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 luminous beauty
    September 25, 2011
  2. #2 Stu
    September 25, 2011

    Or perhaps this one?

  3. #3 Jeff Harvey
    September 25, 2011

    *Jeff H has gone off to find out about science!*

    Wrong again, pal. I left because I found Jonas, Olaus and you so predictable and boring. As I said, science left you all behind 10-15 years ago. We’ve moved on.

  4. #4 Olaus Petri
    September 25, 2011

    Hehe…Sweatyhands, knew you would bring that one back. “Hippies” is a bullseye, or maybe “heapies”?

    Jeff, science is leaving you behind, right now. You know it, I know it. And most of all, anyone getting a sip of the atmosphere in this thread will know it too. CAGW will never rise again until you guys stop blame-gaming and come up with real facts instead of fairytales and ad homs.

  5. #5 GSW
    September 25, 2011

    @stu,jeff,LB,chek

    Ah, the 4 bores of 90% confidence level apocalypse returneth! Anything specific you’d like to ‘debate’?

  6. #6 luminous beauty
    September 25, 2011

    [O Louse,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5308482)

    How very droll. For a troll.

    The best definition of projection I’ve ever heard is, ‘When one looks into a mirror and sees his critics’.

    Prediction: O Louse will respond with a retort with the form, ‘I know you are, but what am I?’

    Or ignore me.

    >Oh my goodness! The [projection](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5310759) has surfaced even before I could post this comment.

    “Wow, just wow…”

  7. #7 GSW
    September 25, 2011

    While we are waiting, I came across [this](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGh1R_aJlmE) on youtube, made me laugh anyway, may give you lot a much needed perspective of how you are viewed.

    ;)

  8. #8 luminous beauty
    September 25, 2011

    [GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5310804)

    The specifics of the debate have turned to whether your relationship to Jonas is one of objectified adulation or sadomasochistic codependency, or whether there is an RCH of difference.

    You could help by telling us how you really feel about Jonas. Please, don’t neglect feelings of [adequacy and sexuality](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLi7av7lg9c).

  9. #9 luminous beauty
    September 25, 2011
  10. #10 Stu
    September 25, 2011

    90% confidence level apocalypse

    Right, right. Why bother following the discussion when you can be completely delusional? I’m grateful for your insightful contributions, GSW.

  11. #11 chek
    September 25, 2011

    “Anything specific you’d like to ‘debate'”?

    Yes please – I’d like to know just how many final nails in the coffin/ we’re winning, oh yus/ CAGW is dead – type delusional statements deniers can make before realising at some point that their own delusions must be confronted and communication with the real world re-established, if it will have them.

  12. #12 Ingvar Engelbrecht
    September 25, 2011

    Contemlpating if Ishuold get in on dis cmpletly unscientific debate. it looks like a intresting debate. Funny name calling and lots of ad hoo?? and strnge links

  13. #13 Vince Whirlwind
    September 25, 2011

    Ingvar: Jonas and Olaus (not to mention their fanclub) are in denial as to the basic physical characteristics of CO2.

    There is therefore no possibility of intelligent debate.

    The only purpose of this unintelligent thread is therefore to give the informed the opportunity to vent their spleen at ignorant trolls like Jonas and Olaus.

  14. #14 chek
    September 25, 2011

    Ingvar, I understand there is a language barrier in play here, so allow me to express it in the international language of music. I shall be using as my vehicle one of the most famous songs of one of the most famous songwriters – Mr. Bob Dylan’s ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’.

    “How many times can a denier say ‘final nail’,

    before he understands the meaning of words?

    Tha answer my friend is in 4-AR,

    ignorin’ which shows just how dumb they are”.

    I think we can all see and agree where Bob was coming from with that all time great.

  15. #15 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    #612

    Vince, the only thing we don’t understand is how a number (90-95%) can be scientific when it is apparently not. And you are correct, the deltoids compensate their lack of intelligent answers with various bible citations, profanities and so forth.

    Chek even seeks strength and comfort with Bob Dylan.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    September 26, 2011

    Olaus Petri.

    >Vince, the only thing we don’t understand is how a number (90-95%) can be scientific when it is apparently not.

    Assuming that you are not Jonas N, and as said personage is unable to explain how he arrived at his lack of understanding, perhaps you’d like to take up the reins and explain how he could determine that “(90-95%) can be scientific when it is apparently not”.

    [All you need to do is to show that the IPCC references do not contain this determination](http://live3.goear.com/listen/91a3c55cc6e9ed1e253050c3873aa92c/4e801615/sst/mp3files/22092006/58b2dc959ad4c482baa1c1a42ef86105.mp3).

  17. #17 Vince Whirlwind
    September 26, 2011

    Olaus, your quibbling over language is an obvious troll when we see that you refuse to accept the physical realities of the properties of CO2.

    If you can’t explain why science is wrong to observe that CO2 traps heat, then any discussion about confidence levels is clearly not worth having with you.

  18. #18 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    Vince, how many times do I have to repeat myself? I find the CO2-hypothetis worthy scientific studies. That means that I do not argue against the “physical realities” of CO2. Otherwise I would have declared the hypothesis as delusional crap. Well I don’t. It is the off spring, e.g. goregonian doomsday deltoids, that I find unscientific and even scary.

    Move on.

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    September 26, 2011

    *Jeff, science is leaving you behind, right now*

    Olaus, what science are you referring to? The science coughed out by a few right wing think tanks or web sites like WTFUWT and Climate Fraudit? Because the science presented in peer-reviewed journals is almost 100% in support of evidence showing a profound human fingerprint over the recent warming.

