like Cook or Nuccitelli in those attempts.

    It also reveals the Jeffie-style attitude: ‘If we manage to get it into print, it must be believed, because that makes it science, and even the truth’

    The whole IPCC endeavor is a sign of scientific weakness for the same (but not quite as bad) reasons.

    The whole idea of trying to officially rubberstamp a belief or even a sound scientific hypotheses (which it most definitely is not) is futile and shows, that the rubberstamping is the main objective. Not the oursuit of knowledge and understandning.

    And hence, we see huges hordes of rubber-stamp-repeaters flocking around the issue. Shouting and pointing at their official looking stamps

    PS I noted as you, that one notorious and seemingly compulsive serial poster suddenly has gone quiet, and that comment simply disapperaed quickly …

  43. #43 BBD
    July 10, 2013

    GSW

    just censorship of “dangerous ideas”

    You lot have no bloody idea, never mind “dangerous ideas”.

    Self-aggrandising prat.

  44. #44 chek
    July 10, 2013

    Look at it this way boys, being moderated in the basement comment section of what is now almost a prehistoric thread of a blog from the far side of the world at least proves you’re alive, doesn’t it?

    I know it’s all you’ve got, and anybody else with any dignity would have fucked off elsewhere a long, long time ago, but if you’ll just take what you can get however demeaning, it’s hardly gonna get any better, is it? Thought you chickens would at least understand that.

  45. #45 Jonas N
    July 11, 2013

    Chek …

    Ancient, you say? Well, I too would say that claims from the 2007 IPCC AR4 claim are ‘ancient’ by now. And had been taken on faith, and still are in some quarters, because they’ve never been checked or even asked for openly by anybody you know.

    But as demonstrated here over the past 2+ years, learning and progress are slow among the believers. And demeaning is a mild word describing what the believers here have put forward: ‘ Intellectual self mutilation’ is a more apt description.

    But even this has not really gone close to any science and contentious issues there. Instead the few challenges here have been about ‘statistics’ or ‘confidence and likelihood’ or over simpler physics and the laws of nature etc. Some attemepts to discuss what science and the scientific method means in the real world (and for the real and hard sciences). But for most of you, already that was too taxing.

    And I believe you. I have seen the level at which you guys are able to argue any stance (if you at all are able to formulate any such concisely). And the definite impression one gets is that you really have no clue how scientific (real ones, hard science) issues are tackled, and how understanding and knowledge is advanced. My imrpession has most often been that you guys don’t even understand the question, the issue. Many times unable to distinguish between causeation and just observation (not even correlation) or between warming GW and the possible A-signal. Or between noise and signal.

    Most often you guys are just ranting. Especially you chek. You try the childiest name-calling and arent even good at that.

    But as I said from early on: Those who throw around terms like ‘denier’ or ‘idiot’ och Dunning-Kruger hoping it wins the argument, without exception have nothing to contribute wrt the issues. Most often don’t even understand you ‘own side’s version’ of them.

    And no, I don’t think you will come out of this with any faces saved. But I see you are all still hoping desperately .. for some grand temperature rise come-back in the near future!

    ;-)

    Because of the roaring consensus, the bona-fide-CV-scientists, because of the multiple multiple lines of evidence, and the 10-thousand peer reviewed publications and all the national academies, and the UN, and all the ‘experts’ and the firm belief among all those …

    That’s shy you know that teh future will do something completely different than it has so far, isn’t it chek? A grandiose come-back of the thremageddon threat!

    That is what you have left chek … one or even two decades later, you are hoping for the models to have gotten it right after all, after all the failures of both for- and hindcasting.

    But I’m telling your: You are pinning an aweful lot of hope on some very faint (and quickly fainter getting) chance!

    But why change your hopes now? You are already commited, and that the only chance left for you!

    But hey, that’s the price for making unsubstantiated claims … they’ll come back and haunt you in the future, and from there even further away

    Hoping for a grand recovery, and meanwhile ‘denial’ is your best bet left.

