Jonas Thread

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


  1. #1 Jonas N
    August 2, 2013


    Sorry old chap. I am neither stupid nor do I need to be disingenuous in my arguments.

    I of course know very well what the UHI issue is and was about.

    You however, made some very stark claims you never could substantiate, and followed them up with some even stranger statements (about ‘energetically insufficient’). You were at it for quite som time, mothing off but not getting anything relevan right.

    Everything I said about the UHI effect is still correct and there to read. Everywhere where you contradicted any of that you were wrong or just desperately hoping …

    And BTW, re: “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 .. ”

    Do I need to remind you where you 1st claimed that the winter to summer temperature differences showed the alleged large positives from CO2?

    And that you afterwards claimed that this (nonsense) was just due to ‘too fast typing’?

    Well, at least and to your (only) you managed to step back from that nonsense. There were multiple other quite bad mistakes you made in reading that paper. But I don’t think you even understood what I said there.

    You are on the ‘scientific’ level of after the fact (NB) realizing that the CO2 content does not change so much from january to july that you can infer any effects from it on any system. But it needed to be pointed out to you first. And by me!

    Have you yet grasped that because something has the term ‘oscillation’ in its name, this does neither mean that its net contribution therefor must be zero over any given time period, nor that it must be zero over long enough time frames because of its label!?

    Well, there is no meaning in reminding you of all other instances. You are obviously not familiar with physics or other real fields of science. Hence you lengthy orating about ‘published’ words whose meanings you rarely understand.

    As I’ve said before: This is the right place for you!

    PS How was you ‘vacation’ in the ‘Open thread’ ?

  2. #2 BBD
    August 3, 2013

    You however, made some very stark claims you never could substantiate, and followed them up with some even stranger statements (about ‘energetically insufficient’).

    Nope. Proof positive that you never understood what I said, even though it was very simple. Worse, I’ve just re-explained this on the previous page of this thread and you *still* don’t understand.

    You are stupid, and this exchange is a pointless as all the previous ones have been because you cannot understand what people are saying to you.

    This is why some commenters have taken to referring to you as “Jonarse”.

    The latter comments in this exchange serve as *proof* of this, and will remain here, for all to see, for the foreseeable future.

  3. #3 Jonas N
    August 4, 2013

    BBD, you are delusional …

    I don’t even need to call you stupid. But you’ve made many really stupid claims about processed of physics in the physical world, demonstrating that you don’t grasp the topics (or only have very very superficial understanding of the terms)

    This is of course true for everybody who here who has tried mouthing off, and ‘Jonarse’ is just a cruder way of demonstrating such shallowness.

    And that you now openly participate in their stupidity is your choice. (Frankly, I thought you were smarter than relying on or referring to such stupid support)

    Regarding the UHI-effect:

    Everything relevant was already said (to you) by me, almost ttwo years ago. Back then, you started with som very strange claims, followed up with some equally confused ‘arguments’ not really relevant, and the only thing you (kinda, halfway) got correct after som time was the reasonable agreement between surfacestateions and satellite record.

    But even wrt to that agreement, your point was moot. The agreement is not that good that it could demonstrate your claims (if only for the last three decades)

    Sorry kid, you may want to believe that you are very smart anda knowledgable. But if you had been, your claims, your arguments, and your behaviour would have reflected that …

    BTW have you been banned from the more serious places about climate discussions? You didn’t fare to well at the Bishop’s place, neither att Kloors, and at Judith’s I’ve only seen you rarely. Here however you seem to fit in, and thrive …


  4. #4 BBD
    August 4, 2013

    When the posturing is set aside, we are left with one simple fact. You aren’t saying anything at all. Your argumentative technique consists of asserting – but never demonstrating – that your correspondent is wrong and claiming – but never demonstrating – a superior level of understanding.

    You might *think* you are conducting a successful argument, but you aren’t. Because you aren’t saying anything.

    When you do, you will get nailed.

  5. #5 BBD
    August 5, 2013

    But you’ve made many really stupid claims about processed of physics in the physical world


    Everything relevant was already said (to you) by me, almost ttwo years ago. Back then, you started with som very strange claims, followed up with some equally confused ‘arguments’ not really relevant


    BTW have you been banned from the more serious places about climate discussions?

    No. And I never see you anywhere, Jonarse, doubtless because *you* have been widely banned elsewhere.

    You didn’t fare to well at the Bishop’s place, neither att Kloors,

    Lie. I made fucking mincmeat out of the twats at BH time and time and time again. Which is why the cowardly little liar Montford banned me. I make fucking mincemeat out of the liars at KKs as well – for a year, until bored.

    This response is to illustrate that you are a liar. Lying about your correspondent’s ability and knowledge is a large part of what you do. See #4.

    What you *never* do is advance a coherent argument of your own. I suspect that this is because you know that as soon as you do, it will be shredded and you will be revealed as the posturing and ill-informed blowhard that you are.

  6. #6 BBD
    August 5, 2013

    Note, Jonarse, that *you* are the one confined to a remedial thread here, not me.

    Enjoy the silence.

  7. #7 BBD
    August 5, 2013

    But even wrt to that agreement, your point was moot. The agreement is not that good that it could demonstrate your claims (if only for the last three decades)

    Bollocks. More lies, Jonas.