    Moreover, how do you explain that at just about every international conference on climate change – with the exception of the Heartland bashes where most of those attending are either not scientists or else do little primary research themselves – the scientists attending and presenting seminars are in agreement that AGW is very real?

    A: You can’t. Let me guess: like your buddies here you’ve never been to a scientific conference in your life, not have you written any kind of scientific article in a peer-reviewed journal. Let’s get to the crux of it: you hate science, especially the science underpinning AGW. Don’t fret, most of the deniers also hate science, and like creationists they’ve developed a passion for twisting, mangling, and distorting science to promote their own deregulatory libertarian agenda. Because that’s what the whole shebang is about – to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit.

    I can wholly understand, in a sad way, why the corporate establishment would promote denial (at least in the short term, although in the longer term they it is impossible to defend). What I don’t understand is why average schmucks like you, Jonas, GSW and the other recent arrivals on this thread so slavishly tow the corporate line. Talk about being useful idiots.

    And to the new arrivals, if indeed you are from Sweden: I was invited to Uppsala University last year where I presented a seminar on my research. None of the scientists I met there (and who I have known for several years) thinks that the current warming in not human-mediated. You poor guys have been hanging around with the wrong company.

  20. #20 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @Vince

    If you think that mainstream deniers dispute the “physical realities of the properties of CO2″, to the extent that C02 is a greenhouse gas, then you haven’t been following the debate.

    The big ‘unknown’ is it’s subsequent interaction with the rest of the ‘climate system’, somebody (one of the other threads) posted a video of Dessler recently saying there was tremendous uncertainty in this area, and there is.

    For all you guys go on about Lindzen being ‘debunked’ so many times, NASA’s official position on the ‘Iris effect’ is that it has been neither proved or disproved, we just don’t know.

    There are recent papers (Trenberth, Spencer etc), from both sides, trying to account for the models inability to replicate recent climate history (lack of warming). The two problems we have are; a scarcity of data (trenberth postulates heat disappearing into the ocean depths, no observational data for this), also how much confidence do we have in our understanding of the physics of the planet and is this ‘complete’ enough to have faith in what the models produce ~100yrs in the future.

    So please, don’t go around saying we are physics ‘deniers’, we’re just a little bit more cautious when it comes to what can, and cannot, be claimed.

  21. #21 chek
    September 26, 2011

    Like [this “lack of warming”](http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/0211_zh7.jpg) you mean?
    “Combining both land and ocean temperatures shows that global temperatures over the past decade have been warming slightly faster than would otherwise have been expected given the prior temperature trend. This analysis should help put to rest spurious arguments that global warming somehow “stopped” over the past decade”.

    GSW said: “For all you guys go on about Lindzen being ‘debunked’ so many times, NASA’s official position on the ‘Iris effect’ is that it has been neither proved or disproved, we just don’t know”.

    Do NASA take ‘official positions’ on hypotheses? Your following statement seems to be a polite way of saying it’s in the same league as unicorn theory – i.e. desperate wishful thinking based on zero.

    You do realise now why you will never be taken seriously, right?

  22. #22 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @chek

    “Do NASA take ‘official positions’ on hypotheses?”

    As others have suggested here many times, if you think they’re wrong chek I’d let them know, I’m sure they would take your views under advisement.

    ;)

  23. #23 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    > What I don’t understand is why average schmucks like you, Jonas, GSW and the other recent arrivals on this thread so slavishly tow the corporate line.

    There are foreign companies who sell services to astroturf, Jeff. There’s no reason why Jonas/Olaus can’t be paid.

  24. #24 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    > That means that I do not argue against the “physical realities” of CO2.

    It does, though, doesn’t it. That’s why you keep harping on about it.

    The physical realities of CO2 mean that it traps heat.

    The physical realities of CO2 means that a doubling of CO2 will cause 1.2C of warming.

    The physical realities of a warming world means that there are large positive feedbacks on this figure.

    The physical reality is that we’ve already seen a non-steady-state warming that would be expected of 2C per doubling, and the ocean heat content means that that figure will be increased for the steady-state.

    There is no need to investigate the physical properties of CO2. It is no longer a hypothesis any more than “Apples fall down, not float in the air” is a hypothesis.

  25. #25 chek
    September 26, 2011

    I doubt NASA need me to add to [Lin’s paper](http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/22992.pdf):
    “Our results are based upon actual observations that are used to drive global climate models, and when we use actual observations from CERES we find that the Iris Hypothesis won’t work.”

    But now can you explain the primary difference between Lindzen’s hypotheis and the unicorn hypotheis?
    I think not – my hypothesis being that deniers merely indiscriminately attach themselves to anything not-IPCC.

  26. #26 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @chek

    I don’t have the reference to hand, will find it for you later on. And yes, Lin is an employee of NASA, so I am sure they are aware of his work.

    NASA’s ‘position’ is more in keeping with what I would consider to be the scientific norm. A cautious assessment of evidence, as opposed to knee jerk reaction one way or the other.

    It is not unusual for ‘Hypotheses’ to be presented, and decades to pass before proved one way or the other based on the evidence. In fact, that is where most of the fun is. ;)

    Also, I haven’t bothered to follow your unicorn hypothesis train of thought. I suspect it doesn’t amount to much, so I ignored it.

  27. #27 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    luminous #587

    Please remember that you were the one claiming everything was fine and peachy with that AR4 take home message (see #334):

    > it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability

    Although attempting to sound ‘sciency’ in your wording, the second claim is utter nonsense, and the first is unproven, and the ‘description’ you give is wrong. The references we have since discussed contain nothing of the kind. (You now even seem vaguely aware of that, since you are backpedaling on the issues and details). Regarding your latest #587, it is weird indeed, what you now being up:

    Are you now arguing that there is a ‘conservation of momentum’ when it comes to temperature**increases**!? (*)

    Or are you merely rehashing Navier Stokes one more time, hoping to impress some of the gullable? (It was a bad call already the first time, even worse the 4th)

    Are you now arguing that at most ~10 phenomena beyond established laws of physics (as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, etc) are what determine how the cliamte works?