    How does that feel?

  46. #46 GSW
    July 11, 2013

    @Jonas #42

    Nice post Jonas, a good summary of benestad, lewandowsky, cook and hangers ons’ work.

    “The whole idea of trying to officially rubberstamp a belief or even a sound scientific hypotheses (which it most definitely is not) is futile and shows, that the rubberstamping is the main objective. Not the oursuit of knowledge and understandning.”

    Yes, it’s rubberstamped, in a journal, it’s science, must be true! is an odd strategy for legitimizing one’s prejudices. If nothing else, it shows a total contempt for Science itself from the authors. No pursuit of knowledge and understanding; just viewed as a platform/means to convey the “message”, as you’ve pointed out. I think one reviewer referred to it as being nothing more than a “blog post” chancing its arm. From memory, he didn’t mention sks directly but the reference is not hard work out.

    Glad you’re back being able to post close to real time. Keep up with the “dangerous ideas” though.
    ;)

    PS I didn’t realise wow’s comments had been deleted. Long overdue in my view.

    PPS Jeff doesn’t change does he? still moaning and whining about things playing out differently in his head than the real world. Can’t remember which numpty it was now, Bernard? stu? but someone will no doubt want to see “error bars” for jeff’s “0.000000000000000000001″ figure, otherwise it’s not their kind of science.
    ;)

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    July 11, 2013

    “If we manage to get it into print”

    Yeh, Jonas and GSW, that is clearly something neither of you two numpties will ever achieve. So instead you are stuck on blogs, where you are forever anonymous.

    Thank heaven for small mercies.

  48. #48 BBD
    July 11, 2013

    # 41 Jonas

    I recall you doing a lot of blustering about oscillations and UHI while failing to make an argument that could actually be defined as an argument.

    I’m happy to bet that this hasn’t changed. I’m also happy to bet that you are a self-aggrandising bluffer who avoids substantive debate because, well, because you are bluffing. Seen it all before, Jonas. Don’t need to see it again.

  49. #49 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Yes, it’s rubberstamped, in a journal, it’s science, must be true!

    Is there nothing that your pig-ignorance doesn’t fully equip you to tackle?

  50. #50 chek
    July 11, 2013

    Jonarse found his natural level with PantieZ, Griselda and Olap.

    Of course he likes to think he’s superior to all of them, but only in much the same way as Beavis feels superior to Butthead.

  51. #51 Jonas N
    July 12, 2013

    And whose ‘natural level’ is comprised in the term ‘Jonarse’?

  52. #52 BBD
    July 12, 2013

    If you were a credible debater, this would not happen.

  53. #53 Jonas N
    July 12, 2013

    BBD, that is true. You failed to understand even the simpler concepts at hand. I even had to read word by word, the content of papers you linked. And explain what they said, why and how. And what it meant. And of course: What they didn’t say but what you thought they showed. And almost always, you didn’t understand.

    But hey, this is to be expected from somebody who has no grasp of the hard sciences. And that’s why you are here, and not among the grown-ups anymore.

  54. #54 Jonas N
    July 13, 2013

    Well Jeffie, chek, Bernard and all the other bozos here who’ve unsuccessfully tried to challange me about that (in)famous IPCC AR4 claim fråm 2007.

    Here is Richard Lindzen some weeks ago saying exactly the same thing at the Oxford Union, just some months ago.

    Starting (with that claim repeated) at 4:00 in this video, you will hear the obvious once more arond 5.00 (which I’ve told you for more than two years now)

    But I am curious, especially among those here who pride themselves of intelligence and even independent thinking: Do you still put your hopes or beliefs to the opposite?

