Jonas Thread

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

More like this

By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here. I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.

chek:

another GWPF noise stooge who gets his version of climate science from economists, miners, sport consultants, TV presenters and accountants

pentaxF:

Oh, so you know me? If not, how do you, a fucked up foil hat, know where I get my information?

Fuck but you are an imbecile. A. W. Montford is an accountant.

Jeez what a kindergarten behavior little Stu and Wow are showing. Typical for alarmists to turn the view from the ball to something completely irrelevant when their arguments are drained.

But still, the facts remains. CAGW is a political fantasy product, with no empirical data what so ever to support it. If the facts indeed existed, why then do, for example, Mann refuse to release the raw data for his hockey stick fraud? Michael Mann is todays eqvivalent of the fifties Ancel Keyes. Both realised that to make a splash in the science community, you have to "massage" the data so it fits your theory.

Jeez what a kindergarten behavior little Stu and Wow are showing. Typical for alarmists to turn the view from the ball to something completely irrelevant when their arguments are drained.

But still, the facts remains. CAGW is a political fantasy product, with no empirical data what so ever to support it. If the facts indeed existed, why then do, for example, Mann refuse to release the raw data for his hockey stick fraud? Michael Mann is todays eqvivalent of the fifties Ancel Keyes. Both realised that to make a splash in the science community, you have to "massage" the data so it fits your theory.

>Long before, I pointed out that the most prominent AR4 claim (from the SPM) wasn't based on proper science (it isn't)...

Except that you wouldn't - or couldn't - point to your literature review that supported you claim. And that didn't surprise me (or anyone else, I suspect)... Given how Tamino handed you your arse on a plate when you tried to play statistics with him, I'd say that serious statistical analysis and break-down are beyond your (other) unsubstantiated capacities in climatology.

Perhaps you just need a nudge? How about tackling one or more of these, so that we might actually figure out where you think the fraud/conspiracy/universal-professional-incompetence originates.

  1. Is CO2 a 'greenhouse' gas?
  2. Is the planet warming?
  3. Is the planet warming at the rate that has been agreed on by the IPCC?
  4. Is this warming a result of the action of CO2?
  5. What is the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration?
  6. What will be the abiotic consequences of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration?
  7. What will be the biotic consequences of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration?
  8. What will be the agricultural consequences of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration?
  9. What will be the political consequences of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration?

    And here's a hard one for you - ethics...

  10. What responsibility do current generations of humans have to future generations, and to the non-human biosphere? This question may be thought of as an extension of - what will be the social consequences of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration?

And how are you going with deciding [which of my wager alternatives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133) you will accept in order to deprive me of my money?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Nov 2011 #permalink

Jeff, I forgot my conclusion:

I don't care much about your 'challenges' of which you would be no part at all. But I have challenged you here to make but one coherent comment on something of substance and relevance to what has been discussed, and without interjecting any of your pathological fantasies about things you don't know shit about ...

Just one measured comment that can be read and understood and accepted for what it says even by those not sharing your 'convictions'.

So far, this seems to have posed a real challenge for your capabilities!

Pentaxz,

Firstly, I have never called you "names", and I challenge to find a single instance where I have.

Secondly, your first action right out of the starting gate was to call me "stupid" and a "prick".

Your second post to me is worth quoting in full:

>Hey, stupid John. You foilhats is claming all sorts of weird and stupid things, hence you have to proof the empirical data, that the eight questions represent, wrong. Go ahead, be my guest. Get on it. If you, la creme de la creme of Deltoid intelligence can't prove them wrong, your CAGW church is in a deep shit. You know it. So, go fetch the proof, foilhats. Rambling and evading won't help you this time.

Don't lie and don't be a hypocrite.

bernie, what you miss is that nobody has told me that the CAGW is a fraud. It's something I have discovered all by my self. Further, I don't think the IPCC "scientists" are involved in a conspiracy, they simply are so convinced in their beliefs that they can't grasp that empirical facts are contradicting their beliefs. Therefore they don't see that bending facts is wrong when their models don't sync with them.

On the other hand, NGOs, like greenpiss, WWF and so on, have clearly an agenda. And that is a world government in the name of preserving the nature. It's no wonder that enviromentalists often has a very left, communistic view on things. For them it's quite ok to destroy the modern way of life, as long as the nature is saved. Well, I too want to preserve our nature, but not at the cost of destroy our civilication.

bernie, what you miss is that nobody has told me that the CAGW is a fraud. It's something I have discovered all by my self. Further, I don't think the IPCC "scientists" are involved in a conspiracy, they simply are so convinced in their beliefs that they can't grasp that empirical facts are contradicting their beliefs. Therefore they don't see that bending facts is wrong when their models don't sync with them.

On the other hand, NGOs, like greenpiss, WWF and so on, have clearly an agenda. And that is a world government in the name of preserving the nature. It's no wonder that enviromentalists often has a very left, communistic view on things. For them it's quite ok to destroy the modern way of life, as long as the nature is saved. Well, I too want to preserve our nature, but not at the cost of destroy our civilication.

bernie, what you miss is that nobody has told me that the CAGW is a fraud. It's something I have discovered all by my self. Further, I don't think the IPCC "scientists" are involved in a conspiracy, they simply are so convinced in their beliefs that they can't grasp that empirical facts are contradicting their beliefs. Therefore they don't see that bending facts is wrong when their models don't sync with them.

On the other hand, NGOs, like greenpiss, WWF and so on, have clearly an agenda. And that is a world government in the name of preserving the nature. It's no wonder that enviromentalists often has a very left, communistic view on things. For them it's quite ok to destroy the modern way of life, as long as the nature is saved. Well, I too want to preserve our nature, but not at the cost of destroy our civilication.

Hooh-boy! Deltoids!

Man-oh-man, the comments are sure flying thick-and-fast here on the Jonas Thread! What can I say, guys, we're getting very, very close to the magic 3,000 comment mark!! And when we reach that milestone, won't that be something to celebrate?!

And to think that the very first comment on this thread (by Mr. Clue-less, himself--Neven, naturally) boasted that trolls "come to die" on the Jonas Thread--when, in fact, as I'm sure even the flakiest, most flocculated Deltoids have finally figured out, the Jonas Thread is actually where trolls come to gain immortality!! Whoo-hoo! and Ooh-rah!!! Of course, the Jonas Thread's robust vitality is in contrast with the sad, etiolated condition of the rest of this blog. Alas, Deltoid has undergone lately, or so it seems, a more-or-less "tits-up", Darwinian transformation. And that, in turn, has resulted, in an alarming loss of essential, group-think habitat for this blog's many evolutionary dead-enders. "Too bad, so sad" and a big, fat "Oh, darn!"

But, Deltoids, the real reason for this here comment, is that I want to be the lucky fellow that makes history and posts the "Big-3K" comment! I mean, like, if I pull that coup off, I'll be in for some real braggin'rights, for sure! But the timing is tricky, I know, and there's an irreducible element of luck in the whole deal, as well. Oh well, just gotta take my chances, I guess.

And since this here comment just might make history (fingers crossed!), I want to make sure it is worthy of the honor, so I'm putting in some eco-science stuff and all to give it substance and all. So here's the money-shot, which I address to Jeff Harvey, Deltoid's alpha, bio-diversity doom-butt:

So, like, Jeff, I've been reading about this freakin'fish, called a Snail-Darter, that's like all endangered and everything and that's somehow a big deal with you "doom and doomer" bio-diversity types. So I don't get. I mean, how can anyone get all worked up over some bait-fish whose very name is an oxymoron?!!!! I dunno, seems really, really weird to me.

Wish me luck, guys! I'm pushing the "post" button now. Come on, 3,000!

What - do you really think anybody gives a shit?

wow, you and your followers sets the standard. Simple as that.

And no, dear, you don't have any science on your side. You have cherry picking, model fitting, hide the decline, koncencus science (95% of 79 scientists) and so on. That's not remotely science, that's fraud and bullshit.

> As you know, guys, I take a certain pleasure in calling my ol' Deltoids buddies "names."

Yup. Which is why your concern trolling is vapid.

ianam

Although I have very low expectations (none, that is) of you, I think your comment:

>Jonas is a stinking pile of dishonest feces

.. was equally unwise as Bernard's.

And it is unwise because firstly it in it self is an obvious and far worse untruth than the straw-one it you pretend to condemn. And secondly, because you (and so many more) don't even pretend to try represent the views of others honestly. Or are interested in, or even just capable of doing that ..

Hence, the excessive piling up of shit and feces in your comments ...

Jonas! you're alive!

I was a little worried you had given up on this bunch of non numerate, hiding under the stairs, someone else tells me what to think, no hopers. Good to see you're still at it!

;)

As for current temperatures, I asked gavin over a month ago on realclimate when the annual 'Dad Joke', sorry 'turd polishing', sorry 'How are the models doing?' would be unveiled. Apparently, he's still waiting on the results of some CMIP5 model runs(?).

Gavin's conclusion is of course well known - they are doing fine! The 'intrigue' is more the somersaults that will have to be gone thru in the production of this magnum opus. Downplay Hansen's ~20yr old forecasts, push some new, shiny, state of the art (dubious and untested) ones on a better computer, leave any reference to HadCRUT3 out altogether(?), blame the 'travesty' of the lack of warming on..on (?) .. Big Oil?

In any event, the non numerate Jeffs of this world will accept the Gospel as handed down. He's on a jaunt at the moment looking for biodiversity armageddon isn't he? can't wait till he gets back with the news.

;)

@jeff,

You realised your CV is not an argument jeff? Good. Posting links rather than CV waving, It's so not like you!

Let's have a look. .....Oh, oh, hang on a minute, weren't you the guy complaining about others getting their science from a blog?

Your #3523 "..... Use anti-environemtnal[sic] blogs for much of your source information...Try and avoid reading the primary literature as much as you can"

The first 'evidence' link you posted was to "http://takvera.blogspot.com" a self styled "Climate Citizen" blog writing on "Climate Change, ...biodiversity loss...and Climate protests from a Melbournse Citizen" - looks more like an activist blog than primary science to me. I'd call that a convenient case of hypocrisy jeff.

The others? As Olaus pointed the other 'primary' sources were a Nature "opinion piece" and a link to an "Impacts Review" by Camille Parmesan - Scatter Gun advocacy(?) as is the vague reference to 5,000 'other' studies. You are a serial offender at this jeff.

The frog link, Alan Pounds, you're right he's very much the cheerleader when it comes to linking climate change to herpetile extinctions. His 'Golden toad' Climate Change hypothesis looks pretty much dead and buried.

[Tropical cloud forest climate variability and the demise of the Monteverde golden toad](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/25/0908572107.abstract)

From the abstract,
"There is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming. Rather, the extinction of the Monteverde golden toad (Bufo periglenes) appears to have coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986â1987 El Niño event."

Attempts to directly link frog extinctions to Climate Change are tenuous at best. Pathogens (certainly), land use changes/intrusions, ENSO and pollution or combinations thereof, are probably better, more compelling, candidates

Other disappointing (for you) frog papers;

[Decreased winter severity increases viability of a montane frog population](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/21/0912945107.short)

[Effects of temperature and hydric environment on survival of the Panamanian Golden Frog infected with a pathogenic chytrid fungus](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00197.x/abs…)

[Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and the collapse of anuran species richness and abundance in the Upper Manu National Park](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01604.x/abs…)

I'm not sure which is the more distressing, your irrational presumption that Co2/Climate Change is the root cause of everything, your lack of critical reasoning in all things, or the level of ignorance you repeatedly demonstrate in what is supposedly your own field.

[Come off it Tim, It's a post on troll thread for goodness sake, banned from a troll thread? people advocating murder on the open thread and I can't post links to Zoology papers on a troll thread? - doesn't look good does it ;)]

@jeff,

You realised your CV is not an argument jeff? Good. Posting links rather than CV waving, It's so not like you!

Let's have a look. .....Oh, oh, hang on a minute, weren't you the guy complaining about others getting their science from a blog?

Your #3523 "..... Use anti-environemtnal[sic] blogs for much of your source information...Try and avoid reading the primary literature as much as you can"

The first 'evidence' link you posted was to "http://takvera.blogspot.com" a self styled "Climate Citizen" blog writing on "Climate Change, ...biodiversity loss...and Climate protests from a Melbournse Citizen" - looks more like an activist blog than primary science to me. I'd call that a convenient case of hypocrisy jeff.

The others? As Olaus pointed the other 'primary' sources were a Nature "opinion piece" and a link to an "Impacts Review" by Camille Parmesan - Scatter Gun advocacy(?) as is the vague reference to 5,000 'other' studies. You are a serial offender at this jeff.

The frog link, Alan Pounds, you're right he's very much the cheerleader when it comes to linking climate change to herpetile extinctions. His 'Golden toad' Climate Change hypothesis looks pretty much dead and buried.

[Tropical cloud forest climate variability and the demise of the Monteverde golden toad](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/25/0908572107.abstract)

From the abstract,
"There is no evidence of a trend associated with global warming. Rather, the extinction of the Monteverde golden toad (Bufo periglenes) appears to have coincided with an exceptionally dry interval caused by the 1986â1987 El Niño event."

Attempts to directly link frog extinctions to Climate Change are tenuous at best. Pathogens (certainly), land use changes/intrusions, ENSO and pollution or combinations thereof, are probably better, more compelling, candidates

Other disappointing (for you) frog papers;

[Decreased winter severity increases viability of a montane frog population](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/04/21/0912945107.short)

[Effects of temperature and hydric environment on survival of the Panamanian Golden Frog infected with a pathogenic chytrid fungus](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00197.x/abs…)

[Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and the collapse of anuran species richness and abundance in the Upper Manu National Park](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01604.x/abs…)

I'm not sure which is the more distressing, your irrational presumption that Co2/Climate Change is the root cause of everything, your lack of critical reasoning in all things, or the level of ignorance you repeatedly demonstrate in what is supposedly your own field.

Jonarse, allow me to put this as plainly as possible.

Nobody but your pet fuckwit boys gives a fuck what you think.

@chek,

You "legless" today then chek?

;)

"Typical lying lie from GSW the liar in an attempt at deflection"

Perfectly happy for you to try and re-interpret Gingerbread's words on the April thread in a positive light. Interested to see what you come up with.

;)

@Jonas
You may wish to check with Olaus first. He was certainly unwilling to retract his claim in Feb doubling down at every opportunity.

While we are on the subject of lying, I see GS Weasel has turned up. Remember this claim GS.

...Kari Norgaard's "sceptics are diseased" and requiring some form of medical treatment

We established in the April thread that that was a lie. Still waiting for the weasel to retract.

GSW #3541

Oh, I'm certain he is still rooting for the 'home team' just as much as before ... but the chanting and cheering is easier (and louder) when your team seems to have the upper hand, is playing a good game and has a chance at winning the match.

Just look at what issues the cheering crowd has been pushing in the threads recently (and I mean months).

@MikeH,

If I remember rightly mike, the statement is very much in keeping with the press release that was made by her university. As we discussed, UO subsequently tried to pass it off as a "play on words", perhaps you would like to explain the joke to the rest of us?

Perfectly happy for you to try and re-interpret

You should try putting more effort into comprehension of what was written instead of 'interpreting' it.

chek

>You should try putting more effort into comprehension of what was written instead of 'interpreting' it

I think this suggestion is **very** appropriate for quite many here, and I think you are one of them

GSW, For every article you link, I could link a dozen mor.

For example:

Global stressors and the global decline of amphibians: tipping the stress immunocompetency axis
Author(s): Kiesecker, JM (Kiesecker, Joseph M.)
Source: ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH Volume: 26 Issue: 5 Special Issue: SI Pages: 897-908 DOI: 10.1007/s11284-010-0702-6 Published: SEP 2011
Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 93 [ view related records ] Citation Map
Abstract: There is a widespread consensus that the earth is experiencing a mass extinction event and at the forefront are amphibians, the most threatened of all vertebrate taxa. A recent assessment found that nearly one-third (32%, 1,856 species) of the world's amphibian species are threatened. Amphibians have existed on the earth for over 300 million years, yet in just the last two decades there have been an alarming number of extinctions, nearly 168 species are believed to have gone extinct and at least 2,469 (43%) more have populations that are declining. Infectious diseases have been recognized as one major cause of worldwide amphibian population declines. This could be the result of the appearance of novel pathogens, or it could be that exposure to environmental stressors is increasing the susceptibility of amphibians to opportunistic pathogens. Here I review the potential effects of stressors on disease susceptibility in amphibians and relate this to disease emergence in human and other wildlife populations. I will present a series of case studies that illustrate the role of stress in disease outbreaks that have resulted in amphibian declines. First, I will examine how elevated sea-surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific since the mid-1970s have affected climate over much of the world and could be setting the stage for pathogen-mediated amphibian declines in many regions. Finally, I will discuss how the apparently rapid increase in the prevalence of amphibian limb deformities is linked to the synergistic effects of trematode infection and exposure to chemical contaminants.

Regional Decline of an Iconic Amphibian Associated with Elevation, Land-Use Change, and Invasive Species
Author(s): Johnson, PTJ (Johnson, Pieter T. J.)1; McKenzie, VJ (McKenzie, Valerie J.)1; Peterson, AC (Peterson, Anna C.)1; Kerby, JL (Kerby, Jacob L.)2; Brown, J (Brown, Jennifer)2; Blaustein, AR (Blaustein, Andrew R.)3; Jackson, T (Jackson, Tina)4
Source: CONSERVATION BIOLOGY Volume: 25 Issue: 3 Pages: 556-566 DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01645.x Published: JUN 2011
Times Cited: 0 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 59 [ view related records ] Citation Map
Abstract: Ecological theory predicts that species with restricted geographic ranges will have the highest probability of extinction, but species with extensive distributions and high population densities can also exhibit widespread population losses. In the western United States populations of northern leopard frogs (Lithobates pipiens)-historically one of the most widespread frogs in North America-have declined dramatically in abundance and geographic distribution. To assess the status of leopard frogs in Colorado and evaluate causes of decline, we coupled statewide surveys of 196 historically occupied sites with intensive sampling of 274 wetlands stratified by land use. We used an information-theoretic approach to evaluate the contributions of factors at multiple spatial extents in explaining the contemporary distribution of leopard frogs. Our results indicate leopard frogs have declined in Colorado, but this decline was regionally variable. The lowest proportion of occupied wetlands occurred in eastern Colorado (2-28%), coincident with urban development and colonization by non-native bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus). Variables at several spatial extents explained observed leopard frog distributional patterns. In low-elevation wetlands introduced fishes, bullfrogs, and urbanization or suburbanization associated negatively with leopard frog occurrence, whereas wetland area was positively associated with occurrence. Leopard frogs were more abundant and widespread west of the Continental Divide, where urban development and bullfrog abundance were low. Although the pathogenic chytrid Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) was not selected in our best-supported models, the nearly complete extirpation of leopard frogs from montane wetlands could reflect the individual or interactive effects of Bd and climate patterns. Our results highlight the importance of considering multiple, competing hypotheses to explain species declines, particularly when implicated factors operate at different spatial extents.

(0) Save to: more options

A general assessment of the conservation status and decline trends of Mexican amphibians
Author(s): Frias-Alvarez, P (Frias-Alvarez, Patricia)2; Zuniga-Vega, JJ (Jaime Zuniga-Vega, J.)1; Flores-Villela, O (Flores-Villela, Oscar)3
Source: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION Volume: 19 Issue: 13 Pages: 3699-3742 DOI: 10.1007/s10531-010-9923-9 Published: DEC 2010
Times Cited: 2 (from Web of Science)
Cited References: 97 [ view related records ] Citation Map
Abstract: We present a review on the conservation status and population trends of the 372 amphibian species currently recognized for Mexico. We based our analyses on the information gathered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature-the Global Amphibian Assessment (IUCN-GAA) as well as on available literature about imminent or potential threats to these organisms in Mexico. This country has the fifth largest amphibian fauna in the world and almost 58% of the species that inhabit this country are considered as threatened. We highlight the proportion of species per order, family, and genus that are currently under severe risk in Mexico. In addition, we prepared a detailed list of the main factors that are threatening amphibians in this country. Evidence is provided that the six main mechanisms that are globally leading amphibians to extinction (alien species, over-exploitation, land use change, global changes, pollution, and infectious diseases) are indeed currently operating in Mexico. We discuss the relative importance of each of these causes. We also highlight the paucity of quantitative studies that support the current conservation status of Mexican amphibian species.

As I said, you brainless twerp, many environmental stressors act in synergy in affecting amphibian demographics. Cliumate change is MOST CERTAINLY in the mix. But who am I supposed to believe? You or some of the world's leading experts on amphibians? Fact is, in an intellectual debate on population and evolutionary ecology you don't reach up to my kneecaps, sweetheart. Nice try, though. By the way, in case you were wondering, I was just putting the finishing touches to a manuscript I will be submitting to Animal Behaviour. Next week I will submit three more, to Journal of Animal Ecology, Phytochemistry and Journal of Evolutionary Biology. When can we expect your first publication to be submitted, Mr. Know-nothing?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Apr 2012 #permalink

Final point GSW: as you lick your wounds, see if you can log into the Web of Science and actually read some of the meta-analytical studies and reviews which have assessed the effects of climate warming on biodiversity via effects on network interaction webs, trophic interactions and epidemiology. Better still, read the primary literature.

But don't waste my time with your grade-school level dismissal of reviews by Post, Parmesan, and others, as well as dozens of studies reporting climate-change mediated effects on species interactions and their possible consequences for system stability and resilience. I am a busy scientist, not a time-wasting wannabe who thinks he knows more than he clearly does (where have we seen that before?).

Lastly, it was you who said frogs were 'doing fine'. As the first study shows, a large proportion of species are doing anything but fine. Then you switch the goalposts and claim they actually aren't doing well, but that AGW wasn't a factor. Sure, some species are recovering, but a much larger proportion are not.

If you are Jonas's main 'intellectual' ally on Deltoid, heaven help the poor sod.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Apr 2012 #permalink

Jeff, you're failing to appreciate the degree to which blog-science means that unimpressive idiots such as Jonas and GSW here can consider themselves experts (or as good as) on any given subject within minutes.

While to most that only serves to compound their complacent idiocy tenfold, they fully believe it - and believe in it, too.

No Jeff, not really ...

The discussions here are about the climate scare, the A in GW, and always have been.

It is you who incessantly are trying (knowingly?) or just happen (out of intellectual sloppiness or impotence) to move not only the goalposts, but randomly and erratically switch topics without ever addressing what actually are the core issues.

In short:

Nobody brought up frogs, biodiversity, DK, think tanks, CV:s, fossil fuel, denialists, blog support, corporate interests etc, to argue that the A in GW must or should be low or modest. It is the other way around: Those things were brought up by the faithers as âargumentsâ for why the more scientifically inclined should be wrong and not believed, shouted down, swatted out, or even exterminated.

Donât try to wiggle your way out of this now! You have made angry accusations many times about those who *âdonât want to do anything about itâ * wrt to the glaciers. So your âargumentâ certainly has been about the A. Even if you have forgotten, or more generally (as it seems) arenât aware of what you are saying or responding to.

As Iâve said many times: Climate change has always happened, especially and even more so on the local habitat-relevant level. To argue that the A in GW is a major factor among stresses on species and their local habitat is far more difficult than only arguing the A on the global scale. And even that is quite difficult. Which presumably we constantly are bombarded with (completely irrelevant) other issues, even from so called âscientistsâ. Some of them seemingly not even aware of that they arenât furthering support for the A in GW.

You may also want to remember that the natural (substantial, global) climate change that has occurred only in the recent centuries is of larger magnitude that what currently is hypothesized being the anthropogenic contribution. Arguing that species are (because they must be) quite resilient to natural climate change, but very fragile and susceptible to a possible anthropogenic signal would once more be unscientific activism rather than proper science .. I think even you can realize that.

Thank you for doubling down on that yet again, Jonas. Absolutely precious.

This has to be my last post and I want to end it on a civil note. Its a dead end for all concerned. We all agree to disagree. End of story.

You know, Jonas, I realize that you and I will never agree on whether the A in GW is real or not. To be fair, that is just the way that it is. But I will give you some advice. You and GSW are on different wavelengths. I think you ought to get together with him to sort out your approach. You appear not to be questioning whether its warming or not, but what the human contribution is. GSW does not appear to think its warming at all, hence why he thinks that amphibians or other biota are not being affected by it.

Why he decided to go down this road is anybody's guess, because he really does not understand a whole lot about synergy and direct and indirect effects. I think that it is warming and this is beyond is beyond dispute. I also think that there is plenty of evidence that is is affecting - in some cases deleteriously - biodiversity and particularly phenological processes involving two or more species. Whether its down to humans - well, this is where we disagree. Let's leave it at that.

GSW cited a few studies suggesting that warming is not a major factor in global amphibian declines. I could cite a lot more suggesting that it is at the very least a *plausible* factor. Again, it does not have to be directly involved to not play a major role in facilitating other direct factors. For instance, one of the species I work with in my research is the large cabbage white butterfly, *Pieris brassicae*. The species feeds on a wide variety of plants in the Capparales. I have noticed that various stressors - humidity, temperature, parasitism, dietary quality etc. appear to affect the susceptibility of the caterpillars to what appears to be a pathogen. The pathogen may be a virus (e.g. a nuclear polyhedrosis or baculovirus) or a bacteria. When the virus is expressed in the caterpillars, they die fairly quickly, usually in early instars. If indeed it is a virus, it may even be integrated into the genome of the insect, and expressed under highly sub-optimal conditions. Sub-lethal effects seem to be to reduce fitness of certain genotypes. But the point I am making is that the pathogen kills the caterpillars, but some alternative stress - such as temperature - facilitates its expression by affecting insect metabolism. This is certainly a likely scenario for frogs and other amphibians, where warming will increase stress on the animals thus increasing their susceptibility to environmental pathogens. Its a case of direct and indirect stressors. There are many other examples I could cite but which I won't.

Ultimately, it boils down to whether one thinks that humans are forcing climate or not, and whether the current changes fall within the realm of 'normality'. I don't think they do, given the time scales involved, but you have a different view. I am going to leave it at that. One of us is correct. I would very much like it to be you, because that would absolve humanity from the blame for at least one of multitudes of ways in which our species is harming the planet's natural systems. But I believe that most (I never said all) of the scientific community and climate scientists do agree that humans are playing a major role. Having said that, the uncertainty comes down to whether one thinks its a problem or not and on that basis whether we ought to do something about it. Therein lies the rub.

I will leave here now. I have said this many times but this time I mean it. I don't have time for this to-ing and fro-ing which is not going to settle anything. That will occur only when the empirical data shows us one thing or the other in ways that will only be accepted on both sides of the debate.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Apr 2012 #permalink

Jeff, they'll still deny it. Even when 12,000,000 Dutch refugees start making their way into Sweden around 2090 or so.

Yes Jeff Harvey

That indeed was (apart from some unwarranted swipe at GSW) a civil comment.

It is good of you to realize that your previous once haven't been, and not quite as good that it took you eight months to try to argue your case like an adult.

Sadly enough, I see in the open thread that you are back to denigrating other commenters who point out the many and sometimes gaping holes in the various speculations on which you and others base your stance. Firstly, it is unnecessary, and secondly it reveals how shallow your arguments are (if they indeed should be labeled as such) are.

Very little, and very few dismiss the notion that a change (of any kind) will not also have consequences, and that these potentially can be grave and on some aspects negative (not all though)

But to go from this obvious (but general and unspecific) statement to making not only very definite statements about the future outcome resulting from such changes is still just speculation. And making claims about non linear effects (tipping points, drastic changes etc) caused by minor input changes constitutes speculations about the consequences of earlier speculations. And many of your arguments continue to build on such scenarios based other scenarios on combined with endless if:s and may:s and other caveats.

Yes, scientists may speculate, may conjecture, may hypothesize about what tentatively may happen in a far future, and they may attach concerns and grades of severity to such speculations .. but they still are only that: Speculations!

And speculations, especially of the kind described (and so preferred by alarmists) are not science, not even when published, not even if itâs a prestigious journal. They remain speculations, tentative conjectures about what may happen.

Real science makes falsifiable and testable claims about what can be observed, and if these observations also consistently coincide with and confirm the predictions made, such hypotheses may survive and be tested further. Note that they also must survive critical scrutiny and tests, attempts to fail them. And that good real science even tries to fail them before proffering them as a tentative explanation (hypothesis) for how nature works.

Scattergun alarmism does not qualify, nor do sweeping assertions about all kinds of future changes, and that such changes also have (by some definition) negative consequences. That is the very definition of âconsequenceâ and âchangeâ.

I followed the âthreatened polar bearâ back-and-forthâ in the open thread, and it is remarkable how poorly you on the âthreat-sideâ are capable of even identifying and defining what it is you are claiming. The general gist was:

*Polar bears live where there is ice ⦠and they can die, the actually do, for various reasons ⦠and things may change ⦠and they may die ⦠for various reasons, but now maybe others ⦠and ice may change too ⦠for various reasons ⦠and that may change things ⦠and people change things .. and maybe that has consequences ⦠and maybe for the ice ⦠or not .. but anyway .. changes change things ⦠and we know that ⦠and polar bears may die .. and people can speculate about that without seeing .. or knowing ⦠we know we can .. and somehow .. the cause might have been a change .. which maybe was caused ⦠by people â¦*

In an endless circle, never really getting anywhere

Yes Jeff Harvey

That indeed was (apart from some unwarranted swipe at GSW) a civil comment.

It is good of you to realize that your previous once haven't been, and not quite as good that it took you eight months to try to argue your case like an adult.

Sadly enough, I see in the open thread that you are back to denigrating other commenters who point out the many and sometimes gaping holes in the various speculations on which you and others base your stance. Firstly, it is unnecessary, and secondly it reveals how shallow your arguments are (if they indeed should be labeled as such) are.

Very little, and very few dismiss the notion that a change (of any kind) will not also have consequences, and that these potentially can be grave and on some aspects negative (not all though)

But to go from this obvious (but general and unspecific) statement to making not only very definite statements about the future outcome resulting from such changes is still just speculation. And making claims about non linear effects (tipping points, drastic changes etc) caused by minor input changes constitutes speculations about the consequences of earlier speculations. And many of your arguments continue to build on such scenarios based other scenarios on combined with endless if:s and may:s and other caveats.

Yes, scientists may speculate, may conjecture, may hypothesize about what tentatively may happen in a far future, and they may attach concerns and grades of severity to such speculations .. but they still are only that: Speculations!

And speculations, especially of the kind described (and so preferred by alarmists) are not science, not even when published, not even if itâs a prestigious journal. They remain speculations, tentative conjectures about what may happen.

Real science makes falsifiable and testable claims about what can be observed, and if these observations also consistently coincide with and confirm the predictions made, such hypotheses may survive and be tested further. Note that they also must survive critical scrutiny and tests, attempts to fail them. And that good real science even tries to fail them before proffering them as a tentative explanation (hypothesis) for how nature works.

Scattergun alarmism does not qualify, nor do sweeping assertions about all kinds of future changes, and that such changes also have (by some definition) negative consequences. That is the very definition of âconsequenceâ and âchangeâ.

I followed the âthreatened polar bearâ back-and-forthâ in the open thread, and it is remarkable how poorly you on the âthreat-sideâ are capable of even identifying and defining what it is you are claiming. The general gist was:

*Polar bears live where there is ice ⦠and they can die, the actually do, for various reasons ⦠and things may change ⦠and they may die ⦠for various reasons, but now maybe others ⦠and ice may change too ⦠for various reasons ⦠and that may change things ⦠and people change things .. and maybe that has consequences ⦠and maybe for the ice ⦠or not .. but anyway .. changes change things ⦠and we know that ⦠and polar bears may die .. and people can speculate about that without seeing .. or knowing ⦠we know we can .. and somehow .. the cause might have been a change .. which maybe was caused ⦠by people â¦*

In an endless circle, never really getting anywhere

@Jonas, Olaus,

Just came across this posted by a 'tomo' on unthreaded at Bishop Hill,

http://www.google.com/trends/?q=+climategate&ctab=0&geo=all&geor=all&da…

It's a Google trends search for the term climategate.

Top Region: Sweden
Top City: Stockholm
Top Language: Swedish

UK as a region is languishing in 10th place, Australia 2nd. Always had a lot of respect for the Swedes, but does this surprise you also? Either of you have any up to date figures for % sceptics in Sweden?

Ah, blog science by polling... Google hits! But why stop there? While you're at it, you can use the same techniques to confirm the arguments of the Creationists, homeopaths, Anti-Vaxxers and the 911 Truthers!

Quarantine's certainly the best place for you guys...

@bill

"Ah, blog science by polling... Google hits! But why stop there?"

It isn't science bill, its a google trend search. I know you guys struggle to tell the difference between what is, and what is not, science, but I'm surprised even you would be confused by this.

As I rule bill, I'd suggest if you do get confused in the future - Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

But anyway, thanks for stopping by.

;)

GSW

I don't know how these stats are calculated, but presumably as a **percentage** of traffic/searches, not total. How else would a small country with a language only spoken there turn up so high? But it was fun to see.

Sweden is pretty early with internet usage and trends, I checked and it was high on other search terms as well. I don't know about the percentage of skeptics, but we have a very PC-MSM-scene here, and or state controlled TV sounds often like Al Gore did five years ago. It is not surprising that there is a demand for other sources. I noticed that Australia also is high on many climate related search terms. Probably for similar reasons.

Now that Lovelock has recanted, wouldn't it be nice if Jeff Harvey admitted that global warming is just a silly scare story. Nice, that is, for the six people who have ever heard of him.

Now that Lovelock has recanted

Once an ignorant arsehole, always so, eh, Brent?

The two questions to answer now are:
(1) How - exactly - has Lovelock "recanted"?
and:
(2) Name a single paper of Lovelocks's referenced in an IPCC report.

Still a bleary-eyed, drivelling denialist tosser, eh Brent? Spewing up second-hand drivel about what you can't understand. Partial proof perhaps that you can't even evolve better than a fruitfly.

Yeah, much better that you should stick here with the Scandinavian poseur morons' club, now that Watts has exposed himself as a defensive little wanker and McIntyre has "retired" himself from the fray.

chek ... thank you, and also thank you bill, ianam, Stu, Wow, and all the others for so perfectly demonstrating what the climate scare belief system is about ...

Eight months later, and you guys still haven't advanced to even formulating your own stance comprehensively. And mind you, I don't require that you even take mutually compatible stances. Just that you can phrase what it is you believe so hard in ..

Chek, haven't you heard the good news? James Lovelock says that "all that stuff I wrote about billions dying from global warming was wrong. There's no such thing as global warming and I'm sorry for wasting everybody's time."

You got me on the IPCC question. You tell me. Was he the one who predicted that Mount Everest would melt by 2035?

You alarmists are great extrapolators, aren't you? Given the record levels of polar ice, where does that put us in the year 2112? (My suggestion: you could salvage some dignity by acknowledging the range of natural variation.)

Come on you warmists - sing along - OH MISTER LOVELOCK, WHAT SHALL I DO? THE GLOBE WON'T BLEEDIN' WARM AND ALL MY FORECASTS TURNED TO POO. Message from Lovelock: 'When the facts contradict your most cherished predictions, admit you were mistaken.'

James Lovelock says that "all that stuff I wrote about billions dying from global warming was wrong. There's no such thing as global warming and I'm sorry for wasting everybody's time."

No he didn't say that, you stupid, moronic liar.

That you can only find comfort in your own self-invented version of the world actually proves you to be a delusional public masturbator, and a petty wankstain on the British educational system.

Of couse you could always link to your made-up "quote" if it existed, but we already know you can't because you're just a frustrated, desperate smalltime liar.

And Jonas, I spent time reviewing this thread, and a more stupid, insubstantial, self-aqgrandizing, vain, small-minded ignorant little troll than you would be hard to find anywhere.

Welcome back Brent!

James Lovelock backs down after an alleged lack of air surface temperature rise in twelve years?

Tosh! As a wise man once said:

>I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak.

Oh! Wait! That man was, wait for it, *you*!

The brilliant thing about Brent is he's published so many arguments and concessions he doesn't really believe that the best person to refute Brent is Brent.

Chek, you don't have to tell us about your re-reading odyssey. We all know perfectly well that you (and you fellow deltoids) travel that route every day. You are obsessed with the Science thread, hence no one has believed in your pathetic statements about not reading it. I'm sure this thread is the most read â and you are too.

And here you are again sharing your feeling with us. :-)

Since you can't come up with anything more substantial than a foaming mouth and a street walker swayback, one has to arrived to the conclusion â elementary I know â that you are a masochist in constant need of some spanking.

As usual you actually 'know' nothing Petri, apart from the self-comfort your overweening vanity affords you.

And while this thread is choked with examples of Jonarse's 'assertion by exclamation mark' approach to science, unfortunately that only ever impressed knuckleheads like you and your limp boy gang.

John: just suppose:

a.That climate has always varied
b.That the 1975-1998 warming period was unexceptional
c.That the rise in arctic temperatures is down to fiddled figures
d.That sea ice is alive and well
e.That CO2 is a lag indicator of historical solar forcing
f.That global warming is the latest incarnation of apocalypse myth
g.That vested interests are keeping the myth alive
As I say, just suppose the above. If âtwere so, wouldnât we in the western world be wasting a lot of effort and resource when there are other fish to fry?

Brent - just suppose you're a total moron who swallows every unevidenced denialist canard yet devised that money can buy.

No doubt you're one who'll quite gullibly soon believe that the arctic has always been ice free, just as you're pontificating above about ice core CO2 data you know nothing about and alleging conspiracies about 'fiddled figures'.

If so, wouldn't the sane amongst us be better off ignoring your twee, bought and paid for wishful thinking?

Ah ... once more the blind and boneheaded belief and conviction to know the future

>No doubt you're one who'll quite gullibly soon believe that the arctic has always been ice free,

Do you even realize how revealing this is about your (completely non existing) understanding of the matter, chek?

Why not ask Wow, Bernard, or even Stu (who believes(?) that he has studied physics for six years)

:-)

Another fine example, chek:

>this thread is choked with examples of Jonarse's 'assertion by exclamation mark' approach to science, unfortunately that only ever impressed knuckleheads like you and your limp boy gang.

Really!? So what would you then call your 'approach to science', and whom are you hoping to impress with whatever it is you try?

I think even you must agree, Chek, that this is a smoking gun.

That would be the same smoking gun that could blow half your head off and still miss your brain, I suppose.

Brent, take your garbage link to your fave denialistscum blog such as Watts and then ask them why they're laughing at you. Better yet, show some guts and take it to the police or Inhofe or Wegman so we can all have a laugh.

Do you even realize how revealing this is about your (completely non existing) understanding of the matter, chek?

What I realise is your inability to understand plain English while thinking you do, Jonarse.

So, Chek, let's get this straight:

I show you evidence that the Jan 1940 temperature record at Ostrov Dikson has been revised downwards from -27.1C to -27.7C, and at Teigarhorn, Iceland, from +1.5C to +0.6C and...

...and your response is to be rude. Mate, I'm offering you an opportunity to validate for yourself whether there is scientific fraud behind the claim that the Arctic is warming faster than where you live.

Never mind our beliefs, or our different views on natural variation.... can you at least agree that something needs investigating here before you subscribe to the AGW theory? A point of integrity; of honour, even?

["...in order to create a spurious warming trend in the Arctic"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6264841)

["I've been doing some digging, and think I've detected data fiddling"](www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/.../2012/.../recovery-in-arctic-sea-ice-con.shtml)

["The Arctic data is being shamelessly fiddled."](http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/25/is-there-an-environment-confe…)

(My bolding)

No Brent, I'm encouraging you to stand up like a man and stand by your ignorance - just as you have been doing in the comments linked to above and wherever else you've been hawking your 'smoking gun' around and taking the opportunity to denigrate what you don't understand.

If you have been led (by the nose) to see wrongdoing, then you go get those evil wrongdoers. Strike while the iron's hot.

I understand what GHCN is used to compute, but sadly I don't feel inclined after your above comments to enlighten you. In fact I'd be quite happy to see you drown in a vat of your own spiteful ignorance, or get the shirt sued off your back. Either would be a good result.

I wonder what motivates people like Chek. Sceptics, I reckon, are dismayed at the perpetration of a global scare story and the veritable industry it has spawned. They look forward to the day when the dire predictions of Thermageddon are treated with derision by the general public, and politicians see the AGW religion as a ticket to electoral oblivion. Sceptics want the AGW lie exposed.

But what of Chek? Is he (a) A terminally fractious little squirt with no career, no friends, no home life who just likes squabbling (b) A wild-eyed eco-zealot who considers Man to be a disease afflicting the planet? (c) A jobsworth whose income depends on spinning the AGW story out for a few more years?

I find this curious: he NEVER says anything substantive. Every syllable is negative or abusive. Like some wizened old Marxist, he will cling on to his bitter delusion way beyond its sell-by date.

Go on, Chek, tell us a bit about your life, your loves, your aspirations, your hopes and fears. What makes you tick?

:-)

As I said, chek. I don't think you realize how revealing your comment is:

>No doubt you're one who'll quite gullibly soon believe that the arctic has always been ice free

Sheesh, just when I thought this club could not get any more pathetic, in rolls Brent.

Need better trolls. 1.5 out of 10.

Every syllable is negative or abusive.

Brent, you know that's not true, so why are you lying? I've positively encouraged you to take this piece of garbage you're so enamoured of and spread it far and wide in your crusade to halt the march to world domination of us bitter nazi communist fascist greenies.

Your reluctance to do so and your subsequent pettifogging whining suggest to me that dimly, subconsciously deep down you realise you're badly wrong and out of your depth, but being clueless denier vermin, you don't understand why.

Well I say forget all that and go for the AGW jugular with your surely most smoking of howitzers. We could all do with the amusement.

>a. That climate has always varied b. That the 1975-1998 warming period was unexceptional c. That the rise in arctic temperatures is down to fiddled figures d. That sea ice is alive and well e. That CO2 is a lag indicator of historical solar forcing f. That global warming is the latest incarnation of apocalypse myth g. That vested interests are keeping the myth alive As I say, just suppose the above. If âtwere so, wouldnât we in the western world be wasting a lot of effort and resource when there are other fish to fry?

Just suppose you are a known liar with an ideological agenda? Just suppose you are wrong? Just suppose you supported whatever crank blog theory that was published as long as it supported your political agenda? Suppose that, eh, Brent? Doesn't sound like you at all, does it?

At least you've stopped blaming you last obsession, volcanoes.

Let's keep up with Brent's past statements. There are hundreds of these. I can post contradictory Brent statements for weeks!

>Well, I concede that as a layman my ability to weigh the Gore Hypothesis is limited. I concede that some of the âheroesâ I have picked are less than fully reliable. That some of the participants in this thread match their personal actions to their belief in the CO2 threat, and that such actions are dwarfed by collective action. I concede that the case against AGW is not conclusive; depends on the eventual re-hashing of the Relative Forcing Table which may not in fact have to be re-hashed. I concede that the notion that the Royal Society and the US NAS are making a historic error in buying the AGW theory is barely thinkable and would run counter to a long and proud tradition. I concede that among scientists, sceptics are in the minority. I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak. I concede that anecdotal evidence from Station Eureka lends some credence to the claim that escalation is more in evidence at high latitudes than temperate. I concede that my rants about the financial rewards to journeyman scientists were unfair. I concede that a âtipping pointâ caused by polar albedo passing a threshold is feasible.

And

>Laymen like me are plagued by the neccessity of what I might call 'pick-a-hero'. That is, lacking the education to, say, check out the computer code and equations ourselves, we latch onto some authority figure we declare knowledgeable and truthful. We all do it, not just laymen. Because even an expert is a layman out of his field. You doubtless play pick-a-hero when you needs to have your airbag or your arthritis checked out. But a wise layman picks his hero judiciously; not at random.

