By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
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.
Yes. You're an imbecile.
Guys, we have to keep this up! This thread is getting into Tim Curtain territory. Not only in the number of posts, but the stupidity of the honoree.
I dunno, Ratty that thread set the bar pretty high.
Chek
Were you asking a question? I can see quite a number of comments by you, one more stupid than the other? But have a missed any sensible question?
If so: Sorry!
But you really need to improve your signal to noise ratio.
You know, I am not Tamino, somebody who already knows beforehand which part of a scalar metric signal is the true trend, and that it is the noise only hiding it.
As I've told you all so many times: Guessing blindly is not no viable method to increase neither knowledge nor understanding.
Some people here boast that they've spent six (formal) years on guessing, but not understanding even the simplest things. With the expected result. Jeff Harvey even boasted that not knowing and guessing instead was a virtue ...
And most others here seem to take the same approach.
Rattus N, you too were one of them not being able to argue your stance. Demanding that commenters should be banned. And you are right, stupidity really is abundant here. But you can hardly blame me for that ...
So far, not one single one of you (others) has even attempted to rescue luminous from spouting his unphysical nonsense .. on the contrary, quite a few have gone *all in* hoping (blindly guessing) that he still got it right ..
Maybe you too claim to have 'studied physics' for six years!? Or at least taken a freshman level class?
As said before, empty bins rattle the most. Keep on the good work, foil hats. I have better things to do.
I wonder, if we realists are so wrong, why are you hanging around here on Jonases thread? Kind of makes no sense. ;-)
Hehehe...the tents shake more than ever with reverend chek, LB, wow and stu in vibrating fetus positions drooling it out. And some other minions cheer on from the benches â with even less substance in the corner of their mouths. Amazing show of empty posturing and speaking in tongues. :-)
Its not Jeff Harvey standard yet, but if you keep it up, you will step out of his great shadow. Who knows, you might get a leg up on him in the prestigious "little-Napoleon look alike" CAGW-contest? I'm sure one of you fellas soon will be competent enough top the smooth and effortless moves of Jeffie when he put his right hand into his shirt.
Good to have you here pentaxZ!
Jonas, still no example of what luminous said that was "one of the many errors and contradictions I have pointed out !?"?
How come you complain about us knot having seen any examples of even one of the many errors and contradictions you've pointed out when you can't seem to see any examples either that you wish to have aired.
> So, it's not the suns temperature that causes the shifts in the climate
OK. So you'll agree that CO2 which HAS increased markedly in the atmosphere has caused a shift in climate currently.
> Seriously what?
Reading the rest of your post, I agree: seriously, what?
> You do know that the sun radiates other rays than just the wisible ones?
Say "nuclear vessels".
But yes. So what does that have to do with the sun's temperature change?
> And that the dark spots are magnetic storms?
Yes, still nothing to do with the sun's temperature.
Seriously, what?
> Yadayada. The fact, the undesputed fact, is that [you, pentaxz] don't know much about the climate
Fixed that for you.
PS how can you claim that not much is known yet proclaim with CERTAINTY that AGW is wrong?
> There is no 97% konsensus outside the IPCC
There's a 90% consensus for physicists, going down to 60% for geologists and meteorologists.
100% of the science institutions around the world have consensus with the IPCC.
But anyway, since so many deniers repeat the meme that science isn't consensus, why does the lack of a 97% consensus matter?
> Do I interpret your comments correctly to mean that you
> 1.
> Have not found anything wrong with all the many things that luminous has posted wrt to the laws of motion, friction and Newtonian mechanics?
What one thing out of those many are you saying is wrong?
You, apparently, haven't seen even one example you're willing to state.
Wow
>You, apparently, haven't seen even one example you're willing to state
They are all, already stated. They are visible above, they have been for weeks. If you want to see, them, you have to look at them (but that, you have to do by yourself). You might particularly want to look for those (by me) addressed at luminous, where I say that he got it wrong, how he got it wrong, and where I explain why, and how should have been done correctly ..
But you say, you cannot find one single one of them? Is that your 'position'!?
Well, in a way it all makes sense.