  55. #55 BBD
    July 13, 2013

    Odd choice of reference for a serious argument. Lindzen has no credibility on matters concerning climate change. He is not taken seriously by climate scientists, only by lesser contrarians like you, Jonas. Those whose understanding of the science is so weak and partial that they can easily be fooled by rhetoric and misrepresentation. Whatever Lindzen is claiming will be a distortion – it invariably is. And all his distortions have been debunked many times. So as I said, an odd choice for a reference for anyone seeking recognition as a credible debater.

  56. #56 Jonas N
    July 13, 2013

    BBD, you are making my point for me. And your incessant attempts to dish out teh ‘credibility’-label also gives it away.

    You are unable to make judgements regarding the science by yourself. Hence, this is what you resort to.

    But it’s worse than that. What Lindzen said is perfectly correct. You ‘mates’ here have spent two years proving me wrong on that particular issue. Failing miserably, even spectacularly.

    But that of course must have been caused by Lindzens lack of (your) credulity …

    I rest my case.

  57. #57 GSW
    July 14, 2013

    @Jonas

    Hi Jonas, what did you think of the Lindzen program as a whole? I didn’t think it was too bad. Main issue was the 3/4 hour format, lots of issues touched on then forgotten as other points came up. Mehdi Hasan was all over the place with the questioning, but then he only had limted time, so maybe not entirely his fault.

    As well as Lindzen, there was Myles Allen( I suppose the mainstream Climate Scientist), Mark Lynas and David Rose.

    Some of Myles points; the 97% figure is “irrelevant”, “that’s not how science works” (Deltoid regulars take note, we’ve discussed this many times) , as is the Big Oil argument (Exxon have paid for his flights too apparently), current policies (windfarms/renewables etc) are “futile” and not likely to do any good.
    ;)

    Lindzen got his points across quite well I thought, despite Mehdi’s interruptions, which didn’t really help the flow. Anything else stand out for you Jonas?

  58. #58 GSW
    July 14, 2013

    @Jonas

    Luboš review here if you haven’t seen it Jonas.

    http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/richard-lindzen-vs-aljazeera-gladiators.html?showComment=1373765132751

    He refers to Al Jazeera as being “politically correct”, which he tries not to be.

    “The host is offended that Richard is relaxed instead of hysterical – every good person should be hysterical which is also why the host’s near countrymates demolished some skyscrapers in New York 12 years ago.”

    Also,

    “Someone asked whether the IPCC’s message to policymaker is pure junk or it contains something usable.”

    The “someone” was Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) which I thought he would have known.

    Worth a read.
    ;)

  59. #59 Jonas N
    July 14, 2013

    GSW

    I think it was, on the whole, a good show. Mehdi Hasan could have used half as many words, and still said the same thing, but probably felt that he needed to appear ‘knowledgable’ ..

    It must have chocked some of the believers (here, if they’d ever dare to watch it) to hear without any reservation that the oil-funded, and 97%-consensus memes are utter rubbish. Which it of course is.

    One thing that struck me was the daftness of the alarmist questions from the audience. They not only were stupid, some had been addressed extensively already, and thus looked as rehearsed or from a cue-card.

    Noticable is also BBD who seemingly wants to remain ignorant, or believe the opposite, or doesn’t even understand the issue. And all this based on his notion that Lindzen “has no credibilty”

    It’s hard do even imagine the ignorance behind and revealed by #(p65)55 (*)

    That’s yet another bozo believing to talk for the ‘climate scientist’ without being able to comprehend even the simpler aspects of what they work with and present. And an angry ranter at that. Him too!

    :-)

    (*)which is actually comment #6455 in t his thread)

  60. #60 BBD
    July 14, 2013

    What did Lindzen say Jonas? In your own words. I’m not going to waste time watching a video of a lecture or a debate or whatever it was. Please summarise.

    Thanks.

  61. #61 BBD
    July 14, 2013

    BBD, you are making my point for me.

    I don’t see how, unless your point was that your credibility is damaged by referencing Lindzen. Which someone with your supposedly vast intellect really should be able to work out for themselves.

    Anyway, get off your arse and do some work for a change. What did Lindzen claim?