And:

>The temperature here in Central England is a bit less chilly. We've had the heating on this evening, but just for a couple of hours to... er... hide the decline! Global warming? I wish!

And:

>Is there anybody out there with the decency to admit that if the globe doesn't warm there's no such thing as global warming? Lotharsson's unshakeable faith in the impending catastrophe must be an embarrassment to any rational Warmist bedfellows he may have. Can we agree on 50 years? If the 1998 record remains unmatched until 2060, will you give up?

On that last point, it was beaten the very year he wrote that comment.

So, Chek demonstrates his positivity in three paragraphs sprinkled with: ... not true... lying... garbage bitter nazi communist fascist .... pettifogging whining .... badly wrong .... clueless denier vermi...

No, mate. We're well aware of what you DON'T think; what you disagree with; what you dislike. The question is: Is there any part of your belief system which describes how you think the world (ecosystem, society, climate, economy - you choose) works and what people need to do differently?

The utter lack of substantive statements from you leads me to suppose that you're a Turing Machine. How can I put this kindly? Er, so devoid of opinions that your position depends solely on the positions of others. How old are you? What do you do for a living? What's the REAL Chek like, and how did he get here?

Brent now:

>How can I put this kindly? Er, so devoid of opinions that your position depends solely on the positions of others.

Brent then:

>Laymen like me are plagued by the neccessity of what I might call 'pick-a-hero'. That is, lacking the education to, say, check out the computer code and equations ourselves, we latch onto some authority figure we declare knowledgeable and truthful. We all do it, not just laymen. Because even an expert is a layman out of his field. You doubtless play pick-a-hero when you needs to have your airbag or your arthritis checked out.

Hi John!

A debate which consists solely of "I'm right, you're wrong" is pretty sterile. That's why I wrote a list of concessions to the warmist position. For an opponent to quote them back at me as if 'concession' = 'capitulation' is illegitimate.

Do you concede anything to the sceptic position?

I'll venture this statement of it: That climatology is at present insufficiently developed to make decadal forecasts; trespasses beyond scientific practice into the realm of political advocacy; is subject to a groupthink which impedes the application of Popperian falsifiability; has become a tool of misanthropic green extremists with an antidevelopment agenda. Do you concede any of that?

John, thank you for quoting back to me the handicaps that a non-specialist faces when trying to validate the claims of specialists.

If your garage machanic told you that my airbag malfunctions because of a little man inside the steering wheel who lacks the puff... you'd do what I've done in climatology: read up on the subject and question the so-called experts.

This approach can yield results. Check out my website at http://endisnighnot.blogspot.com/

It isn't very professional, I admit, but you may learn something. Your fears that we're headed for Thermageddon may be assuaged. See the cyclic nature of the Aletsch Glacier - no need to panic!

James Lovelock's words were: âBefore this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.â - whoops! I hope that you'll join him in stepping back from extreme apocalypticism.

Shorter Brent: Look at me everybody! I've swallowed hook, line and sinker every denialist trope that has been devised! Surely at least some of it must be right?

No Brent, it's all garbage. All of it.

Brent,

I'm afraid I have nothing to concede, especially since your first point is wrong and the rest are strawman arguments based on your anti-science denial-driven political beliefs.

>an opponent

Shucks! And here we were *agreeing* with each other!

Brent, do you now concede that your tediously frequent promotion of cold weather as proof of the "obscene fraud" was premature, especially considering 2010 is now the hottest year on record?

Do you concede that you were lying when you claimed that the main driver of the climate was the sun?

Do you concede that you were lying when you claimed Co2 had a short half life in the atmosphere?

Do you concede you were lying when you said "If a "Troll" is a person who maliciously engages in conversation with the express purpose of disrupting it, well, no, I have better things to do with my time"?

Do you concede you were lying when you claimed that you'll accept AGW "if the annual average GISS temperature anomaly twice exceeds 0.75C in the next 20 years", which it did the year you wrote that (whoops!), and four times in the decade before?

Turingchek: Are you familiar with the idea of a Turing Machine? It's a computer program so skilfully written that in conversation it is indistiguishable from a real person.

A dead givaway is the absence of ideas; you fail.

Can we anticipate Chek's riposte?

C: "Oh, no I don't fail, you troll, you moron, you vile denialist!")

B: "Yeah, but is the globe warming?"

C: "Can't get me on THAT one, you idiot."

B: "What makes you believe in AGW, Chek?"

C: "You troll, you moron, you dile venialist!"

Since Brent ventured back here with his brand of wilful ignorance, I have kept my distance (writing up 5 manuscripts in two weeks does keep me occupied). But his web site is a giveaway:

*Brent Hargreaves is an engineer in the aerospace industry. Once a beleiver [sic] in Global Warming, he now sees it as a delusion serving the purposes of both despotic government and antidevelopment tree-huggers*.

Anyone who writes such peurile tosh as this does not deserve to be given the time of day.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2012 #permalink

John #3593

You (and chek, Stu, Andy S, ianam and a few others too) seem to be obsessed with the word *lying* and/or *liar*. It is usually a good indication of very poor, immature arguing. Especially when what they actually want to say is *'I don't agree at all'* or *'your are wrong'*. This is how quarreling kids argue. And this is how your latest attempt looks.

I am not aware of exactly what previous 'claims' you are attacking, but I would be very cautions to rely on your recount of them. Especially since many of your statements sound very ill informed:

'AGW' is not something you either accept or reject

'Temperature anomaly' does not measure the deviation from some 'normal temperature'

The term 'half life' for CO2 in the atmosphere is completely misplaced.

Och course, some of these notions may not be yours. But then again, your posts are. And nothing in them indicates that your understanding of the issues exceeds that of a cheering bystander who picked his 'team' to root for (in a game he doesn't understand) based what people around him picked.

Jeff, once again you are factually wrong:

The climate scare serves government ambitions to tax and regulate (for whatever reasons, and is latched onto by antidevelopment tree-huggers ..

I even think that it fairly well describes your stance: Both that the government should enforece all kinds of things, and that you have latched on without knowing what it is you are arguing.

And you are very keen to proclaim who **deserves** to get what, and what not ..

Jeff to Brent: "You put 'e' before 'i'. Mistake!"

Brent to Jeff: "You apply religious belief to a scientific question."

(Note the revised spelling: some of us learn from our mistakes.)

Come on Jonas, let's be civil. Brent's brief rant is akin to something one might hear on Fox News or at a Tea Party gathering. I have no time for this kind of thing. May I suggest you listen to Maria Portnaya's excellent interview with journalist Chris Hedges on RT yesterday. He spells out in clearly preicse terms the kinds of challenges we face and taxation over GW is not high up the list. Or perhaps you will accuse Hedges of being a closet communist? When one puts Brent's rant into perpective, it comes out exactly as I suggested: puerile and vaguely fanatical.

Brent: You are a waste of space in my opinion. A bitter old man perhaps? I have never applied any kind of religious beliefs to any anthropogenic environmental problems (given that I am atheist) or to any of my empirical research for that matter. If I did, then my scientific career would be down the drain. But if you write the kind of tosh you do on your web site in describing yourself, which appears to come from the far end of the political right, then no, I will not listen to a word you say.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2012 #permalink

>You (and chek, Stu, Andy S, ianam and a few others too) seem to be obsessed with the word lying and/or liar.

Wikipedia defines a "lie" as "to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth".

Brent doesn't really believe anything he writes. He cycled through every discarded meme so frequently - returning to them even after previously admitting he was wrong - that he became known as the "goldfish troll".

At one point or another Brent has supported every loony theory there is, from "global warming is caused by volcanoes" to "it's the sun!" to "it's the UHI!". Either he isn't smart enough to realise he regularly contradicts himself or he is lying. You make up your mind which.

>The term 'half life' for CO2 in the atmosphere is completely misplaced.

I am quoting Brent's argument.

>And nothing in them indicates that your understanding of the issues exceeds that of a cheering bystander who picked his 'team' to root for (in a game he doesn't understand) based what people around him picked.

I apologise, you seem to have me mistaken for Karenmackspot, Olaus, Pentaxz, GSW, Brent and yourself.

I mean seriously, (apart from the playground level of immaturity), do you really expect any grown up to take you seriously? As a grown up, I mean? (Scientifically, is not even on the table) I mean, just look at the level of those whose âsupportâ you draw upon? Arguments that would embarrass a clever 7th grader. But not you apparently. Well, itâs you call Jonas.

Brent,

>read up on the subject and question the so-called experts.

That is another lie. You'd already made up your mind about the "obscene fra*d" before you read the Ar4. You only read what you want to hear from sources with the same ideological prejudices you hold because you know deep in your heart it's all a "scam".

That is not science and it isn't real scepticism.

For instance, a real sceptic would not be writing this in the warmest year on record:

>Most of my spare time is being spent on a new(ish) scare story I am hoping to launch: Global Cooling. When the Global Warming lobby cunningly changed its name to "Climate Change" it was a very clever move. If we enter a new ice age they'll be able to say that their point is proven! Had they branded themselves IPGW they'd be a sitting duck in this chilly decade of ours with its expanding icecaps.

Still waiting on that ice age, Mr I-Question-The-Experts.

Jonas, there's a history to the expression 'half-life' which is borrowed from the familiar radioactive decay.

The lads here on Deltoid were discussing a claim on the Royal Society website that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for thousands of years. I did a little exercise on the Mauna Loa monthly CO2 statistics, which show an annual fall every year. At peak (between July and August, in the N hemisphere growing season) - this hits 0.58% per month being sucked out of the atmosphere. This figure is the same throughout the 1958 - 2010 period.

If the Earth's orbit were to stop (not very likely, I admit!) locked in the August orientation, CO2 would halve in 123 +/- 2 months.

Don't tell Jeff Harvey! He thinks science is done with adjectives and coloured crayons, not with numbers...

John

>Brent doesn't really believe anything he writes

I can see two possibilities here:

One is that you are someone who has the ability to (remotely) **know** what people **really** mean or believe in.

Alternatively, you just claim and believe things because you want them to be true.

(A third would be that you claim things you know to be untrue, ie that you are 'lying' to support your beliefs)

I'd say that the first alternative is extremely unlikely. Among the two other options .. it's harder to tell.

Regarding 'half life', I cannot see that you have **quoted** anything. Where you once more 'lying', John?

But I found [this by Brent Hargreaves](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/discussion/post/1723187) and the argument is perfectly understandable and presented as a 'thought experiment' under the presumption of certain (but ultimately unrealistic) conditions stated beforehand. Apart from an error (typo) in sign, it is perfectly reasonable. For someone who knows the least little bit about physics and science.

And no, I don't have you confused with anybody else who doesn't sign with 'John' here. I don't even need to heed whether or not scientifically trained individuals take me seriously. Rather, I am amazed that there are so many (here) who pretend to speak for the 'science' but are doing everything else but that.

And you must have completely missed that I don't lean on any others for my position. However, Jeff Harvey has done that with some of characters here who (like you) seem to have an almost childlike propensity to call everybody not agreeinga 'liar' ..

But more generally John (and the others), if you really think that you have well founded arguments, that others must be factually wrong ... etc. Why don't you just present them, point out the gross errors, correct them. Ie argue like grown ups. Why this incessant obsession with what you believe others believe, and your projections about ideology etc ..

Why not argue the science, if you have any and if you indeed understand it?

Brent, our comments crossed. But I am perfectly aware of what 'half life' means, and I even found your little calculation at BH. You stated your example and its preconditions in an impeccable manner.

In the climate scare community however, two other CO2-related times are often discussed (and conflated). One is the (average) residence time for one (newly added) CO2-molecule, and the other is the (hypothesized) time it takes for an earth without humans/fossil fuels burning to reduce a substantial perturbation (such as increasing the level from say 280 to 390 ppm in century).

The former is quite short (albeit longer than for the main GHG H2O), the latter is claimed to be in the (sometimes tens) of thousands of years. And is used for scare purposes. And is of course extremely speculative, and in all likelihood very exaggerated. Especially after taking Murray Salby's findings into account.

And no! Or yes, I will write this for Jeff Harvey to read. Everybody who knows the least bit of science is fully aware of that he *doesn't do numbers*. And I wouldn't worry to much about John either. So far he hasn't even tried to come with any substantial challenges. Just the usual, that everybody else must be lying or a moron or both ..

Funny isn't it?

Jeff Harvey #

I don't know why you bring up Fox News, or the tea party. I'd say that you are ranting when that is all you have.

If you think something is factually wrong: Just state this, what is wrong, what it should be instead, and why your understanding of the matter is correct (and others not)

I have challenged you to do so for eight months. You never really go near there. Instead it is adjectives, projections, and worse.

If you finally realized that a civil tone is more conductive, that would be a step in the right direction. But judging from your other comments, you aren't quite there yet.

And maybe you don't subscribe to any of the known deities of religion, but you sure subscribe to an awful lot in pure faith, make proclamations in the name of it, and defend it like a true religion by deriding the 'heretics' for their lack of faith.

And no, I don't mock unfounded personal beliefs, and religions are among them. Most often they are just ridiculous if you scrutinize them. But the climate scare variety has been elevated to something else and essentially nothing about it is positive (apart from those skimming of the dollars, wasting them while nibbling some of them for their own good)

I hope you are right that AGW-policies and GW-taxation are slowly fading in both political support and feasibility, but don't tell me this was for the right reasons, that the politicians realized how futile and ultimately harmful the idea was ...

And that in spite of that none of them ever really believed that they could scare the water up the mountains to become growing glaciers again by raising some tax or devising some cap'n'trade scheme ...

*Don't tell Jeff Harvey! He thinks science is done with adjectives and coloured crayons, not with numbers*

Really Brent? At last count I had 118 articles in peer-reviewed journals on the Web of Science (plus another 8 in review). What's your tally?

0.

OK. Nuff' said.

Jonas, I am afraid I don't take anybody seriously who describes those defending the science of AGW as 'antidevelopment tree huggers' or lovers of 'despotic government'. This is sandbox level stuff. If you want to believe as Olaus forever says that this is the 'science thread' on Deltoid its time to call the kettle black. Just because Brent is some old geezer who loathes environmentalists is no reason to defend every member of the lunatic fringe who just so happens to think that AGW is not supported by the empirical evidence. Brent's web site is a joke.

I recall that you castigated me as a liar for suggesting that you conflated warming with tropical deforestation. Fair enough. But then you agreed with GSW who denigrated the 'Planet Under Pressure' document which actually said very little about climate change. The focus of that document was a range of other anthropogenic stresses to the environment, including habitat destruction, invasive species, other forms of pollution etc. It was a co-operative effort of many of the world's leading researchers and complemented the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006). Both documents argue - with quite some empirical support - that these other factors are affecting the health and vitality of natural systems and the services that emerge from them. So my question to you is this: do you similarly downplay all aspects of negative human effects on the biosphere, or acknowledge that, in your opinion, there are human-mediated problems that greatly outweigh climate change? And in doing so do you distance yourself from the comments of GSW and like-minded people?

As I said before, I really had no intention of getting into a verbal to-and-fro with you because it achieves nothing. But your new pal Brent reappears after a lengthy hiatus with a smear. Of course if I respond by saying that thousands of more people in science know who I am than him (which is certainly true), then I am accused of being arrogant. I have no intention of dipping to the Brent level of discourse which borders, IMHO, on senility. But one is often seen by the company they keep. If you think someone like Brent is able to contribute to a debate on anything, then perhaps that says a lot more about you than you realize.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2012 #permalink

One final point and I am gone again: if you read any of the my published articles you'd realize that I am very much a numbers cruncher. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2006) was also all about numbers. One cannot publish their experimental work in a scientific journal if the data don't stack up. Any of the scientists who have reviewed my 118+ articles will tell you that.

If you think that one who calls scientists and others defending AGW 'antidevelopment tree huggers' who support 'despotic government' is sensible, that that is your prerogative. I don't. This is the kind of gibberish one would get from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, as I said before. I made up my mind on the causality of climate change on the basis of speaking with large numbers of scientists - many of them climate scientists - in my own capacity as a scientist. I will admit that I am not anything close to an expert in the field. Is that being arrogant or honest? What I do say is that most of those I have spoken to at length feel passionately about the field, and at the various conferences I have attended there seems to be quite some agreement on the topic. Are they correct? Perhaps not. But as an outsider I defer to them. If that makes me a liar or a fraud or whatever, so be it. But that is where I stand. If temperature trends continue to level off over the coming 15-20 years, which I think is a minimal time scale necessary to elucidate the veracity of current theory, then I promise that I will change my mind. But not yet.

Beyond that, I am working in an altogether different field. I study trophic interrelationships, community ecology and life history evolution in resource-consumer interactions. I find this field quite enough for me to master, as it encompasses a very wide array of theories and hypotheses. I am interested in contemporary environmental issues, especially those that do overlap into my field of endeavor. If that makes me an 'antidevelopment tree hugger', then so be it. But of course I have no wish to further engage in this kind of discussion with you or anyone else, least of all Brent Hargreaves. I decided that civil discourse was the way to proceed after months of bitter ripostes. Again, that got me - you - us nowhere. But I will not again stoop to the kind of gutter-level discourse that Brent brings here. I had enough of that before.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2012 #permalink

Jeff ...

I have not seen you defending any AGW-science (that I could have respected, because there is serious science investigating that hypothesis). What I have seen you defending is the notion that those making wild claims about both the climate, about (c)AGW, and even the future, should **not** be scrutinized or questioned. That their 'science' needn't be properly presented and that their scares should be accepted on faith. You did that explicitly and repeatedly with Hansen's sea level nonsense.

And for that you are criticized. But you seem to be missing the point. Those who 'defend' AGW-science, and do so without having the slightest clue about what it actually says or can support ..

.. those may very well be both tree huggers, lefty loons or closet (or open) fascists. If you start that list it would hardly ever be finished.

Again you make a simple logical fallacy: That accusing tree huggers and all kinds of murky and utopian political wishes to having latched on the climate scare bandwagon ..

.. does not equate to that 'everyone who is concerned with a potential climate problem or just an A in GW also must be a loony tree hugger or a closet fascist'.

Those claims are not made Jeff. And I am surprised that you (who repeatedly call yourself a 'scientist') make such elementary logical mistakes.

I don't know enough about Brent and what he says, or why you want to brand him as my 'new pal' .. maybe he has overstated things too, or just expressed them poorly. But he has seemed more sensible than all those mouthing off at him here. You included.

And wrt to 'sandbox level': You are hardly the one to utter one syllable. I have eight months of continuing puerile abuse from you to make you blush. And mind you, where you did everything **but** address what I had actually claimed.

But to ne fair and reply to your question:

>do you *similarly* downplay all aspects of negative human effects on the biosphere, or acknowledge that, in your opinion, there are human-mediated problems that greatly outweigh climate change

I don't know about the 'similarly', I can't speak for others, and even less for your perception of other's preferences and motives.

But I have indeed told you, for some eight months running, that the possible anthropogenic signal of the always occuring 'climate change' is among the least of the environmental problems that can be attributed to mankind.

I don't need to distance myself from your perceptions of what others might think, or what you define as 'like minded people'. I try to make my statements in a way that they can be understood and challenged. Once you'd properly address those, there might actually arise (at least the possibility of) a debate.

>I have no intention of dipping to the Brent level of discourse which borders, IMHO, on senility

Well Jeff ... as I said, we have eight months of you doing pretty much exactly that. If you have finally stopped, even if only towards one commenter, that's positive a small step forward .. Keep at it, and slowly start increasing step size and pace ... You might be surprised at how much there is to learn.

Jeff ...

It's good to hear that you actually add up numbers in your work. What you have done here however is the exact opposite. When confronted with the absurdities of Hansen's future sea level rises, you deferred to how 'respected' he is and instead attacked those who checked the numbers and what they meant.

The same has been true (and even more so for many others) about the alleged science behind that prominent AR4 claim.

I am sorry if you feel unjustly treated, but in this (these) threads you have been doing exactly that: You have avoided every number, every attempt at quantifying what has been discussed.

And, I am sorry to say, in a way that lead (leads) me to believe that you are completely unfamiliar with how real science works. What it entails to put up a hypothesis, to find support for it, to test it, to try and falsify it.

Let me give you a pertinent example:

Wildlife biologist Charles Monnett partook in a flight over the Beaufort sea after some bad weather, and he and his crew believed that they saw tree (or four) drowned(!) polar bears. They compared that with their memories ~20 years earlier, and couldn't recall having seen any drowned(!) polar bears. They estimated that they had flown over and surveyed ~11% of the area and thus multiplied their 3 (or 4) dead polar bears by a factor 9 (1 divided by 0.11) and concluded that some 27 (to 36) **extra** polar bears might have drowned this time compared to last. And that this was cause for alarm.

You could say that he 'was doing number', yes. But real science? No!

Notably, this report it the sole basis for Al Gore's drowning polar bears due to global warming scam. You can still see the ripples in the open thread ..

And yes, I have seen plenty of 'activist math'. It is almost always rubbish (like the above). Are you telling me that your's is better Jeff?

If so, why haven't you shown this here?

Now THAT (3607) was worth reading.

Jeff writes: "I will admit that I am not anything close to an expert in the field. Is that being arrogant or honest?"

Honest.

He says: "Are [climatologists] correct? Perhaps not. But as an outsider I defer to them. If that makes me a liar or a fraud or whatever, so be it."

Neither liar nor fraud. His worst sin here is a reluctance to think for himself, perhaps a symptom of his soft science background. Defer??? Nullius in verba, dude! But, in all sincerity, he deserves credit for admitting this.

This cartoon hits the hard/soft nail on the head: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/XKCD_Purity.png

I hope that the hard sciences of physics and chemistry will in coming years distance themselves from the soft pseudosciences where numbers are considered optional. Why? Because the numbers.... reveal.... (how did John Lennon put it? Oh, yes... Just Gimme Some Truth).

@Jonas et al

Apologies Jonas, been pre occupied - Another species of Bear is nearing extinction - the Glaswegian Teddy variety (private joke) all very sad I'm afraid.

Still, things have been busy here, not read thru it all yet. I thought jeff had buggered off for good? this time absolutely, definitely, finally, never to return, he will never visit this place again, finito, it is kaput, that was his last ever post, again.

;)

Enjoy Jonas!

>What do you reckon: might this conjecture end up as mainstream theory?

Let's see, your "conjecture" (not theory, because you would have to commit to that and God knows you can't commit to something you know is wrong) is based on computer models (all wrong, of course), tree ring proxies (hide the decline!), and is instantly proven to be false by the standard you set - we have continued to warm since 1998, and you admit this.

But go on - submit it for peer review and see how far you get.

OK Brent, now that I have been honest, let's start with you.

What are your professional qualifications in climate science? And what special ability enables you to separate the 'hard' from the 'soft' sciences? Go ahead, you are on a roll. You liken those defending AGW to being 'anti-development tree huggers' and supporters of 'despotic government'. Evidence please. And can you provide a list of scientists whilst doing so. Or is this the pinnacle of your intellectual discourse? If it is, may I suggest you join up with Wise Use or some other extreme right wing group in the US. They would welcome you with open arms.

With all the self-professed wisdom being thrown about on this thread, I wonder why it is confined here... where are the papers, the lectures? As I have said before, its a storm in a teacup. As for GSW, I suppose he is correct to loathe my presence here, as everything he has written about biology I have countered. And again, his blithe dismissal of the Planet Under Pressure Report without actually reading it says a lot about him.

Jonas: You cite one polar bear study. What about countless others showing an age structure skewed towards older animals? Showing declines in body mass and a loss in per capita fitness estimates? Why be so selective in your condemnation of certain studies as if this debunks many others? I never defended the study in question. But this in no way affects the results of the much more careful research showing worrying trends in Polar Bear demographics. And that is the tip of the proverbial iceberg. ~Hundreds of studies are showing similar affects across a range of biota.

I am willing to be polite and to discuss these issues in a civil manner. But please cut out the patronizing manner. Like it or not, I am a successful scientist and I have a lot of experience over more than 20 years. And if you bothered to read any of the my empirical articles you would find a lot of hard numbers in them.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 01 May 2012 #permalink

Jeff, kudos tou you for your patience here in a pit that even David Dunning and Justin Kruger wouldn't have dared imagined.

Brent hates 'soft sciences' but physics and chemistry pass muster with him. I wonder if he even realises that atmospheric physics and atmospheric chemistry are central components of climate science. And Jonas doesn't believe in sampling - here in the 21st century. He dismissed it with an exclamation mark!

My impression isn't that the inmates confined here want to learn anything and become less stupid, but rather seek to drag the world down to their level - to wit, Brent's web page my response to which is a quite unscientific or indeed rational 'Jeezus Christ...'.

Jeff, you ask: âwhat special ability enables you to separate the 'hard' from the 'soft' sciences?â.

Man, you is so busted! A hard scientist would ask, âhow are you defining hard v soft science?â, examining the answer for âusefulnessâ (I hope this expression is familiar).

A soft scientist gives greater weight to the ideas of Person A than Person B. Such a herd instinct is laughable. This is the famous âargument from authorityâ, whose motto might be, âhuh! What light can a humble patents clerk possibly shed on the photoelectric effect or the speed of light?!â

You ask what are my professional qualifications in climate science. Answer: none.

I just lurve that question. Itâs very revealing. It suggests that only insiders are entitled to an opinion. Like a medieval churchman, Jeff enquires: âPray tell, little fellow, in what university did you attain your doctorate in theology? None?! How DARE you question the teachings of mother church!â

You fancy yourself an insider, methinks, excluding the citizenry in the belief that only the gifted few hold the gnosos. Wrong! These days itâs enough to have a good general education and an internet link to query the corporate soothsayer. Only retards like John kowtow to their âbettersâ.

Brent, your uninformed, pig-ignorant, untrained and entirely volunteered and unrequested 'opinions' are as worthless as those of a monkey with limited typing skills.

That you nurture the dumb idea that your uninformed, pig-ignorant, untrained and unasked for 'opinions' are worth sharing on the grounds that science is just like a religion and anybody's is worth as much as anyone elses, actually demonstrates a disturbing, preening vanity bordering on the psychotic. The same stupid argument could be made while elbowing a brain surgeon out of the way so you can 'have a go' with equal validity.

Democracy is a political system that allows you a vote, but it does not encourage or allow you to stick your uninformed, pig-ignorant, untrained oar into whatever profession catches your stupid fancy or be taken anything like seriously.

Aerospace background my arse - or is that how you puff up washing down wheel chocks these days?

P.S. Brent, Einstein was never a mere 'humble patent clerk'.

He was a physics graduate who worked in the Bern patent office in charge of electrical applications at a time of exponential growth in electrical devices, and a few years later was invited to accept a professorship at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

Your treasured myth (or to be more truthful 'lie') that any whacko, ignorant galoot (like yourself) could be another Einstein (or even that your circumstances are similar) is, again, a delusional device to assuage your overblown vanity and which merely serves to provide you with comfort in your porcine, swill-sucking, wallowing ignorance.

Jonas N,

I am interested in your viewpoint of the 'prominent AR4' claim.

Just out of interest, is it the quantitative nature of the claim that you are unhappy with? Reading that 'very likely' meant 90-95% did you at first assume this could be shown analytically rather than relying somehow on expert opinion?

I've followed your 'expert opinion is not science' reasoning argument too, but I just wondered if there were other aspects of this claim that caused unease in addition to that.

Jeff, I was giving you an example of a âscientist doing numbersâ, an awful one at that. And one which made the rounds in the climate scare propaganda .. There are many more, but probably less prominent. I have pointed out one thatâs even more prominent from the AR4 , and the Hockeystick is yet another one (from the TAR).
And once more you are either making things up, or at a total loss about whatâs being discussed: Nowhere have I said that one poor study debunks any other, let alone many others. What I did say that the scare of polar bears drowning due to the A in GW is based on utter junk. Nowhere have I said that polar bears arenât under pressure from other factors. I have said the exact opposite: That Iâm quite certain that among all such factors, the possible A-signal in GW is pretty far down on the list! Have you missed that? Really!? Because Iâve said it many times!
And Iâm sorry, but there is no way of pointing out the same thing to you over and over again, reminding you that you cannot just replace what is argued by your own strawmen, without sounding patronizing. Because thatâs exactly how it feels incessantly having to remind you of what the topic is, what is being said, argued and claimed and what is not. Like a patient parent trying to help a toddler to take his first steps .. Sorry Jeff, but as long as you are trying to both fabricate your own âfactsâ about those you are attacking, and cannot keep your eyes on the ball, you will be reminded of this. And wrt to âpatronizing mannerâ ⦠do I really need to remind you of what has transpired in the threads here for eight months, continuously, and from you, and others cheered on by you? It would be the simplest thing Jeff. Please remember: It is you who are ridiculing yourself, not me! I just remind you of what you just said, and sometimes what youâve said earlier.
OK, back to doing numbers: Real science is not done by multiplying what you think youâve seen be the factor of what you have not seen. And even less to claim to know the cause of this, compared to something you have not seen at all some ~20 years earlier. Thatâs just nonsense! As is the idea that sea level rising rates with three- to 15-fold (on average) this century!
Can I ask you jeff: Do you still (and really?) believe that this will happen because the ârespectedâ James Hansen claimed that? Itâs once more a simple Yes/No question. And relevant, because you attempted to deride me for pointing it out. So Jeff: Yes or No?

Paul H

It is a quantified claim. It is even expressed in a way to be (by laymen, and even untrained âscientistsâ) to be interpreted as even more ominous than what it means by a strict interpretation of the IPCC lingo. Making claims about the tails of a (construed) probability distribution function requires a lot of good information. Generally, you would need to have conducted many more independent experiments than just the inverse of the fraction you believe to lie outside your confidence interval.

No, I never expect such things to be shown âanalyticallyâ!? What do you even mean by that? That the real behavior can be captured by some closed form pdf?

My point is that this very specific and (formally) quite detailed and far reaching claim is not based on any science. Or rather, for the first weeks/months I asked if anyone had seen such science. And informed those who hadnât that they were taking this on faith, that quite a lot did, and that no one whom Iâve asked had ever managed to show any such science.

I have a pretty good idea about how this claim came about (and it was not science) but you wonât read that anywhere. You could of course say it is based on âexpert opinionâ but even that would be a stretch. Bayesian statistics can be used to assess âexpert opinionâ if used carefully, but they can also be used to totally abuse the concept of likelihoods ..

Jonas, as I said before I think more is gained from civil discourse. I realized that bickering on an innocuous blog site gets nobody anywhere. But one point I will make is that you or nobody else here is in a position to judge me as a scientist. You have, for some reason, done that, or attempted to, as if you have the authority to do so. Olaus has done it, GSW has done it, and Brent has also had his two cents worth. It does not wash with me, for the simple reason that none of you are qualified to be able to assess the professional standing of others in any scientific discipline. For some reason you have given the impression to me at least that you think that you do possess this skill. But take it from me, you don't. There are those out there who most certainly do, and these are the experts in the field who regularly peer-review the scientific articles that I submit to journals. Their criticisms of my work are taken on board for the simple reason that they have professional training in the fields in which I study. But f I was to try and tell a brain surgeon whether I think he/she is a real doctor, I'd be told to jump in the proverbial lake. I have not done that with you or anyone else here, except to say that having some professional training in any endeavor does, in my honest opinion, give them some intellectual authority over those who do not. If that seriously annoys you, then sorry, but that is that way I (and certainly many others) see it. I am not saying that self-trained people cannot make a good scientific contribution, but the point of having universities is to train people a wide array of different disciplines.

So if we are to proceed in a civil manner I would appreciate it if you would stop wasting time judging me and others. As far as Polar Bears are concerned, declining sea ice will affect the populations exactly as I have suggested. There will be costs imposed on per capita fitness rates, and the population demographics will be skewed towards older animals, exactly as is happening. To be honest, I agree with you that an aerial survey of dead animals is not sound science at all, and as you will note I never said it was. I steered away from that study, but there are many others showing climate related effects on species demographics and phenology. And as I said in response to GSWs posting, the effects of abiotic stresses on species is that they will exacerbate often sub-lethal (or hidden) stressors that may be contained within the genome of certain genotypes. In other words the effects will be indirect and cumulative.

As for Hansen's prediction, perhaps he is wrong, but that will be borne out in time. If many of the positive feedbacks kick in, then we might be approaching a tipping point where we experience a suddet shift to an alternate state. On the other hand, if things continue along a gradual linear trajectory, then he is wrong. And for that we should all be relieved.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 May 2012 #permalink

Jonas,

"What do you even mean by that? That the real behavior can be captured by some closed form pdf?"

Intentionally vague, sorry. Just that there might be some closed form mathematical expression that could yield that result. I only ask because I have encountered lay people with that expectation who were surprised to find out that there wasn't a mathematical calculation going on behind that number.

Again, just out of interest, what did you expect to be the origin of the certainty estimate placed on that statement? I may have misread your tone, but at certain points in the thread you seem to be surprised that such an important statement is essentially the synthesis of expert opinion?

Jeff, I am capable of judging you and your arguments based on what you deliver here. I have many (many many!) times pointed out that if you in your âprofessional lifeâ do what you do here incessantly and seemingly compulsively, you cannot be a real scientist. I stand by that. You have now said in three (out of how many?) comments that you will try to be civil. I encourage that attempt. I you keep it up consistently for the next eight months, I will start to believe that you have actually learnt something. And yes Jeff, I do have the authority to evaluate the quality of the arguments you have delivered here. And of others. You have claimed the opposite many times. (Desperately hoping it to be so) And you have been wrong every single time.
Many discussions here have been at pretty basic level (numbers, sums, some probabilities, laws of motion, what is claimed and not claimed etc), all of which are necessary to get right at the very base if you want to be scientific about anything. Replacing the basics by hand waiving is not allowed. And you, and so many more have done that many many times.
For instance: Once more I need to correct you on what is actually said. Climate change is a factor in what species need to cope with. Always has been. It is the possibility of an **anthropogenic** signal in climate change, and one that is distinguishable from natural changes (rates and levels) that is the topic: And I still say, that possible A is far down the list!

And might I remind you that Iâve pointed this out probably more than a dozen times now!?
Regarding Hansen, yes he is wrong! Again this can be demonstrated using simple physics. And yes, I can do that, and you probably couldnât. Which makes me not a better human being, but a better judge of the alleged âscienceâ by Hansen. You will just have to roll your dice and take a pick, or trust me! My point was that you immediately tried to deride me, tell me that I must be wrong (and Hansen right) and this because you **knew** that Hansen was so ârespectedâ ! But I do notice that youâve taken a step back from that, and that too is a step in the right direction. Keep it up, Jeff.

Regarding Hansen, yes he is wrong! Again this can be demonstrated using simple physics. And yes, I can do that,

Of course you can, Jonarse.

However back in the real world, you might not find the science community so impressed by declaratives and the liberal use of exclamation marks. Nor has a shred of evidence been produced by you that you're anything more than a windbag like Petri, Pentax or Brent on steroids.

The follow up question of course is: why haven't you? I suspect the answer is contained in the preceding paragraph.

*Regarding Hansen, yes he is wrong! Again this can be demonstrated using simple physics. And yes, I can do that, and you probably couldnât*

OK, Jonas, if you are correct, then why aren't you writing this up for submission to a major scientific journal. Or are you? That's my question for you. Is your science limited to the blogosphere or are you willing to expose it to the scrutiny of actual climate scientists? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am not saying that you are wrong - I am challenging you to write up your rebuttal and send it to a rigid scientific journal. Then, when its reviewed, tell us here on Deltoid what the outcome was and share the comments of the reviewers with us. That's what I do with my research and what other professional scientists do. I would be out of a job if I did not publish the findings of my research (or that of my PhD and Masters students). I have had a lot of my papers initially rejected. It goes with the territory. But its a learning process. To reiterate, I am not saying that Hansen is correct. But you cannot expect to make any headway if you restrict your rebuttal to one or two blogs. If you are confident that you are correct on the basis of simple physics, then take the plunge and go for a scientific journal.

As far as being able to judge the qualifications of other scientists, I will amend the last comment I made. Certainly you are welcome to do so, but I warn you, don't expect scientists to take you seriously. When it comes to this, I don't. I do not mean this to be offensive, but in my opinion you are not in a position to be able to judge the professional abilities of scientists unless you have done the groundwork yourself. I would still like to know what your day job is. Is this question too personal? I am curious, that is all. What is your professional background?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 May 2012 #permalink

Paul ..

This AR4 claim, was what made me realize that the IPCC process is not about science but about politics. That statement by it self is so outrageous that it must have upset or seriously disturbed any remaining real scientist in the process who knows the least bit about the matter.

As you seem to be aware of, that claim is a negotiated number based on opinions, and not even the most qualified scientists' opinions. I further believe (although evidence is only circumstantial) that the AR4 reports needed to be amended after the SPM release wrt exactly that statement. And also that this is why all the references to that main AR4 claim are so conspicuously vague and wrapped and diluted troughout the reports.

Those numbers were for PR and media consumption, not even remotely based on science, I have a very hard way of seeing it any other way.

I hope you are aware of that making these kind of certainty and attribution claims implies that you have a very good grasp on everything that makes the climate vary. That you are so sure about this that you essentially can rule out (with certainty) that any other known or unknown mechanism might have (or just been able to have) caused the observed change.

We are here talking about an increase between 1975 and 1998.

Given that 'science' can't even explain transitions in and out of ice ages (glaciations) properly, such (implied) claims are just ludicrous.

As I said, this is when I realized that pure junk is peddled under the pretense of climate science and the alleged scientific 'assessments' of the IPCC. The debauchery with the hockestick is similar and predates the AR4, but had not become known in wider circles back then. And although people started to suspecti it, the behind-the-scenes fiddling with 'the science' and 'the publications' partly revealed by ClimateGate was not common knowledge yet.

Only the symptoms had been starting to show.

I don't know if this answers your question. But this is where it finally and definitely dawned upon me.

What I have been doing here, on less than friendly turf, is to ask any of those who firmly believed in that claim if they had seen any such science. As I have asked many other believers. And subsequently telling them that AFAIK nobody has, and that all those repeating that claim are taking it on faith.

But in fact it is even simpler than that: Usually, I just have to ask if they have seen the basis for that (or any other similar) claim, and also have read and understood it, and if they are prepared to argue and defend its merits after they tell me the (their) source .. and people will not ever come back.

Jeff Harvey (#3621)says that he only accepts criticism from his peers (and yet keeps coming back to Deltoid to be mocked for his faith in AGW ('wrestling with a pig' as some have described it)).

My jaw dropped when I found that he had a hard degree. In physics, no less! Has a track record in string theory, bejaysus! And then it emerges that there are two Jeff Harveys; our masochistic Deltoid friend (unlike the real one from the Enrico Fermi Institute) merely does descriptive stuff on cabbages.

Our lad says: "declining sea ice will affect [polar bear] populations exactly as I have suggested". This is no mere scientist.... he's a prophet who can see the future.

But then he steps back from the normal AGW dogma and writes: "If many of the positive feedbacks kick in, then we might be approaching a tipping point where we experience a suddet shift to an alternate state. On the other hand, if things continue along a gradual linear trajectory, then he is wrong. And for that we should all be relieved."

Well said, Jeff! You said 'if'!

There was a wonderful song, featuring Tweetie Pie and Sylvester, where Tweetie Pie persuades the big bad cat to stop being evil and join in the singing. Sylvester says, "Oh, all right then.... I taught I taw a puddy tat a creepin' up on me..." Now, Jeff, repeat after me: "Global Warming is a load of alarmist claptrap. The end of the world ain't nigh. Let's all go down the pub instead and laugh at man's folly."

Jonas, I'm also interested in you. Jeffie asked you about your occupation. I would also be interested.

Why are you here? When I arrived in 2010 my object was (a) To test my doubts on Global Warming against people who accepted AGW and then (b)Try to understand the psychology of hard-line AGW believers of unshakeable faith.

I have learned a lot from these people. They made me read AR4. I concluded that its two fallacies were (i) The claim that CO2 is the biggie (is it bollocks) and (ii) A belief in positive feedback and tipping points (negative fb is the one - a tendency towards stable equilibrium).

Why are they (fruitcakes like Chek, John, and some other ugly specimens) like this? My best guess is that yer average eco-loon is anticapitalist; hates mankind more than he loves nature; has an irrational belief in apocalypse myths; likes the idea of Big Government; sees libertarianism as a road to ruin.

The science behind AGW is clearly bankrupt. My big worry is that the Cheks of this world - scary eco-loonies - have persuaded western governments to adopt crazy policies.

When I think how much better these green billions could be spent - e.g., habitat preservation rather than windmills - I could cry. These green extremists - these Watermelons - have done a great disservice to nature.

Thanks Jonarse, for showing (finally) the utter bankruptcy of your 'objections'.

Leaving aside your utter drivelling gullibility (cf your 'ClimateGate' (sic) and 'politics' ranting), the situation is really quite simple - the energy entering our planetary system is exceeding the energy leaving it. Therefore energy is accumulating here on Earth, as heat in the oceans and atmosphere, and what Kevin Trenberth in his criminally misinterpreted 'ClimateGate' quote was saying is that we should know, but don't know due to lack of adequate monitoring, where it's all going. We do however know that the imbalance is the cause of what is popularly known as 'AGW' with absorption in the CO2 spectrum identified as being the culprit.

However, I of course realise the this is of no interest to those like you whose true motivations are the cultivation of extremist right-wing gangs of ignorami who prefer to believe the conspiracy-victim tripe that ultimately and predictably underlies the product that you're peddling to your accompanying gaggle of half-wits.

Perhaps Paul and Jeff will be kinder and more measured in their replies, should they choose to do so.

Here we go again - the watermelons analogy. Its not about science, its about political agendas.

Brent, you are in serious need of psychiatric care.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 May 2012 #permalink

Following on from my last post, I can say that in all of my years as a scientist I have never personally met anyone in a university or at a conference venue who has spouted this kind if tripe:

*My best guess is that yer average eco-loon is anticapitalist; hates mankind more than he loves nature; has an irrational belief in apocalypse myths; likes the idea of Big Government; sees libertarianism as a road to ruin*

When the denialati reveal their true colors, this kind of insanity often seeps through. Andrew Rowell wrote about it in 'Green Backlash' and Dave Helvarg in 'The War Against the Greens'. Brent is the living embodiment of an extreme faith in unfettered, deregulated markets and it pollutes his views on just about everything else. Sigh. Another libertarian who doesn't understand that unlimited freedom invokes the tragedy of the commons and infringes on the rights of others unless one lives on a remote, unpopulated island.

Note also how our bottom-feeding denier has to resort to the usual smears against me: that my work is to study the simple cabbage in all of its humble glory. Its a heck of a lot more than that, but I do not need to justify my scientific career to a moron like Brent, not now, not ever. Its a shame that he was ever allowed out of the facility in which he stewed in his own ignorance and back into here.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 May 2012 #permalink

Jeff, could you please be a bit careful about your language, please? If I am not completely mistaken, you started with the political rants about your opposition, sound just like that, using exactly the kind of language you now condemn from others. Often, repeated, and pretty much unprovoked too ..

Do you now suggest that we should apply exactly your 'analysis' to your initial behavior too? And draw the same conclusions you tried to draw?

Because, if one does, if ones 'analyzes' your rantings, your attempts to deride and insult others, your many instances of not even trying to address the issue etc, the same ways as you just did/tried ...

.. it is not that difficult to draw the conclusions that your
motivation to side with almost anything smelling the least bit alarmist, is **not** based on weighing the facts but on ideology and other similar and emotional preferences.