    Are you now seriously contending that raindrop velocity and friction are climate forcings just ‘recently established’, in spite of you only a sentences later mentioned ‘conservation of energy’!?

    Does the term ‘**downward** windshear’ even have a physical meaning?

    Are you seriously trying to build and ‘argument’ of the difference between *’various forcings are combined or withheld’* and *’different parts .. are spearated’*!? Is that what you can muster? Seriously!?

    Or that Jeff H’s *”Yes, its found in >1,000 papers in the empirical literature”* should be (again!) read as *’ possibly **one**, hidden in’* because they only *’touch upon or related’*?. Gimme a break!

    Let me be clear here: Your claim says that you (and 1000s)are (almost) **certain** that the total combined natural contribution to the climate since mid 50:s must have been a cooling? Seriously?

    And furthermore, that this has been addressed in thousands of papers? The **natural** variations!? Those that took us out of the little ice age, those that are so poorly understood!? And not only addressed, but with acertained probabilities too? A claim that is much much much stronger than the AR4’s being discussed? You must be kidding!

    Now please drop that nonsense argument. Jeff is mouthing off, as usual, and has no clue. I expected such drivel from him. The claim is so ludicrous I don’t even need to ridicule it, or those who defend it .. The claim itself manages that just fine.

    Further, you say:

    >It is not the purpose of models to confirm the underlying science

    WTF????

    Are you not aware of ‘climate science’ (and **you**) using those very model simulations to confirm **how certain** the conclusions of those models should be? Have you entirely missed what it is you are arguing? (And once more try with the laws of Newton? Now for the 5th or 6th time? As if you believed that was the crux of the matter!?)

    Are you even remotely aware of how complex, dynamical, extremly non-linear, chaotic etc the climate system is, and all those many phenomena which determine its function? Do you think that some ‘empirical observations’ settle every one of those? Seriously?

    Then you (seem to?) acknowledge the possibility that not “all relevant mechanisms are properly captured and included” you “ma[k]e no such claim” to the contrary, only that models are ‘useful’. May I remind you: Their usfulness is not questioned here. It is their veracity and the very high (claimed) confidence in them that is. Remember that, please!

    The same goes for you being *”more interested in what works than being able to explain every damn detail perfectly and precisely on a purely theoretical basis”*.

    Because curfitting (even if you call it ‘calibration’) and hindcasting does work. Esp if you limit yourself to those decades where it does work reasonably well. But this is still not the topic!

    Now you even endorse arbitrary ‘scaling factors’ to deal with ‘over- or undercompensation’ if they make the outcome ‘more realisic’, whereafter you even resort to ‘trend analysis’ again, see below (*).

    Puh!

    Well my dear luninosity, I think you both made my point very clearly again, and at the same time gave away at which level your ‘understanding’ of the topic halted, like:

    *~’we can reasonably fit the last few decades to the models, and that’s good enough for me’*

    Well, if it is, then it is. But we are not talking any science here, and all you sciency words (first quote above) where just empty blustering. Which I assumed from quite early on, based both on what you actually said, and all the (completely unrealted) things you brought up, and believed to be necessary to make your ‘points’ ..

    Well, as I noted early on: People who feel that bringing up terms like Dunning Kruger, denialist, anti-science, Exxon, fossil fuel, tobacco lobby, right wing, think tanks etc .. or just can’t resist to shit, idiot, moron etc … when trying to formulate their stance ..

    .. almost never have anything of substance to bring to the table. It’s only loud and uninformed cheering for the home team from the stands.

    And it seems very much like you, my dear b-luminosity, have confirmed my ad hoc assumption once more.

    (*) I really hope not, because that would be unphysical, although an idea maintained by many who cling to ‘the trend is still upwards meme’

  28. #28 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    > And yes, Lin is an employee of NASA, so I am sure they are aware of his work.

    They’re probably aware of his house, too. It doesn’t mean NASA owns the house or even approves of it.

    > A cautious assessment of evidence, as opposed to knee jerk reaction one way or the other.

    NASA hasn’t done any assessment of the evidence that does anything other than ignore his “work”.

    A cautious assessment of evidence would indicate that the Iris proposal won’t help, since it never applied in the past to any degree that would contra-indicate the IPCC conclusions.

    > Also, I haven’t bothered to follow your unicorn hypothesis train of thought. I suspect it doesn’t amount to much, so I ignored it.

    Which is an indication of just that level of “support” NASA has given to the Iris hypothesis. They’ve ignored it.

  29. #29 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    Vince W and Craig Thomas, several here have already pointed it out for you, but you should seriously consider learning to read before you start attempting to write ..

    Bernard once more tries Jeff’s reverse gambit: Prove that it isn’t in there somewhere …

    It is also notable, that Jeff, in spite of many, quite long and wordy long postings has avoided to adress anything about any actual topic related to the climate. Mostly he just rehashes his irrational anger, and fantasies. And inbetween he shouts at people they better start believing. If you ask me, he doesn’t even understand what the topic is.

    Accidentally he got one thing right: One can say that the science departed about 10 years ago, when the IPCC TAR was presented, when hockeysticks were elevated to ‘the finest science there is’. When the scientific method was abandoned and centuries of historical records were replaced by treerings.