:-)
Wow #1814
"OK. So you'll agree that CO2 which HAS increased markedly in the atmosphere has caused a shift in climate currently."
Sertanly not. Where did you get that foolish idea? As said before, our sun rules the climate. But, if you don't know how the suns magnetic field affects our climate you still have some things to learn. Good luck.
#1816
Yadayada. The fact, the undesputed fact, is that we humans, including you foilhats, don't know much about the climate.
Rattle, rattle, Wow et al.
> They are all, already stated.
No, you've stated a lot of things. What statement is it you claim is one of the many examples of luminous getting the basic physics wrong?
But you say you cannot find a single one of them. Is that your position?
Every one of them where I say he bungled it, or that he violated basic principles, that he still got it wrong, where I point out that he contradicts his earlier positions, or that his latest attempt (description) won't give produce response he described earlier. Every single one of all those ..
And you can't find them!? Stu can't read them. Luminous could, but didn't understand them (or possibly did, but thought the best strategy was to keep going in the wrong direction for the benefit of the likes like you .. But given his latest tries, I find that less and less plausible).
No, it is much simple than this:
All off you, starting with luminous, and everyone else cheering for him, pinning their hopes on his 'understanding' of the simplest physics, every single one of you is a complete incompetent, illiterate not only when it comes to real science, but already at freshman level physics.
Every one of you! Complete incompetents! So fricking incompetent that you even voluntarily expose this by writing or supporting the gibberish.
I have asked if there is one single reader/commenter here who is not as clueless. But nobody could bring him to step forward (if there was one)
Look at Stu for instance.
He has been going on for weeks about a hand moving at different speed than the box. Incessantly! He even knows that it is a completely stupid notion wrt what was discussed. Because it is, it is extremely stupid. And still he has been going on and on about this ...
He is the only one ever having claimed anything about "a hand moving at different speed than the box" and how stupid it is.
But still, he does. Unprovoked! All by him self. No one else has ever mentioned anything about different speeds of hand/box. Only he! Voluntarily!
It is all very indicative of what many here are (in)capable of!
You for instance, seem incapable to use the your browsers Find-function ...
It's pathetic. And I mean really really pathetic ...
Still you say you cannot find an example.
> Have not found anything wrong with all the many things that luminous
You haven't either.
You still haven't found an example of one single thing that luminous "got wrong".
Is this because there isn't one?
> He is the only one ever having claimed anything about "a hand moving at different speed than the box" and how stupid it is
So are you saying Stu is wrong in saying that a hand moving at a different speed than the box is stupid?
Am I reading you right that you think this is not stupid?
Plus, given that this is Stu, not luminous, you still demonstrate that you can't find a single example of luminous being wrong.
Wow,
>Still you say you cannot find an example
Utter nonsense! Not only can I find them. I fricking wrote them, every one of them. They are all still available above!
It is you not being able to find one single comment by me where detailing the many f*ck ups.
And it is Stu, and only him who is making stupid statments, statments he even knows to be stupid!
You ask:
>Am I reading you right
You have been saying for a long time that you cannot read, cannot find, cannot see where where I've written what I wrote. Repeatedly! The question you need to ask yourself is shorter still, it goes:
>Am I reading ?
And I'd surmise that whatever you are doing, it is something else.
Wow:
You win one Interwebs.
Jonas:
Obvious and stupid lie. GSW brought up the hand velocity, and you are still defending it. Why don't you denounce it so we can move on? Are you congenitally incapable of admitting that you were wrong?
About pentaxZ's "the sun is everything": sweetheart, just because you like Svensmark's assertions does not make them true. Best guess currently is that sunspot activity MIGHT account for 30% of last century's warming. Not even the sunspot-cloud cover correlation has been holding.
Stu
GSW talked about the hand velocity.
You on the other hand have been talking about **different** hand/box velocities. You, and **you alone**!
And I think that was and still is really really stupid!
Olaus:
You're a very, very creepy and sexually repressed individual. I hope you are getting professional help for that before you hurt someone.
Anyway, for the record:
Jonas, @1822:
GSW, @1484:
Jonas, this is where you serve up yet more delicious irony with
Not just lies, stupid lies. I know you think you know more than all of us, and that you calling people stupid is not calling people stupid... but why the stupid lies, Jonas? It's so counterproductive. You'd be so much better off talking about something substantive, like what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists.