    And what of the earlier data? Well, if UHI had biased the surface temperature reconstructions warm pre-1979, then the effects of the sharp increase in GHG forcing beginning in the 1960s have been *under-represented*.

    As ever, it is you who hasn’t thought things through or understood the implications of your own bullshit.

  8. #8 GSW
    August 5, 2013


    “BTW have you been banned from the more serious places about climate discussions? You didn’t fare to well at the Bishop’s place, neither att Kloors, and at Judith’s I’ve only seen you rarely. Here however you seem to fit in, and thrive … ”

    Is this true BBD? have you been banned from everywhere else?

  9. #9 BBD
    August 5, 2013

    Is this true BBD? have you been banned from everywhere else?

    Reading comprehension issues are rather prevalent amongst deniers.

    Read the current #5 again, carefully this time.

  10. #10 GSW
    August 10, 2013


    Thanks BBD, from your #5

    ” I made fucking mincmeat out of the twats at BH time and time and time again.” and

    ” I make fucking mincemeat out of the liars at KKs as well”

    Do you have any idea why you were banned? I imagine you’d be as welcome as a dose of clap on most blogs BBD.

  11. #11 Stu
    August 11, 2013

    I wonder… what would it say about a person if they were banned at blogs run by proven shills, but not at blogs run by scientists?

    What would it say about a person if it were the other way around?

    I wonder.

    As a random aside, I’d love for “Boris” to make it to this thread and have a duel with Jonas over non-existent credentials. I’d pay to see that, actually.

  12. #12 Jonas N
    August 12, 2013

    Sorry BBD, your accomplishments are mostly just you imagining things, about other things you don’t understand too well. I have rarely ever seen you address an issue properly. Just shallow or ill-informed rumbling about about what you think ‘the science’ says and therefore ‘must be accepted’.

    But worry chap, it doesn’t work that way. Never did. Real science is evaluated when and where it meets with reality.

    Stu, I know somebody who (OK, alledgedly) ‘studied physics for six years’ and went off the deep end over a hand pushing a box …

    You too are mostly imagining things. And those pro-CAGW blogs have essentially nothing to do with science. And all of them need the delete button and other similar methods to maintain the faith.

    Why do you think that is? Why do you think that those of you who only navigate based on faith and rumored ‘authority’ need so much ‘protection’ from people far more knowledgable than you? And why are the places where you ‘enjoy’ that kind of ‘protection’ loitered with types like yourself and the other crowd here.

    C’mon, it’s not exactly science any of you is discussing. Not even those who repeatedly say that their CV says ‘scientist’ on it (why anybody ever would argue such a stupid stance!?)

    Why do you think that your belief-system is laughed at and mocked more and more in increasingly wider circles?

    Or are you in denial of that? Because among lamestream media and politicions (the true leaders and champions of truth and integrity. Nt!) the vast majority still toes the line?

    Is that why?

  13. #13 BBD
    August 12, 2013

    So would I!

    @GSW #10

    What Stu said, really.

    Your definition of “most” is problematic. AFAIK I am welcome on all science blogs and unwelcome on all denier anti-science blogs. I’m very happy with that situation.

  14. #14 BBD
    August 12, 2013

    Sorry about the typo in #5 which I only now see. That should be

    I made fucking mincemeat out of the liars at KKs as well – for a year, until bored.

    Getting sloppy. Tut tut.

  15. #15 Olaus Petri
    August 12, 2013

    Fellas, von Storch has some scary science words coming your way. It’s nothing new for the open minded though: ;-)

    “In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged asconsiderably smaller than many had expected. We investigate whether this can be explained bycontemporary climate change scenarios. In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period
    that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find thatthe continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistentwith model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Of the possible causes of theinconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales isa plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or anoverestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruledout. The first cause would have little impact of the expectations of longer term anthropogenicclimate change, but the second and particularly the third would.”

  16. #16 Jonas N
    August 12, 2013


    “AFAIK I am welcome on all science blogs and unwelcome on all denier anti-science blogs” (*)

    Circular argument has no place in science, even you should know that!

    Falsification however has: You are (apparently) welcome and very active on this blog.

    Now, the key question is: What do you make out of that fact?

    Pssst: If you are right in (*) there are two possibilities! (If you are wrong, there are more, but you’d be wrong regardless … )

  17. #17 BBD
    August 12, 2013

    HvS isn’t saying anything new. Mystery forcings of the invisible and unmeasurable variety need to be demonstrated. Supposed model over-sensitivity needs to be considered in terms of decadal variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake and the rate of OHC increase at depth. He is clear about this:

    Of the possible causes of the inconsistency, the underestimation of internal natural climate variability on decadal time scales is a plausible candidate, but the influence of unaccounted external forcing factors or an overestimation of the model sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations cannot be ruled out.

    Points two and three have not been demonstrated. Point one is indeed the plausible candidate. And it won’t make any difference to the centennial trend, which is what this is really all about.

  18. #18 BBD
    August 13, 2013

    More content-free blather from the house fuckwit.

    No response to his hideous mess over the UHI stuff – no response to #7.

    Exactly as predicted. This wanker knows nothing and never says anything because he will get shredded and he knows it.