    Notable is also that among the sources of reference here are cartoonists like John Cook and graphic artist Peter Sinclair, and even cartoon strips.

    It certainly explains some of what pops up here, but I am still amazed that no reasonably informed persons on the side of the AGW-hypothesis, who do actually understand what science is and what the climate science atually says ..

    .. that none of them helps to straighten out the worst misconceptions here often repeated by its supporters (in lack of a better word)

  30. #30 chek
    September 26, 2011

    Jonas said: “sources of reference here are cartoonists like John Cook and graphic artist Peter Sinclair

    You really are a dope, aren’t you Jonas. The operative word that applies to John Cook and Peter Sinclair is “sources”, which is quite different to implying that they themselves, whatever their professions, are the references. They’re a handy go-to source for finding references, despite what the Wattbots might be making of Pielke Snr.’s remarkably ineffective recent attack that brave Sir Roger ran away from

    As an observation, your own unreferenced rambling is getting ever more tedious, diosconnected and boring in this particular sock incarnation. next time a short “tl:dr” will suffice.

  31. #31 lord_sidcup
    September 26, 2011

    historical records were replaced by treerings

    Let me guess. Anecdotes involving grapes, roman wine and a frozen thames.

  32. #32 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    And the cheeks keep on fudging the thread with his fantasies about Jonas. Anything but the topic. :-) What a surprise. Apparently he reacts that way when Jonas feeds him with balanced food for thoughts.

  33. #33 Stu
    September 26, 2011

    It is also notable, that Jeff, in spite of many, quite long and wordy long postings has avoided to adress anything about any actual topic related to the climate.

    Matthew 7:3, Jonas.

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    September 26, 2011

    Isn’t it strange here how much longer Jonas’s rants are getting, and yet he is the one claiming me and others are getting more emotional. Quite odd.

    Its also instructive that Jonas is trying to give the impression that science is on ‘his side’ wherever the hell that might be, when the vast majority of the scientific community, represented in the views of every National Academy of Science in every country on Earth, sees AGW as an issue of profound concern. Please explain that little contradiction Jonas, darling, if you can. And please refrain from more histrionics. Just explain to everyone here why the leading scientific bodies in every country agree that AGW is a serious threat and one that we ought to be doing everything in our power to mitigate.

    What I expect is more evasive behavior, and more sly innuendo suggesting that the commies are out to get us or hints that the scientific community is primarily made up of liars and lefties who are out to kill capitalism. Of course, JonasN is a veritable Superman or Captain America (Cpt. Sweden?) fighting for truth, justice and the American way. No doubt he’s a legend in his own mind. Otherwise, who are we to believe – most of the scientific community including those who are doing the research or a few schmucks like Jonas, who are demanding answers to questions that were answered by the scientists themselves years ago? And demanding it on a weblog for heaven’s sake! That alone is worth a hearty belly laugh or two or three.

    Finally, and I have made this point over and over and yet JonasN refuses (e.g is unable) to answer it, and his slavish fan club (GSW, Olaus, and a few other trolls) perpetually try and provide cover for him on this point. And that is:

    If he is so convinced as to the relevance of his arguments, why does he not submit them to peer-reviewed journals where scientists themselves would evaluate their merit (or, shall I say, inane stupidity and bounce them higher than an Indian rubber ball). And pray, Jonas, please tell us which international scientific conferences dealing with AGW you have signed on to provide a seminar of your Earth-shattering views. Many are held every year in universities all over the world, so it should be easy for you attend at least one. Why is it that blow-hards like you end up on blogs but, when push comes to shove, your ‘revolutionary ideas’ rarely are found more relevant fora where they would be exposed to real experts in the field? You think you’re such a big man coming in here, when I have already admitted, thanks to my training in another field, that I am not a climate scientist, and that, like anyone in a field in which they are not trained defer to the prevailing wisdom in that field. And that wisdom, and the views of the vast majority of climate scientists, is that the planet is warming rapidly and humans are primarily responsible. I am not out on a limb here pal: you are.

    With respect to >1000 peer-reviewed articles, of course if your science education went beyond primary school you’d realize that I meant a wide array of studies focusing on specific areas that, when combined, led to the conclusions of AR4. Similarly, the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) argued that humans are degrading 60% or more of critical ecosystem services that sustain human civilization. This conclusion was based on many thousands of studies that each focused on specific areas with respect to the human alteration of natural and managed ecosystems. The conclusions were based on a summary of all of this combined research. I am sure that, if you were at all interested in population and systems biology (or knew anything about the field, which you clearly don’t), you’d also lash out at the 60% figure.

    In summary, Jonas, you are a grade-A dork. I find your posts amusing, however; they are very instructive in learning more about the D-K phenomenon and the mindset of the denialist. Given that I give lectures and seminars on the topic at universities, I applaud you for giving me more grist for the mill. You are a textbook case.

  35. #35 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @stu

    Genesis 9:7, “Go Forth and Multiply!”

    No malice behind this stu, just made me laugh when I considered it, in the hope that you have a sense of humour also ;) – Anyway, it appears to be a ‘urban’ misquote.

    Says something about the debate though, when we start quoting the Bible at each other!

  36. #36 chek
    September 26, 2011

    Not at all GSW – creationists/unintelligent designers and AGW deniers enjoy a similar pristine mindset, unsullied by science that disagrees with their beliefs.