Yes, which is the same as the box and therefore not independent and therefore irrelevant.
No, GSW brought it up. Which is stupid and irrelevant. I asked over and over why, and he (and you) have been defending it.
It is also obvious that you only went back today to re-read the entire conversation and quickly changed your tune to this "only you are talking about it". So plus ten points for finally reading it, and minus several million for still being unable to admit that GSW was talking out of his keister and you were silly for defending him.
Yes Stu
Thats what GSW wrote. It is perfectly understandable. And physically correct, of course!
And there is not one single syllable saying that there is or should be a difference between hand and box velocities.
You on the other hand, have been obsessing about that difference. Many many times! All by your own, unprovoked! Still are ..
You have even been given helpful pointers as to where you got it wrong! But it still hasn't registered ...
> You, apparently, haven't seen even one example you're willing to state
> They are all, already stated.
You haven't stated a single one!
You are unable to find one yourself.
I've given you every opportunity and even left it up to you as to what counts as a valid concern about some error in luminous' posts on this thread and you've been unable to find one.
If I were to pick one out for you and then show how you were actually incorrect in assigning error to luminous's statements you would be crying that I'd picked that one deliberately to show you were wrong.
So again I ask for one single statement that luminous was wrong that you've pointed out (and where so we know you haven't just made it up).
I could otherwise pick a statement where you disagreed with luminous and were wrong.
Would this be fair to you?
Either it would or you're unable to find a statement that you've pointed out was wrong.
> > Still you say you cannot find an example
> Utter nonsense! Not only can I find them. I fricking wrote them, every one of them. They are all still available above
You still say you cannot find an example.
You say that you wrote them, you say that you could find them, but there's no proof of either.
Prove that you can find one of these examples: show us the example you find.
I can find text on this thread too. It's fairly easy. However, I cannot read the muddled mind of a denier like you, so I cannot say for certain what you consider a case where you've shown luminous wrong.
You also say you can't find a single case where you've shown luminous wrong. Because you never say that you've found one, you merely say you've said them.
You say this when being asked about luminous you give a complaint about Stu. Stu is not luminous. If you consider them the same person, then this is one reason why we cannot work out what example you're talking about.
So you cannot find a single example. How are WE supposed to find one when *you* can't?
> You have been saying for a long time that you cannot read
Really? Where did I say that? Do you have the citation for that statement?
Or are you saying that you can't read?
Wow ...
Which ones of my comments above is you have not found?
I can find all your comments labelled under Jonas. However, I cannot know what comments you made that were of luminous' errors.
As an example, you have said
> You have been saying for a long time that you cannot read
But I have never said I cannot read. If I search for "cannot read", there's you in #274, Jeff in 1070, stu in 1074, you in 1825, and me in 1832, after your claim quoted above in 1825, not only too late to be what you claim (that I had said before your 1825 post I'd said I couldn't read, but also me stating the rather normal assumption that I cannot read minds.
This shows that you will make stuff up. However, you know whether you have made a claim of error in luminous' posts that is as far as you're concerned both valid and correct. I do not know what you consider valid and correct since you have already demonstrated that you will make absolutely incontrovertibly incorrect claims about the words of another.
This, therefore is a possibility for you to claim your best shot at demonstrating an error in the physics that we should all have seen.
That you continue to fail to produce an example means either you can't find one, or there isn't one.
It was implied by bringing it up. That's why I asked. At no point did you or GSW say anything remotely like "of course they're the same, I shouldn't have brought it up". Weeks and weeks of defensive whining, yes; one sentence to defuse the entire thing and move on, no. So you and GSW were either too stupid to understand the concept of dependant variables (and you have now looked it up), or you're pathologically unable to admit when you are wrong about anything.
Or both. Probably both.
Do you really think you're fooling anyone by changing your story now?
And it's good to see you've finally realized you have absolutely no arguments against climate change and are restricting yourself to passive-aggressive whining about who said what about physics. I mean, God forbid you actually tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists so we can have a discussion.