  62. #62 chek
    July 14, 2013

    The “someone” was Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) which I thought he would have known.

    There’s no telling just how deep this whole rabbit hole conspiracy goes. Fuckwit.

  63. #63 Jonas N
    July 15, 2013

    BBD, wasting your time seems to be your favourite pastime, and in the grander scheme of things: Climate hysteria is probably the biggest organized waste of time and resources so far in human history

    BTW criticizing, even dismissing statements you haven’t even heard is another way of wasting (your own) time. You seem to have been doing a lot of that …

  64. #64 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    Either summarise what Lindzen says or don’t. But I’m not wasting my time listening to that old liar.

    As usual, you shy from any kind of substantive engagement. This will be because you are in fact just a posturing blowhard with no actual argument.

    Sic probo!

  65. #65 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    It’s hard do even imagine the ignorance behind and revealed by #(p65)55 (*)

    Too stupid to figure out how to link? Or too lazy?

    Demonstrably too lazy to write down what you actually disagree with and explain why. But that would be because insinuation is a cover for your ignorance and dishonesty. As we all know from painful experience. You do not – cannot – play a straight game because you are a posturing blowhard with no argument.

    This is why you are a wast of time, Jonas.

  66. #66 Jonas N
    July 15, 2013

    BBD Lindzen said exactly the same thing I have said here about 100 times (no kidding!). There is a link, and timestamp, in #(64)54.

    Demonstrably too lazy to read, or even just click on a link. Funny you’d bring that up, BBD.

    But yes, you have been doing exactly that: Wasting time with your ignorant posturing about what you think climate and science is about. Aven without my help pointing this out.

    “Energetically insufficient … ”

    Even after it had been explained repeatedly! My oh my …

  67. #67 BBD
    July 15, 2013

    Still saying nothing. Rhetoric and posturing don’t constitute an argument.

    If you’ve written this up about 100 times here you should have no trouble linking to the relevant previous comment(s). Unless you find linking challenging and/or hard work.

  68. #68 Jonas N
    July 16, 2013

    If you cannot even click on provided link … I don’t think I can help you with the slightly more complicated things either. As we’ve already establsihed.

  69. #69 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    UHI is energetically insufficient to heat the troposphere. The real fuckwit here was the bozo who couldn’t grasp that agreement in trend between the surface temperature reconstructions and the satellite TLT constrained UHI very tightly and demonstrated its minimal effects on the accuracy of the surface temperature record.

    That bozo was you, Jonas.

    You are a very great deal less intelligent and scientifically literate than you pretend to be. In fact you are a posturing bluffer with no argument. Did I already mention that?

  70. #70 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    You can’t “help” me with anything Jonas, because you have nothing to say. No argument. Nothing but hot air and posturing, which I have seen ad nauseam before.

    Just look at you now – a miserable little bundle of spite and evasions.

    You are nothing, Jonas.

  71. #71 Jonas N
    July 16, 2013

    Yes BBD, two years later and you still have no clue whatsoever .. None!

    Here is BBD displaying how clueless he is about the issue:

    What UHI problem? It has been clearly established that UHI is an energetically insignificant (climatologically negligible), localised surface boundary layer effect.

    In short, it is a non-argument. What is the purpose of pursuing non-arguments if you seek to maintain credibility?

    And even the moronic waffle about ‘credibility’ …

    But we have your word for that you are ‘something!?

    :-)

    Well, I’d rather not spell it out then

  72. #72 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Here is Jonas, displaying how clueless he is.

    UHI is energetically insufficient to heat the troposphere. The real fuckwit here was the bozo who couldn’t grasp that agreement in trend between the surface temperature reconstructions and the satellite TLT constrained UHI very tightly and demonstrated its minimal effects on the accuracy of the surface temperature record.

    That fuckwit was you, Jonas, and still is you.

    Aren’t you embarrassed? If not, why not?