    Instead he honks and drones about his supposed – but nonexistent – superior knowledge.

    What a pillock. What a fantasist. What a Jonarse.

  19. #19 Jonas N
    September 15, 2013


    I don’t expect you to take notice, but things are really not going your side’s way. IPCC is scembling to pull off a media stunt here in Stockholm, and the believers will report dutifully.

    But what worked in 2007 will not work again, and the inconsistencies are now glaring and easy for everybody to see.

    Slowly, also media has shifted as has the interested public and its perception of MSM.

    Regarding the UHI stuff: You never understood this properly and you ar still taking gibberish and in denial. But that’s another story

  20. #20 Jonas N
    September 19, 2013

    And comments are disappearing too, not only delayd for days anw weeks … in my own thread!

    How droll!

  21. #21 Jonas N
    September 27, 2013

    Today, there was a (nah, maybe not so) big event in Stockholm, when the IPCC presented their negotiated SPM for the AR5.

    Not suprisningly, they’ve jacked up their ‘confidince’ further, now claiming 95%, but quitely watered down the message in various ways using weasel formulations ..

    And of course, this was the (this week) politically negotiated SPM, presented only by bureaucrats and IPCC apparatchik

    Of course also, the message was that the heat now is hiding in the deep oceans, quite sure, but anyway, one shouldnt heed such short time spans as 15 years or so. At least not when its not warming.

    Another gem was that the last 30 years, have been the warmest in the last 150 years.

    Well then, there you have it!

    Anyone taking bets on if a possible AR6 will top that?


  22. #22 GSW
    September 28, 2013


    Thought you would post on this ;) The 95% is clearly political as others have commented, nothing to do with the “Science”.

    Also there’s a great deal of uncertainty about there ever being an AR6, at least in it’s current format! Glad you are being entertained by it all Jonas.

  23. #23 Jonas N
    September 28, 2013

    GSW … oh, my comment made it through while there still was at least some media hype?

    One of the previous ones needed more than a week to pass ‘pee-review’ :-)

    But on a more serious note. The media hype even in Sweden almost was a non-event. And the usual suspects of greenies and lefties had some ‘manifestations’ gathering a few dozens, but only very few politicians even approached the subject. And looking around among the alarmist reservations, it’s hard to see any enthusiasm.

    I think slowly slowly the world is gradually getting saner again. Admittedly from a very ungreen/unsustainable-policy darkness. And even the faithers are starting to sense it, or at least that it’s not like before, that the party is over … and are worrying what that nagging sense of emptiness might be.

    Regarding what tie AR5 SPM said, it is almost comical. I gather you have read Ross McKitricks summary:

    “SPM in a nutshell: Since we started in 1990 we were right about the Arctic, wrong about the Antarctic, wrong about the tropical troposphere, wrong about the surface, wrong about hurricanes, wrong about the Himalayas, wrong about sensitivity, clueless on clouds and useless on regional trends. And on that basis we’re 95% confident we’re right.”

    Pretty much sums it up, wouldn’t you say? Not even overstated …

    Well glad to see some sanity on this blag again … its an endangered ‘species’ … locally, that is!


  24. #24 GSW
    October 2, 2013


    Apologies Jonas, had to tend to some other things since the weekend so haven’t had a chance to respond. And yes, McKitrick’s summary was good ;) makes the point to rational folk, (deltoid regulars will probably need it explaining)

    PS. Briefly caught your post at Climate Audit and I agree, the IPCC/alarmist “case” has always been about achieving a “perception”, there’s a steady stream of mugs like “unscientific Jeff” that’ll buy into any half arsed catastrophe theory. – Has anyone told him about the killer mutant penguins yet?

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    October 2, 2013


    I am so ‘unscientific’ that you and Jonas combined couldn’t even reach up to my shoelaces. You see, a person’s scientific pedigree is based on what they’ve done, not what they say. And let me put it this way – you and Jonas say a lot, but do nothing.

    Oh, the politics of envy. I love it.

  26. #26 Jonas N
    October 3, 2013

    Well JEff

    You’ve so far had more than two years, and all the space in the world here …

    So why dont you put your shoelaces on top of that impressive CV of yours, climb on top of both of them, stand on your toes, straighten your back and start addressing what is actually discussed here!?

    Ok, I understand if you’ll get a little dizzy at such unfamiliar heights; But you could at least try, couldn’t you? I mean, at some point you have to start dealing with the reality outside your echo-chamber?

    Haven’t you been paying any attention at all? The allegedly settled IPCC-style science, with its high confidence attributions, its positive feedbacks and claimed high sensitivities, and dire predictions about this and that!?

    Well, I forgot. You have no means to determine whether or not anything in the AR5 SPM reports is based on science or is just politically negotiated diversion.

    Well, at some point in the future you will have to deal with the fact that essentially all problems with both IPCC and climate science in general had been pointed out long before, and mostly by the skeptics and those capable of understanding real science …

    Heck, by now you should have noted quite a few things only pionted out here in this thread. But we know, Jeff, you are a slow learner …

  27. #27 GSW
    October 7, 2013


    Is that 4 days in moderation Jonas? An unsophisticated form of censorship ;)

    Looking forward to seeing what unscientific, bitch slapped, slow learner Joffrey and his “shoelace” worth of science can come back with as argument this time.