You don't want a discussion. That's fine. It was getting a little exasperating to watch you pretend, so you finally dropping the charade and merely sub-Olaus-level trolling is very refreshing.
Kudos, Jonas!
Stu
Once again fantasizing up your own 'facts'!?
>It is also obvious that you only went back today to re-read the entire conversation and quickly changed your tune to this "only you are talking about it"
If anybody else had been talking about your nonsense, it would be visible above. Still! Go ahead and show me. If you think your âcaseâ exists outside your fantasy ..
No, let me instead put this very simple for you:
GSW describes the second law of Newton, what it means if you want to push a box over the table using your hand. And does so correctly.
Now if you are telling me (you who could see nothing wrong with what luminous wrote, albeit admitting you hadnât read that much) ..
If you are now saying that GSW got it wrong!? Praytell how and why? (But donât bring up your stupidity about different hand / box velocities again)
PS I can see two mutually exclusive alternatives regarding your claim âstudied physics for six yearsâ â¦
Either you did, or you didnât. I donât know which one would be worse ..
So, nothing from luminous, all you have is something from Stu that is correct (hand going faster than box being pushed by it is stupid).
> Now if you are telling me (you who could see nothing wrong with what luminous wrote
Where?
Posted by: Stu | November 4, 2011 11:11 AM
Three minutes later:
Posted by: Jonas N | November 4, 2011 11:14 AM
But
Posted by: Wow | November 2, 2011 11:59 AM
Where I asked for an example of one of the many errors that Jonas believes we should have read still remains unanswered.
Two days later. At least.
Can't you find one, Jonas?
Wow . as I have told you many many times.
I can find all of them. The all are 'Posted by: Jonas N' and they all are adressed at 'luminous' most often clearly visible in the first line or so ..
Which one of all of them are you having difficult to find, Wow?
>If I were to pick one out for you and then show how you were actually incorrect in assigning error to luminous's statements you would be crying
Go ahead, pick whichever you like the most. Gosh, pick all of them. Do your worst! Go ahead
And when you do, please try to adhere to the topic, use laws of physics, of motion, and correctly state relevant conditions.
And even more please please ... leave out all that abyssmal stupidity you have been displaying in essentially every single one of your far to many postings .. They are worse even than Stu's (and that's a tough one to top)
And forgive me, but I don't expect you manage one tiny single itty bitty thing .. you haven't so far!
Stu #1836
Regarding that âthat difference of hand / box velocitiesâ you say:
> It was implied by bringing it up
No, it wasnât! You implied it, you brought it up, nobody else! Same for your irrelevant blathering about âdependent variablesâ. Nobody mentioned anything even remotely related to that. Nobody but you, of course.
> At no point did GSW say .. "I shouldn't have brought it up"
And no GSW didnât bring it up. You did! And it was and still is stupid!
> At no point did you or GSW say anything remotely like "of course they're the same, I shouldn't have brought it up". Weeks and weeks of defensive whining, yes; one sentence to defuse the entire thing
Well, does GSW #1492, qualify as one sentence?
> Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force
And that was not after weeks and weeks, it was 14 minutes after you asked (the 2nd time). Two hours after you first stated that you donât understand what was described.
And you wonder why you have been going on for several weeks obsessing about that difference of hand / box velocities?
I (kinda) wonder the same. Why did you? Especially since it so fricking stupid! And since nobody else did?
Jonas,
>You need to realize that I know far more than you, also about this topic ...
Then what does this mean, smartypants?
>__Careful experiments reveal, that there are no discontinuities in the measured friction-force characteristics in reality. Besides that it was found, __that near zero velocity, friction is a continuous function of displacement__.
Does it not mean; As the velocity approaches zero, the coefficient of friction also approaches zero? My original argument.
Or does it mean: The coefficient of friction is constant for all velocities greater than zero? Your rebuttal to my original argument.
It may be I made an hundred mistakes in the back and forth of our discussion, but in the end after all the dross is removed, I was right and you were wrong.
Get over it.
> Go ahead, pick whichever you like the most. Gosh, pick all of them. Do your worst! Go ahead
OK.