  37. #37 Bernard J.
    September 26, 2011

    >Bernard once more tries Jeff’s reverse gambit: Prove that it isn’t in there somewhere …

    Yes, and [I specifically aimed it](http://live3.goear.com/listen/91a3c55cc6e9ed1e253050c3873aa92c/4e801615/sst/mp3files/22092006/58b2dc959ad4c482baa1c1a42ef86105.mp3) at the character who styles himself “Olaus”, in order to see if he behaved differently to the one signing as “Jonas N”. As “Olaus”, the challenge was [ignored](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5317693), which is curious… why should two denialists, both who claim that the IPCC makes up the numbers it puts forward, also both steadfastly refuse to indicate the nature of the analysis that originally produced the claim?

    More curious is that [Jonas N emerges to take up the conversation between myself and “Olaus”](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5319687). When two supposedly different people both start using the same repeated avoidance tactic, in addition to having the same peculiarities of mis-spelling, I’m guessing that the puppeteer can’t keep a track of up which sock he has his arm.

    If “Olaus” is truly a different person to “Jonas N”, he should attempt to support Jonas N’s claims with strategies other than those identical to Jonas N’s own.

    GSW – Genesis 9:7 indeed…

  38. #38 Stu
    September 26, 2011

    No malice behind this stu

    Nope, just raging non sequitur. Not even a Luke 13:27?

    Sigh.

  39. #39 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    Several here have attempted to use the **number** of publications favouring or at least mentioning, or relyin on (but not necessarily investigating) the AGW hypothesis, and the number of such ‘experts’ as an argument for its validity. This is of course not a valid argument (in the same way that consensus among priests in christian church isn’t). But it is nevertheless an interesting observation.

    However, I would surmise that in general the number of publications more scales with the number of funded research men/years, than with the validity of its central and underlying hypothesis.

    And given that many of these papers have so long lists of authors that it is difficult even to *imagine* what the contribution from one specific individual might have been. (I would expect that the re-use of a previous result in many cases suffices for qualification as a c-author).

    I suggest that a better (but still very coarse, and only indicatiuve) metric would be to compare the number of publications, per author and per topic-specifically funded man year.

    I think the numbers then would come out quite reasonably, and the whole meme of ‘so many publications behind, so many agree with the consensus’ etc will prove to be quite hollow. Everybody is aware of that the vast amount of money directed at various climate-releated issues is largely deceded politically. Through various chanels of course, but in the end research money is laregly political money.

    What I’m saying is that number of articles/author should strongly correlate with number of funded hours/years. Simply if ‘you’ pay for something, you’d expect to get more, if you pay more.

    Now, everybody is also aware of that political spending is neither ruled by cost efficiency or quality of what is ‘purchased’. And ‘buying’ more ‘climate research’ will certainly yield more delivery, but not necessarily of better, or of even the same quality.

    Although not pressing that point, I think this is one reason for why many of these papers are so similar to each other, only a small variation of the previous version, or an update with some more data (for the last years).

    I am of course generalizing quite a bit here. Science progresses slowly also in other fields, and not every step is that great or so big a novelty. But still, reading these papers, I often get the impression they are often just churned out as one more of them, because it’s possible.

    For example:
    The spectacular finding of large increase of drowning polar bears, turned out to be built on what what some ‘scientiests’ (Charles Monnet et al) saw during a whale rsurveillance flight, vastly extraploated to the entire Beaufort sea, and the generously compared with what they *remembered* from flights of earlier years.

  40. #40 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    Bernard is now truly chin high into exegetics in search for the truth. Hilarious. :-)

  41. #41 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    > and the number of such ‘experts’ as an argument for its validity. This is of course not a valid argument

    Yes it is.

    That mathematicians agree that pi is not 3 is how you can know, without being a mathematician, that pi is not 3.

    That there is vastly more evidence for IPCC than your freak sideshow’s preferred answer is why there are more papers on the evidence of the IPCC’s validity than for your freakshow.

    > Now, everybody is also aware of that political spending is neither ruled by cost efficiency or quality of what is ‘purchased’.

    Which is just as well, because you’re not giving value for money for the Kochs.

    > Science progresses slowly also in other fields, and not every step is that great or so big a novelty.

    So why is the 150 year old science for AGW overturned by your 15 year old one of the Iris?

    > The spectacular finding of large increase of drowning polar bears, turned out to be built on what what some ‘scientiests’ (Charles Monnet et al)

    Ah, you’re being alarmist here.

    And isn’t this one case where your earlier assertions about how evidence (the bears were drowned) is of prime import in science, as opposed to speculation (that these observations are incorrect)?

    > vastly extraploated to the entire Beaufort sea

    Just like your invisible Iris effect has been “seen” in some experiments that don’t exclude but don’t support the hypothesis is being vastly extrapolated into being a reason why AGW won’t be a problem for the entire globe…

  42. #42 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @stu

    ;)

    The responses to Jonas points are somewhat biblical also.
    “Acts 7:54″

  43. #43 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    Jeff …

    If you would actually engage in a debate about what we are discussing, and refrain from trying to reframe it to your beliefs in numbers, consensus, and authorities (and of course all your emotions, fantasies, projections, and personal attacks, and political rants) ..

    .. then all your comments to/about be would shrink to … well .. I might of course have missed some grains … but essetially zip!

    Do you even know what this ‘earth shattering view’ or ‘revulutionary ideas’ of mine is supposed to be? All you ever bark at are your own strawmen, Jeff. There usually isn’t anything to respond to at all. I do remind you that real scientists don’t make up their own facts, but that hasn’t gon through yet. And it is now almost a month …

    You have not challenged one single detail of what I have actually said about the topic. Mouthing off, yes! But substance, no!

    But I’m glad you retract your claim that b-luninosity’s claim can be found in 1000+ papers. It is indeed a very outlandish and extremly wishful hope that the warming that has been going on since ~1600 suddenly halted, and if anything reversed, right around ~1950, and that everything thereafter is due to humans.