You can hardly blame others for interpreting you the same way you want to paint them.

And this has been a problem of your for a long time, Jeff. I'd suggest: Leave it, or argue the facts and stick to the topic. Your anger about other people's emotion will never convince ..

Jonas,

Thanks, that helps me understand your position a little better.

I still have some more questions though. I'm just trying to get a better impression of your views. I hope you don't mind.

First a more general question about knowledge synthesis in science. Do you think its possible, even in the presence of evidence, in science, to arrive at a consensus statement of the type we see in the IPCC reports about a particular hypothesis, question, or theory? Just to be clear, such a statement would have an accompanying uncertainty estimate.

When only reading your last posts Jeff, Brent's sum up seem more than adequate. Your comments are hateful big letter rants about right wing evil agendas against climate science (not a shred of evidence to back it up with though), constant name-calling, straw-manology and, not the least, waiving your CV.

With the latter in mind your claim that you "do not need to justify (your) scientific career to a moron like Brent, not now, not ever" becomes hilarious. On the contrary my dear Jeff, that's exactly what you need and always do. Why, one might wonder? :-)

I'm sure some libertarians are good at lying, but compared to you and your little bunnies they are white as snow. The fact-inventing tradition is much more prominent in your backyard, it appears, again:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/breaking-death-threats-against-au…

I guess its your strong belief in the protocols of Heartland and stuff like that, that make you see ghosts everywhere, loosing all perspective of what's right and wrong.

Chek, you've done us proud. You wrote something substantive: "the energy entering our planetary system is exceeding the energy leaving it. Therefore energy is accumulating here on Earth, as heat in the oceans and atmosphere,..."

Well done. This is more useful than just hurling insults.

Olaus,

You and Brent deserve each other. And you actually think I need to justify my career to a few people on a single thread on Deltoid? You write as if my whole life was encapsulated in this one thread. Brent's initial put down was to claim that only 6 people know who I am. May I suggest the both of you get out to more university departments and find out that there are a lot more out there than that. Is this the politics of envy? I have been invited to several universities in Europe and North America this year to present lectures on global change biology. Your last professional invitation was probably a booze-up at your local drinking hole. Certainly you both are minions in the scientific world. God it must pain you both that I have a pretty good CV to wave. Let me stick it right in front of your faces. BWAAHAAAHAAA!!

I think you both ought to get some fresh air and to grow up, you sad, pathetic little men. Brent has at least a weak excuse; judging by his photo, he is a bitter old man. You act like one. Defending someone who writes this tosh: *My best guess is that yer average eco-loon is anticapitalist; hates mankind more than he loves nature; has an irrational belief in apocalypse myths; likes the idea of Big Government; sees libertarianism as a road to ruin* takes some hubris. Trust you to attempt it.

Jonas: I wonder why in your response to Paul H you leave out Keeling's 1950 predictions or those commissioned by the Johnson administration in the 1960s which both argued that if humans continued to pump copious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that there would be discernible effects on global climate pattersn by the year 2000. Exactly as has happended. Why omit this salient point from the discussion? Its not like the recent warming came out of the blue. It was predicted.

As for asking me to be 'careful about my language' after the kind of shit thrown at me from a senile old man, forget it. I also answered your question yesterday, but you and Olaus never answer my simple little one, which is: WHAT ARE YOUR PROFESSIONS? Is this that hard to answer? I would just like to know. Why are you so reluctant to answer it?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 May 2012 #permalink

OK, OK, I will answer it.

Because neither of you has a career in anything remotely close to science. Because to admit this would be to greatly weaken the already rickety foundation on which you have built your thesis. Illusions matter.

Correct? Now that is out of the way, you all can go back to your silly, fatuous smears and putdowns.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 02 May 2012 #permalink

From the man with absolutely no need to justify himself with CV-waiving at Deltoid:

"And you actually think I need to justify my career to a few people on a single thread on Deltoid? You write as if my whole life was encapsulated in this one thread. Brent's initial put down was to claim that only 6 people know who I am. May I suggest the both of you get out to more university departments and find out that there are a lot more out there than that. Is this the politics of envy? I have been invited to several universities in Europe and North America this year to present lectures on global change biology."

C'mon Jeff, get real will ya! Its difficult to find one post where you don't try to justify yourself â with your CV. :-)

Based on what you write hear at Deltoid Brent's description of you is right on target. I'm sure you can do much better, but then you have to step up to the challenge not inventing facts, fantasizing about right wing illuminati, stop the name-calling and inhibit your faiblesse to bolster yourself in self-idolatrine (at least in writing).

No-one is interested in your CV since it has no bearing whatsoever on the topics addressed. Get it? When I, for instance, ask you to share the evidence proving the existence of an evil right wing conspiracy, your CV doesn't cut it. Its totally irrelevant. The same applies to the Q about the science behind the 90% figure. Its not embedded in your CV, a PhD in descriptive cabbageology or not.

Paul H

Have you seen any proper science (from 2006 or earlier) based on which one can claim attribution of at least half the warming in the last 50 years on human activities with 90% (or higher) confidence? And if so have you read it and understood it properly. To the degree that you are convinced it is correct. And if so, are you then capable and prepared to argue the merits and answer to criticism and challenges?

Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record. As I said before: Very few have even attempted to present any references or publications that allegedly would be the science behind that AR4 claim. And when read, such claims evaporated very quickly. Thatâs why I now first ask if they have read and understood it themselves. And if they would be prepared to defend it in the face of scrutiny and criticism?

Further, I am a bit uncertain about exactly you are asking. But generally no, one should never make claims and say those are based on science (let alone âthe best science availableâ checked by thousands of experts .. etc) if it ainât so! Never. Thatâs the kind of waffle I expect from politicians. To support an agenda. Regardless of whether or not they believe in their own conviction.

Let me make a comparison: âOur investigation shows that Y was responsible for half or more of the demise of X, and with at least 905 certaintyâ

You may very well hold such beliefs, and express them in that manner, even believe that the claims are true. But for very good reasons, you donât use such âassessmentsâ to convict people.

And also in science, you donât use your won guesses or guesstimates about how certain you are that your first guesses (even if reasonable) also were correct, and assign (guess) confidence levels to how certain you are that you indeed guessed correctly and got it right. You just donât do that!

*No-one is interested in your CV since it has no bearing whatsoever on the topics addressed. Get it?*

Sure, if you say so. I would desist and say it has a very important bearing on biotic responses to climate change, and area where, with no disrespect, nobody here comes close to knowing what I do. That's not hard because I am a trained population ecololgist and you and the others - well, aside from self-training, you aren't. I have invoked ecological and evolutionary theory in order to explain species-specific responses to abiotic stresses, and the response to this has on the 'science thread' as you call it has been profound silence. The aim of this silence is to belittle it, so that by silence its importance is somehow consinged to the trash bin. But the truth is that silence is not because it isn't relevant, but because nobody here understands area-extinction models, r and K selection, k-factor analysis, food web theory, and a plethora of other areas scientists routinely use as proxies to explain observed data. Instead, I get responses claiming that I am an ignorant idiot who waves his CV, that I am a watermelon who hugs tress for a living, that I hate humanity and embrace despotic government, and other similar peurile epithets. Perhaps this kind of clownish behavior wins debates on a few web logs, but in the scientific world it won't cut it. You can pound your chest like an alpha male and stamp the ground proclaiming forever your adherence to the scientific method, but if you don't understand elementary (at least to me) theories in environmental science that help to explain oberved phenomena, then your victory is a pyrrhic one. And all of your pontificating about cabbage-ology also reveals that you have to resort to the most infantile basal smears to legitimize yourself. Fine, if that's what gets you off. Its just too bad that ignorance is all too often bliss. Next thing you'll be doing is belittling some poor sod of a climate scientist because he studies raindrops. As if this smear somehow gives you the intellectual upper hand. I've got news for you Olaus: it doesn't. Just be happy that you are confinend to the blogosphere where you can hide. If you were to behave as you do in an educational establishment, you would be laughed off the stage. But of course, the blog is where you will stay. Same goes for Brent.

As for Jonas, I presented him with a simple challenge yesterday. I have done it before but it is never answered. Here is my challenge to Jonas, and for that matter you, Olaus, Brant and the other silverbacks who strut their stuff on Deltoid (but apparently not elsewhere). You all appear to think that James Hansen is a quack and that his ideas are toast. The question is this (from yesterday):

Is your science limited to the blogosphere or are you willing to expose it to the scrutiny of actual climate scientists? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am not saying that any of you are wrong - I am challenging you to write up your rebuttal and send it to a rigid scientific journal. Then, when its reviewed, tell us here on Deltoid what the outcome was and share the comments of the reviewers with us. That's what I do with my research and what other professional scientists do. I would be out of a job if I did not publish the findings of my research (or that of my PhD and Masters students). I have had a lot of my papers initially rejected. It goes with the territory. But its a learning process. To reiterate what I said yesterday, I am not saying that Hansen is correct. But you cannot expect to make any headway if you restrict your rebuttal to one or two blogs. If you are confident that you are correct on the basis of simple physics, then take the plunge and go for a scientific journal.

I greatly admire James Hansen, Michael Mann, and other scientists who have been the victim of vicious attacks by right wing pundits and those in the blogosphere. That is my opinion, and if you don't like it, tough. But before you run off into another tirade about cabbages, watermelons, despotic governments etc., tell me if you plan to write up a rebuttal for a peer-reviewed journal to Hansen's sea level rise estimates. Or will this question be avoided - again? You guys will not win any intellectual victories on a few blogs, in spite of what you think. Its only when you throw your ideas to the wolves that we can see if they stand the test of scrutiny. Again, I see a lot of chest pounding here but when one steps outside the 'box', it all withers away.

PS: I never fantasized about a right wing illuminati. But it is intrumental to know that the vast majority of those downplaying AGW - as well as other environmental threats for that matter - come from the far end of the political right. Or are James Inhofe, Joe Barton, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, most of the think tanks et al. closet lefties? Its no conspiracy. It just happens to be the truth.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 May 2012 #permalink

Jeff, I am somewhat behind wrt to answering legitimate questions found in your comments. Unfortunately you seem to let yourself get carried away by your emotions and again letting your fantasies and prejections getting the better(?) of you.

More ironic even is that you then deride others for practices where you have been among the worst and most consistent culprits! And that you canât help yourself and keep on doing it. Have ever heard the proverb: âWhat goes around comes aroundâ? Are seriously surprised that someone might use the term âwatermelonâ or âtree huggerâ after all the insults you have tried, and still are trying? Really? And as quite often you are being quite liberal(!) with the truth too when describing your previous actions and sweeping claims here. It is really hard to imagine that this behavior is not central to your persona.

You even provide a good example yourself: You admire Mann and Hansen, not for good science they have performed that is testable, stands up to scrutiny and proves itself useful when it meets reality. No, instead you write that this relies on them being (in you view) targets from that âvicious rightâ. Whether or not such criticism is warranted, does not seem to phase you. You did the exact same thing when I pointed out how ludicrous his claims are. The same thing with Mann, you seem to defend him, and attack, smear his critics although you donât have the slightest understanding of what is being criticized. You even held up such ignorance as a virtue! But (by your standards) of course, Mannâs and Hansenâs CV:s are lengthy and look impressive, therefore those criticizing them must be vicious and wrong.

Sorry Jeff, but you have presented these kind of analyses so many times, it is very hard to just imagine that such sloppy thinking is not hardwired into your system.

As for Hansenâs sea level rise rates due to GHGs, they are wrong. Plain and simple! That doesnât need to be âwritten upâ. Every real scientist worth his salt either already knows that, or could find out for himself within a few minutes. I donât even know if Hansen has made such claims and labeled them science, also presenting a scientific basis for them.

Jeff, I am somewhat behind wrt to answering legitimate questions found in your comments. Unfortunately you seem to let yourself get carried away by your emotions and again letting your fantasies and prejections getting the better(?) of you.

More ironic even is that you then deride others for practices where you have been among the worst and most consistent culprits! And that you canât help yourself and keep on doing it. Have ever heard the proverb: âWhat goes around comes aroundâ? Are seriously surprised that someone might use the term âwatermelonâ or âtree huggerâ after all the insults you have tried, and still are trying? Really? And as quite often you are being quite liberal(!) with the truth too when describing your previous actions and sweeping claims here. It is really hard to imagine that this behavior is not central to your persona.

You even provide a good example yourself: You admire Mann and Hansen, not for good science they have performed that is testable, stands up to scrutiny and proves itself useful when it meets reality. No, instead you write that this relies on them being (in you view) targets from that âvicious rightâ. Whether or not such criticism is warranted, does not seem to phase you. You did the exact same thing when I pointed out how ludicrous his claims are. The same thing with Mann, you seem to defend him, and attack, smear his critics although you donât have the slightest understanding of what is being criticized. You even held up such ignorance as a virtue! But (by your standards) of course, Mannâs and Hansenâs CV:s are lengthy and look impressive, therefore those criticizing them must be vicious and wrong.

Sorry Jeff, but you have presented these kind of analyses so many times, it is very hard to just imagine that such sloppy thinking is not hardwired into your system.

As for Hansenâs sea level rise rates due to GHGs, they are wrong. Plain and simple! That doesnât need to be âwritten upâ. Every real scientist worth his salt either already knows that, or could find out for himself within a few minutes. I donât even know if Hansen has made such claims and labeled them science, also presenting a scientific basis for them.

Dear Jeffie, if I had questioned that there is a biotic response to climate change you would have had a case against me, but like I have told you many times already, I don't challenge that. Get it?

So once again: If you want to engage in a civil debate, don't invent what I claim or what I think or what anyone else thinks and does for that matter. Just read what I say, and take it from there. Ok? I can assure you that its a much more rewarding MO.

My CV is of no more interest than yours - or Jonas'. What's claimed or questioned is.

If you can't prove that there is a well funded right wing denial machine working against climate science, the most reasonable conclusion must be that there is nothing of the kind. And your CV will not help you prove it either, even if you can't help yourself making wallpaper of it at Deltoid â again. :-)

However, I'm sure Rush, Fox etc dislike CAGW and the politically driven fear mongering haters (like you) that underpins it. But that's not the same thing as a well funded right wing denial machine working against climate science.

Jonas,

Responses to various quotes from Jonas @3639:

"Have you seen any proper science (from 2006 or earlier) based on which one can claim attribution of at least half the warming in the last 50 years on human activities with 90% (or higher) confidence?"

Yes.

"And if so have you read it and understood it properly."

Yes.

"To the degree that you are convinced it is correct."

Yes.

"And if so, are you then capable and prepared to argue the merits and answer to criticism and challenges?"

Yes.

"Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record."

I've done my best to avoid making any sort of (pre)judgments about your opinions and views. In the interest of civil discussion, can you please avoid doing that? Thanks.

"But generally no, one should never make claims and say those are based on science (let alone âthe best science availableâ checked by thousands of experts .. etc) if it ainât so!"

Well that wasn't quite what I asked; more on that shortly. Just for absolute clarity, are you simply saying 'we shouldn't dress claims up as scientific if there is no scientific backing to the claims'? That is what you appear to be saying, and I agree with that statement (as I wrote it here in italics) when applied generally.

With regards to what I wrote in my previous post @3633, i.e. "Do you think its possible, even in the presence of evidence, in science, to arrive at a consensus statement of the type we see in the IPCC reports about a particular hypothesis, question, or theory?"

You elaborate: "Let me make a comparison: âOur investigation shows that Y was responsible for half or more of the demise of X, and with at least 90% certaintyâ"

I wasn't asking about statements with a similar formulation to the IPCC 90% statement specifically. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with "of the type", which was meant to apply generally to the IPCC's consensus statements that come in various forms.

I want to try and ask my question in a different way. Moving away from the IPCC and climate change, I assert that, in science generally, in the presence of sufficient evidence, with enough consilience of evidence, that it is possible to arrive at consensus statements about a particular hypothesis, scientific question, or theory. A consensus statement being a statement that can be agreed upon by a sufficiently large portion of scientists working on a specific area of research, and where sufficient expertise exists that a level of certainty may be formulated and applied to said statement. Let me give examples in other areas of science where, in my view, such consensus occurs and could, if we tried, be quantified:

(and to be clear, I am not claiming that the levels of certainty are equivalent to the IPCC statement of interest I am merely using these as examples of consensus)

  1. HIV is the causative agent in the development of AIDS in humans.
  2. DNA is the molecule by which genetic information is stored in cells.
  3. The hydroxyl radical is the primary chemical oxidative species in the troposphere.

Do you agree that we could arrive at consensus statements regarding the current state of science regarding these three hypotheses? My question @3633 was intended to be far more fundamental. In a nutshell: can consensus exist in science, and can we quantify those statements if we have enough information?

*politically driven fear mongering haters (like you*

There you go again. Whom exactly do I hate? Its an illusion. I certainly do not hate anyone, although I do question the idealogical and political motives of many. You have no idea what my political affiliations are, yet you also make rather large assumptions. Brent, Jonas and you have worn your libertarian hearts on your sleeves; you couldn't help it, could you? The rest of us here have not said much of a word about our political leanings.

Jonas: terms like tree hugger, watermelon, loving of despotic government etc. have NO place in intellectual discourse. Nothing I have ever said here comes close to that. I am used to to it, however, but it bounces off me like water off a duck's back. The anti-environmental lobby has been resorting to this kind of childish stuff for years, no news there. That Delingople has to dredge it up to shift papers and his book is pretty much beneath contempt, but then again the guy is IMHO a quack. In 2005 I was asked to debate two well known Dutch AGW deniers on Dutch radio. I was joined by a Dutch climate scientist. One of the deniers brought up the watermelon analogy in his short talk. In fact, it was the first thing he said. Many in the audience laughed, but not with him but at him. If this was the initial basis for his position, then it was clearly bankrupt. He sure made my position a lot easier. But others ahve used the watermelon analogy more recently. Vaclav Klaus, for instance. It appears that these people are happy to see themselves as laughingstocks. But labeling scientists as 'doomsayers, watermelons, people who hate humanity, anti-development tree-huggers etc. has a long and sordid history that goes back to the Wise Use Movement that sprung to life in the U.S. in the 1980s. Its clear that its still a hit with a few disturbed minds.

Lastly, you write, "As for Hansenâs sea level rise rates due to GHGs, they are wrong. Plain and simple! That doesnât need to be âwritten upâ. Every real scientist worth his salt either already knows that, or could find out for himself within a few minutes. I donât even know if Hansen has made such claims and labeled them science, also presenting a scientific basis for them."

This is a cop-out. As I said, science does not work this way. If you want to show that you are correct, then you write up your argument, have it scrutinzed by peers and then, if it passes muster, have it published in a scientific journal. It would not be sufficient for me to say that "Hubble's neutral theory of biodiversity is rubbish: all ecologists know it"! and expect to be taken seriously. I would be expected to write it up and submit it for a science journal, defending my position and providing alternative hypotheses with some theoretical and empirical support. Clearly, very many scientists take Hansen's pronouncement seriously. If he is indeed wrong, then the onus is on you or other AGW sceptics to prove it in print in a journal. Saying it over and over on a blog does not make the grade.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 May 2012 #permalink

>Why are they (fruitcakes like Chek, John, and some other ugly specimens) like this? My best guess is that yer average eco-loon is anticapitalist; hates mankind more than he loves nature; has an irrational belief in apocalypse myths; likes the idea of Big Government; sees libertarianism as a road to ruin.

Brent, stop projecting your hateful ideological faith onto the rest of us. I merely accept that increasing levels of Co2 are enhancing the greenhouse effect and causing long term warming. All other descriptions are a product of your frightened mind.

Hilariously, the science you are using for your pitifully amateur blog posts of "conjecture" (nothing you would ever have the guts to commit to because you know it's wrong) is cherrypicked from papers that support AGW. You just ignore the conclusions because they don't suit your faith. Tell me - is that science?

Why are you like this? My best guess is that your adhere to dying extreme right-wing ideology in which there must always be a perceived militant evil to defeat. Global warming has only replaced communism for you lot.

For fun, here is Brent playing at "science":

>I think we both believe that the sun is the major driver of climate, although explaining the precise mechanism lies in the future.

Anyway, Brent, cheer up you angry little troll! Life isn't so bad!

Jeff: "Whom exactly do I hate? Its an illusion."

Exactly my point Jeff. What you hate in capital letters, and its a lot, doesn't exist in the real world. Its something you have created in your little head so that your goodness can stand out in relief.

You invent stuff about people whose opinions you don't like, e.g. that they don't care about the environment, the endangered species, the less fortunate in society, etc. And on it goes.

Yet here you are telling us that you can facilitate "intellectual discourse". Absolutely priceless coming from a man constantly speaking by and for himself in tourettes tongue. Aside from your inability to actually talk about the topic at hand, your name-calling stats are top of the line. I'll give you that.

The really scary part is that you don't know it.

Nope Jeff ..

> This is a cop-out. As I said, science does not work this way. If you want to show that you are correct, then you write up your argument, have it scrutinzed by peers and then, if it passes muster, have it published in a scientific journal

Itâs not a cop-out! Provide me with âthe scienceâ by Hansen that claims sea level rise rates will **on average** three- to 15-fold during this century and presents how this claim is arrived at, and there might be room for a âscientific debunkingâ. AFAIK he made that claim, and related to GHG emissions in a TED-talk. And his claim is nonsense!

You say that:

> Clearly, very many scientists take Hansen's pronouncement seriously

Well there we are again at the difference between hard and soft âsciencesâ and between real scientists, or those who accept âpronouncementsâ on faith and think that CV-length somehow equates to ârespectedâ which in turn even correlates to âaccuracy of his future predictionsâ . No Jeff, Iâd say the opposite, not one real scientist would take **that** claim seriously based on its pronouncement. Amongst other things, because its quantitative requirements are so easily checked. Among those who canât, couldnât even if they tried, you might have a point. But then we are back to the faithers. Not science ..

Nope Jeff ..
> This is a cop-out. As I said, science does not work this way. If you want to show that you are correct, then you write up your argument, have it scrutinzed by peers and then, if it passes muster, have it published in a scientific journal

Itâs not a cop-out! Provide me with âthe scienceâ by Hansen that claims sea level rise rates will **on average** three- to 15-fold during this century and presents how this claim is arrived at, and there might be room for a âscientific debunkingâ. AFAIK he made that claim, and related to GHG emissions in a TED-talk. And his claim is nonsense!

You say that:

> Clearly, very many scientists take Hansen's pronouncement seriously

Well there we are again at the difference between hard and soft âsciencesâ and between real scientists, or those who accept âpronouncementsâ on faith and think that CV-length somehow equates to ârespectedâ which in turn even correlates to âaccuracy of his future predictionsâ . No Jeff, Iâd say the opposite, not one real scientist would take **that** claim seriously based on its pronouncement. Amongst other things, because its quantitative requirements are so easily checked. Among those who canât, couldnât even if they tried, you might have a point. But then we are back to the faithers. Not science ..

Jonas, you so often have told me and others about rigorous adherence to the scientific method. If Hansen is posturing, so are you. Two wrongs don't make a right. I am telling you and your cheering section here to put your money where your mouth is and put your arguments into a manuscript and then throw it into the lions den. Or are you afraid to do just this? Its one thing pounding your chest in the innocuous little corner of a weblog where nobody on Earth knows who the hell you are, or in the broader scientific arena. You have lectured me very often on what you think constitutes proper scientific methodology, and you claim (perhaps correctly) that since Hansen does not adhere to it. However, you follow this up by suggesting that you don't have to adhere to it either. Instead, you pour out your heart and soul here where you are safely hidden in obscurity. When asked to throw your ideas into a broader arena, you suddenly back down and say, "Shucks, I don't need to do that, as my ideas are sound anyway and Hansen's are crap". As I said before, my career would have lasted no longer than a millisecond had I taken this same approach. One of the biggest debates in systems ecology is that between the species-stability hypothesis on the one hand and the redundancy hypothesis on the other. This debate has been quite acrimonious at times, but has led to a stimulating discussion in the empirical and theoretical literature. The battle is being fought in the scientific journals, and not in blogs. If you want to make any kind of impression with your ideas in a broader academic landscape, you won't do so here. You might think you have an audience of thousands, but in reality its probably about 10. I don't expect to attend conferences where climate change and its effects are being discussed and to listen to a lecture in which WUWT or CA are referred to, let along the mention of your name amongst the prominent skeptics. If you want that you'll need publications under your name, I am afraid.

Let's see you enter the fray once and for all and put your ideas to the test. On here you can expect blithe acceptance of everything you say from Olaus, GSW and Brent. If that's your ambition, then so be it, but it is a pretty insignificant one.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 May 2012 #permalink

Jeff .. seriously

Where do I say that I don't have to adhere to the scientific method? You still believe that 'publishing' is the scientific method? It is not! Publishing is part of the practice to share and spread your results to a wider audience. In the real sciences, peer review functions as selection method, and coarse screening for obvious errors and/or poor quality. I don't have a problem with that.

But Hansen's claim is ludicrous. I could debunk it even here, for every one to review. I mean for those who can 'do numbers', calculate energies available and required etc.

And AFAIK Hansens claim isn't even claimed to be science. He just is introduced as scientist/professor .. but constantly delivers alarmistic hyperbole in public.

The whole idea that publicly uttered nonsense, exaggerations, activism and zealotry ... should be countered by first publishing that n.b. **somebody else** publicly spouted nonsense is wrong. Before such BS can be called crap!? That's ludicrous, Jeff!

Same goes for IPCC. What they publish is alleged to be based on science. We know it is often not. We know that it overstates many things. We know that selection is biased, and we know (now) about the behind the scenes efforts to keep things out.

10 years ago, Jeff, around the TAR, you might have gotten away with the argument that one needed to publish first, and then the IPCC would evaluate it fairly. But right about then the TAR also plastered it's reports and SPM with a hockeystick, thereby showing it was much more about the 'narrative'.

It worked then. It even still kinda worked after Al Gore's movie and with the AR4. But now, you can only fool the already thoroughly fooled with appeals to IPCC and 'peer reviewed' climate science.

But, on a completely different topic: How the heck did anyone come up with the idea of putting you on a Dutch radio show to talk about climate science?

I mean really. You've spent eight months here avoiding anything relevant about it like poison. How would anyone come up with you of all?

@Jonas, Olaus,

Robust, to the point, arguments indeed gentlemen. Particularly liked this from Olaus,

"You[jeff] invent stuff about people whose opinions you don't like, e.g. that they don't care about the environment, the endangered species, the less fortunate in society, etc. And on it goes."

I can testify to that. There is rarely any relation between what jeff states I believe, and what I actually do believe. It's either, he's never listens to what is being said, willfully ignores what is said, or he superimposes a belief on the grounds that that it's what "that type of person always believes". It's quite extraordinary, jeff " I want the world to be how it is my head" harvey.

Also,

"On here you can expect blithe acceptance of everything you say from Olaus, GSW and Brent."

I know it is an alien concept to you jeff, but that is because he makes a thought thru argument. You just wave your hands, bleat, and pretend the conversation is about something else.

chek, you too sound very angry and very frustrated very often .. and your comments are very often very very stupid .. and very devoid of substance .. I very much wonder what you think you are doing or what you think you may accomplish.

What side you are rooting for is very obvious .. but rooting for carries no weight at all in science about the real world .. and blindly rooting for things you don't understand may make you look very very stupid ..

Here's a damning expose of fiddling of the historic temperature record by Norwich Poly (sorry, The University of East Anglia):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/03/has-the-crutem4-data-been-fiddled…

Would any Warmist like to comment? Can John or Chek say something like, "Despite all our squabbling here on Deltoid, despite my conviction that AGW is real, I would NEVER support the deliberate corruption of the data in order to strengthen the AGW case. Fraud is fraud, whoever does it."

The WUWT piece fits nicely with my own humble effort: http://endisnighnot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/giss-strange-anomalies.html

P.S., on BBC Radio 4 today (The Material World) a Renewable Energy advocate said that windmills in the North Sea would cost £100bn. That's two goddam grand for every man woman and child in Britain. Perhaps 'despotic' is putting it too strongly, but that level of taxation (as a remedy for the Global Warming fairy story) is damaging; it's destructive; it's a despicable abuse of the public purse.

Jeffie baby, your CV says that 'advocacy' is one of your main activities. You really can't complain about being referred to as a Watermelon - green on the outside and red on the inside. The charge is that Watermelons in scientific jobs exploit the bona-fides once associated with the profession in furtherance of political aims. How do you plead?

GSW (and Jeff)

Yes it is strange. The many claims from Jeff are truly amazing. Personally I have never heard anybody being against 'environment'.

Nevertheless, a search in this thread gives 22 instances of 'anti-environment', every single one of them by one Jeff Harvey, who says he knows a lot about anti-environmental lobby/organizations/types .. Even lectures about them.

Amazing! A character like Jeff, thinks he can point at others (almost without ever heeding what they are actually say or argue) and claiming that they are 'anti environment' ..

How does one do that?

I mean, you can somewhat sweepingly characterize left leaning individuals (and organisations) to oppose corporate power and profits, to favor taxes, collective solutions, regulations, and various handouts for charitable (and other) purposes. You can even broadly paint them as preferring that others deliver the resources they think they are entitled to use or decide over. And often also to accomplish the things that they so cleverly have planned and devised. While accepting to be pointed at as greedy parasites because the actually work and deliver valuable goods to produce values greater than the costs (which includes all those who rather receive their taxed dollars)

And you could argue that this is somewhat of a stereotype (which it is) and how descriptive it might be for any one individual leftie ..

But labeling others as 'anti environment' just makes no sense. It's worse than labeling some as anti-humanity .. (which can argued for some more extreme cases)

Hey, how's about we play a little game?

People are invited to guess the temperature anomaly of the UAH-MSU-LT data series over the coming 12 months. Smallest variance (sum of monthly actual-minus-expected) is the lucky winner. (As most will know, it's the University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite data: http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html

My forecast is: Zero point zero degrees every time.

Yes, Brent. The idea of the temperature record being publicly updated due to improved data must be a real blow to your faith. It must be horrifying that not they have done this transparently, but they have published a paper justifying the reasons.

Of course, it can't be that science improves, can it? It can't be that as knowledge is gained, the facts change? But that's not how science works, is it Brent? You know science works by publishing half-arsed "conjecture" you don't really believe on your blog based on your pre-conceived ideology and denying all other evidence because it doesn't suit your faith.

It must be shocking to you that the science is only improving, despite the obvious fra*d which is so obvious there is no need for you to have a consistent, coherent theory on what is happening to the climate.

Of course, this is the exact way conspiracy theorists behave. Instead of changing their minds in accordance with the mounting evidence, they becoming increasingly isolated and paranoid, often developing ridiculous fringe theories of their own and ignoring any evidence that they might be wrong because they know, deep in their hearts, it's all fra*d.

Of course, Realclimate called it before the data was even released:

>Since the âno warming since 1998/1995/2002â³ mantra is so seductive to people who like to focus on noise rather than signal, the minor adjustments in the last decade will attract the most criticism. Since these fixes really just bring the CRU product into line with everyone else, including the reanalyses, and are completely unsurprising, we can expect many accusations of groupthink, deliberate fraud and âmanipulationâ. Because, why else would scientists agree with each other? ;-)

It must be frustrating for you that the "rotten edifice" you claimed was about to "collapse" two years ago is only strengthening. I understand that this frustration is causing you to lash out and tightly clutch onto your ideology, at the expense of rational thinking and logic.

In other words, cheer up you miserable old sod :)

[Jonarse @ #3653 says:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6266465)

chek, you too sound very angry and very frustrated very often .. and your comments are very often very very stupid .. and very devoid of substance .. I very much wonder what you think you are doing or what you think you may accomplish.

Projection much, Jonarse? It can only be so, with every word a self-description of you yourself.

What I'm doing, Jonarse, as ever, is calling out a vainglorious little man - that is you - and your vainglorious claims.

Any 'anger' entering the situation can only be from you at being called out. What you may have detected from me is scorn - a very different thing - at your usual avoidance of providing any evidence for your ludicrous claims over the past six months.

Although there is probably also an element of disdain for your playing to your imported gallery of half-wits who even now as a most recent example, are likely under the very mistaken impression that you actually have refuted Hansen. By exclamation marks!

How can I put this? Ah yes, of course - I very much wonder what you think you are doing or what you think you may accomplish.

*But labeling others as 'anti environment' just makes no sense*

This shows how much you have to learn, Jonas. If you knew one thing - just one - about the WISE USE movement in the United States, as well as other groups advocating complete privatization of public lands and unlimited development of these lands for profit, then you'd understand just where the term was coming from. But like your other friends you you are so wrapped up in your libertarian ideology that it escapes you. What I have learned from months of to-ing an fro-ing on Deltoid is how utterly native you and your buddies are. It staggers the imagination that you've never a thing about well organized groups like WISE USE and similar minded bodies that have worked very hard to eviscerate laws protecting wild places.

As for GSW claiming that he made his mind up on the facts presented here, well we all know thats bullshit. He made his mind up a long time before based on his own perceptions and you just fed into them. And for the record, I was invited onto that radio program because I do have a deep-rooted knowledge of public policy and advocacy-based organizations in the United States and elsewhere. I have presented lectures at universities like Princeton and Stanford in the U.S. and all over Europe on the subject. Just because you are pig-ignorant in the field does not make it fiction. This is your problem, Jonas. In areas where you are utterly naive, you slither your way out of this by claiming its all bunk. Olaus does it too, as do your other scattering of supporters. Again, ignorance is bliss. The real remarkable achievement for you suckers is why I have debased myself and lowered myself to the primordial ooze to engage in any kind of discussion with the likes of you chest-pounders. Its a question a lot have asked me. They think like Fran Barlow, that I have wasted my valuable time. As a scientist I mean. And they are right. Here I go, waving my CV again, but I do have one. You and the others here don't. I gave you the chance to cough out your luminous qualifications and you muffed it. Well, you told the truth by your silence. It meant that you are hiding behind your career, whatever that it, which is clearly as far removed from science as can be. Or perhaps you are unemployed and get off in the day telling the world how clever you are on a few blogs. But as I said, this does not wash. If you want to make a name for yourself and not remain an anonymous minion, then you have to throw your ideas into the lion's den. You won't do that because you know they will be chewed up and spat out.

I tried the polite angle here to you and you had to remain the bottom-feeder that you are by throwing in personal sleights and innuendoes. As I said, I have the ability to elevate myself out of this quagmire called the Jonas thread and get back into the laboratory and university environments. You and the others here don't. This is where you will stay. The next time I am invited for a public presentation I will mention you, and your insidiously stupid ideas and bloated ego. Be happy - you need all the attention you can get. Same for Olaus, GSW and Brent. Innocuous people all, bitter and confined to their own boxes.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 03 May 2012 #permalink

@jeff

"As for GSW claiming that he made his mind up on the facts presented here, well we all know thats bullshit."

This is good example of what you are being accused of jeff. The point being made was that jonas presents an argument, you do not. I have never claimed, as in your words "he made his mind up on the facts presented here" - that is all you - in the real world it never happened.

You're like a Father Dougal on crack, Dreams vs Reality.

John @ 3657: Thanks for the link to the AGU website.

If there are solid reasons for reducing recorded temperatures in the early 20th century (I see between half a degree an one degree) then I shall withdraw any claim of 'fiddling'. It is possible that a like-for-like comparison, or a then-and-now one, requires error-correction. We should all want the truth.

But I can't see this point addressed in your link. My question is: as best you can tell, do these adjustments sanitise or corrupt the data?

You're delusional, GSW.
Jonarse has never presented any arguments.

He makes lots of statements and declarations - which you of course agree with, otherwise what was the point of importing you and your sorry little yes-man arse - but he's not made an argument, let alone a valid argument yet.

Jeff ..

Yes, I figured that much, that you call people or groups who you don't agree with all kinds of names. Notably when they don't agree with your ideology, your lack of knowledge and understanding and other naive beliefs ..

You have been doing that since day one. Name calling! Instead of arguing your case or just finding out what the other side says, you resort to labeling and name calling. And you seem to support your beliefs, your 'justification' for those labels by just making things up. Out of thing air! Quite often glaringly counter factual!

What you have learnt here? Probably nothing. And even if you had picked up some tiny bits of knowledge, those will totally drown among your vast amounts of 'just made up' nonsense stuff without knowing which is which.

Because you don't learn. You feel! You hope and desperately want things, and you fill in whatever you need by just inventing things. You are not curious and don't have an inquiring mind, you don't investigate what you study. Wrt to real science, you lack a method of finding out, navigating, or just appreciating quantitative statements and comparisons. I'd say that you lack the ability to compare the relevant and different alternatives and options.

Instead you use 'name calling' as a method to decide on issues. If you don't like someone/thing you call it 'anti environment' (for instance), which of course sounds(!) bad, and since you're opposing it, your position (beliefs) then must be 'good' or 'pro environment'.

I have rarely seen you even try anything above that level, Jeff, when you tried to go up against me on any issue:

When I point out some particular nuttiness in a Hansen talk, you counter with 'esteemed, well respected scientist' (labeling Hansen) and of course name calling and labeling (at me and others. Of course completely avoiding whatever is said.

That's what you are about Jeff. And you've spent eight months here confirming it over and over again.

And it's good of you to promise to mention me in your presentations. When you told me about your talks about 'anti environmental lobby' etc, I kind of envisioned you spouting all kinds of made up nonsense and things existing only in your own mind. Now you've even confirmed that this is what you do:

There is hardly anything you've said about me that you got right. Exactly because your method is labeling, name calling and inventing facts. And not finding out.

'Facts' you already 'knew', you've simply created inside your head, and even if all (real) facts point in the other direction, you simply revert them. Someone who knows far more than you, and can argue it becomes a bottom feeding pig ... Yeah right!

And the most funny thin, Jeff, is that you really seem to believe all the stuff you invent.

And typically for so many lefties, they start to whine, cry 'foul' and feel sorry for themselves, whenever one responds to them on their own level or just doesn't let them have the whole scene for themselves ..

In one way, I do feel sorry for you. But on the other hand only you are responsible for your predicament ..

Some "sceptic" you are Brent. I shouldn't have to point you to the source data. And you didn't just accuse them of "fiddling". You accused them outright of "fra*d". That's a pretty big claim from someone who hasn't even bothered to check why the data has been adjusted.

John, Brent doesn't have to check - he knows there's no global warming. After all he has a picture of himself with an absolutely enormous pile of snow, presumably in Little Buttbrain or wherever it is he lives.

I'm rather surprised he doesn't include Deltoid on his blogroll though, considering the amount of time he spends here.

Jonas, let's get something straight. You are bloody hypocrite. You denounce the term anti-environmentalism because you don't have a clue about it, but support nonsense about 'despotic governments, anti-human, anti-development tree huggers' and other such piffle. And to cover up your pea-brained ignorance your only recourse is to belittle the term; to claim that it is 'invented'. Then you have to dig out the 'lefty' canard. And you and your worshippers here believe this is how one wins debates. Bullshit left, bullshit right. Hup, two, three, four. And when confronted with new information, belittle it, ridicule it, and especially smear the informant. Its clear you don't understand basic environmental science. GSW is even worse. Spews out a lot of simple linear nonsense that I knew was incorrect in high school. Has no idea of the concept of symergized multiple effects. When confronted with this, what do he and you do? Silence. Silence and smears. More silence. And more smears.

If you took your swollen head out of your butt, you'd see that there are hundreds of groups, many funded by industry, who are aggressively working to eviascerate federal and state regulations protecting wild nature in the United States (and elsewhere, for that matter). For example, the now defunct 'National Wetlands Coalition', which had the symbol of a duck flying over a reed bed as its logo, was actually set up by a consulting firm that lobbyed the federal government with the explicit aim of removing wetlands in the United States from federal protection status. They were funded by developers and builders who coveted the land on which the wetlands were found for development. A clear example of 'anti-environmentalism'. There are thousands of other examples, although why I am telling you this is anybody's guess. You don't know much about anything, and certainly are unwilling to take you head from its comfortable place in your anal orifice.

Sharon Beder has studied the phenomenon of A-I for years, as have many other writers and pundits.

http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/antienvironmentalism.html
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/agents.html

As I said before, I have really had to lower myself into the anoxic promordial ooze to have ever decided to engage with a complete and utter moron like you. Whatever you may say, the Dunning-Kruger study was written especially for people like you who think they are intellectual heavyweights in fields well outside of their competence. You actually think you know more about climate science than James Hansen, or at least you intimate this. Un-be-lieve-able. But when it comes to crawling out from under your rock to show the world what a genius you are, you chicken out, big time. You are afraid! Hilarious. You hide behind a pseudonym, like GSW and Olaus (at least Brent does not mind exposing his identity in spite of his wilful ignorance) and spew out cancerous little cells of information on a few weblogs about the 'World According to Jonas' but you are too spineless to take this to a broader arena. What a coward you are.

IMHO you are a sad, pathetic little loser stuck in your little innocuous corner of the world. You and your equally sad band of losers are welcome to it. I have encountered schmucks like you all for the past 20 years. Thanks to you, however, I certainly have added to my armory of information on the broader phenomenon of anti-environmentalism. For that I can thank you. My talks get more comprehensive every year.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 04 May 2012 #permalink

'Cabbageology' was the buttbrains' recent dismissive term for the life sciences.

Unsurprising really if depressing, considering how many contemporary secondary British schoolkids literally have no knowledge of even basic connections between say, cattle and milk or indeed any dairy products, or fields, crops, bread or other food products.

Jonarse, of course, offered no correction as it suited his agenda.

And once more you fail on so many counts Jeff, that me pointing out all inconsistencies would make that list three times the length of your comment.

I repeat once more what my point is and was:

**You use name calling, various attempts at labeling as substitutes for arguments and addressing what is actually on the table! **

And thatâs what politicians do, and activists and religious fanatics: Using emotive terms and shallow lofty positive, or derisive negative descriptions, aimed mainly at those swayable by appeals to their emotions. To facilitate for the non-thinkers, the gullible and the easily manipulated, the sheeple and lemmings etc, to chose between (what the sender depicts as) âthe good and righteous sideâ and opposing side which accordingly is against all whatâs good an righteous. (And it is also used to reinforce such feelings within the own tribe, and among them to demonize those on the outside)

You do it all the time. And you also invent your own âfactsâ to reinforce that shallow good vs evil narrative, since both your labeling, name calling and âargumentsâ are so weak that you need to cheat. And politicians, activists, fanatics of course also do that. For the same reasons: To better their âstoryâ and because the desperately want it to be so ..

I followed one of you links, and it confirmed exactly the above:

One self described movement ( the âenvironmentalistsâ) hoping to influence legislation, labeled those not agreeing or having other ideas or opposing them as âanti environmentistâ. But the dichotomy:

Environmentalist â Anti Environmentist

carries absolutely no information about anything whether some particular policy, regulation or practice on balance is better or worse for âthe environmentâ. It is only one tribeâs choice of labeling the âUsâ against âThemâ. Just as little as when a nation, or a political party, has the term âpeopleâs â in its name, that it also is beneficial for âthe peopleâ. No Jeff, the labeling as an âargumentâ is kiddie stuff ... And mind you, you were labeling much more than professional lobby groups as âanti environmentâ. As usual, shoot of your arsenal of invectives and labels randomly and at almost everything you donât like and require that people answer for others, or just for claims you make about others.

As long as labeling and name calling are the pillars of your argument, you will neither impress nor convince anybody .. So by all means, go on!

I particularly liked these passages:

> You don't know much about anything, and certainly are unwilling to take you head from its comfortable place in your anal orifice

> As I said before, I have really had to lower myself into the anoxic promordial ooze to have ever decided to engage with a complete and utter moron like you. Whatever you may say, the Dunning-Kruger study was written especially for people like you who think they are intellectual heavyweights in fields well outside of their competence. You actually think you know more about climate science than James Hansen, or at least you intimate this. Un-be-lieve-able.