So in post #396
> luminous b
> I'll make an exception for you. If you say that 90% certainty, together with the 'most/at least half of the warming the last 50 years' is to be found in any among that list, I'll check it out.
Is this it?
So, I've picked on post Jonas made to luminous by using the search function for Jonas.N.
This doesn't claim any physics by luminous to be wrong.
Therefore You're wrong, Jonas: you haven't shown any physics to be wrong.
No problem Jonas, I'm bored anyway.
At no point did I address that one way or the other, but by all means, continue to try to change the subject. You'll forgive me if I don't cooperate with your freshman debate club fallacies.
And you agreed with me, before you changed your mind. Still working on that one, single contradiction we've been asking for? Or will you wave your hands at your walls of text some more?
Sweetheart, that was the entire point. Please don't blame me for your inability to understand that.
Let me try to do this slowly for you.
GSW is holding forth, when suddenly, something catches my eye @1484:
This directly implies that the force of the hand depends on its velocity. Disregarding the silly acausal way of phrasing, the velocity of the hand is irrelevant by the experiment's definition. It is not independent of that of the box. That's why I asked why he brought it up in the very next comment @1485. I asked why he brought it up. Because he brought it up.
If you want to talk about what happened after that, fine. We'll do so as soon as you concede that you lied about who brought up the velocity of the hand.
Oh, wait, missed a part:
Well duh. By definition. Which is why it is irrelevant. Which is why it is stupid to bring up. Which does not address why he brought it up. The only reason you would bring up the velocity of the hand is if it can differ from the velocity of the box, at which point you're talking Physics of The Force.
Again, Jonas, last try, let's see if this one sticks: the hand is irrelevant. GSW brought it up. I asked why. He whined. He blustered. You joined in. You re-read the exchange. You changed your tune. You're now pretending you didn't. You're now hoping nobody notices that.
While we're waiting for you to sufficiently grow as a person to admit your lie, perhaps you we can spend our time productively by discussing what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Wow,
I'm glad you brought that exchange up.
I did show that one paper in that list showed that at least 50% of the warming of the last 50 years was due to human influences. What's more, that paper indicated that without human influences global temperatures would very likely have been cooler over the last 50 years, which implies that more than 100% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to human influences.
Jonas hasn't yet countered the facts of what this paper concludes except to make some hand-waving insubstantial complaints about statistical methods and GCMs. As usual, Jonas' mouth is writing checks his brain can't cash.
And polar bears, luminous, polar bears. Can't forget the polar bears.
Well, it's rather academic. For all his cries of woe at nobody having seen his posts showing failures in luminous's physics knowledge, Jonas hasn't managed to find one.
The one I brought to light with his blessing to view did no such thing.
luminous, I read that
It does not help you in any of the many instances you bungled physics and the laws of motion etc. Further, we were both very specific with what we discussed: Dry constant (kinetic) friction, constant coefficient of friction µ. And your (latest) 'understanding' still won't give you that velocity dependent increasing friction force you so desperately needed and argued for.
And no, your citation does not mean that:
>As the velocity approaches zero, the coefficient of friction also approaches zero
Your link, however, is not very good there. Because it looks like somthing like that ⦠But thatâs wrong!
You can easily test that by putting a box on the dry moderately tilted planar table. If your âunderstandingâ were correct (it isnât), that box would then move slowly downwards the slope at low speed (so that your âfriction wonât be too highâ). The key point is: It would move! And it doesnât!
Your stated âunderstandingâ of this implies (strictly) that whenever you put a box (zero speed v = 0) on a sloping plane (tilt angle α) it would start to accelerate downwards by gâ¢sin(α) (since initially, according to your âbeliefsâ µ = 0 at v = 0), whereafter it would pick up speed (and increasing µ>0) until it reaches a small but nun-zero sliding speed.
But it doesnât, luminous! You can easily try this at home in your kitchen. If not, believe me: Things just donât slide around at low speeds all over the place.
But Iâd say what they present is formally wrong (although I have an idea about why and how). Their figure 4.4 gives two curves with constant friction for sliding speeds (in positive or negative directions), which is what we have been discussing all along.