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    October 7, 2013

    ….”mostly by the skeptics and those capable of understanding real science”….

    of which you and your slavish hero-worshipper Gormless are not included, given the fact that neither of you has any scientific pedigree whatsoever.

    Jonas, you can haunt the blogs all you like but you are a complete nothing, a nobody. Heaven only knows where you got your massive, bloated ego. Certainly not from doing any science.

  29. #29 curious
    October 7, 2013

    jonas, werent you saying that you had seen no attribution work prior to AR4? if so you should be able to say which paper was the first in the history of climatology to calculate the human contribution to global warming. or is the latest work also made up?

    and what do you think that the new climate sensitivity range really means?

  30. #30 Jonas N
    October 8, 2013

    Jeff …

    You really are no competition at all. I have been telling you about science here for years. And you neither knew, nor have you learnt ..

    But the the level here, on which your you’ve been bitch-slapped, hardly qualifies as science. It’s high school basics of logic and handling simplest physics.

    As I’ve said: You are no competition. You would be laughed out of the room, But as you would be laughed out of the room, would you ever dare venturing into one with scientists.

    And that is also the reason why you where one of the first to demand that I d be banned here.

    But still, even with your wish fulfilled you have not been able to land one single blow. Only your own fantasies completely irrelevant to anything.

    Why do you think that is?

    Well the reason is that you are no competion at all! You cannot even speak the language of educated people … mostly it’s just frothing of the mouth!

    Your last comment indicates that you still are not aware of how badly IPCC-style climate science really is. Well … that’s your problem: You really don’t understand the message even when your own side spells it out for you.

    Bu I forgot: You really have no means to assess anything. You can’t even formulate highschool-level arguments on a blog!

    And you think you are a scientist!? Well, that doesn’t speak well of the others in your lunch room or those meetings you boast about! But then again, you start running away already in the comment section of an activist blog!

    Poor thing!

  31. #31 Jonas N
    October 8, 2013

    Simply amazing what the deluded nutcases can conjure up!

    One of the (not so) prominent ones in this thread made the following claim about the medieval warm period:

    The MWP was only ‘generated’ after Mann et als. 1998 paper in Nature.

    Try guessing who, but without peeking …


  32. #32 Jonas N
    October 11, 2013

    Again … one working week later and comments are still ‘awaiting moderation’!?

    Why is it so hard for the (C)AGW to be honest about almost anything?

  33. #33 Jonas N
    October 13, 2013

    Curious #(65)29

    Strange notion …

    What I’ve said is that I have seen plenty of so called ‘attribution studies’ who however fail to make the case proclaimed in the AR4 SPM.

    AFIK also AR5 SPM makes quantitative statements about alleged ‘certainty’ wrt to attribution that are not based in proper and published science …

    Further, those Climate sensitivity-pdfs are mostly poorly interpreted simulation runs. Ie not based on proper science, and shouldn’t be regarded as such either.

    I hope this answers you (curious) question

  34. #34 GSW
    October 17, 2013


    “What I’ve said is that I have seen plenty of so called ‘attribution studies’ who however fail to make the case proclaimed in the AR4 SPM.”

    I think that’s a fair summary Jonas. Deltoid regular’s (including Joffrey) have hand waived at there being 1,000′s of papers, that they hadn’t read and didn’t say the things they thought they did.

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    October 17, 2013

    …”But as you would be laughed out of the room, would you ever dare venturing into one with scientists”

    More evidence of Jonas and his mental affliction. Heaven only knows what I have doing the past 20+ years – or 18 if you count my PhD. I’ve been to dozens of conferences, met literally thousands of scientists, and spoken in front of even more.

    I haven’t heard a single snicker or guffaw in all that time.

    By contrast, Jonas, consigned to his own sad, lonely little thread on a single weblog, owing to his obnoxious behavior, still opines as if he alone can determine what makes a scientist. And get this – he isn’t one himself. He’s got no degrees relevant to any scientific field. His only qualifications are in his head and the praise heaped on him by one slavish admirer.

  36. #36 BBD
    October 17, 2013


    Regarding the UHI stuff: You never understood this properly and you ar still taking gibberish and in denial. But that’s another story

    Are you still repeating this lie? Empty noise.

    Deal with the substantive. Deal with the horrible mess you have made and which I exposed for the nth time at #7.

    Except we both know you can’t, hence the serial lying.

    You are a clown, Jonas.


  37. #37 Jonas N
    October 18, 2013

    BBD, Fail again! Repeating your beliefs won’t make them come true!

  38. #38 GSW
    October 20, 2013


    Your #7 is giberrish, as was your ‘energetically insufficient’ UHI effect argument before that. Repeating nonsense arguments does not improve them, you’re rapidly becoming another Joffrey and the “science wot he does”.


  39. #39 GSW
    October 20, 2013


    The Deltards seem to have gone into meltdown Jonas.

  40. #40 Jonas N
    October 22, 2013

    Strange … my answer to Jeff has ‘disappeared’

    Well anyway, there in part I reminded Jeff that he is the one needing and constantly demanding ‘protection’

  41. #41 Jonas N
    October 22, 2013

    BBD … I don’t even know what it is you are trying to say. Regarding the issues, you lost long time ago. Regarding whatever else you produce, Deltoid most certainly is the place for you! And of course for the compulsive fact-fabricator Jeffie … that goes without saying.