    But mind you, it was not the AR4 claim you ‘defended’, it was something very specific, and specifically different.

    And when you *”give lectures and seminars on the topic at universities”* do your really accurately describe your own behaviour, your ‘arguments’, your ranting, shouting, name calling, and utter complete absence of anything resembling substance wrt to the topic? Or is such conventiently left out, as you seem to be able to block out everything else that doesn’t fit your narrative?

  44. #44 lord_sidcup
    September 26, 2011

    Jonas

    I haven’t been paying much attention to your thread but have read just 638 and have to say I’m absolutely awestruck at the monumental ignorance and stupidity represented by that comment – the rambling illogicality of it, the weasel words… everything about it is so perfectly stupid in every conceivable way. Awesome.

  45. #45 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    > If you would actually engage in a debate about what we are discussing

    What is it you discern as “what we are discussing”, Jonas?

    You’ve already given at least three definitions.

  46. #46 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    > Do you even know what this ‘earth shattering view’ or ‘revulutionary ideas’ of mine is supposed to be?

    We keep asking.

    You keep ignoring.

    You don’t know what you’re thinking is the obvious answer.

    Rather like first line support from your ISP in India, reading from the script is all you have.

  47. #47 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @sidcup

    I understand it, in fact it is quite blunt and to the point. Your comment is very vague however, can you be specific?

  48. #48 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    It’s his opinion of post 638. It’s as specific as it needs to be.

    It’s also rather ironic having you request for more specificity.

  49. #49 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    Jonas N, I believe you are correct. The amount of articles on drowning polars alone should be enough to make the wowing tents stop shaking. But no, its science, camp meeting science. :-)

  50. #50 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    sidecup … it is true that you have not payed a lot of attention, no problem there, but I cannot remember that you have raised any objections of substance before either.

    that people here disagree is obvious, although even stating what we disagree about seems too high a hurdle for the most.

    Let me repond to your comment:

    I think that funding and churned out papers per author correlate ..

    If you claim the opposite, I would disagree with you, but since you don’t specify why, there is not much to respond to.

  51. #51 chek
    September 26, 2011

    Your creepy, silly scare quotes around the word “scientiests” (sic) when referring to internationally respected arctic biologist Charles Monnett who has worked in that field for over 20 years says all that we need to know about your agenda Jonas.

    Take a tip and either stick to your fuckwitwebsites or start to take at least some basic science on board.

  52. #52 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    As I said: vastly extrapolated drowning polar bears, not seen years before, are now science based on “work[] in that field for over 20 years”, and Oscar and Nobel winning material by “internationally respected arctic biologist Charles Monnett” …

    That was precisely my point!

    ;-)

  53. #53 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @chek 650

    Your continued bleating about irrelevant trivialities, coupled with abuse, does not count as a meaningful contribution chek.

  54. #54 Stu
    September 26, 2011

    although even stating what we disagree about seems too high a hurdle for the most.

    Quite, Jonas, quite. Which one of your three points are you on right now, or did you shift again?

  55. #55 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    > As I said: vastly extrapolated drowning polar bears, not seen years before

    Well, no. Dead polar bears aren’t seen dead years before if only because the dead bodies get eaten.

    But then again, you don’t even seem to know what the report said.

    Your point seems to be to splash about and hope that nobody notices you can’t swim.

  56. #56 Andy S
    September 26, 2011

    I have to agree with lord_sidcup regarding the perfection of Jonas’s 638. Finally I understand why there are so few papers about the Genesis flood published in geology journals: the politicians simply don’t want to buy that kind of research. For political reasons, they prefer to buy Earth-is-4.5-billion-years ‘research’ instead. Reading the papers from these politically funded ‘scientists’, I often get the impression they are often just churned out as one more of them, because it’s possible.

    Jonas shouldn’t waste his talents on the denizens of this poor blog – he should really start his own blog instead. Maybe it could be called “Climate Skeptic Superhero”.

  57. #57 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    chek, you are indeed a very emotional guy. So your opinion regarding the “science” behind the drowning polar bears, is that it isn’t Times-Atlasian?

    On topic I would like to add that the number of “climate scientist” have rapidly increased the last two decades or so, and most of them are not dealing with how the climate system works. Instead many of the newbies are harvesting their laurels by doing “assessments” based on “what ifs” in the name of CAGW.

    That’s why I firmly believe, in a decade or so, that we will have a rerun on the 70s ice-age prophesy. When we actually start looking into what the actual science really said (on CAGW), there will not be much confirming the “settled” CAGW-claims.

    Which, naturally, has been one of Jonas N’s major point all along.

  58. #58 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    Andy S (and others) I see that you still are using the best arguments you have (left). Keep at it …

  59. #59 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    Andy S (and others) I presume you are using the best arguments you have (left). Quite right! Keep at it …

  60. #60 chek
    September 26, 2011

    My opinion about the dead polar bears is that Dr. Monnett is best equipped to know what he saw and what he’s talking about, and that everything else you’ve picked up from your stupiditysites is just dogpacks barking in the night.

    At this stage even now you have no credible references, just pure, whining noise.

  61. #61 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    chek, I’m sure we can agree on what Dr. Monnett did see. But its what he didn’t see that we are a bit sceptic about, to put it mildly. ;-)

    And chek, “science” and “saw” starts with the some letter. Most mean something important, don’t you think. :-)

  62. #62 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    > When we actually start looking into what the actual science really said (on CAGW)

    The only ones going on about CAGW are people like you, Jonas.

    Tell me, is there any temperature of the earth that would be catastrophic?