  73. #73 BBD
    July 16, 2013

    Since you evidently can link, what is this Lindzen thing that you have written up here at least 100 times?

    You can link mine me, but not yourself? How… obviously the work of a shithead.

  74. #74 Jonas N
    July 17, 2013

    BBD ..

    You really aren’t capable of reading simpler written language even, are you?

    All your moronic points have already been addressed, even repeatedly. It’s all still there. While you however, haven’t understood what the issue is/was.

    Well, this is hardly a new observation. The same thing happened when we touched upon other topics: Moronic ramblings, but no understanding of what it means.

    And the link to Lindzen is still there. As are all my previous comments. I don’t expect you to have anything intelligable to say, though.

    As you probably are aware of and remember, I will repeat my question to you which I have asked many times before:

    Have you yet understood why the ‘energetically insufficient’ is entirely, and I really mean completely irrelevant to the question about any UHI effect?

    Because so far you have avoided to give any intelligable answer. And after all, you not only brought it up, you are still repeating such nonsens as if it ever had anything to do with it!

    PS All the answers are available in the link I gave above (#71). Understanding even the simpler parts of an inssue however is maybe too difficult!?

  75. #75 Jonas N
    July 17, 2013

    OK you cluless bozo, I’ll give you a hint. Since you obviously are to thick to read what has already been explained in detail. I’ll explain it once more:

    Nobody, absolutely nobody has ever argued that the UHI-effect is or could be “energetically insignificant” and thus ” climatologically [not] negligible” wrt to the heat content of the lower troposphere!

    Did you get that BBD? Nobody has ever argued anything like that. Most certainly not me (as I explained in detail back then):

    BBD, nobody claims that the UHI effects heats the entire troposphere. Did you really think that this was the argument?

    Did you get it this time, BBD?

    There was one commenter, however, who out of the blue brought this up as an argument, and made the claim that:

    What UHI problem? It has been clearly established that UHI is an energetically insignificant (climatologically negligible) …

    In short, it is a non-argument …

    Why are we even talking about this after BEST has debunked this always-weak argument?

    And I just wonder why anybody would bring up such a moronic amd revealing strawman? Well, I guess BBD is the answer. As is his language …

  76. #76 GSW
    July 17, 2013

    @Jonas

    “One thing that struck me was the daftness of the alarmist questions from the audience. They not only were stupid, some had been addressed extensively already, and thus looked as rehearsed or from a cue-card.”

    The alarmist questions weren’t particularly coherent or serve any real purpose either.

    From memory, there was an American lady that thought Lindzen was advocating wanton consumerism “Should my brother just go out and buy a hummer(?)” as if in some way that was the logical conclusion of what he was saying. Lindzen in his seventies has never really struck me as being a “gonna Party like it’s 1999″ kind of guy. ;)

    A thirty something that thought “Big Oil” was the problem, not CO2 levels as they go up and down(?) apparently. Not a fan of “Big Oil” by the sound of it, I’m sure she would attribute most of the ills in the world to “Big Oil” if she’d had more time.

    I don’t know if they were scripted/cue carded and I read somewhere else that the Q&A session was quite heavily edited, maybe those were the best questions.

    I think, if anything, the alarmist questions were probably quite representive of the breed. As we’ve witnessed on deltoid, a combination of prejudice, ignorance and an inability to actually follow what’s been claimed/said, repeatedly!

    Mark Lynas was a little subdued and Myles Allen’s a bit of mainstream maverick, I’m not convinced there would be much in the way of support for his appearance on the show.

    Glad you’re still keeping up with things.
    ;)

  77. #77 Jonas N
    July 17, 2013

    GSW #76

    That’s a good point. The Q&A was edited and shortended quite a bit. And yes, it could be that those were the best alarmist questions that came up. Another (not contradicting) possibility could be that the questiones were heavily leaning towards skeptic positions, and that they due to a ‘balanced appearence’ needed to use whatever they had from the alarmist side, and accordingly pick only some of the more skeptic questions ..