  42. #42 GSW
    October 27, 2013


    I think BBD, true to form, has run away Jonas ;) which is some admission at least that he knows he was talking bollocks.

    They’ve all retired to the open thread “safe zone” where those with dissenting views have been banned and the regulars compete to out “village idiot” each other.

  43. #43 pentaxZ
    November 28, 2013

    And nothing else than open threads on Deltoid. One may wonder why. ;-)

  44. #44 Jonas N
    December 12, 2013

    GSW and others ..

    I don’t think BBD knows when he knows something and when he doesn’t. Usually he seems convinced of one thin or another, based on some appeal to authority, like phrases in a ‘publication’ or the like … but when challenged to its actual contents, or more often to his understanding of it, he often seems completely clueless. Even after one explains things in detail.

    Thus, I would never assume that he has realized his mistakes … especially since he keeps repeating them even after they are picked apart for him.

    (posted 12/12)

  45. #45 Jonas N
    December 22, 2013

    Wwll, you guys here have known this for more than two years. But just the other day the British parliament learnt about it too:

    ”The way the SPM deals with uncertainties (e.g. claiming something is 95% certain) is shocking and deeply unscientific. For a scientist, this simple fact is sufficient to throw discredit on the whole summary. The SPM gives the wrong idea that one can quantify precisely our confidence in the model predictions, which is far from being the case.”

    But as I’ve told you guys repeatedly: this has been obvious since the AR4 SPM in 2007 (when they just claimed 90% confidence)

    (posted early on 12/22)

  46. #46 GSW
    December 22, 2013

    Merry Christmas to you Jonas!

    I think the point’s been made Jonas; what regulars claim to be “The Science” is somewhere between flawed and non-existent. Doesn’t stop them trying to push their own peculiar political beliefs though and they seem to get more bizarre as things move on – I think they are done!

    Have a good New Year Jonas!

  47. #47 Jonas N
    December 23, 2013

    Yes indeed, the point has been made by no other than the IPCC itself openly displaying that what they peddle is alarmist activism. And to top it off, they made the same point once more even more fervently so that nobody (in their right mind) can miss it.

    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too …

    and to all of those who will really need some cheering up the coming year and years


    Especially when they’ll see that the hot air they’ve produced doesn’t warm anything at all, and neither can be used to pay for their runnaway energy bills

    (posted on 12/23)

  48. #48 Jonas N
    January 19, 2014

    Again, my comments are ‘held in moderation’ för a week.

    Good thing the quality and level of the discussions is so high in the recent threads. Where ‘Wow’ is at it again in full bloom …

    (posted Jan 19)

  49. #49 GSW
    January 23, 2014


    Wow’s not on his own Jonas, there’s a whole new generation of loons arrived to join in.


  50. #50 Jonas N
    January 27, 2014

    Really? When I check in occasionally, I don’t see to many new names. Wow and BBD take turns spamming the latest ‘open thread’

    (Poster Jan 27)

  51. #51 GSW
    February 10, 2014

    Sorry Jonas, it was a reference to cRR Kampen. He may not be entirely new(?), but on a blog inhabited by some very special people already, he’s pushing the bounds of incoherence.

    P.S Your comment stuck in moderation for 2 weeks Jonas?

  52. #52 Jonas N
    February 14, 2014


    Yeah, I know.. It most certainly was more than one week. After that I didn’t check everyday. But there are others that have disappeared altoghether.

    But the the BBD-phenomenon is quite fascinating. That’s one who really lost it completely. And now fins comfort at the bottom of the Deltoid-bin.

    He is almost as curious a fellow as Jeffie, who boasts endlessly about his CV but spends much of his ‘intellect’ seeking confirmation here. Telling people how ‘deep’ and ‘intellectual’ conversations he has over lunch.

    Something he has proven to be completely incapable of here.


    Posted February 14

  53. #53 Jonas N
    February 24, 2014

    OK, now it’s Feb 24 (when I post this), meaning that is my last comment has been i so called ‘moderation for 10 days!

    I guess Deltoid and its regulars are still scared of dissenting views and facts and unable to have even the resemblance of a civilized debate or discussion.

  54. #54 Jonas N
    March 2, 2014

    March 2nd. Comments back t o Feb 14th still ‘awaiting moderation’. Poor things!

  55. #55 Jonas N
    March 6, 2014

    OK, and now it is March 6th, and one three weeks old comment is still ” awaiting moderation”

    And those guys wonder why reasonable people don’t long ago stopped taking them seriously …


  56. #56 Jonas N
    March 10, 2014


    Now all comments have been erased. After being held and “awaiting moderation” for up to more than three weeks (feb 14)

    Must be really really scary for the regulars, if a 2½ year old thread still receives comments occasionally. Best to delay them for weeks and/or erase them if this practice too becomes too obvious.

    Posted march 10

    2014 maybe I should add.


  57. #57 Olaus Petri
    March 10, 2014

    Why is that Jonas’ posts are being delayed? I’m sure all Deltiods want to read them.

    Can it be fixed?