  63. #63 Jeff Harvey
    September 26, 2011

    *When we actually start looking into what the actual science really said (on CAGW), there will not be much confirming the “settled” CAGW-claims*

    “WE!?!?” By we I presume you mean climate researchers and not scientifically illiterate pundits like Jonas? But of course, “we”, meaning actual bonafide scientists, have already shown that the evidence for AGW is strong and growing.

    You guys are getting funnier all the time! Stop it! My sides are splitting!

  64. #64 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    Ok Jeff #662, NOT you then. :-)

  65. #65 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @Olaus 663

    lol!

  66. #66 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    Ah, note how Olaus’ ad hom goes unremarked by those who complained bitterly of it. Including Olaus itself.

  67. #67 Stu
    September 26, 2011

    Wow: it’s fine, if you think “ad hominem” == “meanie words”. Which still seems to be what this contingent of morons is working off of.

    Oh, and Jonas,

    Andy S (and others) I presume you are using the best arguments you have (left). Quite right! Keep at it …

    Is that it? You only moved the goalposts three times! No wonder you can’t get funded.

  68. #68 Wow
    September 26, 2011

    It’s more than that, Stu. It’s an ad hom by his own definition, and which definition would apply if not your own?

    That his definition is wrong doesn’t mean he can avoid having his words ascribed the import of his own incorrect definition.

  69. #69 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2011

    >Several here have attempted to use the number of publications favouring or at least mentioning, or relyin on (but not necessarily investigating) the AGW hypothesis, and the number of such ‘experts’ as an argument for its validity.

    Not at all. The argument is that you lack expert grounding in the empirical literature to be making broad sweeping judgements. To think that selectively reading of a few papers, emphasizing their individual caveats, and ignoring the substance of their conclusions with the hand waving assertion that those conclusions are unscientific, is grounds for disproving an expert synthesis of an entire field is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

    You continue to demonstrate conclusively you are an idiot, Jonas.

  70. #70 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    Jeff, have you yet started reading the two papers whose content actually was discussed here? Have you any objections to what they do, how they do it, and what conclusions can be drawn? And do you (as luminous b did) believe that it contains anything coming close to that AR4 claim (which has been on topic here)?

    You can even read above how others have viewed it. Care to comment? Or do you nowadays plead ‘no contest’ to what I pointed out to start with?

    And if yes, what the heck have you been going on about?

  71. #71 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    luminous b

    What I **don’t** lack is to capability to read the science and understand what actually is done. This, and the fact that I actually **do** read (not only rely on cartoonists etc) gives me the advantage.

    So now you think it is the caveats in one or a few papers that is my angle? You want to have another go? Do you really think that the main shortcomings and real difficulties of the confidence-attributions are overcome in another paper? Because I don’t, and the AR4 wg1 does not say that much either wrt other methods. Actually, most other papers I’ve read on the topic have been worse, because they resorted to Bayesian ‘expert guesses’ to bolster their (own) confidence. Sorry if I don’t remember them now, but they are addressed as such in the AR4 and in the appendices.

    But my impasse about ‘number of publications’ had absolutely nothing to do with me, or my expert standing in anything. I merely surmised that there are better was to make the comparisions attempted by many ..

    I hope that at least some of you understood.

  72. #72 Stu
    September 26, 2011

    So now you think it is the caveats in one or a few papers that is my angle?

    Why don’t you TELL us what your angle is Jonas? Be careful though, you’ll have to stick to it.

    Sorry if I don’t remember them now

    I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

  73. #73 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2011

    Jonas,

    You keep ranting about my reliance on Navier-Stokes, yet you are the one that introduced N-S into the conversation, apparently as an answer to my little four part quiz.

    Given that N-S is only a half correct and partial answer to one question, I would have to grade your understanding of GCMs, at the most basic level, at 4%, and I’m being very generous. Major fail.

  74. #74 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    I should add, the Huntingford et al and the Stott et al paper, did not formally attempt to affirm the model’s veracity. They studied how well they could identify and reproduce the (modelled) regional patterns of the three mechanisms studied. They explicitly restrict themselves to only three ‘forcings’ which they assume are additive (linear combinations)

  75. #75 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @stu 666 (the number of the beast, how Biblically appropriate)

    “what this contingent of morons is working off”

    So that’s just good old fashioned, honest to goodness, abuse, which which is Ok in your book?

    You don’t think leaving this out would improve the scanning of what you say, or even presenting something other than abuse occasionally might make it worth reading.

    You went to so much trouble to learn the language, one would hope that this is because you actually had something worthwhile to say, or at least a non abusive point of view of some description, No?

  76. #76 chek
    September 26, 2011

    Jonas, you’re obviously quite the scientific superstar legend in your own mind. No paper can withstand your crushing criticism – and no references are ever necessary when sweeping assertions will do.

    It’s just that nobody else can see it, with the possible drivelling exception of GSW whose penchant for fictions devalues his opinion somewhat fatally, and to the rest you’re a jusy another gibbering Watts fed fool. Goddard on meth, perhaps.

    Even Cassandra didn’t have it so rough.

  77. #77 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2011

    Jonas,

    What you fail to understand about Bayesian statistics would and does fill a stack of textbooks.

  78. #78 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    luminous b – after your quite disasterous attempt #587 (with NS and Newton and everything else), you are the last one to lectre me about almost anything relevant really. Especially not statistics, which is the topic, and was what you attempted with Huntington et al.

    Have you now also given up completely and resorted to only mouthing off?

    How original of you … :-)

  79. #79 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @chek

    “GSW whose penchant for fictions devalues his opinion somewhat fatally”

    Go on then chek, which fictions are these? If you think I’ve made something up, what is it?

    So I guess you have also given up completely and resorted to only mouthing off?