    But by ‘cue-card’ I meant that they were written/memorized beforehand, since the obviously didn’t heed at all what had already been said and discussed ..

    Since, there has been a grilling (at the BBC of all places) of Ed Davey about his ‘climate science’ understandning. Another (albeit small) step forward, if you ask me.

    The wind is not as fierce and steady as it used to be ….

  78. #78 BBD
    July 17, 2013

    So, GSW, what was Lindzen’s argument? Jonas can’t/won’t spell it out, so perhaps you would be so kind?

    See Jonas #54 and at least a hundred Jonas reiterations on this thread. None of which he can find, apparently.

  79. #79 Jonas N
    July 18, 2013

    BBD #78

    What’s the matter with you? Afraid to click on a link to find out? All the other bozos here too know what I have been telling them for more than two years! Maybe they are afraid too .. of telling you!

    Spoonfeeding you is what is required, isn’t it. And then you still end upp like above (thinking that ‘energetically insufficient’ is the ‘debunking-argument’)

    Poor sod …

  80. #80 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    Still saying absolutely nothing, Jonas. This would explain your nickname here.

  81. #81 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    Since, there has been a grilling (at the BBC of all places) of Ed Davey about his ‘climate science’ understandning. Another (albeit small) step forward, if you ask me.

    You credulous tool.

    Another demonstration that you are essentially clueless.

  82. #82 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    Did you get that BBD? Nobody has ever argued anything like that.

    You are stupid. Really, really stupid. Either that, or you are just being a prick on purpose.

    What I gave you and the other idiots who think UHI significantly affects the reliability of the surface temperature gridded reconstructions is a simple demonstration that it does not.

    What is on show here – again – is the fact that you apparently cannot understand this simple demonstration that a denier meme is bollocks. Either that, or you are, as I said earlier, being a prick on purpose.

    Either way, you are saying nothing. It’s just a noise, Jonas. Like the one you get from kicking an empty dustbin.

  83. #83 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    What you always miss is the point. The point was SIMPLE. It was that *because* UHI is energetically insignificant it *cannot* influence the TLT multi-decadal trend and *therefore* it is valid to compare TLT to surface to see if UHI is having a significant effect on the trend over several decades.

    It isn’t.

    End of.

  84. #84 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    Jonas

    Read #83 until you understand what is being said.

  85. #85 BBD
    July 18, 2013

    BBD, nobody claims that the UHI effects heats the entire troposphere. Did you really think that this was the argument?

    No, never. And I told you so on many occasions. You, however, clung to this… what was it? Oh yes, “moronic amd revealing strawman” and do so still.

    It’s called “projection”. A classic tell of the denialist mindset.

    Get it sorted out in *your* head, Jonas. Get your muddled shit out of the way and pay attention for once. You are spouting bollocks at right-angles to the discussion and always have been. You are not as smart as you think you are.

  86. #86 Jonas N
    July 18, 2013

    Sorry BBD, I am not the one spouting nonsense. That would be you amd your friends of late here …

    So if you (now) claim to be aware of that nobody ever thought or argued that teh UHI-effect heats the entire lowere troposphere (albeit being ‘energetically insufficient’ to do that), why did this nonsense pop up? Why is it repeated here again, almost two years later?

    And why, if what you now claim is so obvious, were you unable to answere the pretty simple and straight forward questions to that effect back then?

    Sorry old chap, it looks like you once more are attempting to rewrite history. But it’s good that you finally agree with what I said the entire time:

    The ‘energetically insufficient’ is a really stupid attempt at dismissing whatever problems there are with the UHI-effect.

    BTW, you are still making that idiotic ‘argument’ in #83. Even if you there are trying to muddle the issue by bringing in the comparison over the last decades. Of course also already addressed in detail. Two years ago!

    So I take it (as with many of your other ignorant memes) that you really don’t know what the issue is with the UHI. Since you only are capable of repeating the stupid activist memes about ‘reasonable agreement since 1979′ ..