  58. #58 GSW
    March 10, 2014


    I’ve a horrible feeling Jonas has been moderated out of existence Olaus. Can’t see the point of trying to interact with a 2 week delay on every post, he must of pee’d someone off big time. and all for asking to see the science behind a dubious IPCC claim!

    Still, I think he made his point and the Deltoids just can’t forgive him for it (They’re quite happy in La – La land it would seem)

    Keep at it Olaus!

  59. #59 Olaus Petri
    March 10, 2014

    GSW, I’m sure you are right. Someone felt sorry for chek, BBD, Jeff and the rest of the faceplanting believers. :-)

    The data and calculations behind the 90% figure are as hefty as Jeff’s first hand spider. No wonder deltoiders think the number is scientific. :-)

  60. #60 GSW
    March 10, 2014


    Hi Olaus! what’s with the spider? I know there was a blog post somewhere where joffrey supposedly “witnessed climate change first hand” but has he now claimed that a spider was evidence for this? a sort of later day Robert the Bruce?

    I mean, Joffrey’s obviously an idiot, but why would he think he’d witnessed “Climate Change. oooh ooooh” because of spider that give him a bit of a surpise? Doesn’t make sense, but then he never did, always fell back on CV mantra for comfort. Tosser.

  61. #61 Jeff Harvey
    March 10, 2014


    If I am an idiot, then you must really be stuck deep in the intellectual benthos (given my qualifications put yours into the Burgess Shale). I also see you are smooching Jonas’s butt again; you and Olaus have a really unhealthy obsession with that self-rigthous moron. It appears he’s been banned from Deltoid. Thank heaven for small mercies. Now if only Tim would eject you and Olaus, that would make a nice hat-trick. Fact is, gormless, like Jonas and Olaus, you are a clot because you think you have some scientific qualifications; yet aside from saying you have some third rate chemistry BS from somewhere, that’s it. WOW! I shake in my boots at your immense pedigree.

    As for science, I have repeatedly challenged Part 2 of the idiot Sweden brigade to counter hundreds of studies showing plant and animal responses to warming. More than 30 on the WoS this year alone. And, not suprisingly, old meatball constantly gives the challenge a pass. That’s because he’s never read any of the primary literature. Like you, gormless. I recall your feeble attempts to discuss amphibian declines and the status of polar bears, but all this did was reveal how utterly brainless you are. You can’t tell a dung beetle from an elephant.

  62. #62 GSW
    March 10, 2014


    Yes Joffrey you are an idiot. We’ve, all of us and I think Jonas was the most patient, tried to explain science to you on many occasions and you just don’t get it and you never will. It’s not someone’s CV, it’s not someone’s opinion no matter how venerable you may think them, it’s about Evidence! Empical Evidence! Nothing Else!

    Your memory’s not good Joffrey, so here’s a refresher of what it felt like having to have science explained to you again and again while you were crying for your mum.

    I hope that’s all clear for you finally.
    Cheers Joff

  63. #63 Olaus Petri
    March 10, 2014

    @ GSW

    You are right on the money. The scientific eight legged super proxie for the accelerating warming we haven’t seen (but felt) in 15 years or so, was witness first hand by Jeffie Bonaparte. It’s a scientific “scale-thingie” he tells me (and Duff). :-)

    I’m not yet completely sure why the self-loving maggotologist believes a spider witnessed first hand beats thermometers and satellites. But if I understand him correctly, and I usually do, he is convinced that the well funded right wing conspiracy controls them.

  64. #64 Olaus Petri
    March 10, 2014

    Your link really caught the essence of Joffie’s grandeur! :-D

  65. #65 Jonas N
    March 10, 2014

    GSW – It was three plus weeks ‘awaiting moderation’ and everyone thereafter, when they all were ‘disappeared’.

    Regarding Jeff, you are right on the money. This joke of an academic degree is an embarrassment to any university who let him walk out of there with that diploma. And he is an embarrassment to any institution dealing with knowledge, science or just education. Unfortunately there seem to be such institutions around which of course attract the soft variety of hapless academics who cannot produce real value or have any skills producing such.

    That’s where the pretend to care for the ordinary man/worker in an abstract sort of way, while despising people who work and produce for their own salaries while being forced to support the hordes och Jeffies and bureaucrats on their backs. Cardbox-workers was Jeffie’s condescending term.

    But you are right, this guy is worse than most of them, And so thick he he cannot even get one comment reasonably straight. Usually he loses it somewhere in the middle, whereafter they become his usual loony rants and fantasized la-la-facts.

    And almost every single time. This guy most certainly cannot function outside an institution (and I doubt he can inside any work environment).

    You know what? I think if one were to read any of his publications (he seems so proud of) they would probably be riddled with as bad logic as he performs here.

    The yguy obviously thinks that a database serch for keywords gives him answers beyond finding those keywords in a database.

    His reading apprehension most certainly is lousy even when it comes to quite simple things. Why should anybody believe that his standards and performance would be better at work.

    For all I know, he writes his loony outbursts at his workdesk. And there even brags about how he ‘demolishes’ his opponents at Deltoid (which after all is a ‘science’-blog)!

    Well maybe it is, if let JEff set the standards. What do you think?