    How original of you … :-)

  80. #80 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2011

    >They explicitly restrict themselves to only three ‘forcings’ which they assume are additive (linear combinations)

    They used three sets of multiple forcings and their assumptions where not pulled out of their butts, but were supported by references in the empirical literature, which, also, were supported by references in the empirical literature. [And so on.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5322809)

  81. #81 chek
    September 26, 2011

    GSW – I’d refer you to my comment #620, but for speed that busted your ‘lack of warming’ claim and Lindzen’s non-existent ‘iris’. And that’s just today.

  82. #82 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    luminous b

    You’ve already written that. Several times. And you are quite correct, that they all reference others who do the same thing … and say that others confirm their methods in a quite circular fashion …

    Do you want me to tell you what is missing? Because I’ve already written that too, many times …

  83. #83 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @chek

    Oh yes, I said I’d find you that reference.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris3.php

    “Currently, both Lindzen and Lin stand by their findings and there is ongoing debate between the two teams. At present, the Iris Hypothesis remains an intriguing hypothesis—neither proven nor disproven. The challenge facing scientists is to more closely examine the assumptions that both teams made about tropical clouds in conducting their research because therein lies the uncertainty.”

    I’ll just repeat that middle bit.

    “At present, the Iris Hypothesis remains an intriguing hypothesis—neither proven nor disproven.”

    I’m sure you read that as ‘debunked’, but NASA are a little more gracious than you.

    and “Lack of Warming” – they’re Travesty Trenberth’s words as you well know.

    Keep looking, maybe you can find some more ‘fiction’!

    ;)

  84. #84 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2011

    [Jonas,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5322809)

    So now you are saying that conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are not well established scientific principles? Because that is all I can infer from this and your lame attempt at dissembling gibberish in #626.

  85. #85 Stu
    September 26, 2011

    @stu 666 (the number of the beast, how Biblically appropriate)

    Sure, if the number were 666, which it isn’t.

    “what this contingent of morons is working off” So that’s just good old fashioned, honest to goodness, abuse

    Initially, perhaps. By now it is a sad statement of fact.

  86. #86 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @stu

    What number do you think it is then?

  87. #87 Stu
    September 26, 2011

    I’m sure you read that as ‘debunked’, but NASA are a little more gracious than you.

    Christ, you are a stupid liar. Why are you pretending you did not read #620?

  88. #88 Stu
    September 26, 2011

    It’s almost certainly 616 — although the orthodoxy has held 666 for long enough now that it’s probably moot. Even more moot.

    I do apologize for being flippant and combatative on an unrelated point though.

    TL,DR: Sorry for derailing, back on topic.

  89. #89 chek
    September 26, 2011

    GSW @ 682 –
    1) Can you point to Lindzen’s iris? No you can’t. It’s a unproven hypothesis, which is a fiction like unicorns which have also neither been proven nor disproven.

    2)Your Montfordian bastardisation of Trenberth’s private email correspondence for conspiracy morons brings todays fiction total from you up to [three.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm.)

  90. #90 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @stu

    Are you back on the Chewbacca defense? You do not make sense! of course I read #620.

    Apology graciously accepted stu, I’m unaware of 616, you’ve got me curious though I’ll have a look.

    ;)

  91. #91 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @chek

    Sorry chek you’ve lost me – are you saying the “Lack of Warming” words are not attributed to Trenberth?

  92. #92 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2011

    [GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5323279)

    The article you cite is dated June, 2002. We’re nine years along and the Iris Effect still hasn’t shown up. How long are we supposed to wait?

    Do you still believe in Santa Claus?

  93. #93 Jonas N
    September 26, 2011

    luminous b

    >So now you are saying that conservation of momentum and conservation of energy are not well established scientific principles

    Is this what you have left? Is this ‘all you can infer’? Is this what I’m up against here? Is this the level you are/were debating on? Grow up kiddo!

    I’m fully serious, grow up kid. Or play with the other kids here … there are plenty of them

  94. #94 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @stu

    Tried wikipedia and you are right!

    616
    Fragment from Papyrus 115 with number 616

    In May 2005, it was reported that scholars at Oxford University using advanced imaging techniques had been able to read previously illegible portions of a manuscript which stated 616 instead of the majority of texts which state 666.[11] The existence of manuscripts attesting to 616 had also been noted before this finding. Another early witness Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) (a palimpsest) has it written in full: ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. “six hundred and sixteen”).[12] This, along with the translation of P115, has led some scholars to conclude that 616 is the original number of the beast.[13]

    The NRSV translation for Rev 13:18 includes this translation note: “Other ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen”.”

    I didn’t know that! Well you learn something everyday!

    Cheers

    ;)

  95. #95 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @LB 691

    “How long are we supposed to wait?”

    Well, I’d suggest we wait until we have proof, one way or the other. Maybe you’d like to decide now, absent proof?

  96. #96 luminous beauty
    September 26, 2011
  97. #97 chek
    September 26, 2011

    FSW @ 690 – No GSW, that is called ‘quote mining for morons’, which is at least apt.
    Try reading the link provided – unless you prefer your fictions and Montfordian moronisations.

  98. #98 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @LB

    Thanks I’ve read that. That’s the paper we were talking about at the time.

    Thanks for repeating it though, it’s a big help.

  99. #99 GSW
    September 26, 2011

    @690

    It’s not a fiction if it was actually said. Which alternative reality are you from chek?

  100. #100 Olaus Petri
    September 26, 2011

    LB, chek, stu etc…how long do we have to wait before Trenberth’s “lack of warming” means anything at all? Is it an invention of GSW, or god forbid: Jonas N?

1 5 6 7 8 9 67

Current ye@r *