Every single piece of information therein is dead wrong. So why do you make such stupid claims Jeff? Do you even know? And are you seriously saying that your âcomprehensive talksâ are filled all that total nonsens and crap you desperately try to conjure up here? Jeffs fantasies in la-la-land?

BTW, does that last part indicate that you are back to believing Hansenâs nonsense prophecies about sea level rise? Because you really would like to?

@jonas #3668

That was actually quite deep and insightful jonas.

;)

That was actually quite deep and insightful jonas.

Hilarious! What are you, ten years old GSW?

Five hundred plus words of twee, obvious cant and full-on hypocrisy to say 'I disagree', topped off with an argument from incredulity dressed up to appear as an argument from authority.

Perhaps you have to be there and see the pyschotic stare, the spit flecking and hear the shrieking to get the proper effect, but whatever you think Jonarse is doing, it's not working for me by text.

chek .. I take it that you too believe that climate armagedon is near. Because Hansen says so ... and because Jeff says Hansen is a fine fellow .. and Mann too ..

Jonas,

Have you seen my post @ 3644? With all the posting recently you might have missed it.

I would like to hear your response to my questions regarding consensus in science. Thanks.

Paul H, Yes, and I did answer it. Strangely enough, my answer is nowhere to be seen (sometimes things disappear here, and posting them occasionally fails for other reasons). Sorry

The short answer is Yes! You may very well describe a hypothesis, or rather a theory as 'accepted consensus'. I would have picked different examples (but those were hardly the point, right?)

Common for such 'accepted theories' is that they make observable (and falsifiable) claims which have been tested, confirmed, repeated successfully etc many times, and also withstood serious attempts to falsify them. In short they work well and consistently.

When it comes to 'quantifying', things get a bit more complicated. But generally yes, a good scientific theory that makes quantified statements about its outcome may be elevated to a 'scientific law' under the same premises as above: Consistently successful! And there are even situations when those quantifications and outcome are (and must be) expressed in statistical terms. However, then many many more observations will be required, and also much more additional supporting work. (And I'd say that those cases are much fewer, and are mostly found for very well controlled and clearly defined bounded situations).

Wrt to 'quantifying', let me give you an example:

The statement 'habitual smoking notably increases the risk of attracting lung cancer' I'd say reflects a 'scientific consensus' whereas the statement 'habitual smoking will cause lung cancer in 16%' has nothing to do with science (it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis)

I hope this answers your question, and would think this is not very controversial in relation to proper science, as you said moving away from climate change..

But you still have to somehow connect it back to those IPCC 'consensus' statements. Because when you moved away, you again wove in all kinds of things that are the heart of the crux of the matter:

>"**can be agreed** upon by a **sufficiently large** ... **portion** of scientists **working on** ... a **specific area** of research, and where **sufficient expertise** exists that **a level** .. of **certainty** may be **formulated** and **applied to** said statement"

All these phrases are material to people's opinions, beliefs, convictions and personal certainties, bur are peripheral to the actual science part. Particularly, the phrase 'sufficient expertise' struck me as odd? Because that 'sufficient' needs to be established against some other and outside test or standard. And this is where it needs to be proper and real science, as I described it above.

And yes you are right, I am saying that "we shouldn't dress claims up as scientific if there is no scientific backing to the claims", and I'd add that 'expert opinions' however heartfelt do not qualify as 'scientific backing' ...

Paul H

>>"Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record."
>I've done my best to avoid making any sort of (pre)judgments about your opinions and views. In the interest of civil discussion, can you please avoid doing that? Thanks.

Yes, I judged it that way, and to be sure I asked specifically and detailed my queries. My judgment was based on this statment:

>at certain points in the thread you seem to be surprised that such an important statement is essentially the synthesis of expert opinion

And I still maintain that expert opinion does not qualify as scientific support, possibly as scientists' opinions.

BTW Your are correct in observing that I also wrote and gave examples didn't explicitly asked for.

Strangely enough, my answer is nowhere to be seen (sometimes things disappear here, and posting them occasionally fails for other reasons).

Oh not this tripe again. Jonas, you're not being censored. Just because you barely know how to post a comment does not make you the persecuted hero you desperately wish you were.

Jeff seems to have reverted back into his more âcomfortableâ name-calling, insult-spouting and fact-inventing mode. Where he wants people to be banned for answering his insults while not paying him the due respect (and recognition, even admiration) he requires based only on his words. He obviously is much more comfortable with that than restraining himself to behaving in civil manner, arguing his actual case or stance, and actually having to read (let alone deal with) what others actually do say.

In the open thread he does exactly what I described above: The labeling âanti environmentalistâ is used by the self described âenvironmentalistsâ for those whom they oppose, dislike and even may oppose them. But Jeff even takes is one step further:

> those who deny a range of human effects on the biosphere .. many of them are part of a broader anti-environment movement (.. well studied over the past 20 years and on which I often present public and university lectures)

As always, anyone using the term â**deny** [this and that]â about what their opposition allegedly does, should be treated with suspicion and extreme caution. Most of the time such allegations are extremely exaggerated, if not outright lies. But Jeffâs weasel-word here is the introduction of âbroaderâ with which he wants to include far more in that emotional antipathy of his (which he cannot control any longer) than only the organized groups who arise on the (or any) scene of politics.

As so often, the lefties want to have all of that for themselves, and cry foul when others too do exactly what they do (just look at Jeffâs immense output of juvenile insults, nonsense, and what happens if they are replied to at his level). Jeff thinks they should be banned, silenced or even âswatted outâ â¦

But here Jeff is eager to include a far âbroaderâ array into the more formally organized players on the political field. In his views anybody who doesnât share the stance (both views, political implications and remedies) may be included in his âbroader anti-environment **movement**â if they argue against the leftie activists, particularly if they do so publicly, argue why and propose other solutions, and of course point out flaws and problems with the activistâs or left position.

Well, name-calling is part of the political discourse, and it is mostly both tiresome and stupid. And lying is (one more deplorable) part of furthering a political agenda. And many activist groups, particularly those which get a free pass from the press, practice the same methods.

Jeff tries it all the time,

> those who **deny** a range of **human effects on the biosphere**

>he appeared to argue that **without 100% proof, nothing should be done** to deal with acid rain and other anthropogenic environmental problems

> You and your equally daft deniers use the strategy or arguing that, without 100% proof of a process, then the problem **does not exist**

> you have a one-dimensional view of the field and **expect absolute answers**

In an activist campaign handbook those things may be âtrueâ, or at least believed by some activists, or described as âuseful catch-phrasesâ in the campaign, but in the real world it is just dishonest rhetoric and essentially devoid of any substance for any grown up debate (well, it is self evident that Jeff is not about grown up debate, still he rants an demands we should take him seriously, I wonder why?)

But he was caught out in another lie, where he claimed to have âexperienced climate change first handâ (*). He argued that this was just rhetoric, aimed at âcolleaguesâ for the NIOO not to be taken litterally. Note that this came after first having tried to deflect the questions with loads of insults. But it gets even more funny. Finally admitting that his (NIOO-) article was more of his (usual) hand waving, he tried to answer after all, but now by reporting what he **didnât** see:

> I saw little evidence of snowshoe hares which should have been abundant in the park. Lynx are virtually gone

This is like Charles Monnet making a polar bear global warming threat out of **remembering not having seen drowned polar bears** after a storm some 20 years earlier. And publishing it. And getting Al Gore to pick it up. To scare all the children! Well, at least Jeff didnât claim that his âno Lynx seenâ is science. At least I hope ⦠;-)

(*) BTW, note that the (ever occurring, fairly uncontroversial) climate change is addressed. As always, Jeff forgets that climate change is the natural state, and only the possible A-signal in GW is anthorpogenic. And that it is only the latter one where (even theoretically) could be **done something about** which is what he is arguing. And of course he never even gets close to **what** could be done, at what costs, and what other negative consequences this might have. Ie questions relevant for policies, regulations and laws. Jeff just does not want anybody else to be heard.

@Jonas

Yes, I think jeffs statement was a lie.

âexperienced climate change first handâ

When it boils down to it, his evidence was only he didn't see a hare, that should have been there, but only just and only maybe.

"These are species at the southern edges of their ranges"

Bit of a leap to conclude that he'd âexperienced climate change first handâ from this I would have thought, a bit over dramatic.

Keep up the good work Jonas!

GSW

Normally I would give somebody a pass about their exact wording and phrasing in an interview. And from activists (ie not scientists) I would expect overloaded dramatic emotive language without that much substance. But I also would expect writer/journalist to pick up the juicier bits and twist and combine those for 'effect' .. I would even extend Jeff some slack about that. Meaning that I am not particularly upset about him thinking he has 'observed climate change' when the weather (on average) is not like it was 40 years ago

I was a little bit more disturbed by him trying to insult his way out of the question. Those attempts were definitely not that truthful ('your too stupid, you wouldn't understand anyway'). And that he can determine that climate change is what makes Lynx sightings less common, I have a hard time accepting too.

If indeed Jeff had made that trip some 30 years or so before, he could possibly have observed the some change referring to his pictured memory. But of course, we know how much this fellow is about seeing what he wants to see, ignoring every thing else, and even inventing all kinds of things filling in what he needs but misses .. I certainly wouldn't trust his recollections.

Possibly what he thought he saw was 'the climate' it self. That particularly warm winter. But it is all quite weird as an argument, don't you think?

I followed the arguments by 'adelady' too, and had had the impression that she(?) was less asinine than the others. But here 'physics' argument, and what goes on and comes out of a restaurant kitchen did not impress me at all.

And I wonder if 'brent' has been banned? The regulars demand these things all the time. And in some twisted way I can understand their needs ..

:-)

@Jonas

Yes Brent has been banned. Don't know if you saw it, but his last act was to make a list of the Good Guys and then the Bad Guys.

We made it to the Good Guys list! You can probably work out who the bad guys were.

Your,

"But of course, we know how much this fellow is about seeing what he wants to see, ignoring every thing else, and even inventing all kinds of things filling in what he needs but misses .."

Agree with totally, I picked out this laughable statement from the open thread,

"I'd also like to point out that if I were to be doing research in these zones I would find a lot of evidence to support what I say, so its no use burying your head in the sand and saying that as long as nobody studies it all is OK."

Where do you start with that, no preconceptions there, so much to criticize in that one statement, so little time. He really doesn't get it does he?

;)

Fabulous stuff!
(Note to self: double check that they do irony in Sweden or la-la denierland).
In which Jonarse, in true right wing revisionist fashion, attempts to salami slice selected statements from Doctors Monnet and Harvey ... via random comments picked up from ... blogs! ... using a baseball bat, in an attempt to prove AGW carries no consequences in the real world.

The global urban ignorant, whose only recognised contact with the natural world may be via an annual game of corporately sponsored paintball in some depleted, scrubby, edge of town woodland, can apparently convince themselves such is the case quite easily.

Then throw in that most inane and meaningless of throwaway comments "that climate change is the natural state" knowing that his contingent defuckwits will only interpret that in the one desired way, while offering zilch reference that it accounts for the current state of the globe.

And then Griselda rushes in - having some protean sensing of the train wreck that's just happened, with a quick, dirty and insincere 'Good work Jonarse. Nothing to see here folks, move along'.

Almost quality entertainment in the circularity of its self-serving vanity and pointlessness, if you've got the time to waste.

Yes, I saw that list (and possibly it was what put Tim L over the top)

I had a response prepared for Brent, because I don't think Richard Simmons qualifies for the 'bad guy' list, even if he possibly disagrees on many issues ..

Before I had a chance to post it (under that thread, where it most likely would have been deleted) Brent's comment was gone. And some of the usual suspect had chirped in ..

Wrt Jeff. He actually tried, for some three comments or so, to behave (almost) like a civil grown up. I wonder what that was about? It is so totally against his nature. And probably the experience was 'unbearable' so he abandoned the 'experiment' prematurely, possibly because the outcome didn't look like what he wanted ...

@Jonas
"But here 'physics' argument, and what goes on and comes out of a restaurant kitchen did not impress me at all."

No, me neither. She seemed to think a Physicist would be perfectly capable of explaining what went wrong with 'unexpected' results from a kitchen. Perhaps doing old Albert down, but I don't remember him being that highly sought after for his culinary skills.

chek ... your logic is at least, or at least almost as impeccable as Jeffie's ..

.. and the same goes for your comments stylistic qualities .. as is your civility.

But that you look up to the Jeffie style version of science, debate and behavior was picked up by others, long before me.

I would say that you get it right about as often as him too .. Good job, chek!

;-)

That you think that the ill considered verbal spewings of you and those like you demand anything more than the most contemptuous and cursory of replies is an indication of your collective vanity and nothing more, Jonarse.

That you somehow seem to imagine that blog debates with uneducated denialists equals anything substantive only demonstrates the depth of your ignorance and your lack of awareness.

Don't try to equate whatever you think you're doing with the scientific process. Your native intelligence and that of those random idiots you choose ally with isn't even anywhere near the ball park, let alone in it.

this just in by Jeff .. from his protected 'comfort zone':

>As an aside, note how hypocritical Mr. Know-it-all claims that his opponents are 'asinine' here, then attacks me for my insults. Talks about asinine! I was willing to give the twit the benefit of the doubt, but he muffed it, and couldn't keep his massive, bloated patronizing ego in check. And he still hasn't answered the one question he's been asked a million times: what is his profession? Since he uses a pseudonym, its not like he will give his identity away. The reason Jonas doesn't answer this is because he is afraid of being humiliated when he tells us all the truth. That we'll laugh (we probably will). Any guesses from people here what out resident egotist does for a living? All answers welcome.

I take this as if Jeff considers him (for a brief moment, after eight months) **not** being insulting .. as a concession. Somehow to be 'acknowledged' by letting only him not *"keep[ing] his massive, bloated patronizing ego in check"*.

I seriously don't understand this part:. Jeff has been insulting, demeaning, patronizing, and trying to put-down with his CV, never addressing any of the topics, making up all kinds of stuff about his opponents, and even lying blatantly about all kinds of stuff ..

And still this fellow expects (even demands?) that none of that is heeded or responded to? How can an adult even think those things.

Wrt my background: I have told him many times that I am qualified to bring up those things I am talking about. And notably, he is never addressing what I actually say. Always something else I haven't brought up.

Anyway, Jeff has been telling people all kinds of things about my background, training, professional accomplishments, and equally much about what those are not.

Without the slightest piece of something resembling any evidence. Just based on his fantasies. And of course, he doesn't even understand what it is I am saying (at least he bungles it almost every time). Someone who is almost totallu oblivious to 'doing numbers', to physics, to logic, to 'the scientific method', to proportions and quantities, to comparisons of size, const, feasiblity etc. Is trying to tell me what it is I am lacking ...

And this guy takes him self seriously!?

Jag vilar min låda!

chek ... what you and your kin miss almost every time is how your 'logic' looks if applied in both ways.

Do you even have a clue as to how much your "verbal spewings" are **not** "ill considered" !?

I think it would be much easier to count those. Why don't you? Why don't you remind me of the least "ill considered verbal spewings" you have directed at me? You who can't even spell my name ..

What is the **smartest, most relevant and substantial** comment you have produced ... directed at me, since august 2011?

Is there one at all, that isn't **downright idiotic**, chek?

Remind me!

;-)

Let's see now, because you have generated such fogs of stupidity so far.... oh! most recently I'm still waiting for you to refute Hansen's papers as you stupidly and grandiousely claimed a couple of hundred posts ago now, Jonarse - although we already know that ain't ever going to happen.

And let's not even mention that tu quoque is the weakest form of argument by diversion but the strongest hand you've got, given your Odyssey of Stupid documented word by word above this line.

chek ..

taht was your best 'argument' so far? It's brand new. You haven't attempted that one before. It as lousy as all your others. No substance at all. Do you want to give it another try?

What is the best (non-stupid) argument you have tried so far, chek? An attempt that is not exactly as stupid as how you want to describe others'?

Even Jeff, has occasionally trued arguing (He just quickly realized that 'arguing' wasn't in his best interests)

Well .. is there anything at all, chek? Or are we going to have to believe and trust in your feelings alone?

Pretty pathetic avoidance, Jonarse. With all that lashing out and flailing at thin air, I'm starting to think you're just another tuppenny denier with a big mouth and big claims but no education or substance.

Nobody forced you to claim to be able to refute Hansen's papers - that was your own cheap and stupid bravado wedded to your undeservedly preening ego that landed you in that position.

You really don't get it chek, do you!? I was saying that Hansen's TED-talk was crap. I even asked if what he claimed there supposedly was science. No one ever got back.

And yes, I can refute Hansen's TED talk. You on the other hand have only faith. And you still haven't answered:

"What is the smartest, most relevant and substantial comment you have produced ... directed at me, since august 2011?"

I don't even remember any single one that hasn't been as stupid as your regular ones ... That's why I am asking, in case I have missed that moment of intellectual clarity and relevance ..

What is it!?

So you can't refute Hansen after all. I guess the only valid response is who would ever have thought otherwise.

You're a busted flush Jonarse.

A bit slow, but nobody would expect otherwise:

"And yes, I can refute Hansen's TED talk"

And I'm still wondering: Have you ever said anything with the slightest relevance, chek?

Or are all your comments equally idiotic and stupid and devoid of any substance wrt to the issue, chek?

Just wondering, not really expecting you to come up with anything better.

And do you think it is a coincidence that so many of you here can't do better that infantile bickering, and outright lying .. are you really so insecure in what you believe in?

Just asking ..

But I find it entertaining that Jeff, mostly waives his CV and tells me how many **here** are on his side. He is quite insecure too ..

chek, in in #3671 I asked you this:

>chek .. I take it that you too believe that climate armagedon is near. Because Hansen says so ... and because Jeff says Hansen is a fine fellow ..

It certainly still sounds like it ..

"That you somehow seem to imagine that blog debates with uneducated denialists equals anything substantive..."

And blog debates with uneducated alarmists do?

I see that Jeff once more is doing the spitting from his protected side of the fence (and demanding that more be removed)

But from what I can see it is only strawmen he is fighting, as he has done for so long.

>Dozens of times I have explained that species do not exist as isolated entitites but depend on an array of interactions with other species in food webs

And no one has ever claimed the opposite, so why does he repeat that â[d]ozens of timesâ?

And I donât know how many times people have told Jeff that they are fully aware of and accept that changes (of all kinds) effects biota and that climate is one of these changes. That this is not the issue, but instead 1) how much of such climate changes are due to humans, and how large that part is compared to the naturally always occurring changes, ie if it at all is possible to identify an increased CC-stress component (compared to what is natural) for local conditions concerning those biota, and 2) if such a signal exists and can be identified, can and should anything be done about it and what then is the best strategy to do and to do what ..

So why is Jeff still beating that dead horse? I really donât know, but probably because it is his (only one?) to beat â¦

Well ⦠he has one more dead horse to beat, and that is all his fantasies about me and what I (really!?) am and qualified to do. Again, eight months running Jeff has tried to reshape and redefine reality to suit his ânarrativeâ. And although I canât (and havenât tried to) judge how he goes about checking and ensuring his âfactsâ in his professional life, Iâd say if it is anywhere close to what he is doing here, heâs a full blown incompetent, bordering a mythomaniac diagnosis â¦

But he also once more confirms my observation of his use of negative labeling whatever he dislikes, and even claiming to be an expert on the matter (anti environmentalists). Now Bishop Hill, Anthony Watts and Stephen McIntire are labeled by Jeff. He is of course free to dislike those sites (he seems generally very opposed to discussions and open debate), but labeling them as âanti environmentalâ or âanti scienceâ is just plain stupid! Nothing else! It once more shows the lack of intellectual prowess when name calling and stupid labels is all you can muster .. Even worse, his comments are aimed at actively endorsing the practices of lying and fiddling by the CRU-team and others. Checking the facts and doing it rigorously, is âanti scienceâ in Jeffâs world. (Well it ainât in the real world, and real science is all about doing your homework properly, not cheating, not inventing, not filling in where facts are missing. But of course, youâve been told that for months too. And are still trying to fend it off with more insults and name calling. Sorry Jeffie-chap, this will never go your way either)

Can anyone understand how Jeff can be âan expertâ giving invited talks and lectures about things he so profoundly does not understand, does not even read? When he must fantasize up âfactsâ about those he is describing? It sound almost too surreal to only be plain stupid.

Jonas, sweetheart, are you still not privy to the advanced computer-fu of scrolling up?

Jeff has been insulting

We have all been insulting. To your views. When it became obvious you were arguing in bad faith, we started insulting you. There is no reason to treat you with respect, because you are willfully disrespecting the truth, this blog and any and all persons attempting to have a civil discussion.

You are a troll. A bad one. You are a narcissist, you are delusional, pathologically insecure and a proven liar.

These are not insults, they are statements of fact. Over the past months and thousands of posts, you have proven to be all of those things. I'm sorry it hurts your feelings, but it is up there for all to see..

Wait. No, I'm not sorry it hurts your feelings. You are pathetic and descending into a dead end of cognitive dissonance, as quite a few have done on this site before. By now all you do is whine.

demeaning

Originally, we told you over and over to take your wonderful conclusions about the AR4 public, since it would gain you money and fame. You haven't even attempted that. You know damned well, deep down inside, that your arguments are weak. If you had any faith in the tripe you spew, you would have been attempting to publish your findings and save the world from all of the misery the alarmists are attempting to inflict on it.

But here you are, Jonas. You whine on in the dungeon of your own making. Does it feel comfortable because it truly reflects the warm embrace of your mother's basement you keep posting from, noshing her Spitzbaaken and refusing to take your medication?

patronizing

Oh, I'm sorry. Are your credentials remotely up to par with anyone you are arguing against? If so, please enlighten us.

and trying to put-down with his CV

I'm so sorry. I must have missed your post where you laid out your credentials in ecology, statistics and climatology.

Please do point me to that post, Jonas. Put down the rusks for a second and share.

never addressing any of the topics

Obvious and stupid lie. Sweet tap-dancing Jeebus you are pathetic.

making up all kinds of stuff about his opponents

He never did. I just did. Would you care to refute any of it?

and even lying blatantly about all kinds of stuff

Yes. STUFF. Totally. Oh, no, wait.

[Citation seriously fucking needed]

Can anyone understand how Jeff can be âan expertâ giving invited talks and lectures about things he so profoundly does not understand

Wait, what? You are now directly questioning his expertise in ecology?

[Citation seriously fucking needed]

Oh, and Jonas, just a few friendly pro-tips:

It sound almost too surreal to only be plain stupid

There are at least four errors in that sentence alone. If you are going to talk smack about someone, calling them stupid, you really, really, really, really want to triple-check the sentence you do it with. If not, you're just going to sound like a petty, insecure douchecanoe.

It's somewhat telling that you still, after the better part of a year and over a dozen separate specific exhortations have still been unable to obtain any type of spell-checking software to at the very least make you sound less like an abject, sad little douche.

And you whine about chek's stylistic woes?

One more thing, Jonas. The ellipsis, in any Western language that I am aware of (and I do admit my ignorance of most Scandinavian languages), consists of three periods... and one space after, none before.

Stu, we already know. You too believe, hope and wish .. as your main method of navigating. Finding things out just isn't your ting. And this is the result ... no beef whatsoever, just the same drivel as always. Impressive!

A lot of believing going around here by the haters. However, there is one truth hidden in plain sight: That the first thing a Deltoid do when "loggin in" is to see if there is anything going on in the Real science thread.

:-)

So yes, you live in your mother's basement. So yes, you have no credentials whatsoever. So yes, you admit to lying. So yes, you admit to having no argument. So yes, you are a troll.

So yes, I can leave this cesspool alone for another week or two. Ta ta.

Stu, you and I and the rest of the deltoids know that you spend a lot of time here regardless if you post or not. :-)

Have you read the thriller over at Bishop Hill? Can't be true can it?

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/9/the-yamal-deception.html

I would like to share some words of wisdom from the head of Climate impact over at MET-Office:

"Most climate scientists* do not subscribe to the 2 degrees "Dangerous Climate Change" meme (I know I don't)."

And the Asterix says:

"I prefer to distinguish between "climate scientists" (who are mainly atmospheric physicists) and "climate change scientists" who seem to be just about anyone in science or social science that has decided to see what climate change means for their own particular field of expertise. While many of these folks do have a good grasp of climate science (atmospheric physics) and the uncertainties in attribution of past events and future projections, many sadly do not. "Climate change science" is unfortunately a rather disconnected set of disciplines with some not understanding the others - see the inconsistencies between WG1 and WG2 in IPCC AR4 for example."

What on earth could he mean by than "climate change scientists" sometimes has problems with what real science says? ;-)

Stu, you are aware of that you just confirmed my description more concisely and convincingly than I could have with so few words, arenât you? Inadvertently of course â¦

Poor Jeff just isnât getting anywhere. He again confirms my observations. And constructs strawmen an outright lies. Why do you think he feels so compelled to continue doing so?

First he again tries with some really stupid labeling attempts (âchild-boy Jonas continues muttering insanelyâ) follows it up with a lie (âwithout addressing the results of a single studyâ), and concludes by confirming what I have said all the time (about him, and so many who have jumped onto the AGW-bandwagon):

> more empirical studies on the effects of AGW on species interactions and phenology. Note (1) that these studies represent the metaphorical tip of the iceberg, and (2) that the human fingerprint on the warming is taken as 'given'on species .. Note .. that the human fingerprint on the warming **is taken as 'given'**

Let me spell out his statement for him. He claims that:

> One can observe empirical **effects of AGW** .. under **the presumption** that it is indeed AGW that is causing them. But this presumption **is given**!

Or shorter: If it is true, then it is indeed true! Coming from âscientistâ Jeff Harvey, trying to argue why we should believe that is indeed the A-signal in GW that is causing whatever is observed. In a later post we get the same âlogicâ once more (about hybrid grizzly bears):

> More **proof** of the **human** experiment on climate

Personally, I donât think this case (Jeffâs âlogicâ) can be made much clearer than that. Keeping different things and questions/issues apart in his mind just isnât his thing. He repeats one of his often used lies:

> He has yet to address a single scientific article that has been shoved in front of him

He scores owngoals en masse:

> he is an arrogant little pr* .. whilst patronizing those who disagree with him
> I tried the polite route and in return all I got was his usual psychobabble, condescension and blank-cheque support for the other idiots on the thread

Particularly the âI tried the polite routeâ is laughable beyond belief. He has consistently been treated far better than he behaves. Consistently! I wonder if he seriously expected that omitting insults and name-calling in some three comments would suddenly make brighter minds âacceptâ him to be the âauthorityâ about what should be believed and accepted on faith.

There is not much he manages to read correctly. What I was saying was that the labeling of WUWT and BH as âanti-environmentalâ was just stupid. I wouldnât consider them âscience blogsâ although far more real and relevant science is discussed there than compared to the Deltoid âscience blogâ. At Climate Audit however, some quite narrow but very relevant science issues are discussed.

For instance has it been (quite recently) revealed how almost criminally dishonest the CRU-team has assembled its temp-reconstructions. And Jeff of course grinds his teeth over that real science slowly wins out over outright fraud. He seems to argue that since the fraud(s?) were perpetrated so many years ago, and since so many others have bought into it, accepted, used and built further upon it, therefore now the lies should be accepted as truth!

I cannot even begin to express my disgust with both with the cheating âscientistsâ and those who defend such practice.

Getting the facts and details right, checking what numbers went into the mill (and which were hidden/omitted), showing the data used, doing what proper and real science does and must do every day of the week ⦠Jeff labels as âborders on the psychopathicâ

Now, everybody of course knows why Jeff would take that stance. Because the real data doesnât support the climate alarmism, and because it reveals his âherosâ not only as poor scientists, but something even worse. And we can be pretty certain that there is more hidden among all that âclimate scienceâ we havenât been allowed to see and check yet. No wonder Jeff is desperate and throwing hissy fits. Fortunately, out there in the real world, among the real scientists, belief in both the climate scare and in the integrity of some of the more central players of the âclimate scienceâ is crumbling. As is the number of those defending the indefensible .. You need to go to blogs like this, or some cartoonistâs to find them. And of course among those who just blindly staked their faith on it all being true and so firmly supported by so robust sound and solid all that âscienceâ allegedly was. But never knew why and how ..

Jonas, I had a good laugh when I first read Jeffie's scientific evaluation: "that the human fingerprint on the warming is taken as 'given'on species .. Note .. that the human fingerprint on the warming is taken as 'given'".

That's "climate change science" for ya, honors to professor Bretts. How much bananas can an alarmist be?

:-)

And I still can't fully believe what's reviled in Montford's piece on Yamal. It can't be that bad!? It's Jeffie standards, if true.

And if true, McIntyre should have a Nobel Piece Prize, don't you think? ;-)

@Jonas, Olaus,

I think with your latest round of analyses, I don't think jeff has any credibility left when it comes to claiming to be a "Scientist", he's an Activist!. Not a particularly convincing one, and not a particularly educated one either. His knowledge of "Science" falls short at every hurdle, climate science with numbers, and even zoology with feelings.

His ability to rattle off pages and pages of drivel, peppered with various names of species and associated make-believe gloom is second to none however. Why bother with the facts when you can just make stuff up!

Congrats to you both!

PS I have a horrible feeling that if Betula doesn't stop making the shrill believers look more washed up than they already are, he'll be joining you both here soon. Nothing like a fair fight. And it's not nothing like it.

And Jeffie is still at it â¦

As for owngoals, can it be more compact than this:

>**kindergarten** level antics of Jon**arse**

ï

And since he is not anywhere near any relevant debate or discussion regarding the possible human influence on the climate, and likewise possible observable and detectable signals thereof, he instead goes on and on banalities such as âchanges have consequences, and some are negativeâ, and enumerates long lists of species he knows, tells us about their dire projected future and the doom to come. And of course fills his comments with the stupidest insults while waiving his CV.

What amazes me is that this guy seems to believe he is making some grown up argument. But on the other hand he again lists the Stus, ianams and cheks etc of these threads as those he wants to convince and impress, so I guess one shouldnât expect too much grown up behavior ..

The Deltoid cronies now argue that since we don't know for absolute certain, since nobody has really seen everybody's emails (or phone calls), since the 2nd hand recounted hearsay dinner conversations still are just that, since the possibility exists that all the stories and accounts and released emails are just the **least frightening** ones ..

.. therefor the campaign of death threats reported around the world last June still just might possibly be true still. And that no one really exaggerated any threats, concocted up death threats, and claimed an office move was in response to a dinner squabble one year earlier, or a nasty email long before that.

It's similar to the notion that all those scare prediction about the future, made in the past based on the 'best science available' (unvalidated computer simulations) still might come true, that it's just happenstance that natural variablity, ENSO-effects, aerosols, sunspots and -activity, noise and internal variability and everything else just are lining up to conceal the true truth about those predictions and the climate crisis.

It all just might possibly still be the absolute truth we've been fed for so long.

But honestly, the prospects for this being so are looking increasingly dimmer (and dumber). But if you all have been so convinced and certain and that 'the science' is all on your side, you of course must maintain that belief ...

On the other hand, if you take a stance like that, solely on the belief in what others claim to be the only 'science' to be allowed and accepted, you of course run the risk of being caught with you nickers around your ankles ..

As you say, there is still a (very very unlikely and) slim possibility, that your nickers are just in the right place .. Ain't it?

:-)

Hehe...the sore toe to step on here on this pseudoscience blog is obviously Mann. I simply asked the foilhats from how many trees the Arch Bishop Mann had data from and how many he actually used when he constructed his hockey stick. And why. And you know what, all my recent comments were deleted. What an enormous owngoal. When the foilhats know they can't dodge the question, simply delet it. But the really funny part is that they don't seem to understand that by doing so they only poor gasoline on the fire. Shutter Island indeed. :-)

I see that Jeffie once more is trying to 'argue' by using kindergarten labels instead. Most likely he doesn't even know what he is arguing, or arguing against. It's just the 'against' by which he navigates:

He has absolutely zip to contribute about 'climate change', doesn't even know (much less understand) what is claimed on 'his side' of the debate. And still he rants, screeches and hisses and throws his little fits and demands that others must accept his beliefs that are built on blind faith.

What is this guy even doing on a site discussing climate science and the climate scare?

I can't remember one singe issue where he has actually addressed what has been on the table. And whoever said it was spot on right: Jeff is scared of numbers ...

If nutty James Hansen predicts at three- to fifteenfold increase in sea level rise rates, one must believe him because of his 'reputation', because Jeff admires him because he 'stands up to' the criticism and attacks from 'the right'.

Sea levels and the rate of rising, are immaterial to Jeff. As is most reality. But siding with the alarmists is all that matters ... and if they once more were spectacularly wrong, it doesn't matter since those who were right were right .. which little Jeffie-ranter just knows is wrong.

He supports the OWS-movement ... not because such white trash ever can accomplish anything, but because they are against ... just against.

Well maybe I'm wrong. This indeed seems to be a refuge for the last climate loonies who cannot put together complete sentences, whose only means of navigating in the real world is by hoping that they guessed right .. and clinging to others who did likewise.

Jeff even solicits their support here. While trying to deride me for not giving all the details about my day job. What a farce ..

And although it is blatantly obvious that I know far more about many matters, little Jeffie wants to tell me that I don't know one single thing.

Fighting reality blindly ... once more

What a joke!

And he is too afraid to face me, although he has Tim's protection ... I wonder what he is so afraid of ...

Paul H

You were requesting quite detailed answers and clarifications from me before. You even made some quite bold statements about what you had seen and were prepared to argue.
However, I have not seen you commenting after you last (repetition of a) request, and this is now weeks ago.

Were you going anywhere with your questions? Because so far I havenât really seen where that might be ⦠And I think all my answers to your questions have been reasonable and not very controversial.

But I did note the bolder claims above (in #3644) and will remind you and others of them â¦

I notice that Jeff still argues some backwards-reasoning why the climate scare after all should be believed to valid and true. And as so often his âargumentâ are the opposite of how science (real science, that is) is carried out. It is once more nothing but an appeal to what should be believed, and mostly even believed blindly.

The gist of the âargumentâ is once more based on various appeals to authority, to lengths of CVs, to numbers of publications about the matter, number of citations, or journalâs impact factors etc. Everything but the core crucial comparison with reality, how it holds up when tested.

It is perfectly true that there are an awful lot of publications who mention global warming, AGW, which âacceptâ it, and which cite others that do so too. How the heck can it be anything else after decades of rampant climate hysteria and all!? It is also true that such publications appear in âprestigious journalsâ and are cited often.

But what does that mean wrt reality? What does that prove? The answer is: It proves that there are more publications mentioning, relying on, repeating etc the various AGW-claims.

The relevant questions is rather if the basic claims (the large positive feedbacks due to CO2-level changes) become more well funded, more confirmed, validated affirmed if these numbers increase!

And the answer is: No! Such repetition, citations, publications (impact factors) do not further prove or support the correctness of the underlying hypotheses. To believe so would be sloppy to put it mildly. It would be wrong, it would be an non-scientific argument. And unfortunately, it is those we see an awful lot of. Some even argue that those not accepting the belief therefore must be wrong, and labels such as anti-science, DK-afflictees and worse are used.

In stark contradiction to what real science and the scientific method actually is.

One might wonder why so many are so against goi9ng about the questions as one would do in proper science. I would surmise that those who shout like many here, just are afraid of finding out for real, and getting proper answers to the relevant questions.

Judging from the shouting and what goes on, the last thing they want to learn more about is how the climate works, and what can be said about that. Possibly because it just might shatter their beliefs ..

And that's why the deltoids no longer dares to debate with you, here on the only real science thread on deltoid. ;-)

I see there is quite some effort made (from the pseudoscience discipline called 'dendroclimatology) to justify the practices of picking and ignoring whatever data you like/dislike, and want/don't want others to see. And that this is welcome and cheered on by the remnants of the faithful believers ...

Gavin Schmidt is starting to sound like Jeff here, in his cringing attempts to argue that we should just believe the (self professed) experts, trust their conclusions, the integrity of both them, their calculations and their data, their capacity to 'just know' whatever happens to be needed to know, for instance what trees have been 'thermometers' consistently over decades, even millenia, and which haven't. Or when such trees were indeed thermometers, and when they 'decided' otherwise.

And of course that all such assertions should neither be checked or questions by others. Again the 'argument' often revolves around 'peer reviewed and published', that therefore firstly, the 'conclusions' should be accepted and trusted and regarded as 'truth', and secondly no objections, questions or criticisms are valid, even legitimate.

Further it is 'argued' that whatever unanswered questions, and unresolved issues there are, those should not be raised by others. Instead those on the inside should (again!) be trusted to raise the 'relevant' among them. Eventually! And others should just wait patiently until the team members can be bothered to do so, to raise the questions, release the data and code, all of it, even adverse results, and publish those at some undisclosed future time, until which they should be considered as 'unpublished, work in progress'.

Well, these practices may work for the faithers. But they have absolutely nothing to do with real science. Matter of fact: They reveal quite well what it is about. And curiosity, scientific inquiry, genuine and honest interest to learn more about the truth, reality of present and historic temperatures , and the best practices to assess those or learn more about the methods .. is not among the primary motives.

Fortunately, this is becoming more obvious to increasingly wider circles and audience, and you can't put that cat back in the bag. Although some on the faither side think that the decline in support and trust in 'climate alarmism' and purported 'science' needs to be countered with better communication strategies ..

Presumably aimed at the remaining faithers and the still gullible. And of course at younger kids before they mature ..
And that would also explain their anger and outrage at everybody else who doesn't believe their gospel and speaks up.

And what about the catastophes the warmiztaz are claiming are going to happen if the temperature and co2 level rises? Well, tye catastrophe might be that the production of food might increase. That's really a catastrophe, isn't it?

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N20/EDIT.php

Well, is this site/blog really coming apart? Thousands of comments disappeared? OK, it's not a great loss to the world. But for some of the resident trolls it seems to have been the major source of 'inspiration' ..

Well, this has become a full blown joke. The few new threads in 2012 contain almost only ridiculous nonsense, and what goes on in the comments is even more pathetic. I find it quite amazing (and also amusing) that Tim Lambert mostly caters to that crowd.

However, I will make a mental note that one commenter Paul H here (among very few among the thousands disappeared) tried to make a reasonable civil argument, or at least the beginning of one.

However, he too made claims to know having seen read and understood, and afterwards being able to argue and defend that (in)famous AR4 attribution claim. He was very specific about that.

But it is now almost four weeks since he asked alnd later urged me for answers to his questions.

I will add Paul H to the rather length list who claimed to know, but ultimately never even provided the reference(s) purportedly behing the AR4 claim.

And I am not the least suprised. Nobody else has managed so far. Martin Vermeer's ref did not support it either, and he never even tried to maintain it did ..

Hi Jonas,

"But it is now almost four weeks since he asked alnd later urged me for answers to his questions.

I will add Paul H to the rather length list who claimed to know, but ultimately never even provided the reference(s) purportedly behing the AR4 claim. "

I don't know anything about Paul H Jonas, but I think many have just accepted "the Science" has handed down. It's not until you take the time to ask questions and evaluate the evidence, that you realise it's all very "iffy" and the risks over stated (being polite about it). Maybe Paul H is just starting down the path...(?)

Deltoids are "outraged" by those asking questions (your thread), trying to gain an understanding, "How dare you Question?", well that's healthy science for you, asking questions, the antithesis of orthodoxy.

We/you 've established over the last few months, I think to everyone's satisfaction, Deltoids don't "do" science, they consider it more a convenient "currency" for achieving a "desired" ideological end. Their Alarmism's had it's day I think.

Nobody takes CAGW seriously anymore, it's all become a bit of an embarassment.

New blog format is kind of screwed don't you think?

;)

PS, Why don't you just try posting on the open thread? nothing to loose, site is so screwed now, don't think anyone would notice.

Cheers!

GSW, I will, but there is no debate or any substance there to challenge. It would only be to see them scurry around a bit again repeating their empty memes ,,

Re: Paul H, here is what he claimed (above). Quote:

Jonas,

Responses to various quotes from Jonas @3639:

“Have you seen any proper science (from 2006 or earlier) based on which one can claim attribution of at least half the warming in the last 50 years on human activities with 90% (or higher) confidence?”

Yes.

“And if so have you read it and understood it properly.”

Yes.

“To the degree that you are convinced it is correct.”

Yes.

“And if so, are you then capable and prepared to argue the merits and answer to criticism and challenges?”

Yes.

“Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record.”

I’ve done my best to avoid making any sort of (pre)judgments about your opinions and views. In the interest of civil discussion, can you please avoid doing that? Thanks.

End quote

Note the affirmative 'Yes' to every specific question,

As our dear friends here (and wlsewhere) so often tell us in no uncertain terms: It is always worse than you would have thought!

:-)

Strange, my comment is stuck in moderation. I'll post it again:

GSW, I will, but there is no debate or any substance there to challenge. It would only be to see them scurry around a bit again repeating their empty memes ,,

Re: Paul H, here is what he claimed (above). Quote:

Jonas,

Responses to various quotes from Jonas @3639:

“Have you seen any proper science (from 2006 or earlier) based on which one can claim attribution of at least half the warming in the last 50 years on human activities with 90% (or higher) confidence?”

Yes.

“And if so have you read it and understood it properly.”

Yes.

“To the degree that you are convinced it is correct.”

Yes.

“And if so, are you then capable and prepared to argue the merits and answer to criticism and challenges?”

Yes.

“Judging from your questions and comments, the answer is No. I just want to ask and have it confirmed for the record.”

I’ve done my best to avoid making any sort of (pre)judgments about your opinions and views. In the interest of civil discussion, can you please avoid doing that? Thanks.

End quote

Note the affirmative ‘Yes’ to every specific question,

As our dear friends here (and wlsewhere) so often tell us in no uncertain terms: It is always worse than you would have thought!

:-)

Jonas,

Genuinely sorry for not responding sooner. Been a bit too busy.

"I would have picked different examples (but those were hardly the point, right?)"

Actually, I chose those examples because in these cases our knowledge comes from an array of sources, both quantitative and qualitative, and I would argue that we can't strictly derive a quantitative certainty about these theories. You could argue that the HIV/AIDS case is an exception, but every person that gets HIV ends up with AIDS, some die of other causes prior to that, or of course get drug treatment. The theory linking the two predicts that all people with HIV will eventually contract AIDS all other things being equal. So, in these cases how can we express our certainty that these theories are correct? These theories are recognised as being robust within their respective domains, so how can one express that to a lay person or to other scientists that aren't in the same field?

I would argue that there are similar types of evidence, i.e. a belnd of types of evidence from multiple lines, supporting these theories and the relevant IPCC statement, so these theories share something in common with that statement in terms of how we arrive at that state of knowledge. Hence why I picked them.

I was going to attack Jonas N's, silly Statistical views again in the previous thread but I decided to take other's advice and not feed the troll.

So, no response there, (and maybe here if he persists in his trollery), doesn't mean he's won that argument - just that he's so unreal he deserves to be the object of pity.

By clippo UK (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

Sorry, I just canât resist this from Wikpedia re: Statistical Analysis (havenât figured how to link in Deltoid system yet) :- (& my bolding in each case)

Some consider statistics to be a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data,[5] while others consider it a branch of mathematics[6

&

Statistics also provides tools for prediction and forecasting using data and statistical models. Statistics is applicable to a wide variety of academic disciplines, including natural and social sciences, government, and business.

&

To prove the guiding theory further, these predictions are tested as well, as part of the scientific method. If the inference holds true, then the descriptive statistics of the new data increase the soundness of that hypothesis.