    Posted March 11

  66. #66 Jeff Harvey
    March 11, 2014

    Jonas was patient? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

    You guys are funny, I have to admit. I loved how Jonas was patient in explaining away – or at least trying to – the positions of every National Academy of Science in every nation who unanimously agree that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible. I also admire his temerity in sticking to innocuous blogs whilst refusing to throw his amazing wisdom into the broader scientific arena. But alas! He does that because he knows his brilliance would be shot down right away; in other words, don’t hold your breath waiting for Jonas to submit scientific articles to peer-reviewed journals, or to apply to give lectures at international workshops and conferences etc.

    The same goes for you two twits. Both you and Olaus are ignoramuses who make big noises on blogs but hide behind anonymity and in the real world are nothings. At least I have made a career in science and have even debated contrarians and climate change deniers in public venues (not that hard given that most of them don’t have any qualifications in science and in reality are doing nothing more than promoting political agendas).

    As for Olaus, he’s even more insidiously stupid than you GSW. Now I know that’s quite a feat, but he’s achieved it. He copy-pastes others insults (talk about a supine follower) and, in spite of being challenged a zillion times to show where a huge body of empirical literature showing biotic responses to warming is wrong, his only recourse is to retort with insults.

    But the same goes for you, gormless, as well as Betula. I linked here some time ago to several recent studies showing definitive recent and ongoing range/elevational/phenological shifts to warming, and the response from your ‘side’ was as predicted: none, except for the usual putdowns and witless smears.

    Why you clots write in here is anyone’s guess. To look stupid? Well, you do. Most on here think you and Olly are bonkers.

  67. #67 Jonas N
    March 11, 2014

    So ‘courageous Jeffie’ dares to post here and repeat his poor logick and lack of argumets. All replaced by ‘the faith’!?

    Did Tim Lambert reassure him that all resonses to is idiotic drivel will be delayed for weeks or for ever?

    He boasts about ‘even having debated’ deniers. But that claim simply cannot be true. Screeching about ones CV and belief in authority, or opinion polls, or even (as with all the academies) lack of opinion polls is about blind faith. Which has no place in neither science nor debate.

    There are reasons for why Jeffie resides here with a small number of other nutters who are equally unqualified to even discuss simpler aspect of real science.

    One of them being Jeff’s incapability often to properly read even the simplest straight forward statements correctly.The complete lack of applying the simplest logic to a short sequence of facts, arguments in order to arrive at an interpretation, and understanding under what preconditions …

    The guy is an utter joke. And an embarrassment to any company who includes or just accepts him ..

    Posted march 12

  68. #68 GSW
    March 18, 2014


    Hey! was that 7 posts come thru all at once? three weeks+ in moderation!

    “This joke of an academic degree is an embarrassment to any university who let him[jeff] walk out of there with that diploma. And he is an embarrassment to any institution dealing with knowledge, science or just education. ”

    “There are reasons for why Jeffie resides here with a small number of other nutters who are equally unqualified to even discuss simpler aspect of real science.”

    Indeed Jonas, and the spider thermometers preference over real ones, as according to real ones there’s been a “Hiatus” in global warming is nothing more than the power of wishful thinking of reality.

    To misquote Newton,

    “If I [jeff] have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giant spiders”

    Keep posting Jonas!

  69. #69 Jonas N
    March 18, 2014

    Yes GSW

    I think there was a backlog of ‘moderation’ up to one month. I Think the on pm feb 14 was the first on of those stuck in that que.

    Jeffie prides himself immensely for being so skilled with his ‘argumentst’ that he ‘wins’ everytime. Or at least is not contradicted for week on end.

    I notice though that Olaus is pointing out his blaringly obvious flaws, but Jeffie still can’t see even those. And keeps shouting his nonsense at … well I don’t know who even possibly could think that Jeffie has a point (wrt to the discussion)

    BUt apparently some other clueless followers believe there is some sense between the frothing …

    Poor things!

  70. #70 GSW
    March 19, 2014


    Moderation policy here is really bad and very in keeping with the totalitarian left’s ‘apparatchik’ mentality -an intolerance of freedom of speech as a fundamental tenet for survival.

    Kudos to you for enduring! ;) For your amusement a clip from Mark Steyn (he of the vs Mann fame) and his recent ‘Freedom of Speech Tour’ in Australia.

    There are many out there who would like him, and you it wouls seem ;) , silenced because of their ‘dangerous ideas’.

    PS. The Canaan Banana bit around 18mins is ~5mins of comedy gold.

  71. #71 Jonas N
    March 19, 2014

    I notice that Jeffie is barking all kind of nonsense in his padded threads, and he and others demand more ‘protection’. While denying their fascist streaks and that fascism indeed is on the far political left …

    Well, he seems to think that the bottom of Deltoid gutter-threads is the world arena, where he is the shining star!





  72. #72 Stu
    March 20, 2014

    So ‘courageous Jeffie’ dares to post here and repeat his poor logick and lack of argumets.

    So you try to put out an intellectual put-down and manage to misspell the two crucial nouns.

    I was just checking to see if anything had changed, but nope — still the same idiots talking to one another.

    And still too fucking stupid to use a spell checker. And this is the clown you worship.

  73. #73 GSW
    March 20, 2014


    Don’t worry stu, when I made the comment on the other thread about working out which one of you had borrowed the brain for the evening, I’d already worked out it wasn’t you, but I won’t tell anyone :) Your secret’s safe

  74. #74 Jonas N
    March 21, 2014

    So Stu, how is your box-pushing coming along?