    Of course also already addressed.

    Well BBD … you have been going on like this for quite some time now. And since you rarely ever are capable of understanding even the simplest physics involved, I believe you. You just don’t understand them. You just repeat your beliefs and rudimentary understanding of what you think you have read.

    But find consolation in that most of the ranters on your side know little more than you. Because otherwise, they wouldn’t be ranting. They wouldn’t bring upp stupidities like ‘energetically insufficent’ or ‘since it’s called an oscillation .. ‘

    Physics just never was your thing. And that seemingly is true for almost all of you here …

  87. #87 BBD
    July 19, 2013

    Right, that’s it. Bed beckons and I’m off on holiday tomorrow. If you come up with a supported scientific argument that overturns the scientific consensus on AGW jot down the key points here.

    I’ll be back in a week.

    Jah love.

    :-) :-)

  88. #88 Jonas N
    July 19, 2013

    #81

    Are you kidding me, BBD

    Are you referring to Dana Nuccitelli (of SkSc) in his Guardian-blog defening his own nutty paper(*) about the equally nutty 97%-agree-consensus-meme!?

    Nutty activis Dana, the serial liar at SkSc … !?

    Yeah, that’s probably the right level for you. Get your ‘facts’ over there, Read the silly summaries there about ‘What the science says’ and memorize them. Coming here (and elsewhere? At least formerly?) repeating them and claiming you possess some knowledge? Gimme a break …

    What a joke!

    (*) Here is a link (with a video) to cartoonist-turned-climate-scientist John Cook pushing for his (and Dana’s) consensus-nonsense … only nutters believe consensus anything to do with actual science. And that’s one way of spotting them

  89. #89 Jonas N
    July 19, 2013

    Ha! While I was typing the above post, you confirmed the stupid ‘consensus’-notion about how science is supposed to function, according to the believers.

    But sorry kid, before you can argue any science, first you must understand what your own (nah, rather the one’s you are hoping to believe in) actually do and claim and how their works tries to establish the hypothesis they want to further. You need to understand both the hard sciencens involved, and properly, and how this is used trying to build a case on some data/calculations/observations/etc.

    You also need to understand the limits of what they are trying to do, ie what they did not, cannot demonstrate or what conclusions cannot be drawn from such work. Ie you need a basic grasp of logic too.

    Once you get there (and you have never been anywhere close as what I have seen), the next step would be to understand what others may be saying about the same work. If its interpretations and inferred conlcusions are valid, or limited, restrictied to certain preconditions, or intrinsically relying on other claims, how certain all those may be etc.

    Since you aren’t capable of the first condition (properly understanding your own side’s claims) you of course ar totally clueless wrt handling with any objections. It’s no wonder then that your bring up ‘energetically insufficinet’ wrt to UHI contamination for instance.

    All you have is phrases you repeat. And even simple points where you missunderstand things (even regarding your ‘own side’) cause you to lose it. Often totally, reverting to the same mouth frothing spewings as the rest of the gang here. No wonder BTW that ‘consensus’ is at the forefront of your argument.

    It is almost as revealing as the use of the ‘denier term’. Only those who can’t argue even their own position use that.

  90. #90 Stu
    July 20, 2013

    Wait, Jonas, you say we don’t know physics? Are you saying you will finally tell us what your educational background is?

  91. #91 Jonas N
    July 20, 2013

    Enough physics to look through the empty posers here Stu … as you’ve experienced yourself!

  92. #93 chek
    July 23, 2013

    Jonarse is still wanking away I see pushing the fallacy that the science is decided by consensus, rather than the consensus being the result of the science.

    What a moron.

  93. #94 chek
    July 23, 2013

    And PantieZ doesn’t check his sources, believing any old watsscrap.
    Ahaha etc. etc.