& much much more. Jonas

Your post #107 there is incredible waffle â the waffle of somebody who hasnât a clue.

...........................

So, back to the question I asked in the other thread :-

Tell me clearly why you think so many scientists in Global Warming related disciplines collect all this data.

Also, please tell me what sort of Mathematics does McIntyre, or Spencer, or Mckittrick , or Wegman etc. etc. use .

And why do they âanalyseâ the same data as other Staistical experts in Climate Science? - perhaps to create âmodelsâ of their own to âpredictâ lesser problems from AGW ???

Virtually all modern science and industry is dependent on advanced statistical analysis.

Youâre still wet behind the ears Jonas N.

By clippo UK (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

Clippo - You entirely miss the point. I never said that statistics aren't useful. I've been saying the contrary here for a week. But they need to be correctly applied.

As I said, and as it states in your link: You need a model, or a 'guiding theory' which essentially has the same function. The curve fit / equation alone is not enough for predictions.

And still, kiddo, fitting a curve is not 'advanced statistics'. Interpreting data towards a theory might be. And I already answered your questions. Essentially confirming what you just copied. But possibly you missed that too ... Sorry kid.

@Jonas

Nice to see you are still with us.

;)

Jonas said: "I never said that statistics aren't useful. I've been saying the contrary here for a week. But they need to be correctly applied".

Of course we've already heard that schtick from M&M, M&S and Wegman and look what a horlicks they made.

@Clippo

I re read Jonas's post #107, can you be a bit specific about your criticisms of it? I don't see much there that could be classed as controversial, have I missed something?

Briefly your points;

"Tell me clearly why you think so many scientists in Global Warming related disciplines collect all this data?"

Without raw data all analysis is meaningless. Not all data is collected for purpose of building models, in the main it is collected for weather monitoring.

"Also, please tell me what sort of Mathematics does McIntyre, or Spencer, or Mckittrick , or Wegman etc. etc. use."

They heavily use statistial analysis, if that is the desired point you are making(?)

"And why do they âanalyseâ the same data as other Staistical experts in Climate Science?"

It wouldn't make much sense to 'make up' your own data, although Mann is frequently accused of doing so.

Did you really learn advanced statistics just so you could fit a line? Microsoft sell a packaged called Excel, there are free packages around as well that are probably better.

In a way it is quite flattering, to get my own thread here.

Jeff Harvey (and quite some more) repeatedly claimed I was attention seeking, and not being on topic. But if you go back to the Rick Perry thread, and took out all comments spent on speculating about me, making up stuff about me, wanting to describe who I 'really' am etc ..

.. less than half would remain, I reckon. (Admittedly, I too responded to some of the blathering, and without that there would have been even less)

Funny thing is that the topics I touched upon, including the Mashey stirr weren't really responded to or relevant to discuss. Same thing with the more climate/IPCC related details about attribution etc. (At least not for the majority.)

No, my persona was much more in vouge. And especially among those who complained about me being off topic. But as I've said: Usually I assume that people bring to the table the best arguments the have (left). And being logical or consistent in one's stance just doesn't seem to be for everyone ...

But it's kinda comforting. In this thread i cannot be of topic, I am the topic. And if I just might vent my opionions too about som particluarly stupid remark or commenter, I'd still be on topic. Much more than those who have spent days and weeks here neither adressing the post, or de issues discussed ..

:-)

Try considering yourself as a pollutant whose increasing concentration of vapidity was making other threads intolerable, Jonas.

Andy S

You've already shown figure 9.9 several times. Thank you. And weren't you the one (forgive me if i mix up the signatures) who pointed out that 90% isn't 100%?

clippo

One more remark. Neither Wegman, nor McKitrick or McIntyre are really concerned with the models. What they focus on is not bungling the statistics. McIntyre considers himself to be a luke warmer (and left leaning politically, why that should matter). For all practical purposes you can label me as lukewarmer too, and I'm quite positive I made that clear in the beginning.

It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. But completely brainless. And detrimental to the environment, the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere)

@Jonas

"In a way it is quite flattering, to get my own thread here."

Agreed.

No one has much to say on the Dessler thread (old and incomplete news). Harvey's had a go at de-railing it to a discussion about 'policy', but there's not much interest in that I'm afraid. You'll get a few turn up to throw the mindless abuse they substitute for scientific debate.

Yeah, your own thread, Cool!.

;)

Had a quick look through Jonas' contributions on the CHE thread.

Should have known - he exhibits classic signs of Libertarianism (nasty affliction that one).

He's probably a devotee of Anyn Rand as well.

Just feel sorry for him.

*...McKitrick or McIntyre are really concerned with the models*

Poppycock. Both have affiliations with far-right think tanks (the Fraser Institute and George C. Marshall Institute respectively) which receive huge amounts of money from the fossil fuel industries. If these two had a shred of integrity they wouldn't go within a country mile of any of them.

*It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. But completely brainless. And detrimental to the environment, the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere) *

In YOUR opinion Jonas. And, whether you like it or not, your opinion is as good as a fart in the wind. I will say it again: you want to make a splash? Write a paper and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's how I do it, as well as being a former editor at Nature. In recent years I have presented both plenary and keynote lectures at conferences, and this only came about because I am a well-published scientist whose work is cited well in the empirical literature. You hate to hear it, but your views are worth zilch because you refuse to write (or are scared to or both). Why don't you give it a try if you think that you are right? I am sure GSW is dying to collaborate with you on it. And if not, why not? Do you honestly think that commentary on blogs like this is heavily recycled in scientific circles e.g. conferences? Well I hate to rain on your parade, but it ain't.

Scientists are, for the most part, not talking about 'climate armageddon' anyway. We are talking about causation beyond a reasonable doubt. And the fact is that the rapid warming observed since the early 1980s has a human fingerprint all over it. It did so when James Hansen first raised the alarm in 1988, and within a few years of that the concern was growing. When I presented a lecture at a conference on climate change in 2002 in Denmark, the senior climate scientists I spoke with there told me that their view as that the current warming was certainly attributable to human actions. So who am I supposed to believe - these people with years of experience in their field or you, Jonas, who has no track record in any field of science? Do you think that we should listen to the views of scientists or do you think that the views of any Tom, Dick or Harry should carry equal weight? The only way I can assess your contribution is to have it judged by other scientists with the relevant expertise. So I am asking you to write up your rebuttal. Heck you've written five paper's worth of drivel on Deltoid alone in the past two weeks. Whay not save some of that energy for your Earth-shattering article? Or will you disappear into the fog along with your views, like most lay-contrarians?

Jonas claims that any measure to control climate is futile. I might just as well say that trying to influence biogeochemical and hydrological cycles is futile; all of these operate over enormous scales. But we know that humans are profoundly affecting cycles of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and other compounds, and that these effects are being manifested in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Moreover, humans monopolize almost 50% of net primary production and an equal share of freshwater flows. Why is it so hard to think that humans can also influence climate patterns both locally and over larger scales? Certainly we have altered the planet's albedo, as well as evapotranspiration regimes in heavily deforested tropical biomes (see work by Shukla, Nepstad and others).

And why is attempting to control climate 'detrimental to the environment'? And Jonas' last statement, *the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere)* is gibberish. What is 'fingerpring'?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

@11

Where Jonas tries his hand at concern-troll.

Poor effort - can do better.

@Harvey,

Hope this helps - 'fingerpring' is a typo he meant to say 'fingerprint', the letter 't' is just above the 'g' on the standard keyboard. Surprised you couldn't work it out for yourself. I know you non empirical types struggle with that sort of thing - thinking that is.

GSW.

In my recent posts I have attempted to draw a corollary between cause-and-effect relationships in complex fields in which there are many 'unknowns'. Population and systems ecology are an excellent example. Above I try and explain that humans are a global force whose effects are manifested in other areas (e.g. biogeochemical cycling, redirection of NPP etc.). so why anyone would try and suggest that we cannot influence climate is beyond me. But of course, neither you or JonasN address the important link between scientific uncertainty and public policy. I give many lectures on this field and it lies at the heart of mitigation efforts. Trust both you and Jonas to muff it.

And with respect to 'derailing the thread over policy', your darling bosom buddy above does just that: *It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile*. If this is not an 'opinion' calling for inaction, I don't know what is.

Methinks you ought to actually read what I say before you put your foot into your mouth again.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

GSW:

*you non empirical types*

Listen lunkhead - I have more empirical papers in peer-reviewed journals than you and most of your buddies put together. My guess is that you don't have a single one.

So put up or shut up, right wing troll.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

...and for that matter, there's no such word as 'anthropogening' either...

seems like English grammar is another one of Jonas' weak spots.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Harvey,

I do try to read what you say Harvey, unfortunately it's all emotional, irrational nonsense, which doesn't really assist in the flow, if you know what I mean.

Grow up! buy a maths book and start from there!

@Harvey,

Also, 'anthropogening' is another spelling mistake/typo, not an error in grammar, cretin.

;)

Jeff,

Your posts are educational for those of us interested in science. We value the contributions and insights of a working, widely published scientist.

However, your eforts are totally wasted on Jonas, GSW and their ilk. They can lie, distort, misconstrue and smear to their hearts content, while you, being a member of the reality-based community, are at a distinct disavantage, restricted to mere facts and logic.

Jeff H - Do you really think that your exclamations have a different impact when I read them for the third or forth time?

Jeff - Seriously, you are so immensely boring, that even the small points of relevance you sometimes touch upon, those that would be interesting to discuss if you were capable of keeping a level head, totally get lost in your emotional rants and frustrations.

If you really don't know what a fingerprint is, I'd accept that and leave it there. But trying to make dungpile of a typo is just so lame and boring .. and as I said: It is what people try when they have no better arguments (left).

I see that you now also have adopted the fossil funding meme. Completely giving up on what actually is being said. I reckon that you, at the same time, think we should not discard everything that is said from those taking tax money, which has to be taken from people using coersion under the threat of force and violence.

If I were you (and I am not) I would tread carefully here. Because me thinks that without the force of the government, that is if you had to earn your money honestly, by offering others your services, at the rate they are prepared to pay you, you would not be as well off.

You have repeatedly made derogatory remarks about workers in cardboard box factories. But they earn honest money. And they are taxed heavily to pay for all kinds of nonsense, and additionally for quite a number of 'liberals' insulting for their work them on top of that ..

It's nothing I can respect. And that goes for much of your comment. But I will respond to one more thing, which has some relevance:

"Scientists are, for the most part, not talking about 'climate armageddon'" which is true, and those scientists I can respect, even when I don't agree with them. Unfortunately quite some of the most prominent ones, and the IPCC in general, unabashedly promote all kinds of 'climate armageddons', and those are the ones we are hearing the most about or from.

You for instance are promoting the ecological diversity armageddon, and my understanding is that you totally believe in that you have seen the light. In exactly the same whay as all previous foretellers of disaster have. Because they too thought, that this time it is really for real ..

And I am not even challenging your beliefs, just noting that you are totally incapable to do anything about it. Publishing ten more papers of the scare, will at best get some media attention ... and then the world will proceed exactly as it did before.

@Michael, Jeff,

Jeff is at a distinct disadvantage solely because he doesn't know what he is talking about, which is limiting in most professions you'll find.

@Jonas,

Quite a successful first evening I think, Keep it going!

For allt the Jeff:s in the world who will misconstrue any typing error, I want to correct the above to make clear that i meant:

" they are taxed heavily to pay for .. quite a number of 'liberals' insulting [them] for their work on top of that "

I'd suggest that the Booker/Delingpole wannabees here will only continue to play various combinations of denier bingo and are best left alone to mutually masticate over their entirely dull, predictable and evidence-free views.

chek,

I find their ranting strangely compelling.

Personally, I'm hoping for some more comedy gold like when Jonas lectured me on how I didn't understand "errorbars".

So Jonas is an extreme far-right Libertarian. Suddenly everything is so clear.

;)

Real Climate has the Bore Hole. Every politically-tinged site should have the equivalent. When a bore get naughty, there's a siding to park them in. Like sending a 4 year old to go stand in the corner.

By Jeffrey Davis (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

That's called SILENCING DISSENT Jeffery. It just feeds into their paranoia.

@8 GSW

It wouldn't make much sense to 'make up' your own data, although Mann is frequently accused of doing so.

Yes, Mann is frequently accused. Cleared because there's no actual evidence. Accused again. Cleared again because there's no actual evidence. Accused. Cleared. Accused. Cleared. And so on, ad nauseum.

In fact, it has transpired that it doesn't even matter who or what organisation is actually doing the "inquiry" into Mann, or whether they are supported or not supported by sceptics. The end result is always the same after all the "evidence" is examined.

As I have asked previously: Do you think there might be a simple, logical, rational reason why Mann gets cleared of fabricating data so often by so many different lines of inquiry looking at so many lines of evidence? Or is the conspiracy just far deeper than you ever imagined?

And I'll repeat my other recent question: Does it make you ponder why sceptics so often seem to have a credibility problem and end up getting treated with derision and scorn? I would think that if sceptics are the supremely logical and rational thinkers they seem to believe they are, then they might finally be nearing the point where they could safely concede that Mann probably hasn't fabricated anything at all. Maybe?

re: 31

There is no actual paranoia. It's contrived. (You can't offer an elaborate, cooked argument w/ cherry-picked data and not know it.) They've decided to scream, so let them.

Over there.

By Jeffrey Davis (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

Where's my threaD tim ? Or cat got my tung (again) ?

By Billy Bob Hall (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

I quite enjoyed the irony of Jonas calling JeffH "boring".

On the one hand, we have well-written and informative opinions based on real-world observations from a professional whose work is accepted for publication by respected science journals.

On the other hand we have a nauseously long-winded fog of nonsense recycled from idiot-blogs by an anonymous cretin.

No, it isn't Jeff who's "boring".

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jonas

Contact Bob Stringer (ex CSIRO scientist), Ian Plimer (Adelaide University) Bob Carter (James Cook University)
Chris De Freitas (University of Auckland), give them an outline of your research and ask if they are willing to collaborate with you on working up your ideas into a paper in a scientific journal, e.g. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

Let us know when your important paper is published.

What is the most common bird on earth?

Yes, its the chicken. Human influence again....

By John Brookes (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

John @ 36.

Away with your AGW (Anthropogenic Global Waxing (of chickens)) theory.

The current high numbers of chickens are simply natural varibility. Haven't you heard of the MCP (Medievel Chicken Period)? Chickens even grew in Greenland then.

Apparently the Vikings used to make wine out of chickens in Greenland during the medieval warm period.

Jonas Curtin told me.

@Mikem

The main thrust of the sceptic case against Mann is his rather dubious (that's being kind) use of statistical methods.

Even non sceptics have expressed concern over his work. The CRU guys, Briffa + Osborne was it? (from memory as I don't have the reference to hand) thought his conclusions could not be supported and it is likely that it was as warm 1000yrs ago as it is today.

The importance of the MBH papers is played down now, even gavin says they were never anything more than just 'interesting'.

So No, I don't think we are near the point where it's going to be accepted as a 'valid' piece of work.

*The main thrust of the sceptic case against Mann is his rather dubious (that's being kind) use of statistical methods*

B*. The main case against Mann is politically and idealogically driven, just as it is against Hansen, Trenbarth and others. Mann's 'crime' was to publish a seminal article in Nature that has become the 'Alamo' for the denialist cause. They have used the hockey stick as the icon in their own anti-environmental crusade.

As John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton explain in "Trust Us, We're Experts', the climate change denial lobby has used every method in their book to debunk the science that they hate. That you, GSW, think that most of the so-called sceptics are interested in 'good science' tells me a lot about your understanding on the issue.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

Yeah, yeah ..

And it was Exxon, and the right wing think tanks who manipulated Mann to include the Tiljande sediments upside down ... We've heard it all before: Paranoia among the chicken ...

GSW said: "So No, I don't think we are near the point where it's going to be accepted as a 'valid' piece of work".

Yeah right, hence the untold millions invested in investigation after investigation after investigation of Mann.

The denier industry focus is transparent, GSW. The hockey stick totem is more of a Pavlovian fixation to them than that pigeon was to Dastardly & Muttley.

Thanks for all the support everyone here and other the other threads that were contaminated by JonasN (with support from simpletons like GSW).

JonasN has finally shown his true political colors - he's a far-right libertarian, which explains his loathing of government regulations, as well as his 'views' on climate science. I am sure that with enough coaxing GSW will also finally reveal his political affiliations as well, and - surprise! surprise! - it will mirror those of Jonas. GSW claims that I don't know what I am talking about (guffaw, guffaw) without discussing a single point I made (much like our right wing pundit). Another typical trick of the denial lobby - ignore substantive arguments with vacuous, dismissive jibes.

I certainly have better things to do now than to waste more of my time on another 'exiles' thread. Jonas can now proudly join the ranks of Curtin, Sunspot, Brent and others in their own rogues gallery of denial. Buh-bye.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Harvey

The thing about science Jeff is you are supposed to set aside your own politicial views/prejudices and consider each thing objectively on its own merits.

You don't, it's all politically and idealogically driven, you never ever address the facts or details of whats being said. You operate purely on prejudice. For some reason you think everyone else does to, it's what you accuse them of, the overwhelming majority of empirical scientists don't behave that way.

Are you one that did that Oickos(?) paper, this is exactly what I mean. Think about it for a moment.

@Chek

"The hockey stick totem is more of a Pavlovian fixation to them than that pigeon was to Dastardly & Muttley."

I have to admit there is some truth to this. The circus surrounding the controversial Mann is more like a sideshow attraction than legitimate scientific discourse and discovery.

Well, that's that's that then.

Jonas has no scientific arguments whatsoever, just a selection of denier greatest hits memes.

Quelle surprise.

@chek

The Exxon's behind everything is actually one of your sides 'memes'. Jonas was simply illustrating how ridiculous it is.

I'd like to know who "Jonas" is in real life. Is he one of the superannuated academics, usually geologists, who comprise the "Dad's Army" of deniers? (I noticed he uses "kid" to address others ...)

Or is he merely one of the paid claque that goes around disrupting comment sections dealing with AGW; the type of whom Upton Sinclair famously said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!".

@GSW

Childish, utterly blinkered, and transparently baiting.

Killfiled.

Jonas N.

It seems that you found it profoundly difficult to actually undertake a process whereby you might find the papers detailing the methodology used in the IPCC's establishment of ranges around modelled warming, and/or the researchers who conducted the work.

You certainly gave no indication of the extent to which you undertook any such investigation... and yet, you are determined to spread the meme that no work was done by climatologists in order to establish said ranges, and rather that the IPCC's "numbers are made up, guessed at best".

If you are so confident that you can make this claim, you must have read at least some of the IPCC's references and established that they don't provide the information required to establish the model ranges.

So, can you please list the IPCC reference papers that you have read, and determined do not contain the requisite information, or do not contain information needed to locate the requisite information about the model ranges?

And do you seriously stand by Glen Raphael's muddle-headed attempt at binomial probability?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

GSW,

Again, read the posts where I discuss 'complexity' in various fields of science as well as large scale processes influenced by human actions (aside from climate). There's nothing whatsoever idealogically driven by those comparisons; its just that you and Jonas refuse to discuss them in a scientific framework. Must either be because you don't understand environmental science or else I have hit a nerve.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

Although my response following seems to be attacking you GSW, itâs not meant to â Iâm just trying to get Jonas N to re-evaluate his âdenialâ and silly mis-understanding of Statistics â but you have had the courage to ask me to explain more

Re:- GSW @ 8

I re read Jonas's post #107, can you be a bit specific about your criticisms of it? I don't see much there that could be classed as controversial, have I missed something?

Jonas Nâs post 107 is general purpose rubbish. He could have looked that up in an elementary textbook â and I think Chrisâs in post #110 there claim in post that it is possibly even sub - undergraduate stuff elevates it considerably.
My main criticism, and why I entered this âwhack-a-denierâ Jonas N argument, was his statement in post #71 of the Dressler thread as Iâll call it,

There is nothing wrong with fitting straight lines to noisy and/or varying data, but those should not be confused with the actual data. And fitted lines carry no predictive or explainatory value. The discussion above was about where the hypothesis and real data agreed well, and where not. (trendlines are irrelevant for that purpose)

which shows heâs a naive babe where any science is concerned, but particularly statistics.

Data on itsâ own is MEANINGLESS - and tells you NOTHING. My fundamental argument is that scientists collect data to analyse and understand the mathematical relationships that cause the data â as Jeff Harvey suggested in post #18 here and from the extensive Wiki article.

Statisticians fit âlinesâ to âpredictâ â FULL STOP.

Re:- GSW @8

Not all data is collected for purpose of building models, in the main it is collected for weather monitoring.

To a slight sense, I agree with the first part but re: the second which I have bolded, what do Meteorologists do with weather monitoring data ? â make a forecast (or âprediction) perhaps?. (Furthermore,what is the common name for Meteorologists? - smile).
And thereâs NO WAY they can do that these days without enormously complex âmodelsâ derived from advanced statistics on horrendously expensive computers.

Re: GSW @8

They heavily use statistial analysis, if that is the desired point you are making(?)

YES! â prercisiely the point I was trying to get Jonas N to realise â he doesnât appear to accept the Statistical models that the IPCC and Climate Change science consensus have generated - but he will believe the Statistics / Models of a few vested-interest AGW deniers.

Re: GSW @8

"And why do they âanalyseâ the same data as other Staistical experts in Climate Science?"

Think about this question a bit more deeply â in my opinion, and probably many others, they analyse this same data to âcorruptâ the analysis to fit their pre-conclusions.

Re: GSW @8

Did you really learn advanced statistics just so you could fit a line? Microsoft sell a packaged called Excel, there are free packages around as well that are probably better.

Seriously, I was doing advanced Statistical analysis before even PCs came out. I did use Excel a little later but frankly, for extensive multivariate analysis, the then Excel couldnât match other specialised packages.

Re: Jonas N @ 12

It is the climate scare or even armageddon I say are unwaranted. And that all politics devised at controling the climate are not only futile. But completely brainless. And detrimental to the environment, the real one (not that possible anthropogening temperature fingerpring in the tropical mid troposphere)

So, in your opinion, reducing CO2 emissions, by say, lessening the combustion of fossil fuels and/or replanting tropical rainforests as a major carbon sink wonât have any effect on the atmosphere? Neither will the reduction of âsootâ from such burning ? Neither will the enormous pollution caused from burning coal ?

My God â youâre really freaked out.

By CLIPPO uk (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

Sorry some of my paragraph / quote formatting in the last post is not quite right.

By clippo UK (not verified) on 12 Sep 2011 #permalink

There was a guy called Jones
Whom on others placed the onus,
For his climate science education,
But âtwas mere masturbation,
For this libertarian named Jonas.

Bernard,

In the Sept Open Thread, [you essentially said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/september_2011_open_thread.php#…) only an idiot could not find the the relevant references in AR4:

>"Although, seriously .. I can understand why it is that you haven't been able to find any of the material in the IPCC reference lists. Idiot."

Well, I have not found them, which kinda makes the point you wanted to make, doesn't it? :-)

Only one litte detail remains. You need to show me that you are not an idiot, that you (or any non-idiot) actually can find them ..

(Oh yes, one more tiny little detail: They must be in there too, which kinda is the center of the whole brouhaha)

Re GSW (@ 40)

"Even non sceptics have expressed concern over his work. The CRU guys, Briffa + Osborne was it? (from memory as I don't have the reference to hand) thought his conclusions could not be supported and it is likely that it was as warm 1000yrs ago as it is today."

That's a little sad GSW. I thought you might be a serious sort of chap, but it seems you're one of those misguided individuals that considers nonchalant smearing and misrepresentation of scientists to be all in a days work. Have to say I'm curious about your motives! Perhaps like Dr. Roy W. Spencer you consider your political opinions "trump" honest representation of science [and even to the extent of playing the little cheerleader for the dullard Jonas ;-) ].

Anyhow, for those that might be interested in the science, rather than GSW's lazy falsehoods it's easy to see that "the CRU guys, Briffa+Osborne" (sic) think nothing of the sort. In fact Briffa and Osborn consider that the late 20th century and contempory warming is greater than anytime during the last 1000 years. We know this because they say so in their papers. Let's look at one of these:

Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation
M. N. Juckes, M. R. Allen, K. R. Briffa, J. Esper, G. C. Hegerl, A. Moberg, T. J. Osborn, and S. L.Weber (2007) Climate of the Past 3, 591-609.

Briffa and Osborn state at various points:

"The IPCC2001 conclusion that temperatures of the past millennium are unlikely to have been as warm, at any time prior to the 20th century, as the last decades of the 20th century is supported by subsequent research and by the results obtained here."

and:

"The IPCC 2007 conclusion that "It is very likely that average NH temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were warmer than any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the warmest in at least the past 1300 years" (Solomon et al., 2007) is also supported by our analysis."

and of their own composite reconstruction:

"A new reconstruction made with a composite of 13 proxies extending back to AD 1000 fits the instrumental record to within a standard deviation of 0.14 K. The maximum pre-industrial temperature in the reconstruction is 0.25 K, in the 11th century, relative to the AD 1866 to 1970 mean. The maximum temperature from the instrumental record is 0.84K in AD 1998, over 4 standard deviations larger."

Obviously they're not too impressed with the flawed 2003 "critique" of Mann's work by a pair of Canadian bullies (McKitrick and McIntyre aka MM2003) whose work they consider to be "discredited".

"Also, data from South West Mexico was omitted in MM2003 (discussed further in the SM). McIntyre and McKitrick (2005b) [MM2005b] revisit the MM2003 work using the stepwise calculated principal components. They claim to reproduce the results of MM2003 by making only minor changes to the MBH1998 proxy data base. However, examination of the relevant figures shows that the MM2005b predictions for the 15th century are 0.3K warmer than the MBH1998 result as opposed to 0.5K in MM2003. This is still significant, but, unlike the discredited MM2003 result, it would not make the 15th century the warmest on record."

Chris @ #56

The problem is that on the one hand the denier echo chambers create an alternative reality in which goons who inhabit that undergound like our double act here, come to believe that what is repeatedly rumoured and insinuated must be true, and no matter how flawed their understanding (which can never be admitted). On the other hand they may just as easily be cold, stone-faced, deliberate liars.

It's the only way that their netherworld can sustain itself. Like any cult, really.

@Clippo

Thanks Clippo, I don't really have an axe to grind over a lot of what you say. I few points did grate however.

"Statisticians fit âlinesâ to âpredictâ â FULL STOP."

I'd prefer to say statisticians fit lines to establish and quantify "relationships". The relationship established one could then go on to make predictions admittedly.

"Not all data is collected for the purpose of building models, in the main it is collected for weather monitoring."

None of the data collected in the late 19th and early 20th century was collected for building 'models'. You can easily determine that a storm with high winds is heading your way from a series of barometric plots.

Also, at the risk of being pedantic, you said for the purposes of 'building' models, the fact that this data is routinely 'input' to models for weather forecasts is a different matter entirely.

"Think about this question a bit more deeply â in my opinion, and probably many others, they analyse this same data to âcorruptâ the analysis to fit their pre-conclusions."

Well I don't doubt that your pre conceived ideas as to individuals motives 'colours' your view.

I'd simply point out that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy were analysing this data to better understand the physics of the atmosphere long before the subject became controversial. Your conclusions as to why they do so now is very much your own opinion.

jackerman (@ 57 and @ 60)

Yes, quite so jackerman. But GSW has on a couple of occasions had the audacity to step away from a stream of insults, sly insinuations and cheer-leading for the delightful Jonas to make some specific claims. Perhaps he thought readers might not notice, but it's worth addressing these specifically. GSW might not care for the truth (he seems to be "operating on prejudice" as he quaintly puts it), but I suspect the vast majority of readers, just like the vast majority of scientists, like to get stuff right.

of course, I meant "jakerman" (not "jackerman")

Hi JonasN,
I apologise for possibly mischaracterizing you elsewhwere. Is English your first language? If not that might explain part of your relative incoherence to readers here. Can you briefly summarize in scientific protocol for us, your position re AGW? FYI I have no scientific qualifications but FWIW I accept that black holes might pop into and out of existence through and within us at Planck dimensions.

By Andrew Strang (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

self correction - Planck scales

By Andrew Strang (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jonas N.

>Well, I have not found them, which kinda makes the point you wanted to make, doesn't it? :-)

So, what you're saying is that you haven't actually read any of the IPCC references?

Riiight...

>Only one litte detail remains. You need to show me that you are not an idiot, that you (or any non-idiot) actually can find them ..

Jonas N, I am planning to go through as many of the (clearly referenced) papers that you claim have no explanation of the methodologies behind the IPCC statements, as I can obtain through my institution. To do that I need to know which papers you've read, and have decided don't contain any of the methodologies that describe the determination of temperature ranges.

You need to stump up petal. You've been libelling the IPCC, many professional climate scientists, and other people of intelligence and intregrity such as John Mashey, but you don't ever supply anything by way of evidence or substantiation. Whenever you're pushed to provide such, you wiggle and scratch and squeal like a cornered rat.

So, let's have it. Where's your analysis of the IPCC's report and it's sources and authors? Where is the basis for your nonsensical claims?

What substance do you actually have, little troll?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jonas, sweetheart? Why are you still wasting your brilliance on us poor, misguided plebes?

As you helpfully collaborated in another thread, there are millions of Exxon dollars to be had if only you publish your laser-like arguments, your thorough and scientific trouncing of all the nincompoops at the IPCC.

Why, Jonas? I'm only looking out for you. I want what's best for the you, and the world. Your insights should be immortalized, stat! The world cannot wait any longer!

Run, Jonas, run!

GSW

>I'd simply point out that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy were analysing this data to better understand the physics of the atmosphere long before the subject became controversial.

I'd simply point out that not once in the past twenty years has any of their work stood up to even mild scrutiny.

Spencer, Lindzen, and Cristy's ideas will die with them.

Which reminds of that funny little saying;

Science advances one funeral at a time.

> If I were you (and I am not)

For statistics gathering purposes, I'd like to know how you came across Deltoid, Jonas. Rarely do we a specimen of Objectivistus Americanus so perfect that he feels "I am not you" is a necessary clarification to make :)

(I came across deltoid via slashdot many, many years ago, as Lambert profiled some PR groups that were paid to attack Linux.)

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

No, Bernard #65, that's not what I'm saying. Read what I say, and stop inventing your 'facts', OK?

And I can't remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before. The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, acertaining that certain facts were to be found there. And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.

Unfortunately, this practice is quite common even when one paper references another saying 'it has been shown by XX&YY that .. see [ref]' while it only was surmised tentatively in the dioscussion, or valid under specific restrictions.

Wich is much worse, than when an anonymous blog commenters tries to pull a quicky and dirty ..

So nowadays, I ask the referrer if (s)he has actually read and understood the contents, and would be able to discuss and defend them, if I read it. I don't make the effort to follow references from random people who in their posts show that they cannot phrase specifics, valid arguments or even their own stance.

In short, I need at least to respect them and have the impression of a person who can has some knowledge of the field (preferably has read that reference too)

But I think you make a mistake here.

Finding central scientific results is not (should not be) very difficult today, especially if it is (supposedly) so widely known as the IPCC AR4 centerpiece claim.

You shouldn't need to dig deep into numerous publications which nowehere indicate that this is to be found there. This is the reason people write papers, cite them, and use references.

And I have not libelled the IPCC, or any specific (namned) climate scientists. Merely pointed out that the basis for that claim is immensely difficult to find (and more and more seem to grudgingly agree no).

Yes, tentatively, I have said that (I think) it doesn't exist. Because that is a falsifyable statment.

As i wrote: I am sticking my neck out, go ahead and have a swing.

But I can't (ever) prove a negative (and those few among you who something about science, of course know that)

So in short Jonas can't name any papers he believe prove his point. Edifying stuff.

>I don't make the effort to follow references from random people who in their posts show that they cannot phrase specifics, valid arguments or even their own stance.

Good advice. How tedious it must be that these cretins go as far as to reference something! Probably a taxpayer funded paper by Michael Mann too!

@Bernard

"What substance do you actually have, little troll?"

Come of it Bernard, you can hardly accuse Jonas of being a Troll on his own thread! It's rude if nothing else!

;)

*And I can't remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before. The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, acertaining that certain facts were to be found there*

Good grief, the pit Jonas has dug for himself is so deep that he's liable to pop up on the other side of the planet any time now. This is a classic case of the mouse that roars. "Can't remember off the top of my head?!?!?" "I used to follow are read references that AGW proponents pointed me to?!?!?!?"

How much more lame can this clown get? And to think we have tried here to pry from his big mouth the actual science behind his screeds! But our resident troll has a memory blank when it comes to the actual peer-reviewed studies, and all we are left with is his admission that "I used to read papers - trust me, I really did, once upon a time in the good old days when they were given to me".

This guys becoming more of a hoot every second. Priceless!

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jeff - Inventing your own 'facts' and 'truths' still is a really lousy method for understanding the world.

Really, how dense can you be? Show me were that claim is based on real science, or shut up! All you guys have been doing is shouting that it must be in there (for the most peculiar reasons) but none of you has seen it either!

The implicit claim you are making is that it is so deeply burried and well hidden, that nobody can find it if he/she is looking really hard for it.

Well, if it indeed exists, it is! You are the living walking proof of that ...

What Jonas said:

"And I can't remember from the top of my head which ones I have checked before. The thing is that I used to follow and read references that AGW-proponents pointed me to, acertaining that certain facts were to be found there"

What Jonas would have said in a perfect world :

"All of em Katie"

Re: GSW @59

Clippo - "Statisticians fit âlinesâ to âpredictâ â FULL STOP."
GSW - I'd prefer to say statisticians fit lines to establish and quantify "relationships". The relationship established one could then go on to make predictions admittedly.

I put âlinesâ & âpredictâ in inverted commas for a reason â to imply quantified relationships had been found.

&

Also, at the risk of being pedantic, you said for the purposes of 'building' models, the fact that this data is routinely 'input' to models for weather forecasts is a different matter entirely.

I didnât say this â please re-read what I wrote. To help you, I said that meteorologists / weather forecasters, put âcurrentâ weather information into very complicated âmodelsâ (by implication derived by Advanced Statistical analysis of older data), to forecast short term weather.
&

You can easily determine that a storm with high winds is heading your way from a series of barometric plots.

Can you ??? I severely underestimated you â but why do NASA, say, monitor the progress of hurricanes and TS worldwide using satellites & state of the art technology?

I'd simply point out that the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Christy were analysing this data to better understand the physics of the atmosphere long before the subject became controversial.

No they werenât (except Linzden perhaps) â they only started analysing this data at the bejest of the âdoubt scienceâ USA right wing. You should try to read some books like History of Global warming (Spencer Weart), The Republican war on Science, (Chris Mooney) &, of course, Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway) and others.
And I agree completely with John in #67

I'd simply point out that not once in the past twenty years has any of their work stood up to even mild scrutiny.
Spencer, Lindzen, and Cristy's ideas will die with them.

Finally, Iâd like you to clarify some ambiguity in your post # 108 in the Dessler thread :-

Jonas vs Clippo. I'd call that at least part way to a drubbing Jonas.

I have not studied many of your postings before GSW but Iâm beginning to become suspicious of YOUR analytical capabilities

By Clippo UK (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Clippo

Ok, happy to agree to disagree. Are you claiming weather forecasting didn't start until the NASA satellite era? are you being serial?

There's a bit of info around the net on the US Weather Bureau (18th Century) and how it developed over time - quite interesting light reading really.

;)

Jeff Harvey,

Could you please point to the Nepstad paper that shows specifically the alteration of 'evapotranspiration regimes' in heavily deforested tropical biomes?

Thanks.

Additionally, it would be nice if you could clarify what you mean by such mumbo-jumbo as "alteration of evapotranspiration regimes in heavily deforested tropical biomes". Sounds awfully scientific and like woo - all at the same time.

In my line of work, if a junior reported that such-and-such variable is "altered", "deranged" or something like that, he would be rapped on the knuckles immediately. He/she would have to be more specific.

You could have googled it, Shub, if you were really interested in learning something:

"...Climates can be classified according to the average and the typical ranges of different variables, most commonly temperature and precipitation. The most commonly used classification scheme was originally developed by Wladimir Köppen. The Thornthwaite system,[2] in use since 1948, incorporates evapotranspiration along with temperature and precipitation information and is used in studying animal species diversity and potential effects of climate changes..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

Shub the nobody said "In my line of work..."

Oh gawd - shub's pulling his voice of authority one out of his grab bag. This should be hilarious.

Remind us again what exactly it is you do shubby, and your achievements to date. Jeff we already know about.

Oh dear shub, I hope you're not a bully in real life! It's pretty obvious what Jeff's sentence means (are you really struggling over the word "altered"?)

I googled "Napsted evapotransipration and found two of the papers you're looking for. If you have trouble reading/understanding/downloading them, you can get a simple summary here:

interesting report for shub
(see chapter 2)

Nepstad, D, G. Carvalho, A. C. Barros, A. Alencar, J. P.
Capobianco, J. Bishop, P. Moutinho, P. Lefebvre,
U. L. Silva Jr, U.L., and E. Prins. 2001. Road
paving, fire regime feedbacks, and the future of
Amazon forests. Forest Ecology and Management
154:395-407.

Nepstad, D. C., C. R. Carvalho, E. A. Davidson, P. Jipp,
P. A. Lefebvre, G. H. Negreiros, E. D. da Silva, T. A.
Stone, S. E. Trumbore, and S. Vieira. 1994. The
role of deep roots in the hydrological and carbon
cycles of Amazonian forests and pastures. Nature
372:666â669. 78)

@Shub 78,

Apologies Shub, but why do you ask? You haven't been subjected to one of Harvey's biodiversity armageddon rants have you? (That's what Jonas calls them anyway)

Just curious,

;)

PS ignore the proles.

My apologies GSW. I was forgetting, as proles often do, that shubby is quite the intellectual, as it were, over at Montford's trash fiction promo site.

@chek

Not a prob chek. Good site the bish has. v. polite. Now back to your dustbin prole.

;)

GSW said: "Good site the bish has. v. polite".

I'm guessing your own irony just went way over your own head.

GSW@82

Why, yes! Quite a bit of time, and quite some time back too.

Has Shub managed to elaborate on his pompous "my line of work, if a junior....".

No?

Just more self-aggrandizing hot air?

Whodu thunk it??

@40, GSW

The main thrust of the sceptic case against Mann is his rather dubious (that's being kind) use of statistical methods.

Oh no, no, no, no. Do you not read WUWT and Climateaudit?

Have you not read the rants and raves against Mann on "sceptic" blogs? Have you not read the synthesis of the allegations sent into Penn State in an email bombardment? They mostly involve allegations of systemic fraud and allegations of a criminal nature. Heck, even prominent conservative politicians want him in jail!

You are mistaking criticism of his scientific methods with the frenzy of allegations made against him in the blogosphere. If you have problems with his scientific methods, then the place to show how wrong they are is in the literature with your own original work. Sceptics have so far spectacularly failed to do this (despite a valiant effort from McIntyre).

The main thrust of allegations from sceptics however, are of a criminal nature. Don't make me go and cut & paste numerous sceptic commentaries onto here to show you. These are allegations of widespread fraud. I'm sure you're well aware of the facts, however you choose to dress them up.

Thanks Chris, Chek, Holly Stick and others. You've answered Shubbie. The point I was making is that an emergent tree in a tropical rainforest recycles huge amounts of water from its roots that are diffused through above-ground plant tissues back into the atmosphere... millions of liters of it to be precise... convectional precipitation falling on the eastern slopes of the Andes is recycled several times as it moves east across the continent eventually falling on the Mata Atlantica forests of Brazil. Critical in this cycle is the feedback between the vegetation and the atmosphere. More than a decade ago, Shukla and colleagues projected that even a limited loss of tropical plant biomass would interfere with this cycle, with consequences that should be clear.

As for 'ecological armageddon', such a phrase could only come out of an anti-environmental handbook. Sounds a lot like something from Ronald Bailey or 'Rational Readings' etc. Well done Jonas and GSW; join the club. Membership does not require one having even a basic understanding of population or systems ecology in response to global change, but simply to ridicule the message, and damn the empirical evidence.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 13 Sep 2011 #permalink

Weather prediction sucked before large computer models were created on large computers and satellite observations were available (one, maybe two days). Today prediction is pretty good for over a week, and the pretty is better the larger the computers available to run the models.

It's sort of like medicine before scientific medicine in ~1900 when going to the quack was not very good for your health or like Medicare would be under the Republicans or the National Health under the Tories, you might call it weather prediction, but it would not be weather prediciton

Clippo

It is you who do not understand the basic things discussed here (and I suggest that you refrain from such stupid guessing about me)

What I said in #107 is perfectly correct:

The data is one thing,

Fitting a line (or a curve, an equation) to it is another

A model, a guiding theory, an attempt at an explanation is yet another,

Such a proposed model, may be fitted to observational or experimental data, especially when some factor/parameter of the hypothesis needs to be be determined (estimated, fitted) through that procedure

Predictions (projections) from that model into new (uncharted) territory is yet anotherthing.

The fitting, and the (explanatory) model are two seperate things. Fitting a straight line to dataset doesn't make that line a predictor. I have already mentioned the stockmarket as an example. The same is true for a data series you get when rolling a dice or the roulette wheel a number of times .. You may fit a nice line to it, and not much more.

For predictions you need an attempt at an explanation, a model.

Even when only extrapolating a straight (fitted) line, say into future, you implicitly make the assumtion that ther exists a ~linear relationship between the changes you observe, and the chosen parameter (time here).

And you are right, what I say is basic 101 of data analysis and handling, or any modelling, in physics or engineering. I too found it very strange that you felt compelled to throw a hissy fit ..

Wrt Climate, armageddon and politics:

You seem very prejudiced about that debate (and not very well informed). And yes, it is preferable to use up less resources (oil, coal, forrest) but realistically the effects on 'the climate' are undetectable even if you both manage (the Kyoto protocol) and the model predictions are true. Again, you first need to be aware of the magnitures discussed and compared. Humanitly is nowhere near stopping the using of coal. and soot reduction is desirable for all kinds of reason much more relevant than 'controlling the climate'.

Jonas do ever say anything? I have read your stuff, all the many many words. Is there a point to this stream of semi random letters?

By itsyourself (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

> The main case against Mann is politically and idealogically [sic] driven...

And you think that the catastrophic man-made warming movement isn't?

Oh, please.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

Shorter Bradford: radiative properties of the CO2 molecule? Oh, please.

> Is there a point to this stream of semi random letters?

I think it's "look at me!!!". Which is quite pointless over the internet.

@Jonas 93,

Mm, thoughtful post. You're a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren't you? there's a lot of honesty in you words. Some may not agree with them, but there's not much of defence against the truth.

Your thread's proving quite a success! the rest of blog is pretty quite. As someone said earlier "Compeling". Well done! Keep it up!

;)

So was that a tacit concession from Rick Bradford that the case against Mann actually is ideologically driven, or just a clumsy redirect?

*And yes, it is preferable to use up less resources (oil, coal, forrest) but realistically the effects on 'the climate' are undetectable even if you both manage (the Kyoto protocol) and the model predictions are true. Again, you first need to be aware of the magnitures discussed and compared. Humanitly is nowhere near stopping the using of coal. and soot reduction is desirable for all kinds of reason much more relevant than 'controlling the climate'*

The above passage is pure gobbldegook, utterly meaningless drivel (and the grammar is appalling). Its preferable to use up less resources? Soot reduction? And GSW calls this gibberish 'thoughtful'?!?! No wonder most on here think they both deserve each other. The poster Itsyourself nailed it with his response.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

GSW @ 85
"Good site the bish has. v. polite..."