    Still steeply uphill? You know, you are allowed to use both hands!

    I think you were better at pushing for sheer nonsense though!

    The kind that Jeffie mistakes for intellectual work, probably because that’s what he’s really good at.

    He always despised manual labor. Incidentally and especially those who work with cardboard boxes, he told us.

    But then again, you weren’t really pushing any boxes. Just mouthing off about how (not) to do it!

    In the faint hope to somehow prove that your ‘six years of physics’ had taught you something. Too bad this was the example you picked ….

    I really think you should stick with your spellchecker …

  75. #75 Jonas N
    March 25, 2014

    I notice that Deltoid-Now-Regular BeeBeeDee has dared to ‘defend’ Stephan Lewandowsky’s idiotic nonsense alleging to have polled skeptics to their beliefs, while he was actually catering to the delusions of himself and others of his ilk.

    It’s always fun to see them defend the indefensible on the most stupid grounds they can come up with or fantazise about.

    I am just waitning for Jeff to proclaim that Lewandowsky’s is ‘science’ at the highest level. Equating this kindergarten academic and his ‘science’ to his own!


    Posted on march 25 (and by now, my posts dating back to march 19 have apparently ‘passed moderation’)

  76. #76 Jonas N
    March 25, 2014

    I should have added that some more of the Deltoid gutter band brain trust are chiming in trying to salvage selected parts of that Lewpaper .. by pretending to be selectively stupid:

    chek, Bernard J.

    And there is one Eric and one NathanD who would fit perfectly here. It’s funny that you all are such die hard believers … Faithers, as I said!

  77. #77 GSW
    March 31, 2014


    Thanks Jonas, missed all that ;)

    Foxgoose seems to have got the heart of the matter in short order,

    Ever thought of making a comment here?
    You know, ideas, opinions & stuff – all joined together in sentences.
    Try it some time – people may even read it. ”
    Ha! ;)


    “Isn’t it interesting that, when persistent and careful analysis cuts through the ducking, weaving and smoke blowing and the real truth begins to emerge – along come the clowns like BBD.

    Like chimps jumping & gibbering in their cage and hurling faeces into the crowd. ”

    I’ve no idea who Foxgoose is, but he does seem to have assessed the Deltards without too much trouble.

  78. #79 Jonas N
    March 31, 2014


    Deltoid-delay of (some?) non-faither’s comments is about a week to a month (nowadays).

    Yes, the Lewandowsky saga is something quite else, isn’t it?

    The guy (Lew) knows absolutely nothing of any physical (or other real) science, but writes psychobabble publications about those rejection ‘the science‘ he wan’ts to believe in.

    By polling the regulars of Deltoid and the like. And (covertly) asking skeptical blogs to participate (which they didn’t).

    Then he claims to have polled SkepticalScience readers by having his poll posted there (which never happened) and claiming that their readership consists of a fair percentage of skeptics.

    Meaing he has essentially no data at all to base any conclusions on (apart from some faither’s who obviously faked being skeptics)

    But not even then can he make his case, and he needs to continue lying about what he has done and what those numbers show.

    It’s an even worse joke than many of the alarmist claims (who reasonably can claim there is a chance, comparable to an icecube’s surviving eternity in hell, that their possibility of a looming manmade climate catastrophy may be seen in their selected data)

    However, the loonies like BBD defend it with no reservations at all: It is (or rather for some time: was) published, and hence it must be accepted as ‘science’

    Wel who’s reasoning does that remind me of? Somebody else’s who believes that it is the printed word that makes it ‘science’ or the claimant a ‘scientist’!


    If one were truly looking for conspiracies regarding the climate debate one would find ample material here among the regulars ..

    But not only here. Even elevated (or bona fide) ‘climate scientists’ such as Michael Mann can’t wait for a chance to spout their conspiracy theories about the multi million dollar industry out there to get him and all the others … which has never surfaced … neither as money nor ans anything else tangible …

    But this non-materialization is proof that that it is indeed a secret conspiracy, and the declining relevance of Mann, Gore, Lew (or is that Mann Bore, Boar) is evidence of that it exists.

    The intellectual level and thinking that marks a true psyentist!

  79. #80 GSW
    April 2, 2014


    Hey that post came thru pretty quick!

    “Lewandowsky saga is something quite else, isn’t it?”

    Yeah, I’m not sure “Frontiers”, lew and the skeptical science mob all agree on the reasons for the paper being withdrawn and the university refusing access to the raw survey data the paper was based on, doesn’t look good either. The uni says its because SM isn’t nice enough and considers the requests “vexatious”, aka they aren’t prepared to defend/stand behind the work in any meaningful way. It was so obviously bollocks, I’m surprised they just don’t die of embarrassment. [The ability to not die of emabarrassment is a prerequisite to being a sks article poster]

  80. #81 GSW
    April 2, 2014


    I know you’re on a time delay and the whole “Climate Alarm” meme has pretty much died, but have you had a chance to skim thru the WG2 SPM yet? It’s pretty much what you would expect, Tol’s “horsemen of the apocalypse” / Nostradamus foretellings is amusing in places.