  94. #95 Jonas N
    July 23, 2013

    Chek … I don’t think you’ve ever had any substance to contribute here. None! Wanking and at rubbing Jeffies legs (for whatever reason one would like to do that?)

    Funny that you pretend to be talking about science. When neither you nor any of the others even understand what is discussed.

    “consensus being the result of the science”

    Empty phrases is what you can manage .. not even knowing what ‘the science’ is …. much less says or at what hypothesis it may try to support.

    Well, at least some of the climate lunacy is coming to a much deserved end.

  95. #96 Jonas N
    July 24, 2013

    chek BBD Jeffie and all the other bozos

    You propably haven’t been pying attention, and that’s why your comments have been so markedly detached from anything relevant. But I am glad to see that climatscientists now are starting to openly make the very same points I have been making from quite som time. Here, only the last two years. But hey:

    “If Mohammed will not go to the mountain, the mountain must come to Mohammed”

  96. #97 Jonas N
    July 25, 2013

    Slowly slowly is the message getting through and some of the worst ‘nonsensus’ is being called out! Mike Hulme, climate change professor at Univ East Anglia,

    Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?

    Or, Mike Hulme has gone over to the dark ‘denialist’ side, and been boght off by the evil fossil fuel and tobacco industries!? Your ‘choice’!

    ;-)

  97. #98 BBD
    July 26, 2013

    Jonas #86

    Sorry BBD, I am not the one spouting nonsense. That would be you amd your friends of late here …

    This is disappointing. You don’t acknowledge that you misunderstood the argument. Instead, you continue to plough on at right-angles as if nothing had happened. It won’t do, Jonas.

    Nor did you respond to #87:

    If you come up with a supported scientific argument that overturns the scientific consensus on AGW jot down the key points here.

    I’ll be back in a week.

    Jah love.

    Should I have added: “pretty please with sugar”?

    You still aren’t saying anything.

  98. #99 Jonas N
    July 28, 2013

    BBD, there is not much misunderstandning any arguments from yoru side by me. Most often they are well known, and I have heard them from others, and better stated before

    The UHI is of course enegetically insufficient, as everybody who cares the slightest knows already. Therefore, no one argues that the UHI is a non-issue based on its energy content. No one except (two years ago) a three-letter signature at Bishop Hill.

    Also the comparison to satellite data anda how it is relevant, and what cannot not be assessed by such a comparison were delat with back then.

    It is good that you are trying to reposition your ‘argument’ now, saying that this rather was about comparison among data sets. (And nobody argued the sixe or significance of any such effect. Except you: You claimed it was irrelevant, debunked bla bla bla ..)

    Because it is true (as already noted) that since 1979 the possible UHI effect is constrained within those differenceses. At leasts broadly speaking: The lsurface station assessments still suffer from poor sampling over large areas (a different problem) which could conceal a UHI effect. And there is still a notable difference among the temp-series.

    However, the issue is mor than that difference. As has been explained before. And you (with your link) once more show that you still not understand this issue (either) which you wanted to dismiss with inappropriate arguments and ill-used words.

    As also with other topics! The blathering about ‘overturning the consens’ is just stupid. Science is not argued that way, and ‘the consensus’ is not even a proposition. At best it is the mean of a fairly large nuber of selkected (and mutually no-agreeing) GCM-models.

    I.e. not science. Not the real version of it at least. (But it maybe qualifies as climate pseudo-science)

  99. #100 BBD
    August 1, 2013

    It is good that you are trying to reposition your ‘argument’ now, saying that this rather was about comparison among data sets.

    Either you are actually more stupid than I suspected, or just dishonest.

    I have changed nothing. You, I suspect, have only just realised how badly you failed to understand what I was saying. And so now the lying and the projection begins.

    Jonas, here’s the thing: you aren’t by any means as clever as you think you are. You don’t fool me or anyone else here into believing that you understand the science at some higher level than the rest of us. Far from it. Instead, it is painfully obvious that you are a posturing blowhard who is still saying nothing.