Very, as you can see from the examples below,

Can we be sure Citizen Mashey is wholly sane?

John Mashey is a repugnant individual. He is one of the most repulsive compulsively dishonest people around

extreme, unbalanced and postulating behavior on the open blogs by certain acolytes of the so-called IPCC consensus

hyperbole hissy fits

Mashey's just pissed off that, someone, stood up and called him for he is

trying to create a commonality of criminality

basic structure, is to take a up-front denunciation of his ratf**king, as a sign of a denunciation of his ratf**king activities

this lays bare the man's oeuvre, self-perception, and projection: 'take me seriously because I read big fat books. Some of them have a thousand pages.'

The guy's slighty of the rocker .

a nuissance, pestering various bodies, demanding that this and that should be retracted. An internet stalker-wannabe

not just irrationally intolerant of any opposing views, they are starting to look fanatically imbalanced.

fringe-borderline-Mashey

Jonas N.

>No, Bernard #65, that's not what I'm saying. Read what I say, and stop inventing your 'facts', OK?

I've read what you say, and you said that you couldn't name any of the references that might have supported your case. Indeed, by your own words it seems that you have not read any of the IPCC references at all, and hence there is no need for me to "invent... my own facts" - I am simply summarising the gist of your own confessions.

>In short, I need at least to respect them and have the impression of a person who can has [sic] some knowledge of the field (preferably has read that reference too)

And so you are hoisted by your own, [stinky little petard](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard#Etymology)...

I have no respect for you, nor for your babblings, precisely because you have conclusively shown yourself to have neither knowledge of the field of climatology, nor to have read the relevant references, pertinent to the part of the field which you are counterclaimimg.

>Unfortunately, this practice is quite common even when one paper references another saying 'it has been shown by XX&YY that .. see [ref]' while it only was surmised tentatively in the dioscussion [sic], or valid under specific restrictions.

See, this is where Dunningly-Krugered lay folk often come a cropper, when pretending that they can swan around playing at science.

Real, actual science involves really, actually reading the literature in a field. Professionals do this all the time, right from the moment of starting the exploration of an hypothesis, through to writing up the experimental results of a subsequent investigation. Ask any PhD student how many hours weeks of their lives they'll have spent trawling through the references of papers, and photocopying shopping-trollies worth of journal volumes, both for their own work and for their supervisors: and if they started more than about a decade ago, it would have all been done without the magic of convenient web links...

These papers are painstakingly found and read, and their contents understood. It's simply a part of the process of acquiring expertise. The material contained therein is not repeated holus-bolus in subsequent papers, as you appear to think should happen, because that's the whole point of publishing the original articles, and of having reference sections in papers, and in having libaries, and reprints, and photocopiers, and post-grad students...

That you seem to have no awareness of any of this indicates how far removed you are from possessing any scientific competence with which to credibly comment on matters climatological.

A working knowledge of a discipline requires more than a few minutes with a web search engine. It's no different to studying for 10 years to be a surgeon, compared with googling 'astrocytoma' and thinking that you're suddenly equipped to perform a neurosurgical procedure.

Sadly, as the anti-vaccine and anti-HIV movements indicate, such arm-chair science is all too prevalent in the lay population...

>You shouldn't need to dig deep into numerous publications which nowehere [sic] indicate that this is to be found there. This is the reason people write papers, cite them, and use references.

FFS, your own second sentence contradicts your first, and puts the lie to it.

No, "[p]eople write papers, cite them, and use references" to document their original work, and to guide readers to previous relevant work. In a new paper the methodologies from previous work are rarely repeated verbatim except where discussion of such is germane to the paper; for example when describing methodological variations. And even then, when parts of methodologies have simply been replicated, they are simply referred to and only the varied components are detailed - otherwise the already expansive stacks in instituional libaries would be even more voluminous than they already are.

Such is the case with the IPCC's AR4. Remember, the IPCC is a body established to summarise the science, and not to perform it all over again or to dump all the literature lock, stock and barrel into a single source. This is exactly what Chapter 9 does - it summarises the literature, and tells the informed reader what the original sources were.

Get it? It's a document prepared by professionals to summarise the state of play for non-professionals. Other professionals and informed non-professionals are able to further their understanding by doing what any professional would do, and tracking down supplementary material. That you are - by your own words - incapabable of doing this with any degree of competence is simply an indictment of your lack of qualification to engage in the process at all.

Just because your ideology doesn't mesh with the science doesn't mean that you get to perform a revision from your soap-box. Sorry buster, but if you have a point, prove it scientifically, or get out of the way and let the experts do their job.

>And I have not libelled the IPCC, or any specific (namned) climate scientists.

?!

Go over some of your previous comments and think carefully about their content, petal. You might then want to reconsider this statement.

>But I can't (ever) prove a negative

Your "negative" is the claim to the effect that "the IPCC and the body of professional climatologists have not performed the calculations that establish 90% ranges for temperature projections in the future". It only remains unproven for you as long as you don't actually read any of the referenced material, just as not conducting an experiment renders just about any otherwise-testable hypothesis unproven.

If you had the guts to tell us what you've read, it could quickly be established whether your claim is correct or not. Of course, I could review the references myself, but I refuse to do your work for you, at least in the short term (I might perhaps revisit it down the track, as I sometimes do with other trolls - [Tim Curtin's potable seawater notion was one such](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/open_thread_62.php#comment-4893…), and [factoid's Sydney August 2011 temperature idiocy is another](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/the_australians_war_on_science_…)).

>and those few among you who something [sic] about science, of course know that

I know enough science to know that you are either completely ignorant of it, or are deliberately misrepresenting it for your own vested interest.

Either way, you're full of the brown sticky stuff.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jeff H - If you have a real objection, then go ahead and claim the opposites, ie argue your case of:

1. it is preferable to use up *more* resources (oil, coal, forrest)

2. realistically the effects on 'the climate' *are detectable* even if you both manage (the Kyoto protocol) and the model predictions are true

3. you *don't* need to be aware of the magnitudes discussed and compared

4. soot reduction is desirable for *only* the reason of 'controlling the climate' (or at least the *main* reason)

Well, go ahead an argue those cases, Jeff. If you can. Or just stop your brainless rambling here .. everybody already knows you're upset and angry .. an incapable of controlling it.

4. Humanitly is *very close* to stopping the using of coal

Mm, thoughtful post. You're a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren't you? Would Jonas pass the Turing test? Is he a test version of an AI? He has gone a long way with no content.

By itsyourself (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

>@Jonas 93,

>Mm, thoughtful post. You're a bit of of an unsung philosopher aren't you?

In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

"You're a bit of of an unsung philosopher pointless windbag like me, aren't you?

There, corrected that for you GSW.

Have to agree with GSW that this thread is fascinating - a perfect portrayl of denialism with its essential precept: "the denialist must at all cost avoid engagement with the evidence". The three denialists on this thread can feel proud of themselves by conforming beautifully to stereotype each in their own way:

Jonas simply disregards the existence of the science (he calls it "science", and for example asserts that the IPCC only "pretend" to present this!). He pursues this theme through post after post after post - we won't learn anything from Jonas and he's not going to let you forget it!

Jonas' cheerleader GSW has coined a nice phrase for his particular strategy - he "operates purely on prejudice". He wants to trash the science but lacks the evidence - so he simply makes it up! In classic denialist fashion this is accompanied with industrial scale hypocrisy.

Shub adopts the approach of the bully. Finding himself in the surprising position of being able to interact with someone knowledgeable and productive he doesn't pass up the opportunity for puny insult. Without bothering to try to engage maturely with the subject he attempts to belittle it as "mumbo-jumbo". Excellent! One might wonder why he bothers, but of course the denialist (especially the bully sort), is proud of the fact that he's disgusted by those hi-falutin people that try to explain stuff.

textbook stuff and very illuminating!

Bernard J

It is quite amazing how demonstably some individuals here need to misrepresent even the simplest things (in order to score some empty rhetorical point)

Your post contains so much nonsense and emotional rants, there is no need to bother with any of that. It's all bunk.

But you actually bring up two points which pertain to the topic:

1. You tell me I must "read the relevant references, pertinent to the part of the field which [I am] counterclaimimg", and

2. "It only remains unproven for you as long as you don't actually read" them

Both points rely on the actual existence of what I have been asking for. But you have now spent two (or more?) weeks telling me you don't know which they are, or if they indeed exist. Everybody else here has had the same time. I am definitely not the first to question that number. And the IPCC made that claim 4+ years ago, all this purported majority of, those 90% even 95% of the 'scientific community' who support the general message have known of the claim as long.

And nobody can produce the support! Nobdody Bernard!

It's still very simple:

Produce the darn referencens, the ones you label the relevant references (and read them before you invent facts again) .. and just show them!

Until you haven't done that, you are just, like everybody else, only guessing about their possible existence. And all bellowing won't conceal it ..

BJ @ 103 "These papers are painstakingly found and read, and their contents understood..."

It's that last word that trips up the denialists, Jonas just being the lastest in a long line trying to get by with just a facade of understanding.

Andy S - You tried the exact same link already in comment #3, and several times before. And repetition of a claim is somehow (amongst many here) assumed to strengthen that claim.

Well, in the real world, it's not ..

Huh?

Where is that? I can't see it. Someone show me where it is.
Where's my arse? Someone get me a flashlight....

Mikem, I think you are making several mistakes here.

>Have you not read the rants and raves against Mann on "sceptic" blogs? Have you not read the synthesis of the allegations sent into Penn State in an email bombardment? They mostly involve allegations of systemic fraud and allegations of a criminal nature. Heck, even prominent conservative politicians want him in jail!

you said!

1. You cannot take individual anonymous blog comments and make general statements about people not agreeing with a certain position. (Just look at what can be found here, at RC, at Tamino, Rabet, DC etc. The lowest level is low, by definition, regardless of side. Further, if you compare 'lowest level' )

2. When addressing what is being said by named people with official positions, like journalists, politicians, scientists and academics, government and GONGO employees etc, you need to make relevant comparisons. There have been plenty of hard words and threats from official AGW-proponents. Some worse than others, and would very much doubt that the balance is flattering to the AGW-side.

3. Policy is politics. You cannot propose what you hold to be policy relevant arguments, and claim that no political opposition is allowed. Expecting politics without oppostion, without being questioned, without other conflicting interests and issues would only be naive.

Some more roundup:

Signatures: Alan, Scribe, Andrew S, Harald K, itsyourself addressed me about things not realy central to anything here. If there was a serious question, could you please specify.

Further, signatures Stu and Vince had absolutely nothing to say (and their rambling may well be included among the rest here only venting frustrated wishful beliefs).

"Either way, you're full of the brown sticky stuff."

Bernard, are you suggesting Jonas is full of sticks?

Jonas, apparently without a smirk on his face, writes about me, saying, "everybody already knows you're upset and angry".

Sheesh, where did you come up with that little gem? Angry? Certainly not; you don't have that power over me, pal. Perhaps exasperated is a more appropriate word. Bernard's excellent post @103 sums it up perfectly. There was once a Star Trek episode, "Spock's Brain" where Captain Kirk and Mr. Scott questioned a primitive tribesman on a planet dominated by women. The tribesman, not understanding the meaning of the words "women" or "mate" replies to the crewmen: "Your words - say nothing". That quote perfectly sums up the musings of JonasN.

I won't comment at length on Jonas' 'humanitly' point. He has repeated this three times, and I assume he means 'humanity', but the point is still lost in translation. His other points are equally badly written but understandable. What I meant is that his first point is silly because of course it is desirable to use less resources (unless of course you are a corporate CEO and your aim is short-term profit maximization - try amking your point to the ACI or API). By soot I presume he means aerosols? But of course there is now evidence that aerosols can mask the effects of greenhouse gases, hence the effects of reducing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols has amplified the warming effects of greenhouse gases. But two wrongs don't make a right in this instance.

At the end of the day the costs of burning fossil fuels are externalized in economic price-cost scenarios (as are the costs of a range of anthropogenic processes on natural and managed ecosystems). If they were fully internalized, a point made by a number of economists and ecologists, then we would be paying a lot more for energy and for fuel, driving technological innovation for sustainable and environmentally friendlier and cheaper alternatives. Problem is, we've relied on economic models of costs formulated by neoclassical economists (e.g. Nordhaus) that either downplay the negative effects of fossil fuel use and attendant climate changes on ecosystems and their services, or else greatly underestimate the amount of technological innovation and investment were the prices to accurately reflect these externalities.

I agree that weaning us off of our addiction to fossil fuels in time to make notable impacts on climate is an almost impossible task, given the immense power of the lobbies that are protecting and profiting from them. However, nature is not so easily forgiving. We are pushing natural systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain themselves (see World Scientist's Warning to Humanity, 1992, which says that 'Humans and the Natural World are on a Collision Course'). Like it ot not, humans are conducting a one-off experiment on systems that are truly complex, if all of the biotic and abiotic processes are factored in. You, GSW and others appear to think its just fine to continue along the current trajectory. What else is there to say?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

>Your post contains so much nonsense and emotional rants, there is no need to bother with any of that. It's all bunk.

Fine.

Then deconstruct it and show everyone just what is "bunk".

You know, all scientificational-like. If you can be bothered, that is...

There's no point trying to turn your responsibilities on to other people just to avoid the embarrassment of having to face your own ineptitude.

And my original challenge stands - if you want to claim that there is no process for determining future temperature ranges in the literature, show us your review. If you can't show any such review, you can't make your claims.

At least, you can't make them in any scientific way. Ideological vested interest as a motivation is a different matter, but if that's your impetus then you're in the wrong place... Avez-vous compris?

Oo, that's right... that's why you've been put in your own cage - so that we can peer in and watch the troll smear shit all over itself, without having everyone else's subjects covered in the stuff too...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

>Bernard, are you suggesting Jonas is full of sticks?

:-)

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Harvey

Your usual drivel.

When Jonas says soot he means soot, don't you read any of the primary literature? One of Hansen's papers

"Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos" (2004)

Hard to read through your tripe, but I'll point out just one thing;

LIFE IS A ONE OFF EXPERIMENT

Presummably, in light of this fact, you will be spending your time hiding under the stairs because of all the big unknowns! Clown.

;)

Jeff H

You have never seen that particular science purportedly presenting the analysis for tham 90% certainty claim (and if you had seen it, you couldn't read it, because you don't master that topic)

The exact same is true for Bernard J, for Andy S, for Marco, for those few others who actually have a slight grasp of what is required. Nobody else I've asked has seen it (but my questioning rendered as much puffing and smoke)

And Martin Vermeer has not seen it. But he is the only one who actually gave a reference (which addressed something different). Bernard J can start there, although he rather fantasizes about 'facts' and 'truths' (and calls it 'summarizing my confessions').

Re: That Start Trek quote:

*"Your words - say nothing"*

Well, I can say it again:

*'That science is nowhere to be found, and none of you has seen it'*

And now, wweks later with three (four) threads of comments thrown at be about almost anything (else), I can honestly say wrt to my original statement:

*"Your words - say nothing"*

And the cute thing about it is that many among you know by now. Because you just have not found it, are aware of not haveing seen it, notice that nobody even tries (exept Martin V once), and I reckon that some have been searching quitetly, but in vain. (And yes, you do sound angry and frustrated)

Further, if you agreed with the general tenor of my suggestion not to misuse resources, your reply was even more strange ..

Re your final paragraph:

No, it is not the lobbies, it is the strivings of mankind all over the world that sets the needs for energy and how much is consumed. I already told you what it requires to make a real (measurable) impact on our CO2 emissions.

(which BTW are not particularly dangerous to neither the climate, nor to ecology or its diversity, but desirable to reduce for many other reasons)

GSW

Actually I was not really making the distinction, because the point is valid either way.

Reducing soot, sulphurs, NOx and other emissions is desirable, as is using less oil, coal, and rainforrest etc.

But 'the climate' is (at best) one of the lesser reasons for that. Pretty far down the line, I'd say ..

Bernard J #116

One detail suffices:

Show me that or those reference(s) you claimed were the relevant ones. You know, where that claim actually is demonstrated to be based on proper science!

Simple as that

... or go and play with your sticky-sticks ..

> But 'the climate' is (at best) one of the lesser reasons for that.

Why?

@Jonas 120,

Fair enough ;) Every now and then Jeff let's slip that he doesn't really read the Journals. He quotes copious references for this that or the other, but if it's not on the little list he's made for himself, well, he seems to struggle, curious.

Jonas! We get it! You've punched a monstrous hole in the armor of those alarmist "scientists" in the IPCC! No need to waste any more time on us knuckleheads, go publish!

Also, get rich!

re: #102
Michael: thanks for the set of examples. I'd quoted:
"John Mashey is a repugnant individual. He is one of the most repulsive compulsively dishonest people around"

but had not done a thorough catalog. That's a fine list.
Some Bad Lists are good to be on, although that one is rather lower-rated than some others I'm on

By John Mashey (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

GSW,

Come on you scientifically illiterate neophyte, you can do better than that. Defending the indefensible I would say. The last part of Jonas' post I responded to was a load of childish crapola. That you defend it shows that you'd stand behind anyone who spews out trash that gels with your own idealogical stupidity.

And please perchance tell me what gives you the impression that I have not been reading the scientific literature? I certainly DO read the literature in my own field (which is more than can be said for poor Jonas, who demonstrated that he doesn't read ANY scientific literature, except 'what his pro-AGW friends gave him'). And he claims not to remember any of it, the right wing troll (I suppose you are a right wing trolling idiot too, so you are in fine company). But on climate science I defer to the work those who are trained in the field. Unlike dupes like you and Jonas, who apparently don't read a jot of anything in any scientific fields, I have research to do, so I stick to my area of expertise. Last time I noticed I had 9 articles published this year in the peer-reviewed literature; I am on the editorial boards of two journals; I have three Master's and two PhD students to supervise and I have a lot of deadlines to meet. In all of those areas my guess is that you and Jonas have nil, nil, nil, nil nil and nil responsibilities. So, unlike you dorks I do not brazenly venture into fields where I have no specialist training and attempt to appear as if this is not a pre-requisite for one to be an expert. Gee, whose views to I trust in deciding if climate change is real and largely mediated by human activities... hundreds of scientists with years of training and thousands of published articles or a couple of numbskull trolls on Deltoid? Gee, that's a toughie...

To both you and Jonas: if you Dunning-Kruger acolytes want to debate me on ANYTHING I wrote in my last post, or to deconstruct my arguments, go ahead and try. You never do: just the usual vacuous remarks and quips.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

*But 'the climate' is (at best) one of the lesser reasons for that. Pretty far down the line, I'd say ..*

Which is to say that, since your opinion is worthless, it is to be ignored.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Jeff,

So you are perfectly open about the fact you don't read the climate 'science' papers?

Could I just ask, how do you know you are not being had?

The math is not complicated (though often vaguely described), the claims frequently outrageous based on the results, assumptions and methodology presented.

Is this why when Jonas asks for the papers you consider relevant you haven't a clue?

Guess what Jeff, you been duped.

GSW @ 128, I suspect Jeff Harvey knows that the vast majority of scientists are honest and forthcoming about the research in their fields and are generally excellent sources of expert knowledge.

GSW, pukka scientists don't "operate on prejudice" to the extent of fabricating lies in order to pursue their prejudices, in the manner that you seem quite comfortable doing. I suspect that's sadly something you simply don't get...

As for this waffle:

"The math is not complicated (though often vaguely described), the claims frequently outrageous based on the results, assumptions and methodology presented."

I'm afraid that's just noise. You make up "outrageous" lies, but it's a sad hypocrisy to think that because you lack scientific integrity, others do too. We had the discussion on the other thread about "good faith" and "bad faith" in science. Don't project your "bad faith" onto your betters GSW ;-)

Perhaps GSW can show Jonas and the rest of us the "math" he finds "uncomplicated" and specify the "outrageous claims" made upon the "results". I'm sure we'd all like to see something of substance from him for once.

But alas I strongly suspect that's nothing but more shubby-style puffery from someone whose every statement so far has been at marked variance with reality.

"Fair enough ;) Every now and then Jeff let's slip that he doesn't really read the Journals. He quotes copious references for this that or the other, but if it's not on the little list he's made for himself, well, he seems to struggle, curious.

Wow, now that is hypocrisy GSW - industrial scale I would say :-). Judging from Jeff's posts he is not-surprisingly well informed about his own particular aspects of climate-related research. As he attends climate conferences, and (you may not understand this too well) like all scientists generally works within a broad community that informs about the wider aspects of science, I expect he's far better informed about the science than you.

In fact I have seen zero evidence of any knowledge of climate science from you whatsoever [perhaps you consider your role here solely as a cheerleader for the Jonas? have to say it is curious! ;-) ]. But since your single attempt at referral to the scientific literature turns out to be a boring fabrication, it does rather highlight a rather shameless hypocrisy.

Jeff - You are the one being childish, pouting, emotional, angry, upset, illogical, making up 'facts' and 'truths' as you go along.

GSW is perfectly right questioning if you at all read what is written.

I think you tried three times with "your singular obsession with MBH98" before it finally sunk in that that not at all was what was being discussed. And many of your posts have the appearance that they more are premeditated harangues loaded with your prejudices. Because most often they not even relate to the topic, and they are usually riddled with sheer nonsense you need to make up about those you cannot have a civil measured debate with.

You may get some comfort from not being alone in that respect, and you have several times expressed appreciation for 'support' from the absolute bottom scapings available here. And on quite a few pro AGW-sites it looks very similar. I am fully aware of that the hang arounds at places like this aren't exactly the brightest minds ..

But you have been boasting about your little CV, about how many times you've been referenced, that you meet 'the big guys', even talk to them, and that some even listen to you giving keynote speeches. You yourself, described it as a pissing contest ...

Generally, you should be proud of being an accomplished academic. But what you deliver here is absolutely ridiculous and pathetic.

The main issue is still the centerpiece claim of the IPCC AR4, and the fact that still, more than four years later, when asked where that actually came from, people like you (and you say other scientists too) start cringing, and demand that I procide the reference that there is none!?

Amazing in its desperate and empty logic. The largest and 'fines't assembly of the worlds 'finest scientists' in the field, bring together the 'best' knowledge about the climate, and publish it in their reports, undergoing the most meticulous extensive 'review' process for any comparable review the world has ever seen ..

And none of you guys can find the refererence for the most bolstered claim!

That's where you are! Still. After several weeks. And four + years after it was presented.

Yes, it ereally sucks to have been the sucker ..

;-)

chris

To start with, you had some measured comments about what was being debated. But when you started to pretend to know whom of Dessler and Spencer was not only right about the what they are proposing, about how the clouds and the LWR varies after warming events ..

.. but also who of them was honest, and who knowlingly suppmitted untruths to make a case for underminig the science, you lost me.

Not for one second do I believe that you are capable of judging the first. And your second claim is just outrageous. I strongly suggest you take that accusation back (actually, I already did, but that comment got 'moderated')

But, that aside, if you think ther is any "evidence of any knowledge of climate science from you whatsoever", you are of course free to contribute to what all others have been fussing about but desperatly trying to avoid ..

Jonas, perhaps you should explain, in detail, what your obviosly unique brain is telling you is "the centrepiece claim" of AR4. You should appreciate that mere human beings may not perceive the world (or reports) in the same special way you apparently do.

Of course I believe you're just an empty-headed troll with a half-wit support act and mates in tow, but others may (perhaps) be interested still in your great revelation.

Chek, apparently it is the term "very likely" in the AR4 that has Jonas so hot and bothered. He cannot find it in the references (that he has never read) and demands someone show him a literal quote.

Or something like that. Either that, or he's just a sad little whiner too incompentent for even Exxon to sponsor.

Not really Jonas (@ 133). As someone who deals quite a bit with scientific publishing and reviewing, I can assure you that reviewers and editors of papers assume "good faith" on the part of authors that submit papers. It would be impossible to do otherwise and in the vast majority of cases this attitude is merited. The vast majority of scientists do their damnest to get the stuff they submit right.

Unfortunately a tiny, tiny set of individuals that wish to misrepresent the science attempt to sneak papers into the scientific literature that contrive to support some dreary agend. This can occasionally succeed by taking advantage of the "good faith" of editors and reviewers, and in Spencer's recent case (other recent thread) by sending the paper to a new and rather inappropriate journal where the peer-review system was "duped". Dr. Wagner, the editor, became aware of this and he resigned. Not really a big deal, but that's undeniably what happened.

Now how do we know science-wise that Spencer is broadly wrong (again) and Dessler is broadly correct?

ONE: We can make an objective assessment of the paper and identify non-subjective logical errors in Spencer's methodology that render the interpretations objectively false. Remember that Spencer was (amongst other things) (i) attempting to assert that empirical data was inherently incompatible with models, and (ii) that this apparent discrepency meant that the models over-estimated climate sensitivity and (iii) that relationship between cloud time series and surface temperature meant that clouds initiate the surface temperature response.

Dessler simply pointed out that (i) Spencer's apparent discrepency between models and observations was only significant when Spencer omitted those models that in fact do rather a good job of reproducing ("ENSO"-related) temperature-cloud relationships over very short times and (ii) so that Spencer's presentation has nothing to say about the accuracy or not of models with respect to climate sensitivity (which in any case can only be assessed on relevant timescales by considering slow feedbacks that aren't captured in Spencer's analysis), and (iii) that models where the cloud response is absolutely known to follow surface temperature produced the same relationship as those that Spencer supposed (without any theoretical justification) specified that clouds lead the surface temperature response.

So Spencer is absolutely wrong and Dessler is absolutely right on these points of methodology, interpretation and logic. At some point we have to be willing to recognise the obvious.

TWO: We can look at the science record of Spencer and Dessler. Dessler has a 20-odd year history of outstanding, highly-cited research on the atmosphere, especially involving water vapour detection and analysis, and his work has stood the test of time. He get's it right by and large. Spencer has a 15 or more year record of getting satellite MSU tropospheric temperature measures hopelessly wrong [references available on request], while at the same time insisting that he was right and everyone else is wrong.

At some point we do have to accept what we see in front of us Jonas and recognise that there a few individuals that choose not to conform to the rules of scientific good faith. It's not a big deal. Spencer's flawed work has little effect on the progress of science but it is helpful to highlight straightforwardly bad work (specially when there are apparently like minded individuals like GSW around who choose to fabricate rubbish to suit their particular agendas).

chris ..

You repeat your accusation, and still the only 'argument' you offer is your hunch. You say that the journal was 'inappropriate'.

Now you claim that Wolfgang Wegner (editor of that 'inappropriate journal') had more understanding of the topic discussed!? That sounds like a contradiction, or a stretch at least.

And you repeat your claim that you are capable acting as an arbitrator between Dessler and Spencer. (I make no such claim, but find yours quite bold)

You say that there are logical faults to Spencer. But what I can see Dessler confirms his main findings, just wants to downplay them. That the difference was less significant. Dessler did not manage to show, nor claim, that there was no difference.

And examining claims, and showing when observations don't match them is a central part of science. Even when people don't agree on every detail. On the contrary, that's part of the process.

And Spencer does not claim to make statements about 'slow feedbacks' which nowhere are the topic or included in what generally is called the climate sensitivity.

I would rather say that you misrepresent his work in every instance (maybe because you haven't read it, and picked up your opinions from sites like this one, I don't know)

So still, you haven't made the case that you can be the arbitrer, or that you can determine that Spencer must have been dishonest. I cannot even see that you've made the case that he is wrong. Only that Dessler wants to view it differently.

Regarding who of them is more accomplished, I'd say that you you are way out here. What you say about "has a 15 or more year record of getting satellite MSU tropospheric temperature measures hopelessly wrong" is pure BS. The kind you can read at activist sites. And even there is so badly argued that it is immedeately seen as only ridicululous.

So:
You argument about publishing it in 'the right journals' is backwards and irrelevant and really bad (given what we know about the practices), as is the one of 'accomplished' and citeted scientist. You had absolutely no support for your accusation of dishonesty. And wrt to the actual science, I don't think you have the insight or knowledge to be the judge. Your arguments certanly didn't sound like you possessed the knowledge.

So again, I would urge you to take that accusation back, and accept that this particular questions is not resolved. (Particularly since Dessler's GRL publication nowhere even gets close to such a claim)

One more thing: What I or GSW write in the matter, here or elsewhere, has absolutely no bearing on your 'dishonesty' claim. I am surpised you tried to bolster that with comments from him/us.

Really poor logic ..

Dessler didn't "confirm" Spencer's findings at all - what Dessler did was expose Spencer's inaccurate comparison between models and observations.

Spencer was caught out in a very straightforward cherry-pick: he picked one observational data set that diverged the most from the models, and he picked the 6 models that diverged the most from the observational data set.

Spencer's work was thus shown to have been at best worthless.

Interesting to see Jonas supporting a Creationist, though. So much for respect for rational analysis.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jonas said: "What I or GSW write in the matter, here or elsewhere, has absolutely no bearing on your 'dishonesty' claim".

So you say, but as anyone can attest, you and GSW are two of the most fundamentally dishonest trolls to grace this blog since Tim Curtin's epic dollop of stupid. Your tedious, serial, evidence-free declarations don't even make the grade of being half-baked, and your sly avoidance of questions is comical.

Time to return to the shelter of Montford's seedy enclave where some morons acclaim you as a "philosopher". Of the Jay Cadbury flavour, no doubt.

Jeff H

Your generalized hypothesis-stringing is perhaps soothing to you. But it did not answer my question. Which paper of Nepstad shows the change of 'evapotranspiration regimes in heavily deforested tropical biomes'?

Thanks.

You seem to conveniently forget that you have outstanding questions that require answering at comments #81 and #89, shubby.

It would only be good manners to answer them in good faith before demanding the same of others.

wow Jonas, you really are unable to comprehend simple logic. Not sure there's much point in re-addressing this.

As for Spencer (and Christy) getting MSU satellite temperatures hopelessly wrong, again that's simply apparent from inspection of the scientific literature. If they asserted for 15 years that their analysis indicated that the tropospheric temperature was cooling or hardly changing in response to increased greenhouse gas concentrations, and other scientists identified methodological flaws in their analyses that gave rise to a series of cooling biases, which Spencer and Christy were finally forced to admit to, I don't see how you can deny this - it's all there in the scientific literature (see below). You've indicated here that you choose not to look at scientific papers, but I don't really see how you can address this otherwise! Spencer and Christy were objectively incorrect and the scientists that addressed these analyses correctly were objectively correct.

In fact S & C spent the better part of half a career getting this stuff wrong. Already in 1991 it was pointed out [1] that their analyses were inadequate to distinguish the cooling they would soon try to sell from warming that would be consistent with surface measurements and models. And it was repeatedly left to others to sort out the various messes in the analysis of MSU data: that the method of averaging different satellite records introduces a spurious cooling trend [2], that disregard of orbital decay introduced another spurious cooling trend [3]; that MSU-2 showed a spurious cooling trend due to spillover of stratospheric cooling into the tropospheric temperature signal [4], and later still that the diurnal correction applied by Christy and Spencer was of the wrong sign and gave yet another spurious cooling trend [5].

[1] B.L. Gary and S. J. Keihm (1991) Microwave Sounding Units and Global Warming Science 251, 316 (1991)

[2] J. W. Hurrell & .K E. Trenberth (1997) Spurious trends in satellite MSU temperatures from merging different satellite record. Nature 386, 164 â 167.

[3] F. J. Wentz and M. Schabel (1998) Effects of orbital decay on satellite-derived lower-tropospheric temperature trends. Nature 394, 661-664

[4] Q. Fu et al. (2004) Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends Nature 429, 55-58.

[5] C. A. Mears and F. J. Wentz (2005) The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature, Science 1548-1551.

Jonas, if Spencer and Christy make the fundamental error of applying the wrong sign to the diurnal correction and thus grossly misrepresent the true tropospheric temperature, and at the same time insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong, then that's simply a fact. It's not being mean to Spencer; but this long history of rather astonishing error does lend us to question why Spencer and Christy make such an effort to cast doubt on other scientisits work. It's worth highlighting these misrepresentations, especially as they are broadcast all over the blogosphere and some of the less reputable parts of the media as insinuating flaws in the pukka science. Likewise it is worth highlighting GSW's dismal falsehood re Briffa and Osborn's assessment of the early paleoreconstructions. It's a sad fact that there are some individuals that consider their particular agendas justify science misrepresentation, and there isn't any reason we should give this nonsense a free pass! It would be remiss of those that are knowledgeable of the science (i.e. willing to address it honestly and maturely) not to highlight misrepresentations - that's surely obvious, yes?

check

Wait your turn. I asked a question of Jeff Harvey first. Let him show to me, what you are asking of me, first. Then I'll answer your question.

Shub,

I am referring to a large body of work explicitly *linking* different types of research in tropical biomes. Shukla's work projected effects of deforestation on precipitation regimes in the Amazon on the basis that trees there release huge amounts of water through their foliage to the atmosphere. The effect of widespread deforestation should be obvious, given the link between forest cover and regional climate. Nepstad's work is important because it reports the effects of changes in climate on forest extent, health and vitality. The two are inexorably linked. Its been known for a long time that their are profoundly strong feedbacks between vegetation and regional climate patterns that are particularly strong in the tropics. Or for some inexplicable reason, Shubbie, do you deny this? On what basis?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 14 Sep 2011 #permalink

@chris

"(specially when there are apparently like minded individuals like GSW around who choose to fabricate rubbish to suit their particular agendas)"

I think you've got your wires crossed here. I was not referring to the Briffa and Osborn paper as you suggest.

My statement:

"Even non sceptics have expressed concern over his work. The CRU guys, Briffa + Osborne was it? (from memory as I don't have the reference to hand) thought his conclusions could not be supported and it is likely that it was as warm 1000yrs ago as it is today."

This was based on the private emails disclosed from the UEA. In one email Briffa stated (this is a direct quote):

"I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate."

So please don't go around accusing people of "fabricating rubbish to suit their particular agendas".

This touches on another point mentioned here Bad and Good faith.

If an individual (Briffa) holds views privately, but participates publicly in the publishing of papers against those views, can they be said to be working in "Good Faith"?

@chris 142

"Likewise it is worth highlighting GSW's dismal falsehood re Briffa and Osborn's assessment of the early paleoreconstructions"

There you go again.

;)

cris #142

>Spencer (and Christy) getting MSU satellite temperatures hopelessly wrong ..

and

>some individuals that consider their particular agendas justify science misrepresentation, and there isn't any reason we should give this nonsense a free pass

That sounds more like activist rehash found on climate scare blogs. And is completely wrong. They have improved their methodology continuously for over 20 years. What you are referring to is the ordinary process of science in a new field.

The idea that somebody whose work can (and will) be imroved further, where there exist different views about how to go about that, or who has made mistakes (and corrected them)..

.. that therefor all that work should be not only labelled as nonsense, but purposeful and dishonest misrepresentation ..

.. that idea is laughable (to put it **very** mildly)

You seem to forget that this is 'climate science', and with your 'logic' exactly everybody must be dismissed on 1) (not giving a free pass to) nonsense, and 2) dishonesty.

And chris, you are **not** in a position to make those calls. Not wrt to the science, and not wrt their motives. (I'd be more interested in the motives of those who so repeatedly and badly need to misrepresent others, fully aware that they'd never reveal them)

And speaking of good faith, chris, you have here repeatedly displayed that your own faith isn't all that good. That you rather smear individuals badly, whose opinions you don't share (or which contradict your beliefs) than fairly representing a professional disagreement. And that you do so without basis.

I certainly hope that this (now serial) behavior is an 'accident' and not part of your professional conduct. (And no, I have nowhere 'indicated that I don't read papers'. I pretty much said the exact opposite)

GSW perfectly illustrates the pitfalls of inferring from stolen emails. The carefully selected quotes being mined also serve the agenda he denies having. If you go foraging around in dustbins, you'll invariably end up covered in rubbish. But then AJ Weberman and Montford have made ephemeral careers out of that pursuit.

What immediately precedes your mined quote is: "For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades". And what immediately follows it is: "I think the Venice meeting will be a good place to air these issues". GSW and M

Bear in mind that the private email this 'revelation' has been extracted from dates back to Sept. 1999, which is also several years of research and discussion prior to the 2007 paper.

It seems to me again a perfect illustration that dyed-in-the-wool ideologues cannot comprehend that science is advanced by discussion and not by rigid, unbending adherence to an agenda.

oh dear GSW. In an attempt to smear Dr Mann and his science you insinuate that there's some published research from Briffa and Osborn that casts doubt on the validity and interpretations of Manns early paleoproxy reconstructions.

Turns out you referring to something Dr. Briffa wrote in an email in 1999 (it wasn't a "reference" after all).

I suspect you simply don't get it GSW but I have pointed out several times now that scientists do their damnest to ensure the stuff they publish is right (not Spencer sadly, but he's in a tiny minority). What one says as part of discussions in emails or over lunch or at meetings is part of the "self peer review" process that undepins all good faith scientific research. It's not surprising that what Dr. Briffa ponders in an email in 1999 may not be what he subsequently considers the evidence directs us to in 2007.

Bottom line GSW. Let's say an individual that wishes in good faith to know about what subsequent research has to say about the early Mann et al research, and (more specifically) what Osborn and Briffa's published work concludes. The good faith individual (we'll call him "chris"), does an appropriate literature search, reads a few papers and comes to the straightforward conclusion that Osborn and Briffa's research broadly validates the early work of Mann et al and the IPCC intepretations. We know this objectively since Osborn and Briffa state it explicitly in their paper.

Sadly the bad faith individual who "operates solely on prejudice" (we'll call him GSW), isn't interested in what the evidence say's either generally or specifically with respect to Briffa and Osborn. He wants to smear Mann by insinuation and hunts around for what he considers might be a kind of "gotcha" (except it isn't really is it) in the form of what someone wrote in an email 12 years ago... pretty creepy, 'though interesting nevertheless!

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from ... and you've learned some straightforward facts
about Osborn and Briffa's science and how this bears on very early paleoreconstructions. which no doubt you'll use to bring your prejudices more in line with scientific reality. Like the vast majority of scientists (and me!) it's important to try your hardest to ensure that what you publish is properly done and consistent with the evidence.

jeesh Jonas, if Spencer (and Christy) got MSU satellite temperatures hopelessly wrong as is simply obvious by inspection of the large body of research that corrected their mistakes, why do you have such a problem accepting this objective fact? Spncer and Christy did get their analyses of MSU data hopelessly wrong. That's not a statement informed by "activist blogs" but by the peer reviewed scientific literature. If you have to make such an effort to avert your eyes from scientific publications because these don't suit your particular prejudices, perhaps it's time for you to examine those prejudices!

Incidentally you've juxtaposed two incompatible statements from my post in yours. As I said on the other thread (my post @78 on the "Dessler shows thread"), "we can give Spencer and Christy's long history of incompetence in analyzing MSU temperature data the benefit of the doubt with respect to "good faith...". So I'm not not insinuating bad faith in that particular series of badly flawed analyses...we don't know why Spencer and Christy chose not to address the serious discrepencies between their analyses and the broader evidence base - if they'd done so they'd most likely have uncovered the errors in their work. They chose not to and it was left to others to get this right. too bad...

chris

The only error by C&S was a sign in one term, in the biurnal correction, pointed out by Wentz, and promptly corrected and acknowledged.

All the other improvments where various effects and sources of errors, discovered and adressed as the technology and methodology progressed. Due their efforts, and those of others. Exactly as it should be. If you think differently, you have absolutely no clue of engineering sciences.

Your terms 'nonsense' 'incompetent' 'hopelessly wrong' 'objective fact' 'series of badly flawed analyses' etc are all wrong and inappropriate.

The satellite datasets are today used and preferred to the ground station based versions (and I don't even need to go there, and all the problems which by choice **not** were adressed by the people there, to show how ridiculous your 'logic' is)

I repeat: You are in no position to judge the scientific issue of Dessler vs Spencer, and even worse when it comes to Spencers (dis)honesty.

I still (and strongly) suggest you'd take that back, and without any reservations.

And if you say, that you'd give Spencer and Christy (what you call) 'the benifit of the doubt' wrt their satellite temperatures, your argument that their 'hopelessly wrong analyses' support your present claim of Spencers dishonesty, becomes even more illogical. Because that is what you brought up when I pointed out your moral high ground posturing ...

As I said, I hope you do far far better when you engage professionally.

Burnard J, Comment 103,
Pity, I think Nasif Nahle over on Jennifer Marohasy's site has flushed your whole lifes work down the toilet.

Jonas writes, *And chris, you are not in a position to make those calls. Not wrt to the science, and not wrt their motives*

...and you are?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jeesh Jonas, you have a gift for false precis! If you read my post @136 rather more carefully (avoiding jumping to false conclusions based on prejudice) you'll see that my description of Spencer and Christy's astonishing misanalysis of the MSU data was not to support some claim of dishonesty in Spencer, but to illustrate some of the evidence base that might lend us to consider that Dessler's work is likely to be more reliable than Spencer's.

Of course one has to be careful to address scientific arguments on their merits and a long history of getting stuff wrong is no necessary indication that a particular analyses may be flawed. However inspection of Spencer's (and let's not forget poor old Braswell!) paper does highlight fatal flaws in the relationship between data presented and interpretations (and especially the awesomely overblown interpretations he's promoted outside of the scientific sphere), so perhaps we're not too surprised (given the MSU analysis debacle), that he's got stuff quite seriously wrong again. Not a big deal, but if we wish to understand the science (and the politics of course!) we'd be foolish not to recognise this...

Jeff H

Sorry, maybe you didn't notice the difference here: I am **not** claiming that one side (of Dessler vs Spencer) must be right and the other wrong (and dishonest too).

I am open for the possibility that both have valid points, and that the last thing isn't said yet.

If you can appreciate the difference ...

>I am open for the possibility that both have valid points, and that the last thing isn't said yet.

i.e. backing down

> If you read my post @136 rather more carefully (avoiding jumping to false conclusions based on prejudice)

He can't do that! It would ruin his case!

@100 Mike,

_Of course_ the campaign against Mann is ideologically and politically driven. So is Mann's own hockey stick, Plimer's volcanoes and Guldberg's Barrier Reef.

So is virtually _everything_ in the climate debate -- why, today is the Gore-a-thon, and you can't get much more ideologically and politically driven than Gore, with a bad case of rampant greed thrown in.

People just need to admit it, rather than strutting around and pretending they are trying to save the planet.

Comrade Gillard, for example, might not be so finished if she had the guts to stand up and say straight out that she hates big business and wants to tax it until it squeaks, in the name of equality and fairness.

But no, she has to come out with the grandiose rhetoric of planetary emergency, which the Australian people are far too level-headed to fall for.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jonas @ 154

It's helpful to address this: "Sorry, maybe you didn't notice the difference here: I am not claiming that one side (of Dessler vs Spencer) must be right and the other wrong (and dishonest too)."

I think you'll find that I haven't claimed that any scientist is "dishonest" but that a very tiny number of scientists act in "bad faith" (perhaps you or GSW might want to hunt through my posts and see if I've used the "d" word!). It's an interesting question whether one considers there is a fundamental difference between acting in "bad faith" and acting "dishonestly", but I prefer the first term since in my opinion "good faith" is a better description of the general philosophy in which science is done and the results disseminated.

The vast majority of scientists act in good faith and endeavour to ensure the work they submit is correct. If discrepancies between their interpretations and the broader science are observed they take particular care to ensure that their interpretations are justified before asserting that they've uncovered fundamental flaws in others work. Spencer and Christy unfortunately have chosen not to follow the essential elements of scientific good faith. We know this is true since their work wouldn't be repeatedly objectively flawed while they simultaneously attempt to misrepresent the work of other scientists.

That's not to say that a tiny number of scientists aren't genuinely dishonest. A dribble of papers are retracted as a result of rare instances of downright fraud. In the climate research field one might characterize the efforts of Wegman to trash Dr Mann that involved a couple of dubious (!) analyses some of which lead to a retraction of a paper due to plagiarism (which as you know is an act of fraud, especially if perpetrated by a senior scientist).

> Of course the campaign against Mann is ideologically and politically driven.

Well done for realising.

> So is Mann's own hockey stick

Nope. I knew it was too good to last.

> So is virtually everything in the climate debate

Nope. You don't vote on whether CO2 absorbs 15um wavelength light.

> People just need to admit it

Why should they admit a falsity? To make you feel better?

> But no, she has to come out with the grandiose rhetoric of planetary emergency

So, just for purposes of referencing: what would the rhetoric be if there IS a planetary emergency?

chris ..

Even worse. Now you hope to elevate Dessler's 'likely credibility' by pointing to how the methodology of satellite temperature sets has evovled. Puh ..

And add your phrases:

*'astonishing misanalysis' 'long history' 'getting stuff wrong' 'fatal flaws' and 'awesomely overblown' 'analysis debacle' 'he's got stuff quite seriously wrong again'*

to the empty rhetoric bin, please. You still are in no position to make any of those calls. And your attempt to argue the 'credibility' and 'motive' instead of the facts underpins that impression.

Further:
I just read one of the articles your mentioned in #142. Have you read them yourself? Because, none of your statements about 'objective facts how hopelessly wrong they are' are supported by that one.

Instead, it was a quite normal paper arguing a different interpretation of MSU data, and an ad hoc method to estimate the coefficients necessary for that.

And still, the most amazing thing is that you seem completely unaware of how devastating your 'logic' (or attribution of 'likely credibility') would be if taken seriously and applied to various fields of 'climate science'

I still, and strongly, suggest that you tak back the accusation of dishonesty, chris.

*Of course the campaign against Mann is ideologically and politically driven. So is Mann's own hockey stick, Plimer's volcanoes and Guldberg's Barrier Reef*

What utter nonsense. This is the kind of argument that the do-nothing denial lobby would want the public and policymakers to believe, because if climate science is seen to be deadlocked in a gargantuan scientific or idealogical battle, then nothing at all will be done about it. This has been the strategy of the business-as-usual lobby for the past two decades. They know they'll never win with respect to the science, which very few of them do anyway (and those that do spend most of their time trying to debunk the work of bonafide climate scientists rather than coming up with anything new themselves. They share this dubious distinction with creationists).

The bottom line is that the huge bulk of climate science in terms of publications, professional academic affiliations, and number are those who agree with the view that humans are the primary culprit behind the recent warming. The so-called sceptics are generally much fewer in number, publish little in the relevant journals and are commonly retired Professors, often in completely unrelated fields. They get a disproportionate amount of attention because various corporate lobbies invest huge amounts of money ensuring that they are heard, and because the corporate MSM courts controversy. At the same time, the MSM is often owned by the same corporations or else receives large amounts of advertising revenue from polluting industries with an axe to grind. Why else would some of the sceptics become household names when their scientific qualifications are mediocre or even worse? Some of these people - I won't mention names but its easy to find them - have < 20 papers and < 500 academic citations over more than 30 years of research. In other words, a pittance. Yet they become veritable celebrities on the basis of their contrarian views on climate change.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

The continually amazing thing about your comments Rick Bradford is your seemingly complete faith that everybody else must be as close-minded and short sighted as you yourself are.

Now that really is arrogance.

>I still, and strongly, suggest that you tak back the accusation of dishonesty, chris.

Why stop at Chris?

I too think that you are dishonest. Or stupid.

Or both.

Now, when are you going to stump up with some actual substance to back up your anti-scientific claims?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

Bernard J .. if you hurry, you might still be able to see a comment directed at you in the Climate Reality thread

And you still haven't found what you claimed only and idiot couldn't .. and thereby making a quite sweeping statement about quite many here ...

;-)

@Tim

Has Jonas served his time on the naughty step (#30) yet? is it ok for him to rejoin the rest of the community?

;)

Jeff,
I am not denying or accepting anything. I just asked for a specific citation.

Right up there in post #14, you said that Shukla and Nepstad have shown that human-caused deforestation has changed evapotranspiration regimes. Now, you say that Shukla's work has projected such changes to occur.

These are two different things.

Why do you ecologists keep doing these types of things? You first project something, then you turn around and claim that it has already been shown to occur.

In this case, I am on your side. It is pretty obvious that if you chop off all the trees in large contigious swathes of the Amazon, there is a good possibility that you will see effects on precipitation at some point. But I cannot understand the need to make the kind of claims that you do.

Dear Jonas, if you ever post to any thread other than this one, you will be banned.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

Dear Tim, just ban me. I don't mind. It is obvious that people here have a really hard time arguing their facts or only their positions in a civil manner.

Many have asked you to ban me before, and vented their frustrations in the most 'charming' ways imaginable while you didn't ...

:-)

I am certain their 'arguments' will improve immedeately after I disappear ... or at least their self confidence.

@Jonas 168,

"I am certain their 'arguments' will improve immedeately after I disappear ... or at least their self confidence."

;)

Still nothing but waffle from Jonas?

Tim@167

I believe in repentance. I think if Jonas can post 10 honest posts, he should be released from this purgatory. By this I mean no Gish, on topic, addressing criticism honestly, etc.

Basically something that Feynman could approve of. http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

There you go, Jonas doesn't mind being stopped from shitting in the public baths, since he can then go around going how he was "done for" by those horrible climate scientists.

Nothing pleases the religious like being persecuted.

Ban him.

He doesn't mind, and we don't care to listen to his pathetic whining.

Are Jonas N, (& maybe GSW), schoolboys? â certainly their logic about Statistics & Statistical analysis is puerile to say the least.

Jonas @93 wrote:-

The data is one thing,
Fitting a line (or a curve, an equation) to it is another
A model, a guiding theory, an attempt at an explanation is yet another,
Such a proposed model, may be fitted to observational or experimental data, especially when some factor/parameter of the hypothesis needs to be be determined (estimated, fitted) through that procedure
Predictions (projections) from that model into new (uncharted) territory is yet anotherthing.
The fitting, and the (explanatory) model are two seperate things. Fitting a straight line to dataset doesn't make that line a predictor. I have already mentioned the stockmarket as an example. The same is true for a data series you get when rolling a dice or the roulette wheel a number of times .. You may fit a nice line to it, and not much more.
For predictions you need an attempt at an explanation, a model.

What the hell sort of rambling drivel is this? It seems you have a âthingâ about things. It also shows you are unlikely to have ever done a Statistical operation beyond the most very basic level â lots of theoretical, but incorrect, Statistical âphilosophyâ.

And what practical use is generation of data from a roulette wheel or dice ? This should be random data â with NO scientific need to analyse. Indeed, unless there is bias in either of these systems, it is pretty easy to calculate the âprobabilityâ of a future result , â i.e predict future data.

..............

Of course, the fundamental problem AGW deniers have is they donât like Statistics in Climate Science do you because it always shows up their fraudulent âdoubtâ.

As others here have said, NO science produced by well-known sceptics, allied to US right-wing/Libertarian Institutes, has ever stood the test of peer-review validation â (by that I mean when it has been studied openly in the scientific literature).

Data is as data is - a collection of measurements, usually numerical. It means NOTHING until it is analysed for explanatory features. Even âdescriptiveâ statistics is âanalysedâ for factors to explain the data and/or data differences. But science is a long, long way past descriptive statistics.

In my original version of this post, which I prepared on MS word, I was going to do an introduction to practical statistical investigations in the real scientific world but Iâve now decided against because your denial just wonât allow you to accept it â and I realise Iâm pandering to your trollish egos.

I could go on but I do realise now your problems. Somebody said (apologies to whom â canât find it now), that Jonas has Libertarian tendencies, so obviously he is allowing his worldly unreal political ideas to override scientific commonsense. In a nutshell, he canât accept the high probability of Statisitical Climate Science analyses, which, to the vast majority of even slightly rational people, convinces them that a serious problem for mankind is rapidly emerging.

If a Statistical analysis says, for example, an equation describing a data set has >95% fit, then you can be pretty sure it will predict future results pretty reasonably.

Furthermore, as Jeff Harvey has said I think, if the IPCC says they are > 95% certain, (very likely), that GW is AGW, thatâs as good as certain for most people.

If, for example, your local crime statistics suggest that walking alone down a certain street in your nearest big town/ city after dark will mean that you are 95% likely to get mugged, or raped or worse, would you doubt that?

By Clippo UK (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

Clippo, once mor you are wrong in your guesses. And I already told you that I know what I'm talking about.

It seems that you now understand that data and fitting a curve to it (if it is rolling of a dice, or a roulette wheel) won't provide you with any predictive powers.

And that's what I told you in the first place. You also write the 'explanatory features' are needed. Which is exactly what I told you from the start.

But then you give it all away, when you say that a 95% statistical fit has predicitive powers for the future (because of the 95%). Because then every stock analyst would only grow richer. He only had to wait for that fit, and then bet on it.

And clippo, nothing I said to you has anything to do with politics. People who cannot keep science and politics apart cannot be scientists.

And you are wron about one more thing: I was the one questioning that that 90% certainty claimed by the IPCC SR4 (it wasn't 95%) was based on science.

It caused quite a stirr here, but nobody offered any argument to the contrary (only their beliefs)

You are (proably) correct in that an IPCC claim is good enough for a majority of the people. But again, taking polls is irrelevant when it comes to science. And that is why the whole 'consensus chatter' is irrelevant too!

In your crime riddled neighborhood, you are implicitly making the assumption that the same (criminal) individuals lurk around at night time also the next night, and base your estimate on that 'model' of explanation. There is no conflict there with what I said.

But if we can leave the absolute basics of modelling and descriptions of physical processes, and data collection for a moment, and get back to the climate:

If you want to make predictions about the temperature of a body (eg the atmosphere) your null hypothesis had to be 'unchanged', meaning: unless you have a continuing 'imbalance' in your energy supply, the bodys heat (ie inertia) will prescribe 'same as yesterday' for its temperature.

Its not different than a cars velocity: It will remain constant unless you either gain or lose energy.

If you extrapolate: It has been accelerating, ie gaining speed for the previous 20 seconds, and thus it will continue to do so, you are speculating that the driving force will continue to increase, and faster that linear, not only to maintain the imbalance but also to overcome the increasing negative feedbacks due to drag, friction and engine efficiency.

What I am saying is that your curve fit is useless, unless you understand the system it measures.

And I am just so surprised that you even challenge me on such trivial stuff ...

(But i think your use of terms such as 'denier' or 'libertarian' or 'right wing' indicate why you stray so much from simple and obvious meanings of the words)

@Clippo

"Data is as data is - a collection of measurements, usually numerical."

Thanks Clippo. Your entertaining if nothing else.

Jonas at the bat:

"unless you have a continuing 'imbalance' in your energy supply"

Which we know that we do have RIGHT NOW. The amount of energy coming in from the sun is more than the amount radiating out (as measured by satellites and other ways)

This would be an example of dishonestly.

Go ahead Tim

Ban his lying ass.

A ban confers too much dignity on deniers.

I admit to being mildly horrified when seeing this thread charting on sciebceblog's panel to the left. Best just to let GSW simper away admiringly at Jonas' high school logic a couple of more times, and then the thread will wither and die with no martyrdom required.

Jonas is a fine example of the pitfalls of the google-as-you-go approach of the keyboard warrior.

Step 1 - get involved in a topic of which you know little.

Step 2 - google terms as they come up. Throw in random statements about the term. Try to sound confident.

Step 3 - fall into the massive chasms of ignorance created by such a scattergun approach to attaining knowledge.

Step 4 - be unembarrassed by such falls, as you are so clueless you don't know how clueless you are.

Jonas

Questions for you:
- When rain from high level clouds reaches ground level, does the RH in a Stevenson screen go up, down or remain the same?
- Why does CO2 absorb radiation in the near IR more than does O2?
- Why is there usually more frost on the roof of a car than on the doors?

You could intrerpret this as a chance to demonstrate to the fear-mongering warmies here that you know what you are talking about.

Shorter Jonas: I will make a snarky comment to distract from the fact I don't know what Alan is talking about.

In a way it is quite flattering, to get my own thread here.

This moron is flattered to be on the level of people like Brent and Sunspot.

> The continually amazing thing about your comments Rick Bradford is your seemingly complete faith that everybody else must be as close-minded and short sighted as you yourself are.

> Now that really is arrogance.

Wrong. Arrogance would be thinking that people are _more_ close-minded and short sighted than I myself am.

I believe in equality, fairness and multicultural diversity of close-mindedness and short sightedness.

By Rick Bradford (not verified) on 15 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jonas wrote:-

And I already told you that I know what I'm talking about.

Of course you would say that wouldn't you (smile) - trouble is all your other offerings on this subject show observers here that in fact you DON'T know what your talking about.

& re:

But then you give it all away, when you say that a 95% statistical fit has predicitive powers for the future (because of the 95%). Because then every stock analyst would only grow richer. He only had to wait for that fit, and then bet on it.

I didn't say that - I said, or implied, that statistically derived equations have probability limits associated with them - so one can be assured that a predicted result will lie in between those 90% or 95% boundary limits.

re:-

And you are wron about one more thing: I was the one questioning that that 90% certainty claimed by the IPCC SR4 (it wasn't 95%) was based on science.

What is it based on then ?

And you avoided answering whether you would go to the dark crime-ridden street near where you live, (even in your unreal world these places will exist) if the Probability of you being 'attacked' is >90% or >95% - your choice. Would you ? or what is your 'safety threshold' ?

By Clippo UK (not verified) on 16 Sep 2011 #permalink

> Arrogance would be thinking that people are more close-minded and short sighted than I myself am.

So you agree you're arrogant, then.

That's cleared up at least.

> Alan - Feel free to demonstrate what you feel, many here need help with the simplest things ...

Captain Subtext translates: I don't know a damn thing, so I'm gonna blame you.

> A ban confers too much dignity on deniers.

No ban confers too much dignity on deniers.

Given this, the dignity assigning properties of banning are irrelevant.

Jonas doesn't mind, he's already convinced he's right and yah boo sucks, and he's just giving gunshot here a reason to spew idiocies.

Sorry Clippo, I really do

>all your other offerings on this subject show observers here that in fact you DON'T know what your talking about.

Well, if all of my 'offerings' had been false, you would have contradicted them, I presume, and offered your own correction and explanaitions how and why it should be different. But you (and others) seem to have been mor keen on speculating about other things :-)

And yes you did say:

>If a Statistical analysis says, for example, an equation describing a data set has >95% fit, then you can be pretty sure it will predict future results pretty reasonably.

And I think I know where the missunderstanding is. Because if you have a stationary proces (ie make the model assumption that whatever you observe does not change any relevant properties over time) you could actually 'predict' that even the following experiments/observations should possess the same statistical properties, and say that with eg 95% it should be in the same range as it has been before (in 95% of the observations)

But (describing) a stationary process does not really qualify as 'predicting the future', clippo, and you can be pretty darn sure that climate *change* by its very definition is not a stationary process ..

As I already said in #107, a prediction (using a model) means:

>thereafter 2) try to explain more observations with that model/hypothesis you just fitted to some data, preferably outside that data

The key word here is testing your explaination *outside* the realm where you observed it (and possibly fitted its description).

We can go back to the dice or roulette wheel example, because they are both stationary processes. Testing them sufficiently many times will tell you that a certain outcome has a observed likelihood. And since it is stationary, you may assume that even the next ones will have the same probabilities.

Same thing with your crime riddled neighborhood: Assuming it is stationary, you are allowed to draw certain conclusions.

But what is discussed here, the climate, is something quite different than textbook examples with dice etc.

Finally, about the IPCC AR4 90% certainty claim, you asked:

>What is it based on then ?

Well, the claim certainly has been that it (and everything the IPCC presents) is based on climate science. But nobody I've ever asked has seen that science. Although folks get pretty worked up if I just ask or point this out. Here, I will be banned shortly because I brought it up and upset so many of the regulars.

What it really is based on, how it came about, you will never hear or read in an official IPCC statements or reports. Otherwise, they would of course have presented it ... It is after all their latest posterchild claim.

> Well, if all of my 'offerings' had been false

They're also incoherent and gibberish.

Usually containing a mixture of two or three of these features.

> you would have contradicted them,

They have been contradicted. E.g at #71.

> And almost every single time, the supposed fact, settled truth, scientific result etc was overstated (sometimes widely) by them who referred to it.

For example, what fact? The AIT flooding of florida? It's fact. If the Greenland ice sheet and WAIS melt to the extent given, then there will be 20m of sea level rise. It's a fact of mathematics and physics of liquid displacement.

Or is this one fact you didn't read?

How about your first post?

> And still, kiddo, fitting a curve is not 'advanced statistics'. Interpreting data towards a theory might be.

Though true, you seem to imply this is not the case with the IPCC science. This is false.

Of course, if you meant to say "and this is what the IPCC are doing, not merely curve fitting", feel free to say so here and now.

How about this statement:

> Because me thinks that without the force of the government, that is if you had to earn your money honestly, by offering others your services, at the rate they are prepared to pay you, you would not be as well off.

Which is merely assertion based on no evidence whatsoever. A claim unsupported by data. And false.

> And it was Exxon, and the right wing think tanks who manipulated Mann to include the Tiljande sediments upside down ...

This too is false.

How about this?

> Only one litte detail remains. You need to show me that you are not an idiot, that you (or any non-idiot) actually can find them ..

Which is illogical, pointless and stupid at the same time.

At #160:

> You still are in no position to make any of those calls.

Except he is, so this too is false.

> Further: I just read one of the articles your mentioned in #142. Have you read them yourself? Because, none of your statements about 'objective facts how hopelessly wrong they are' are supported by that one.

And this is false, still in #160.

> Instead, it was a quite normal paper arguing a different interpretation of MSU data, and an ad hoc method to estimate the coefficients necessary for that.

Which is the point that chris made. You ignored it, though, didn't you. The paper chris pointed to you gave the evidence that the facts you believed in were hopelessly wrong.

Finally to 173:

> As I already said in #107, a prediction (using a model) means:

> > thereafter 2) try to explain more observations with that model/hypothesis you just fitted to some data, preferably outside that data

> The key word here is testing your explaination outside the realm where you observed it (and possibly fitted its description).

Which is what Roy Spencer DID NOT do, and what the IPCC models DO do. It's called "Hindcasting". You can also look at this link for other examples where the IPCC models were tested against their explanation outside the realm where it was observed:

[Realclimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-m…)

Jonas: And I already told you that I know what I'm talking about.

What is it you're talking about?

Are you saying you know about climate modeling?

Then please be specific about the IPCC climate models and explain why they are wrong if, indeed, you believe them to be wrong.

(NOTE: everyone, can we keep to this point, or agree on one single point so that we can stop Jonas here flailing around with an answer of "I know you are, but what am I" rhetoric).

@Jonas,

Some vindication for you here I think. One of the CAGW crowd pointed me at an admittedly out of date IOP(2005) policy document. Quoting directly;

"The TAR describes the level of uncertainty with statements such as âit is likelyâ or âit is very likely thatâ¦â where these words have a percentage of likelihood associated with them (66- 90% and 90-99% chance respectively). These estimates are based on expert judgement but as ensemble climate prediction develops we expect to have more objective criteria."

I think your point has always been that the assessment is not necessarily right or wrong, but that it remains someones opinion rather than an objective scientific conclusion.

When you bare in mind that that soemone includes someone like steve schneider for example - you'd want a bit more than that.

rgds.

GSW said:"One of the CAGW crowd pointed me at an admittedly out of date IOP(2005) policy document".

Not updated? Check
Not superceded? Check
Still on the IOP Publications website? Check

So still current and not out of date.
Quite the master of the sly innuendo, aren't you GSW.

It's rather ironic that GSW who will continue to prattle on about the 1998 Mann paper and the M&M paper that was shortly after that, wilst ignoring the 2007 Mann update will complain about an "admittedly out of date" 2005 paper.

But intellect and honest are just baggage to the ridiculous rhetoric of the denier.

I know what I am talking about, that's what many find so irritating.

Yes, Jonas, that's exactly it. It is your boundless knowledge that is giving us a rash.

I mean, if everyone that knows anything about the subject disagrees with you, it's THEM that must be wrong, right?

Ah, to live in Jonas-world...

> I know what I am talking about

But you can't say what it is you're talking about.

Are you talking about the climate models? Are you saying you know about climate models?

@chek

Ok happy to agree it's not of date. The quote refers to the TAR rather than AR4, but other than that I think it is still correct.

;)

@Jonas 193,

I know, it is very irritating, what you are saying is not controversial, you even have the physicists on your side. ;)

But, they won't agree with you because they consider you a 'denier', or worse still, not a climate scientologist.

> I think your point has always been that the assessment is not necessarily right or wrong, but that it remains someones opinion rather than an objective scientific conclusion.

Except that ensembles DO give an objective scientific quantitty of uncertainty.

Hindcasting DOES give an objective scientific verification of a single model.

Both of which means that Jonas' assertion that you have interpreted here is wrong and that your support of that understanding is also incorrect.

> But, they won't agree with you because they consider you a 'denier', or worse still, not a climate scientologist.

No, there you go again, saying stuff you KNOW you can't know.

How about this possibility (or did it never occur to you): we won't agree with him because he's wrong.

@wow

You are a little late to the party wow. We're discussing the claim of attribution, it's not obvious you understand this.

If so, your views are somewhat at odds with the IOP document referenced by others.

> We're discussing the claim of attribution,

Of what to what?

"The TAR describes the level of uncertainty with statements such as âit is likelyâ ..."

Is talking about uncertainty and the description and definition of it. Which can be assigned objectively by hindcasting for individual models and ensembles for models too new for hindcasting to prove themselves.

It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

@wow

"Of what to what"

Like I said, you are late to the party, if you are using a browser you can scroll up to see what is being discussed.

As a help (again), we are talking about claims of 'attribution'.

Also your reading abilities don't seem to be able to get past the first line of anything written. I'll repeat it anyway for you, it may take you some time, but try to make it thru to the end;

"The TAR describes the level of uncertainty with statements such as âit is likelyâ or âit is very likely thatâ¦â where these words have a percentage of likelihood associated with them (66- 90% and 90-99% chance respectively). These estimates are based on expert judgement but as ensemble climate prediction develops we expect to have more objective criteria."

;)

Wow #198 - No! Just plain: No! And there is no meaning in discussing this with you either ... now scurry away, and play with the others.

No! Just plain: No!

Jonas, did you stomp your little feetsies before you wrote this? Sure sounds like it.

And there is no meaning in discussing this with you either

That's what I've been telling you, sweetheart! Pearls before swine! Go publish your insights for smart people (just like you) to see! Why bother with plebes like us, who demand "evidence", and "actual arguments", and even "a point"!

@Jonas

Over 200 comments on your thread! the boy done good ;)

Do you think the 'locals' actually learned anything? Going by the last comment

"Why bother with plebes like us, who demand "evidence", and "actual arguments", and even "a point"!

It would appear not, they have the same attention span as a goldfish, that or they survive in a permanent state of bemusement. On reflection, bemusement is more in keeping with the befuddled comments they post.

Very contradictory here all round don't you think?

Here, they claim to "follow the science".

> but they don't read/understand the papers, they admit this openly. I suspect a deficiency of math in their diet is the cause.

Here, they claim to be on the "side of the scientists".

> but every scientist who "comes out" against the "concensus", such as it is, is met with a flurry of ad hom attacks.

Questioning/inquisitive/"where's the evidence" behaviour

> is percieved as being anti-science.

"Take nobodys word for it" is one of the oldest guiding principles of science.

> but unable to draw any rational conclusions of their own, they defer with respect to the dubious eco warriors at the IPCC.

One of Tim's posts/articles was about Monckton (The Dark Lord) and some unfortunate comparisons he drew between Hitler and Garnaut. The Dark Lord was rightly castigated in the comments.

> but, I don't know how long you have been hanging out here, the 'deniers' as they call them frequently get this sort of abuse thrown at them, unchallenged by the supposedly moral few.

They are nothing if not inconsistent, or at least they are consistently inconsistent about almost everything.

I think we can say Gore is past his "sell by date" when not even those here take his reality day seriously, judging by the comments, or lack of, on the other thread.

Not only did you have your thread, but it was the most active thread of the current batch, as far as I can tell.

So I think you've done well Jonas. You made your point and it still stands, v good.

I don't know if you ever venture over to 'Bishop Hill', they're good bunch over there, rational, informed, witty etc.

Worth a look if you've never been, you'd be sure to be welcomed.

Anyway, Good Thread and who knows, maybe it aint over yet!

;)

Usually I wouldn't go quite this far, but as this is the basement of a troll thread...

GSW.

Your sychophantic coprophilia is driving you to obsequious sodomy of Jonas N.

Quite gynastically clever, considering the autoproctological location of your cranium.

Such is your enthusiasm for shit.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Sep 2011 #permalink

A monkey jumping up and down on a keyboard would produce less incoherent posts than Jonas.

"Gynastically"?

A rather unfortunate typo, indeed.

Gymnastically...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 Sep 2011 #permalink

GSW #205

I actually think that some people have learnt something, maybe grudginly, but what I've actually been saying is not extremely controversial. Not wrt the warming, its possible attribution, or the lack of science behind the AR4 claim.

As you (and I thereafter) linked, not even the IPCC claims (in its SPM-report) that the given probabilities are science. Only 'expert' opinions. In the actual assessment reports, the same statements resurface, but now this detail is hidden behind a lot of armawiving phrases, figures, their captions, awkward forumlations, appendices, supplementary material, and references in between. But nowhere whith tha explicitly stated claim.

And I think that this has sunk in among the smarter ones here (not everyone can be so clueless as those who cannot control their temper and usage of ad homs). But I think the quitely went away, admitting this or just conceding a point to someone the so desperatly want to label as an 'imbecill' must be tough for a bloated and fragile ego. The smarter ones just leave the issue, and may conveniently 'forget' in the future.

I also agree with you that most of them (high and low) most likely are not very trained in neither physics nor even mathematics. Most of them seem very unfamilar with what the scientific method actually entails. As I've said before, if there are indeed any 'real' scientists here, they generally come from the softer varieties. And it wouldn't suprise me if the lot of them are somehow 'environmentally' motivated.

This would explain why they have such a hard time reading real science. ANd I too beleive that many only read the words, not check and actually understand the methods used.

That there is a predominance of anti-market emotions is prwtty clear. And many cannot keep their lefty leening emotions apart from observations. It all has a very familiar ring to it. (Usually heard from the younger lefty loons and ativists). I am sure there is a considerable part of those too.

But I find it pretty pathetic that Tim L will ban be because of the crowd's vote. Poor arguments are abundant here ...

(And gien what the comments actually say, no one should be surprised)

@Jonas,

You are a true New Age philosopher and a Gentleman. Not a bad word spoke and banned, v odd IMO. There aren't many sites would put with the language of Bernard & Co - probably how they ended up here.

Your better than this Jonas, find somewhere more fulfilling where your views will be appreciated.

Good Luck!

;)

Your better than this Jonas, find somewhere more fulfilling where your views will be appreciated.

He doesn't need your infantile fawning to know that. We've been telling him that for weeks.

GSW is living in fantasy land. Jonas repeatedly tells us here, "I know what I am talking about", but then says he can't remember a single peer-reviewed article on climate change he's ever read. We ask him, as is our right, to go through some of the 200-300 articles cited in AR4 and to specify exactly where the scientists got it wrong, and why the estimates of human influence on climate are vastly exaggerated. To this, Jonas replies that its up to us to show him proof in these studies that they got it right. And so on and so on and so on.

In other words, Jonas has been caught with his pants down, and doesn't like it, so he's retreated into demanding that we prove the IPCC has got it right. But since the conclusions of the IPCC were based on an overview of the papers in question, and this involves hundreds of scientists, then I do not believe that the onus should be on contributors to a weblog to prove anything. If Jonas is so uppity, then, as I have repeatedly said, why doesn't he write his won rebuttal or write to some of the authors and go to some of the conferences? Again, reasonable questions and all deflected with the usual evasive bluff and bluster meaning that Jonas has no intention of doing any of these things. I have admitted that, as someone with expertise in another field, I rely on the credibility of the people doing the research to come up with the proper and accurate predictions. I don't read much climate-related literature because I simply don't have the time.

But Jonas and his enthusiastic puppy dog supporter don't think that's fair. So I am called a cretin, a clown, angry, bitter, uninformed etc. etc. etc. My qualifications in science are smeared, and then the whole circus starts over again.

I think that the bulk of the contributors to this thread know exactly who has painted themselves into an idealogical and intellectual corner. GSW, who seems even wackier than Jonas (partly due to his adulation of him) constantly boasts how many replies there are on Jonas' own personal thread, when half or more come from these two and the rest are from exasperated people who think that JonasN is living in his own deluded world. Yes, I expect hi to boast again, "I know what I am talking about", but to add this caveat, "But I won't tell anyone else but readers of general blogs because if I expose my ideas to a broader specialist scientific community they will be shot down and consigned to the rubbish bin where they belong".

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Jeff

"I have admitted that, as someone with expertise in another field, I rely on the credibility of the people doing the research to come up with the proper and accurate predictions. I don't read much climate-related literature because I simply don't have the time."

It's not because math isn't your thing then? Oh and in your list of defects you left out boring. Jonas said you were boring.

Perceptive chap Jonas.

Well quite, GSW.

But thanks for drawing attention to the daftness of this week's denier flash-in-the-pan, although sadly soon to be as forgotten as every other denier two day wonder.

These supposedly monumental denier PR events have a shelf life shorter than warm oysters, don't they.

Sorry all, wrong tab and wrong thread AGAIN this week!

*Perceptive chap Jonas*

I think lb's posting at @218 sums up GSW as well... He's another of Ed Wood's 'Eros'-type characters who thinks all those who disagree with the childish musings of our resident troll are 'idiots'. As I said, these two deserve each other.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 17 Sep 2011 #permalink

I wonder whether GSW might not be being ironic in his expressions of Jonas-adulation. But since irony can be difficult to identify on message boards (if only we had access to a versatile set of emoticons!), we can't be certain...

Anyway Jonas (@ 109) is an excellent example of why he's been banned methinks! I can't think of anything of interest in dreary comments about "anti-market emotions", "lefty leaning emotions", "bloated and fragile egos", even if they help us to undestand his motives. [That's not to say that I don't find Bernard's effort above rather unenlightening too!]. Imagine if thoughtful and rational posters had to put up with self-satisfied bone-headedness in every thread (let alone real life!).

Still we've learned something about obsessive pursuit of ignorance. Jonas is so pleased with his unwillingness to engage maturely with the evidence and thinks it's a great debating tool; GSW just makes stuff up. This induces frustration (at least GSW is brave enough to present his fabrications so they can be properly stamped on!) and the thread descends into unproductive stonewalling and bitching. Since our inate sense of fairness and decency compels us to reject the puny strategies of those that act in bad faith, we can be pleased that this rubbish is consigned to a garbage thread, just as we're pleased that bad faith rubbish from the likes of Drs Spencer and Wegman and etc. is similarly highlighted and consigned to "science"-style trash receptacles...

Jeffrey, you still don't know what it's about, do you? And you still need to make up your own 'facts'? And as long as you have to do that, nobody need to 'smear you as a scientist'.

Yo still dont get it, do you?

If there is a scientific basis for that AR4 posterchild claim, then I would like to see it. So I can read it! Nobody said you have to prove anything, that it is indeed correct. I would do that myself. If it indeed existed.

But you now claim that this isn't ordinary science, that it instead is the result of an 'overview' of science, and that I should read some of 200-300 references (which **don't** make that claim) and say what's wrong in them!?

What kind of an argument is that? How can anybody using the word 'intellectual' get it so twisted?

And Are you really not aware of whose side thinks using the word 'idiot' is an argument, and how often? (Well, for somebody who can't even determine what is supposed to be " half or more come" I guess that is to be expected)

But please Jeff, be at least a little grown up about it: Stop blaiming your insufficiency on others. As I said: As long as you have to do that, nobody need to 'smear you as a scientist' ...

chris, quit whining!

I could give you ample of examples about what I meant and you knopw that.

And if you cared the least about what posters "had to put up with self-satisfied bone-headedness in every thread (let alone real life!)" regarding "dreary comments" or " unwillingness to engage maturely" ..

.. this site provides and abundandce of perfect examples, and

Now, you case preciously was:

1. You considered yourself the arbitrator of facts regarding the factual issues refarding how clouds function in Dessler vs Specner, and

2. You mad cliams that one side knowlingly and dishonestly submitted falshoods and substandard science för a malicious purpose.

When asked how you possibly could make such claims, you started to waffle about Christy and Spencer, how incompetent they supposedly were, how hoplessly wrong they got it etc (you called them 'objective facts') instead (although you later denied that this was in support of your first claims). There you linked a number of references which nowhere contained your obverblown claims, rather quite normal practice of scientific progress. I ask you again: Have you read them yourself?

If yes, why were you lying about their contents, esp since you pretend to make a posturing point about other's 'bad faith'?

Just wondering, chris ...

Course I've read the papers Jonas. How else do we understand the science? It's fascinating that Christy/Spencer got their analysis so repeatedly wrong while continually asserting that they were correct! In 1997 Spencer/Christy were asserting, in response to Trenberth's Nature paper identifying spurious cooling in MSU data [see full references in my post above], that their analysis was correct and the troposphere wasn't warming [see Christy. Spencer, Braswell Nature 389, 342 (2007)]. They were wrong again. Shortly afterwards Wentz and Schabel (W-S (1998) [see full references in my post linked to above] pointed out that the UAH anaysis contained a huge spurious cooling trend (failure to properly account for orbital decay). Spencer/Christy had little option but to incorporate this [though they seem never to have referenced Wentz paper correcting their analysis in any subsequent papers}.

In the 1998 paper, Wentz stated "The MSU data set needs to be more closely examined, and a more rigorous error analysis should be done.". Sadly it was left to others to do this culminating in yet another embarrassing uncovering of a further spurious cooling trend whereby Spencer/Christy adopted the wrong sign in a flawed correction for diurnal effects, As Wentzl said in his response to the Christy/Spencer climbdown, [see Science 310, 972-3 (2005)]:

"Once we realized that the diurnal correction being used by Christy and Spencer for the lower troposphere had the opposite sign from their correction for the middle troposphere sign, we knew that something was amiss. Clearly, the lower troposphere does not warm at night and cool in the middle of the day. We question why Christy and Spencer adopted an obviously wrong diurnal correction in the first place. They first implemented it in 1998 in response to Wentz and Schabel (1), which found a previous error in their methodology: neglecting the effects of orbit decay."

As I said previously we can give Spencer/Christy the benefit of the doubt with respect to good faith; their analyses were incompetent and they seemed lacking in the self-peer-review standards of most scientists that lend them to ask probing questions about their own work when this conflicts with others. Note that I explained very carefully earlier that I haven't made accusations of "dishonesty" but that more recently these scientists display bad faith in their misrepresentation of scientific information. It would help if you were to read what people say, rather than misrepresent it to suit your own arguments - it's one of the dismal habits that has relegated you to a trash thread.

More recently Spencer has attempted to do "science" by blogging. He's published a scientifically-disgraceful book in which he attempts to sell the notion that he's right and everyone else is wrong. He publishes a dribble of papers that attempt to cast doubt on mainstream science, and these are repeatedly found to be fundamentally flawed. Like Dr Lindzen he takes a pre-conceived position that climate sensitivity is low, and attempts to shoehorn theoretical analyses into that prejudice. Rather than allowing this work to live (or in fact die) in the normal run of scientific progression, he supports astonishing misrepresentations in press releases and on the seedier elements of the blogosphere.

These aren't matters of opinion Jason. If we have some basic understanding and are willing to make honest assessments of the science, it's not difficult to identify bad faith attempts at misrepresentation for what they are. Considering the appalling effects agenda-led misrepresentations of science have had in the past, it's difficult to understand your enthusiasm for contemporary ones!

@chris

I'm sure Jonas will answer you, but reading thru I picked up a couple of points on what you said.

"but that more recently these scientists display bad faith in their misrepresentation of scientific information"

Curious as to what "misrepresentation" you are talking about?

Also,

"He's published a scientifically-disgraceful book in which he attempts to sell the notion that he's right and everyone else is wrong"

I thought that was the whole point of writing your own book, "selling the notion" you're right and everyone else wrong.

Bradley's latest book "Global Warming and Political Intimidation" describes the Hockey stick as "Robust" - well it is his book.

I think you need to get a bit more balance in your perspective. The situation with CAGW is not entirely new, if you have a scientific bent you could reacquaint yourself with the 'Big Bang' todo, plenty of belittling of others' views and theories there, all worked out in the end though.

;)

chris, if you had read the papers, why did you need to grossly overstate their contents?

You seriously seem to conflate 'improvements' with 'repeatedly got it so repeatedly hoplessly wrong'

As I said, I'd expect an activist to describe it that way, and an incompetent activist at that to claim 'this is objective fact proven in the peer reviewed literature'

And you need (and I mean really really need) to remember that qhat you are comparing to is 'climate science'. Where things need to be 'corrected' or 'improved' (and previous versions played down) essentially all the time. Especially when it comes to those temperature records. Don't even get me started there, with all the 'enhanced' products that come out of GISS or CRU. You definitely cannot use "lacking in the self-peer-review standards" as an argument, and even less so the proper attribution to those who found the errors.

But that is not the point here, you seem to acknowledge that UHA record has adressed and corrected the issues, both those pointed out by others and issues they found themselves. Exactly as proper science and engineering should be carried out.

I don't think you are claiming today that UHA (or RSS) are misrepresenting the temperature record, and that record (together with others from ground stations) shows that the trend hasn't been what the alarmist side needs. But that isn't the point either.

The Dessler vs Spencer questsion deals with how clouds function in the 'climate system', and you have taken sides (but cannot argue the case, merely hope)

Possibly you are aware that Dessler will make revisions to his latest (already 'published') paper because it 'misrepresented' Spencers position.

The other point is that you claimed repeatedly that Spencer knowlingly supmits science and publications he (according to you) knows to be sub standard). With a dishonests purpose on top of that. You've tried to backpedal a bit (wrt Christy&Spencer and UHA temps, although you brought that in to reinforce your claim). But you have still not presented one single piece of evidence of knowing dishonesty. And as I said, I suggest you are very very careful with such accusations. Meaning: Take that back if you dont have definitive proof!

And you are missing the point whenever you are using the word 'we' to represent science. There exists no understanding of the climate system which can be labelled so certain that it cannot be challenged or at least questioned. The constant revisions on the AGW-side alone demonstrate that. That the predictions/projections don't come true do it again. The lack of understanding of eg clouds do the same onece more.

You just have to accept that the matter, not any of the relevent detalis really, is nowhere close to be settled.

And the urge to shut down dissent, if only bty banning commenters who point out obvious facts, once more demonstrate how weak the case is.

And as you so amply demonstrate, the fact that the attacks so fervently focus on person rather than issues or topic underpins that observation once more.

So if you have no evidence of dishonest motive on the behalf of Spencer, I urge you once more to take that back. And leave it with your hoping that Dessler's points (which you don't seem to understand) indeed prove him wrong.

I can accept that people believe or support different positions. The relgious parts of such beliefs, however, have no place in such discussions.

(and your hope to dispel me as a heretic are nothing more than such)

I am convinced that you are a statistics waffler Jonas N.
With your âstationaryâ and ânon-stationaryâ processes it is quite obvious you are spouting from the wrong orifice and you have never done any serious Statistics. You donât seem to understand the difference between dependent and non-dependent variables in an equation â vital for âpredictionâ.

Hereâs a real life example (only one independent variable so as not to confuse you):- The yield of a chemical process may be dependent on the temperature that you carry out the reaction. So, in practice one would carry out the reaction at different temperatures to determine yield changes. Then, one would analyse the data to see if there is a correlation and regression,. The Regression should give you a best fit equation. From the equation, one can âpredictâ what range the yield should be for temperatures outside the ones of the dataset. Got you !!!

Secondly, you didnât answer my earlier question â just tried to slide away from it.

In an earlier post you claimed the IPCC probability estimates werenât made on the basis of science. So, I asked you what they were based on.

This was your reply (post (#189):-

Well, the claim certainly has been that it (and everything the IPCC presents) is based on climate science. ,

Yes â tell us something new

But nobody I've ever asked has seen that science. ,

Who have you asked? Name names. Perhaps your circle of AGW denier friends are afraid to see the science. Perhaps you donât get about much in intellectual / scientific circles.

Although folks get pretty worked up if I just ask or point this out. Here, I will be banned shortly because I brought it up and upset so many of the regulars. ,

Irrelevant waffle unrelated to the question

What it really is based on, how it came about, you will never hear or read in an official IPCC statements or reports. Otherwise, they would of course have presented it ... It is after all their latest posterchild claim.

So you canât actually define what it is based on except your opinion that it isnât science based. Yet you blithely say it isnât science based. May fool some â but not many here, (Just GSW probably â he has an astonishing similarity to Dick Dastardlyâs dog, Muttley - ).

My understanding of the IPCC process is that several thousand scientists read and review peer-reviewed scientific papers,of any discipline related to climate change, and from other sources, both environmental and business groups and summarize the findings into language that world governments can understand. Why, to allow those governments to plan policies to combat AGW.

So, on the face of it youâre claiming they donât do, or havenât done this so .......

PUT UP EVIDENCE â OR SHUT UP.

By clippo UK (not verified) on 18 Sep 2011 #permalink

Clippo

Of course I know I know about dependent and independet variables. But why are you chaning the subject? Or weren't you even aware of that your previous arguments referred to stationary processes?

Because when you now try with chemical procesesses, and their dependency on temperature, you are exactly describing what I told you in the first place:

You make the (quite reasonable) assumption, ie hypothesis, that a process depends on temperature. You then model that dependence with a (eg linear) term, which you fit to some experimental data, and then you 'predict' that if you increase the temperature even further, the observed (and fitted) effect) will be visible even outside that previously observed range.

What I've been saying from the first comment is that you need an underlying assumption, an attempt at explanation, and a linear dependence on temperature is such an assumption, ie a model.

Now, you know perfectly well that this kind of extrapolation might work well if you do not venture to far from you robservations, and that the fitted descriptions aren't true (or even good approximations) once other mechanisms intervene.

So certainly: Got you! But you bit your own tail, since what you say is what I've said all along!

Furhter:

I have not seen any 'science' supporting that IPCC AR4 claim, so there is no way I can tell you what is possibly can be based on. But I do surmise that such science doesn't exist (which is a falsifiable statement), which would imply that the claim is just handwaving waffle ..

Who have I asked, you wonder? Well essentially every pro-AGW site there exists (where I know the language) and everybody here the last weeks.

And no, you will never (in any forseeable future) hear an unecivocal explanation for that claim. Although there already have been links provided (here) which give the truth away ..

As you say, if several thousands of scientists stand behind that claim, at least some of them should know where that claim really came from. After more than four years. Yet, none of them is prepared to come forward ...

And exactly as you said (to everybody repeating that claim):

Show me that frikking science, or shut up!

@clippo

Difficult to know where to start.

I'll keep it simple - In the 'world of science' peoples opinion is worth diddley squat. As an example, Einstein, 200 scientists, "Yeah but it only takes one paper to prove me wrong" - I assume you know the story it's trotted out often enough.

I don't think anyone who has been following this thread is in any doubt that the 90% attribution claim is opinion, albeit expert opinion.

Do you have a reference for your chemistry example?

sorry Jonas, but there isn't anything of interest in your post. I pointed out your problem with false precis before (and just above) - it's one of the things that make you a troll. Try reading my post carefully and look at the links. Then try answering on the terms of my post.

Incidentally your irrelevant comments about the CRU and Giss temperature records are dumb. To my knowledge the essential elements of these records have hardly changed during the period of their existence, despite a truly astonishing effort to insinuate flaws from non-science sources. Good-faith efforts to maintain improvements obviously continue (efforts to establish improved sea surface records in the mid 20th century, for example, may improve these further). But these "in house" adjustments are of an entirely different order to the Spencer and Christy's flawed analyses. Their major flaws weren't identified "in house", and the corrections of competent scientists turned the MSU analysis from one that asserted a negative tropospheric temperature trend (Spencer/Christy) to one that gave temperature trends broadly consistent with surface measures and theoretical expectations.

...and it would be nice if just once you would give some supporting evidence for your assertive opinions...it's another of the things that makes you a troll.

@chris

I think Jonas may have been referring to the GISS 'Y2K' problem.

"I thought that was the whole point of writing your own book, "selling the notion" you're right and everyone else wrong."

Astonishing. Do you really lack a concept of good faith in science GSW? I've read dozens of books by scientists and I can think of only two of these that do as you suggest (Spencer's and a dreary book by Svensmark - Calder I think was a coauthor).

GSW the vast majority of scientists (that write books) establish that they've made useful and validated discoveries before writing books about their work. It's what makes their books interesting since it gives us insight into the origins of real and successful science. Spencer's (and Svensmark's) book is dismal since it comes across as a self-serving effort to push entirely unsupported (Spencer) or poorly-supported(Svensmark) interpretations.

An example of bad faith misrepresentation is Spencer's UAH press release, which (like Spencer's book) makes assertions that bear no relation to the rather underwhelming conclusions of Spencer's work. I don't link to trash, but you can find it by googling. The pathetic misrepresentation of the significance of the work is part of the reason the Editor of Remore Sensing resigned .

chris ..

You have been telling me about your beliefs, and I can accept those, although not your allegations of gross misconduct.

Regarding the latter, you have provided no support at all. And I dont expect you to have any either ...

You've claimed 'hoplessly wrong' about UHA MSU and are not aware of the size of what has been discussed. I take it you are neither familiar with the size of errors of ground station data. Or just hte adjustments.

Your only straw seems to be that if there is an improvment of the UHA MSU data, it must have been due to malicious hiding of facts, and the opposite when comes to all other corrections or improvements.

Well, if you honestly hold that belief, I cannot challenge this belief. Only note that it is terribly loopsided.

And if you really think that temperature records (regardless of satellite or ground station based) are 'broadly' in agreement with predictions from models, your live in the realm 'furthest out on the error bars, of those models with the least descrepancy wrt observations' ..

And that's OK, just be aware of that is what you are doing. Both Dessler and Trenberth are arguing the same thing now ...

And (you're probably not aware of this), the main point with Spencer and Braswell, now and last year, is another. Not adressed by the futile attempts of rebuttal, both in the litterature and more loudly on blogs ..

I reckon most of you don't have a clue. And that is why I just have to be a complete imbecill stupid moron, who never has read anythin ... to keep up the narrative ..

But as I've told you many times: Reality doesn't rely on opinion or consensus ... It just is!

chris

That you used the Wagner resignations as a 'proof' for the errors just once more underlines how poor the factual argument is. Wagner's argument is a repition of the kind of handwaving hear from 'one over the null hypthseis' Trenberth. Who is not adressing the issues. Either.

It is still: Belief doesn't substitute facts and observations.

But that's just too had to handle for what passes as climate science ..

Well yes, GSW, I wondered if that's what he had in mind.. But the tiny adjustments resulting from the GISS Y2K error had effectively zero implications for the temperature record and its implications with respect to climate science.

The corrections to the UAH record resulting from huge errors in the Christy/Spencer analyses turned a negative temperature trend that was completely confusing with respect to the wider evidence base, to a positive trend that was broadly consistent with the wider knowledge.

@chris 231

Yeah I know the story. Don't read it the way you do though. It's just occurred to me (the GISS bit helped) you don't actually know what you are talking about do you.

Where you the one that suggested you shouldn't release a paper until you've had poster sessions etc. Bernard thought that was a joke, I agree, the community doesn't and couldn't operate that like that on every paper.

And Spencer and Christy release stuff that is wrong, oh boo hoo. Jonas 'Y2K' GISS is an example of stuff being released that is wrong.

I assume you will condemn GISS with the same pejorative language you deem fit to use on others.

Also, have a guess who pointed out the problem to GISS? You'll cry!

"That you used the Wagner resignations as a 'proof'..."

Poor Jonas. You really are unable to comprehend the meaning of straightforward sentences... pretty sad. I'm not going to keep correcting your misrepresentations of my posts.

chris ..

You brought up the 'resignation' ...
It did not contain any sybstance. I you want to play word games, that's what you are doing.

You still have no support for you major claim! (I guess that's why you are marking words)

Do you have any spport for the dishonesty you implied, or is this just an outcome of your imagination?

THis would be a good moment for some real substande (if there is one=

*Show me that frikking science, or shut up!*

Sigh. This is exactly what we've been repeatedly asking you Jonas. Its up to you to show us where the science of AGW is wrong, not for us - contributors to a blog for heaven's sake - to prove its correct. We've asked you to critique the peer-reviewed studies, which you claim either not to have read or to have forgotten. And for asking this I get labeled a 'bore' by GSW. I guess relevant questions hurt, eh gumbo?

I've asked you many times to write a rebuttal for submission to a peer-reviewed journal and then to post it here for all of us to read. But you refuse to do that. For now you're just a prisoner of the blogs. Nobody gives a rat's ass about anything you say - except GSW of course. And he's also an anonymous scientific minion. You see, the big guys - the one's who are doing the climate science - don't spend much time reading blogs.

The fact is, whether you or your one-man fan club like to hear it, science isn't done in blogs. It's done in academic institutions and published in scientific journals. You clearly believe that you are correct, but every time I suggest that you put your ideas on a forum where they will be scrutinized by experts, you and GSW reply saying that I am angry, frustrated, boring, you name it (Actually I am none of those things _ I had a great week at work and have invitations to write several reviews in journals with high impact factors). So go ahead - see what your ideas are made of.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Sep 2011 #permalink

Yes I think I know who identified the GISS Y2K error, GSW. That's great. We'd like our analyses to be perfect but as in all of life "good enough" is usually good enough. Spencer/Christy-style hopeless misanalyses obviously ain't "good enough"; don't think we could disagree with that...yes? It was fine that the Y2K error was found, but it's incorporation made no eseential difference to the global temp record nor its implications with respect to the science; we only have to look at the pre-/post- record to see that.

I don't really have much interest in how you "read it". Since it makes hardly any difference, it doesn't have much to say about our understanding of the 20th century temperature rise and its implications for understanding the science.

Of course if you're less interested in the science and more interested in "gotchas" then that's great for you.

@Jeff

I think we can add pompous to the list as well, don't you?

;)

Yes GSW, I do agree re "pompous". The problem seems to be Jonas's inability to extract valid meaning from written text, combined with a presumption that whatever he thinks must be right - your right that it comes across as pomposity..so quite perceptive of you...

@chris

I won't correct you chris, I'm curious to see whether you can work it out for yourself. Your 'bias' maybe getting in the way of reality again?

;)

"Reality doesn't rely on opinion or consensus ... It just is!"

Which is why the denialists will just be a sociological curiosity in the histoty of climate science.

Jonas was invited at comment #181 to demonstrate that he has some understanding of the basics of climate science.

So far, he hasn't answered any of the questions.

Jeff

OK, I'll tell you: The IPCC is wrong in claiming that there is science behind their AR4 posterchild claim. Exactly there!

They made such a claim, and there is **no** science behind it! It is not that the science behind it is wrong, it just doesn't exist!

Did you get it this time?

And no, commenters on a climate junk blog have no obligation to find that non-existing science for me. I merely pointed out to them, when they brought up that claim, that it was empty and it was them taking it on faith.

And no, finding (claimed) scientific results usually is not that difficult. That's what you have references, journals and and databases for. Not that difficult **if it exists**, that is!

'Nobody gives a rat's ass", not "the big guys" nor anyone else, you proclaim. Well, it was you who brought it up, and some of the 'big guys' made that claim, and many more of them stand behind it, and even more are said to endorse it. And yet, it doesn't exist. If there were anything 'sciency' with you (or those big guys) you (they) wouldn't call such handwaiving science. And as yuou (possibly?) have noticed, there is no name behind that claim first found in the AR4 SPM. And in the actual Wg1 ch9 it is even more vague and woven into the running text accompanied by more armwaiving.

Yes, you repeatedly talk about submitting my observations, to be 'scritinized' by experts, so that they can shoot it down. But thats utter nonsense: There is no scrutiny, no shooting down necessary. My claim, and a rebuttal are much simpler than that: **Just show me the frikking science**

You have tried to explain this incapability with just being blog commenters, but completely seem to miss that you (you, and others) repeatedly make claims about having the science behind you, that you actually do read the peer reviewed publications. Signature chris even labels AGW claims as 'we' behind those.

Jeff, it's OK t choose to remain ignorant, but less so to repeatedly make unsubstantiated false claims .. especially when they need to be bolstered with the kind of language frequently used here.

PS You don't need to write the same comment again and again, your not-knowing is acknowledged, and your views about plenty of other things are noted. They are completely irrelevant wrt anything about the climate, or the science around it.

Alan - Gimme a break, if you want to demonstrate anything, it would be the level of understanding among many of the commenters here. Jeff is already making excuses for them.

BTW, the answers to your 'questions' are not what is the problem with the AGW-scare .. and if they were sincerely meant, you'd already know that.

So - we have 97% of the relevant scientific experts either in agreement with the IPCC round-up, or saying it is too conservative in its estimates.

And we have one lawyer who says "there is no science behind it".

As a person - like most others I imagine - who has to make analyses and risk assessments on a daily basis, it doesn't take me more than about 2 seconds to decide who is more likely to be correct, seeing as *I* am not an expert on climate science myself.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jonas @246:

> Alan - Gimme a break

Can I just ask - as a fully paid-up member of the Murdoch Tea-Party, are you required to give up your Australian nationality altogether, or will peppering your vacuous screeds with Americanisms suffice?

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 18 Sep 2011 #permalink

Earlier Jonas N., you said the IPCC's probability claims weren't based on science.

I then asked you to suggest what those claims were based on.

You still haven't answered that question - even amongst all your waffle.

You have changed the 'question' to put the onus onto others to prove the science - as Jeff Harvey said - and to avoid being pinned down on a statement that shows you are incapable of accepting the truth.

The IPCC studies and statements are based on scientific truth. Get used to it or ...

PUT UP an alternative explanation or SHUT UP.

By clippo uk (not verified) on 18 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jonas, You must be even thicker than even I supposed earlier. And that is saying one helluva lot.

You are repeately screaming: *Just show me the frikking science!!!!!*

So answer me this, and will you and stop evading the relevant question:

HAVE YOU ASKED ANY OF THE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE IPCC THIS SAME QUESTION? AND DID YOU RECEIVE A REPLY FROM ANY OF THEM?

You seem to think that you are scoring brownie points on Deltoid repeating the same dumb question over and over and over again, while never answering our questions. GSW says I am pompous which is a laugh, when you keep saying, "I know what I am talking about". Yet you've never told us what secret intellectual formula you have taken, since its clear you've never done any climate science research - heck ANY scientific research - in your life.

And to repeat: most of us contributing here are professionals, but not in climate science. What we do is to respect the views of the braod community in the field of climate science resesrch who do the research, write the papers, publish their results in rigid journals, and attend the relevant conferences. You clearly do not respect these people, based on your own self-righteous views. So what's your secret, smartie pants?

I think that you are a brazen coward. Writing onto general blogs demanding answers from people not working is a particular field is pure bluff. Its like you writing to a general blog demanding answers to questions of brain surgery techniques that go against the consensus when nobody contributing to the thread is a brain surgeon. Instead, we defer to the opinions of 95% of brain surgeons with respect to a particular method.

You haven't got the guts to put your money where your mouth is and to challenge a bonafide climate scientist with your gibberish. And until you do, you are wasting everyone's time. I have asked you the same question at least a dozen times (see above). When the heck are you going to answer it? You haven't ever told us what your day job is (if any). But the other question should be easy. Yes or no. Which is it?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 18 Sep 2011 #permalink

Craig ... the topic is old. More than four years actually. But feel free to join in: If you have ever seen that purported science and actually read (and preferably even understood) it, just tell me and all the others.

And no, science is nowhere opinion, nor is it numbers of coinciding opinions. And neither is it guessing how 'credible' the guesses of those opining are

Further, both the 97% and the 'relevant experts' are quite imprecise definitions, especially if it comes down to very specific statements. But you are right, there are many believing in what they have been told, by others, and this blog is a good example ..

Jeff H

Science is not presented by responding to email queries, you of all should know that. Get that into your head! Will you please!

Further, I dont give rat's derriere about your opinions of me. You have shown beyond any doubt that you cannot have a measured discussion, not even control your fantasies. Instead: A compulsive urge to make up your own 'facts'.

But I have replied to plenty questions which I find relevant to the topic. (And ignored the skunk-pissing-contest ones, a practice I don't respect, that is correct)

And I don't know why you write the same thing over and over again.

I accept the fact that you don't know where that claim is supposed to be shown with proper science. Even that you believe that 'the big guys' could point it out. But I don't share that belief, and science doesn't work that way: That the major results are so well hidden that only the 'trusted' can find it, and possibly have been allowed a peek at it. Science does not work this way!

And no, neither you nor 'the big guys' get to make up your own 'statistics' and probability definitions/calculations only because you are dealing with 'climate' .. Get that into your head too!

What is it you are so afraid of? Why are you so angry when this quite simple detail is pointed out to you? What is it you are defending? The non-existing science? The claim that it is still there? The practice to hide that fact among armwaiving phrases, footnotes, figures, appendices etc? Or that a wider public becoes aware of the fact? Or possibly that you've been had? What is it you are afraid of, 'scientist' Jeff H? The truth?

Why are you so obsessed with avoiding the facts (and making up your own)?

PS Of course I have asked this and related questions at RC, but as you might know, only 'stupid' sceptical questions make it through there, and only the 1st one, for which there is a ready made reply of Skeptical Science level. Relevant discussions are not possible there ...

> But I have replied to plenty questions

You haven't answered them, though, have you.

> And I don't know why you write the same thing over and over again.

Because you've never answered a question, so it gets asked again.

> Why are you so obsessed with avoiding the facts (and making up your own)?

Why do you complain of what you alone are doing? E.g.

> 205

> Wow #198 - No! Just plain: No!

This isn't an answer to the question in 197:

> But you can't say what it is you're talking about.

> Are you talking about the climate models? Are you saying you know about climate models?

Because if you don't know about the climate models, what is it you know?

> 204

> @wow

> "Of what to what"

> Like I said, you are late to the party, if you are using a browser you can scroll up to see what is being discussed.

> We're discussing the claim of attribution

But attribution of what to what?

Like I said, your initialism seems to mean "Git Says What?".

You quote

> These estimates are based on expert judgement but as ensemble climate prediction develops we expect to have more objective criteria.

But they DO have objective criteria. Models are hindcasted to see how well they match data they are not tested against in development. I even gave you a link to examples of such.

But you're determined, just like Jonarse here not to say a damn thing.

I can't believe this circus is still continuing.

I suggest that Jonas begin his next post: "IPCC AR4 makes the claim ......." and shows the exact wording as used in AR4.

Then Jonas you follow that with: "The issues I have with that claim are ....." This will ensure no goalposts are moved.

So Jonas, not another exhibition of your advanced D-K syndrome, not another of your incoherent rants, no more claims to expertise you plainly don't possess, no more risible anecdotes, no more fanciful ideas about how you think science should work, and no more sorry tales of persecution by those bad man over at RC. Just the IPCC claim in their own words, and your dispute with that.

I'd ask everybody not to respond to Jonas unless his next post follows the format I've suggested.

Clippo - If it were based on science, that science would be published somewhere, available to read for anybody interested. That is how science is supposed to work.

As I said, if that 'science' doesn't exist, this claim is just self proclaimed 'experts' opining. And that is what it is. Unfortunately, GSW, kind of gave it away (and I linked to it too)

(You will of course never hear the real story from any official source .. but there is a real story too behind that claim, and it would be really interesting to know the details)

And clippo, forget Jeff H, he has zip to say in this matter. And please don't talk about the 'scientific truth' .. expecially not when it comes to the IPCC (which is a political bureaucratic body)

@Jonas

"Unfortunately, GSW, kind of gave it away"

Apologies Jonas. I knew what you were getting at, I thought it would help the others. Elevating them from this state of ignorance is harder than I ever believed it could be.

;)

Wow - The "No! Just plain: No!" was in reply to #203. Sorry if that was my mistake. And no, I don't engage with everybody here. But try to answer all whom I deem serious and capable of behaving like grown ups (replying to Jeff is a little 'bonus treat', an offer which I cannot extend to all, sorry :-)

GSW, no problem. There was actually a slight difference in nuance between the TAR and AR4 phrasings.

I think that by now, all (grown ups) here are aware of the fact, it says so in plain language in the SPM footnote. But more remarkable is how they've woven it in to the actual AR4 assessment reports to give the impression that there is much more to it. It is quite cleverly crafted, as I said. And this is a strong candidate for what needed to be amended with the actual AR4 after the SPM was released in march 2007.

[Chek](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5239706).

It's incredible isn't it, just how much Jonas has avoided finding or providing actual evidence to support his claims, and how he has avoided trying to understand the processes of science itself?

By my own reckoning I myself have asked him at least six times to [explain why ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) [John Mashey](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) [is wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…), [or otherwise](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) [non-credible in](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) [scrutinising Wegman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…). That's not including similar requests by others.

No answer from Jonas N.

I have asked him at least seven times to [substantiate his](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5169667) [claims by](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5171860) [demonstrating that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5183521) [the IPCC's](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5194941) [work is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) [not backed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) [by science](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) - and again, that's not accounting for the numerous times others have asked the same thing of him. Jonas N's reply? "[Erm, I haven't found them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5169998) (the references)".

I've explained to him [at least](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5182999) [three times](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) [how science works](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…), and even afterward [he still mashes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5231470) [up the process](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5240489).

Jonas N.

Understand this.

  1. The IPCC was set up by governments of the international community in order that the Panel summarise climatological science, and report back.
  2. The IPCC summarises climatological science, and reports its results to the international community.
  3. The IPCC does not reproduce holus-bolus all of the climatological literature in its reportings. This is not in its remit.
  4. The IPCC does list the work that it references, and it does so in clever attachments to its documents; attachments imaginatively called "References" .
  5. These references are easily found by anyone properly experienced in scientific methodology, and objectively motivated to find said material.
  6. You have not demonstrated any understanding of this situation.
  7. Jonas N.

    I have been waiting for you to tell us which IPCC references you have read, and that by doing so have permitted you to make the claim that the organisation makes up its estimation on future temperature ranges. You claim that you can't find them.

    I am now going to ask you whether you have looked anywhere in the professional climatological literature for explanation of procedures to assess modelled future temperature ranges?

    So, have you?

    To make it easier, I will also ask you if you have read and discounted each of the papers below:

    - Allen, M. R. & Ingram, W. J. Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrological cycle. Nature 419, 224-232 (2002).

    Allen, M. R., Stott, P. A.,Mitchell, J. F. B., Schnur, R. & Delworth, T. L. Quantifying the uncertainty in forecasts of anthropogenic climate change. Nature 417, 617-620 (2000).

    - Allen, M. R. & Stainforth, D. A. Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature 419, 228 (2002).

    - Allen, M. R. Do-it-yourself climate prediction. Nature 401, 627 (1999).

    - Andronova, N. G. & Schlesinger, M. E. Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. 106, 22605-22612 (2001).

    - Collins, M. & Allen, M. R. Assessing the relative roles of initial and boundary conditions in inter-annual to decadal climate predictability. J. Clim. 15, 3104-3109 (2002).

    - Covey, C. et al. An overview of results from the coupled model intercomparison project. Glob. Planet. Change 37( 1-2), 103-133 (2003).

    - Forest, C. E. et al. Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science 295, 113-117 (2002).

    - Giorgi, F. & Francisco, R. Evaluating uncertainties in the prediction of regional climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 1295-1298 (2000).

    - Gregory, J. M. et al. An observationally-based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 15, 3117-3121 (2002).

    - Hansen, J. A. et al/. Casino-21: Climate simulation of the 21st century. World Res. Rev. 13, 187-189 (2001).

    - Kennedy, M. C. & O'Hagan, A. Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Stat. Methodol. 63, 425-450 (2001).

    - Knutti, R., Stocker, T. F., Joos, F. & Plattner, G. K. Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles. Nature 416, 719-723 (2002).

    - Morgan, M. G. & Keith, D. W. Climate-change - subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29, 468-476 (1995).

    - Murphy, J. M. et al. Quantifying uncertainties in climate change from a large ensemble of general circulation model predictions. Nature 430, 768-772 (2004).

    - Palmer, T. N. Predicting uncertainty in forecasts of weather and climate. Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 71-116 (2000).

    - Pope, V. D., Gallani, M., Rowntree, P. R. & Stratton, R. A. The impact of new physical parameterisations in the Hadley Centre climate model - HadAM3. Clim. Dyn. 16, 123-146 (2000).

    - Reilly, J. et al. Uncertainty in climate change assessments. Science 293, 430-433 (2001).

    - Smith, L. A. in Disentangling Uncertainty and Error: On the Predictability of Nonlinear Systems (ed. Mees, A. I.) Ch. 2 (Birkhauser, Boston, 2000).

    - Smith, L. What might we learn from climate forecasts? Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 2487-2492 (2002).

    - Stainforth, D. A. et al. Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433, 403-406 (2005).

    - Stott, P. A. & Kettleborough, J. A. Origins and estimates of uncertainty in predictions of twenty-first century temperature rise. Nature 416, 723-726 (2002).

    - Wigley, T. M. L. & Raper, S. L. Interpretation of high projections for global mean warming. Science 293, 451-454 (2001).

    Some of these touch upon the questions that you claim are not answered. Some don't. Do you know which ones do, and which ones don't?

    These are just a random start. There are plenty more references that can be put to you, and I can play this game for weeks or months yet.

    And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 19 Sep 2011 #permalink

> And no, I don't engage with everybody here

It's rather ironic that a troll denialist comes on here and says "I'll engage with people who appear serious".

You're serious, all right.

Get help fast.

Jonas,

First answer Bernard's outstanding post. I dare you to respond to it with any kind of content. Have you read any of the studies Beranrd has listed? A single one? Do you understand any of them?

Second, stop being so bloody evasive. It makes you look even more stupid than you already do. Most importantly, why can you not answer a simple question? Why are you hounding the people who contribute to Deltoid? I have simply asked if you have written to climate scientists with your queries. You refuse to answer this simple question. It is not a hard question; a yes or no would suffice. But instead, I get this kind of irrelevant rant:

*What is it you are so afraid of? Why are you so angry when this quite simple detail is pointed out to you? What is it you are defending? The non-existing science? The claim that it is still there? The practice to hide that fact among armwaiving phrases, footnotes, figures, appendices etc? Or that a wider public becoes aware of the fact? Or possibly that you've been had? What is it you are afraid of, 'scientist' Jeff H? The truth?*

What has this got to do with my question? I am not afraid of the truth. I want you to tell it to me: have you written to climate scientists outlining your complaints with AR4/IPCC? If so, who? And what was their response? There's no armwaving there. Just curiosity. Like anybody working in another field, I want to hear what answer you got from a climate scientist, if indeed you wrote to one.

But my guess is that you're merely a blog troll. A time-wasting jerk who clogs up web sites but when push comes to shove has to resort to railing on when your nonsense is caught out. Of course you haven't written to any climate scientists. You are afraid to. A coward. If not, let's see if you are up to it, little man. Please tell me if you've sent your rants anywhere other than on a few blog sites.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 19 Sep 2011 #permalink

Jeff H - If you are not afraid of the truth, why are you constantly making things up then? Why do you need to make factual statements which are either untrue or you cannot possibly know (ie guessing blindly)? Why!?

After three weeks, you can hardly justify that compulsive practice to a 'slip of the fingers' or a badly phrased comment.

Re: Bernard's comment: Did you not even notice that he is talkning about something completely different than I have been nagging about? (He certainly didn't)

And yes, you (and many others) are constantly trying to witch the topic, and it's getting really ridiculous. As you very well know, there is no name to that claim I have been questioning. It just surfaces in a SPM footnote.

There is no reference claiming to present the science behind it, ie no autors to ask. You are asking if I have randomly fired away emails to people not making that claim, to ask them about it!? What kind of twisted logic is that?

As I already told you, at Real Climate this question disappears, they are deleting much simpler points than that. As I said, most replies by Gavin (usually) have been low level dismissals (pretending to, or actually not understanding its substance)

But this is not the point Jeff. If there is science behind it, it is presented in one of the references, maybe building on a som few others. Named references Jeff .. All you are doing is trying to escape the fact that none of you have any clue.

And let me make one thing perfectly clear, Jeff:. Among the two of us (and many more firing their ad homs) I am not the troll.

I neither need to make things up, nor do I constantly need to throw insults and profanities at others (although, some deserve replies in kind)

> Jeff H - If you are not afraid of the truth, why are you constantly making things up then?

Please provide an example.

> There is no reference claiming to present the science behind it

What "it"?

> or actually not understanding its substance

Consider that it could be you're posts are gibberish to rational minds uncluttered by your fantasies.

> If there is science behind it

What "it"?

> Among the two of us (and many more firing their ad homs) I am not the troll.

OK, you're just an incomprehensible gibbering idiot.

This is not an ad hom, since this is not being used to refute your points (wherever they are). They are a description of your actions and posts.

Bernard J -

Yet another empty post: Of course I know what the IPCC is and how it came about.

It is also strange that you ask about 'modelled **future** temperatures', because this is **not at all** what I have been talking about!? Had you really missed that too?

But yes, some of them *touch upon* the issue **I** addressed. But the IPCC claim was very specific, there is no wiggle room wrt what it is supposed to mean. Some of you here were even trying to interpret that statement even stronger (pointing to the **most of** and the **>**90%).

re: The references
From the titles, one can confidently determine that quite some will not contain what I have been asking for. Some others, as you say (although unaware of the topic) may *touch upon* the issue.

And (although you completely have missed what I have been talking about for some three weeks now), have you read any of them? Are you making the statement that what I am looking for (a quite specific AR4 claim) is to be found in one of them?

Becaues it shure doesn't sound (read) lika that. It looks much more as a random selection of references, followd by the usual 'there are many more' .. in order to switch the topic.

But seriously: Have you read any of them, any you believe (because that is the method you seem to use) contain that claim?

That claim you had misunderstood until now!? (You can find it on top of page 10in red, in the SPM, link in #195)

Because if you had read them, and thought you've understood them, and you could articulate that understanding, and if you could do so (completely without the 'normal' behaviour of insults and rants about 'sticky stuff' you seem so obsessed with), then there could be a reason to actually discussits content.

But judging from your rants here, statistics is not your field of expertise ...

> It is also strange that you ask about 'modelled future temperatures', because this is not at all what I have been talking about!?

So what IS it you're talking about?

You're like that girl in the pop song: They call me Babe. That's not my name. That's not my name. That's not my name.

That's YOU, that is.

The confidence limits in English is defined. They are the lower end of the confidence limit, since there's uncertainty in the uncertainty.

But those figures ARE objectively analyzed.

Then politics waters those down.

You see, there is NOTHING that indicates that anything other than human production of CO2 has been the biggest cause of temperature change in the last 50 years.

But that's given a "Very likely (>95%)" because otherwise you'd spout some nonsense about how you can't KNOW 100% something.

Wow - In my experience, commenters who like using terms like 'denialist' almost never have anything of substance to say. Whatever they possibly can say that is not wrong, has been said and understood better by others before.

And quite often they have no clue how to determine anything, the read things and memorize them, repeat them and throw in random nonsense terms. And believe they are making an argument. Sorry, I'll leave you to your self ...

You may call me whatever makes you feel better, I neither mind nor care ...

That would false, Jonas. What would be more accurate is that anyone who calls you a denialist has never said anything you liked hearing.

> Whatever they possibly can say that is not wrong

Got any examples of what I've said that is wrong? No, you haven't. All you have is lies and denial.

> has been said and understood better by others before.

Well, yes. It's been said and understood by others before that you're a denier, Jonas. That you're a blithering idiot who can't make a single coherent statement without going all woo-mancer on it.

So, instead of actually SAYING what you're talking about, you go all non-sequitor.

You can't even answer the statement made:

> You see, there is NOTHING that indicates that anything other than human production of CO2 has been the biggest cause of temperature change in the last 50 years.

So rather than deal with it, you waffle and make your avoidance of any argument you can't meet a "moral choice" when in fact it's merely your inability to carry logical thought without having it in disagreement with your preconceived notions. And instead refuse to acknowledge any information you can't handle.

Or, in other words, a denier.

Among the two of us (and many more firing their ad homs) I am not the troll.

Unsurprisingly, Jonas has no idea about the definition of ad hominem. We'll just add that to the list, next to "science", "argument", "point", "relevant" and "reference".

Jonas, you're a moron. And no, that's not an ad hominem either. It's an insult based upon plentiful facts.

Wow, nice post in 253 â summarizes Jonas Nâs performance spot on,

Now, Jonas N, in #256 you wrote:-

Clippo - If it were based on science, that science would be published somewhere, available to read for anybody interested. That is how science is supposed to work.

Yes! â the science is published in the many thousands of peer-reviewed papers that the IPCC consults. Obviously you donât read them because of your AGW denial. Okay, perhaps they are too tough for you to understand. In that case, the accepted behaviour is to consult âsummaryâ journals like say, New Scientist or Scientific American and no doubt many others. Go see what they say about AGW. Or even you could consult online sources like Wikipedia or Encyclo. Brittanica and again many others.

&

And clippo, forget Jeff H, he has zip to say in this matter. And please don't talk about the 'scientific truth' .. expecially not when it comes to the IPCC (which is a political bureaucratic body)

I donât think Iâll forget Jeff H â heâs out-debated you so many times that I enjoy seeing him make you squirm. But, your second sentence exposes you clearly ...

youâre a Libertarian/right-wing conspiracy theorist (smile) â enough said.

Finally, by saying that the IPCC doesnât base itâs statements on science, you imply there is another reason â
Own up and tell us what it is, so we can all go home and ignore your tedious trolling.

(NB - I apologise to others if they have made these point above - I've not had time to read every recent post in detail and, due to more important committments I won't be able to post for a few weeks. )

Just had chance to read some recent posts - and I agree with Jeff H about Bernard J's excellent post #260

Answer it in detail Jonas N.

By Clippo UK (not verified) on 19 Sep 2011 #permalink

Clippo

No, there is no such science published, and major results (such as the claimed posterchild) are not hidden among 'thousands of papers'). You are also wrong about who is reading them. Because I have asked about the paper(s) that is(are) the base fot that IPCC claim. And nobody I've asked has ever seen it. You are also wrong about Bernard J, he hasen't read the posted references. He didn't even know what was disussed.

And you are totally wrong about Jeff, he introduced himself as a 'senior scientist' weeks ago, and said therefor people should trust his claims, and others. That is pure nonsense. He hasn't even debated anuthing. Just repeated his nonsens.

So clippo, first you tried to score some minor points about how statistics are used. You even kept trying that after you revealed your rudimentary understanding for a while. And now you have now sunk to the exceedingly low level as the rest of them. Cannot read what is discussed, miss even the most central parts, start to make up your own truths, using ad homs .

It's truly amazing, because this is the level at which essentially every AGW-believer is capable of adressing the issues. An awful lot of empty words, and once this becomes obvious, they rever to insults and simply make stuff up.

It's pretty disgraceful.

YMan don't even bother to read what I say, and insted listen to each others made up nonsense. No wonder you get it so wrong so often.

Here, in the past weeks, I've pointed out one detail: The AR4 posterchild claim, is not based on published science.

Simple as that, and although this is obvious, even can be found in plain text, if one bothers to look, it sent many off the deep end. Behaving like gron ups was not longer possible ...

Fascinating! And this behaviour is abundant at all climate scare blogs ... insults, lousy to complete absense of any logical capabilites and censoring

"Posterchild" - lol.
To add to Stu's at comment #270 that should be windy, verbose, incoherent moron with a penchant for obfuscation and avoidance.

Jonas writes, "*And you are totally wrong about Jeff, he introduced himself as a 'senior scientist' weeks ago, and said therefor people should trust his claims, and others. That is pure nonsense. He hasn't even debated anuthing. Just repeated his nonsens*

and then this:*Here, in the past weeks, I've pointed out one detail: The AR4 posterchild claim, is not based on published science*.

Two points. First, we have repeatedly asked what science Jonas is referring to. He then claims that he can't remember any climate-related papers he might have read. He's only read the general summary of AR4. Ouch. Basically, he's saying that as long as he doesn't read or remember any of the articles from which the conclusions were derived, then it's up to readers of blogs like Deltoid to prove to him that the aforementioned articles exist and that they bolster AR4.

Second, Bernard goes to the trouble of listing 23 relevant peer-reviewed studies that Jonas should read and then to come back to us with his comments. That means that our resident troll should be away at least a week or so combing through this work in an effort to show where the scientific flaws lie. Does he do that? Of course not! He comes straight back here with his original claim, but with additional bellowing about being correct, on top of the subject,and lashing out at those who criticize him, etc.

Let's get one thing straight Jonas. If you want to debate an issue where there is broad scientific agreement its usually common practice for you - the contrarian - to point out major flaws in the studies on which the original conclusions were based. Have you done that? NOOOO! Never! You are camouflaging your profound ignorance by expecting us here to go through the studies to prove the conclusions re: human impact on the warming are correct. But, you silly nitwit, that has already been done. You are the one who claims that the scientists got it wrong. If so, go through the studies and show us where!

The fact is Jonas that you couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag. But congratulations anyway. You have become the new poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger effect. In all of my years as a scientist I have never encountered anyone who knows so little about any scientific field but who thinks that they know so much. In my opinion you even make Lomborg look good, and that's saying a lot.

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 20 Sep 2011 #permalink

@Jeff

Sorry have to agree with Jonas on this. Jeff you are not a 'scientist' in any substantive meaning of the word.

You are purely a mixture of emotions, rage & fear. I'll add self importance to that as it is very much in evidence in what you have posted here . You seem unable to take an objective (dispassionate) view on anything.

You may not agree with Jonas, but you cannot even understand the point he is making - which I find most peculiar.

You can disagree, that's Ok.
Failure to comprehend, that's, well, odd.

Just continue with your self righteous torrents of abuse Jeff, you've shown you aren't capable of much else.

> Sorry have to agree with Jonas on this.

If you're sorry, why do you ALWAYS do it?

> Jeff you are not a 'scientist' in any substantive meaning of the word.

What substantive meaning are you using?

> You are purely a mixture of emotions, rage & fear.

Unlikely, since pure emotions can't type on a physical keyboard.

> but you cannot even understand the point he is making

That's because he's not making any points, just proclamations.

> Failure to comprehend, that's, well, odd.

Not really, since not comprehending gibberish is completely normal for a normal functioning brain.

> Just continue with your self righteous torrents of abuse Jeff

See "You are purely a mixture of emotions, rage & fear. I'll add self importance to that" above. Irony, to this whining little shitbag is "something like steely".

Jeff H is still trying to turn the question upside down.

I am the one asking which science supposedly is behind that claim. (Others are wishing/hoping for its existence, but mostly obsessing about completely irrelevant stuff)

Bernard gave a random scattergun list of references (proably from a simple ISI or WoS search) and demanded I read those instead.

Funny thing it that he 1) totally missed what my question was about, and 2) probably hasn't read many of them himself. I am very confident that he is very unfamiliar the topic (attribution to and high confidence levels of a proposed hypothesis)

As Jeff suggests, the purpose is to 'keep me away'. Both are asking mw to review and criticize articles that don't make the claim I am questuioning.

This is utterly amazing: Jeff Harvey still pretends (or even worse: truly believes) that a very spefic quantified calim, purportedly based on science, is not presented as such always is: In the published literature, but instead is found diluted in hundreds of references, and confirmed by 'broad agreement in the community' ..

This is such utter nonsense, it baffles the mind (mine, that is, and other real scientists)

And equally funny is his stamping his feet, repeating:

No! You must find what is wrong with what doesn't exist!

Really, how dense can one be?

Finally Jeff Harvey, well if you are so capable of debating science related topics, why then are you only repeating such nonsense, and why must you invent your own 'truths' as you go?

I mean really, I even pointed you (and others) to the passage where you can read that my claim is correct, and still you are flailing your arms ...

> I am the one asking which science supposedly is behind that claim.

What claim?

Please show the claim "it" is and where "it" comes from.

> Bernard gave a random scattergun list of references (proably from a simple ISI or WoS search)

Nope from the reference of the AR4. The place where the IPCC document the science they refer to in the report.

> I mean really, I even pointed you (and others) to the passage where you can read that my claim is correct

Where? Please repeat your passage and the location. You've spouted so much rubbish finding "the passage where you can read that my claim is correct" is impossible. You haven't even given the post number.

Jonas, I gave you a clear format to follow at post #255.
As it is you're just becoming an ever more incoherent moron, if that were possible, and GSW's Heepish support isn't helping you either.

I suggest you use the suggested format in #255 or continue to re-confirm your idiocy by not even understanding how to do that.

Nobody but nobody is ever going to bother re-reading the mountains of sheerfuckwitted rubbish you've produced so far, and most have just lost interest when your tedious repetition stopped being amusing.

Jonas N.

I gave the references for papers that I have and have read, or that are immediately referenced by them. As Wow notes, many (if not all) appear in AR4.

The substantive point here is that you are steadfastly and absolutely refusing to engage in an analysis of their content, just as you do with any request for specifics about John Mashey's work that are put to you. I want to know why the contents of papers such as these are not relevant to your claim - your response will tell us a great deal about the nature of your assessment of the professional climatological analysis. We want to see your 'working'.

As for the focus of my questioning, I have been endeavouring to entice you to answers taking into account that you dismiss both the confidence in the temperature ranges attributed to human-induced warming to date, and that [you slipped in a mention of "projections" at one point in your blathering](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…). Given that you started this whole nonsensical stream of fluff by criticising John Mashey, without ever giving any evidence for your claims, I was making sure that possible future, new changes in direction by you might be anticipated.

So, yet again. Why is Mashey wrong? Which of the AR4 and other climtological papers have you actually read, to acertain that there is no science that backs the IPCC's attribution of warming to humans?

Why has it taken you weeks now to reach this point, and still not answer these very simple questions?

Oh, that's right, you're an denialist shill with no scientific credibility, and a whole lot of pseudoscientific ideology. If you weren't, you'd write up the case that proves your point. And no, it has nothing to do with proving a negative - all you have to do is review the IPCC references and demonstrate that they do not in fact contain the material that you claim is absent.

So, in case you missed it the first one hundred times around, which of the AR4 and other climtological papers have you actually read, to acertain that there is no science that backs the IPCC's attribution of warming to humans?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 Sep 2011 #permalink

GSW @ #276

It's a truism that fake blogscientists really, really hate real, professional scientists. Perhaps because real professional scientists won't give the poor little poseurs the time of day, which totally offends the fake blogscientist's sense of self importance. Only an observation, but your posts are if anything yet more confirmation.

No doubt idiot trolls take comfort from your support though, for what little that's worth for both parties.

Bernard, once again you are making your own 'facts' up.

You say you have read some of them. That I believe. And you threw in some more (which was quite obvious).

Now, of those you have read (and understood the statistical parts of), is there any that actually adresses the key question here?

If so, which one?

As I have stated many times (and you 'deniers' refuse to take in): All I have ever read, did not contain that any such science, and did not pretend to deliver such either.

But very very often, did those who referred to a specific reference widely overstate its contents.

"As for the focus of [your] questioning"!?

Your focus has been sticky stuff, which you have been obsessing about. Inbetween feeble attempts at other insults. They don't impress me.

Its funny that you say:

"you'd write up the case that proves your point"

because, that is **exaclty** what I would have expected from those persons who make that claim about attribution and high confidence. **Exactly that!** Which you have no clue about where to find, if it at all exists. And why you demand I should read a lot of other stuff instead!

Owngoal once again!

Using your 'logic', you have no accused them of being : "denialist shill[s] with no scientific credibility, and a whole lot of pseudoscientific ideology"

I wouldn't go quite that far about the IPCC authors, but hey, inflated claims are abundant both here and there ...

So, since you have read some of your references, and are not claiming that the science for the AR4-posterchild-message was contained therein, we can agree on not looking furhter there. So which ones are left, Bernard J?

Which of them have you not read, still pinning your hopes on?

PS You are right, I do not take Mashey seriously. He/you may complain about the form of the Wegman report, I assume that this is the strongest argument he can come up with

Bernard J, I just read the link to my old comment. And if you don't understand what is said there, that explains why you have such difficulties handling real science. If you don't even understand the words ... of what a measurement is, or a hypothesis ..

And you subsequent comments there are just precious .. and revealing. And 'pertinent' according to your own judgement!

Priceless! :-)

> is there any that actually adresses the key question here?

Yes.

> All I have ever read, did not contain that any such science

We can believe that. And, given you haven't read the science that the AR4 refers to, this leaves us the option of the IPCC AR4 being scientific.

> Which you have no clue about where to find, if it at all exists.

Because you refuse to say what the hell you're talking about.

It's rather difficult to find information to counter your claims when you've made no concrete claims whatsoever.

Jonas sprays yet more incoherence. No surpise there.

Jonas, if you can't formulate a simple question in the format suggested, you're in no position to construct an argument, let alone a scientific critique.

Of course what this is really all about is the noise machine in action, now that Lindzen and Christy are busted flushes and Pielke Snr. jumped aboard Spencer's sinking ship, Wegman's career is destroyed and McIntyre's still dribbling on about Yamal a decade after the event. The warmest ever decade too.

The backbone of the denial machine is broken and the likes of half-arsed footsoldiers and noise makers such as Jonas and his fan are pretty much all there is left.

Troll Jonas said: "PS You are right, I do not take Mashey seriously. He/you may complain about the form of the Wegman report, I assume that this is the strongest argument he can come up".

Well peaches, Wegman has been under formal investigation for a year now. That's some serious shit about more than 'form', although I appreciate morons like you have limited understanding and shut their eyes at what they prefer not to see.

This is geting quite funny. The thread highlights the numbing impact a troll can have on sensible discussion. Everyone feels that it must be possible to get him to engage with some sort of semblance of reason - but no, it simply ain't going to happen.

Anyway, it shows why a garbage thread is sometimes necessary... and eventually everyone really will give up and that will be that..

chris, your contribution here has been the remote determination of other's motives, honesty and competence. As far as I've seen all your claims have been ludicrous. Especially when compared to what passes as 'climate science'

Unfortunately, most of your claims have only been what you can read at the various activist blogs, very much more concerned with persons than with facts or science. And in stark contrast to any understanding how (real) science progresses ..

But, if you have seen any realy science backing up the AR4-posterchild claim, why don't you just say so. You did proud your self as someone in science, both publishing and reviewing.

Maybe you too want to claim that the most spectacular scientific findings are not published as such, cannot be read, and are instead hidden among hundreds of references, dealing with other or only partly related questions, and that these findings instead exist as 'a general agreement within a community' (defining itself as 'those who