But their figure also gives a continuous curve through the zero, implying that at small velocities |v|< vsliding frictional force decreases. Well, they donât, as just demonstrated. But the key to this apparent mystery is found in your formulation:
>that near zero velocity, friction is a continuous function of displacement
That the force is a (monotnous) function to the **displacement**. Which makes sense (in a way, although badly described in your link).
Because if you start pushing at the box (in rest, v = 0) it will budge, a little. And since you are not applying that force at the same contact area where sliding is to occur, your object (box etc) will deform a little, as will probably the microcontacts between the two surfaces, before macroscopic sliding starts. That deformation gives you a displacement! before it starts to really slide.
Did you get that: Before we have sliding, and relative motion between the two surfaces, the applied force will have caused some deformation (of various parts of the system) so that the opposing friction force is (while macroscopically still at rest, v = 0) in balance with the applied force. Hence friction force is a function of displacement (at the point of applied pushing force) but before sliding begins.
As I said:
> You need to realize that I know far more than you, also about this topic ...
And still, and in every single part of this brouhaha
> I was right and you were wrong. Get over it.
But seriously. I donât think you really are such an idiot, meaning that I have a really hard time believing that you are sincere, when you now start arguing that every object is sliding around (slowly) unless the surface is perfectly level. You simply cannot be that stupid .. And can I see only one other alternative.
Another strawman fearlessly slain by our intrepid hero Jonas! Well done, my witless friend. Soldier on!
> It does not help you in any of the many instances you bungled physics and the laws of motion etc
We've already seen that those instances don't exist.
You couldn't find one and the one I found didn't show any bungling of physics by luminous.
> You can easily try this at home in your kitchen. If not, believe me: Things just donât slide around at low speeds all over the place.
You're saying that if I put something on a slope it cannot slide down???
I have a pencil in my kitchen for writing things down.
It fell off the pad onto the floor yesterday, even though I hadn't touched it!
Stu
You are the one having some severe problem. According to you, with a perfectly sensible statment by GSW, about pushing a box over a surface, and the force needed to accelerate it.
It is the simplest textbook example you can imagine.
I don't have a problem with it. You do. Neither GSW nor me introduced different velocities. You did. Or 'dependent variables'. You did. Neither of us have been obsessing about this. You did. You still are.
I have no clue to why you spend two+ weeks obsessing over your own stupid and completely irrelevant fantasies, none whatsoever.
But I guess that it reflects how ... ehrm ... stupid you must be.
Sorry, there is no other word for such abysmally stupid ranting, Stu!
Do you think I give a rat's ass about how much you don't understand? About what your fantasy thinks is implied? GSW describes a simple exeriment. You lose it, completely and definitely for some two weeks. Still not back on level. Do you think I care?
Have you found anybody? Anywhere, saying anything about different velocities, Stu?
Have you?
Because if you haven't, i still wonder why you keep on obsessing about it?
You can hardly blame your complete lack of understanding of even the simplest physics on the ones trying to help you understand them.
[Stiction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiction)
> Two solid objects pressing against each other (but not sliding) will require some threshold of force parallel to the surface of contact in order to overcome static cohesion. Stiction is a threshold, not a continuous force.
Wow, you have my persmission to write as much utter and stupid nonsens as you please ... it seems that a few among the crowd here even appreciate each others company ...
> According to you, with a perfectly sensible statment by GSW, about pushing a box over a surface, and the force needed to accelerate it.
You haven't finished the sentence.
According to stu, what?
You're making no sense whatsoever.
You still haven't managed to find one single occasion that we've missed when you whine:
> Have not found anything wrong with all the many things that luminous
We haven't, and neither have you.
Some interesting observations.
1) Up to comment #1850, approximately 238,675 words have been posted in this thread as per my word processor. That means that more words have been written in this page than East of Eden, Crime and Punishment, and Uncle Tom's Cabin.
This thread's word count has already exceeded the infamous Girma Thread from a few years ago.
Incredible.
2) This Wordle has to be seen to be believed.
To quote Yeats - "A terrible beauty is born."
1179
> When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down.
Posted by: luminous beauty | October 5, 2011 2:40 PM
And Jonarse has continued to proclaim that luminous is wrong, therefore an object in motion experiencing friction doesn't slow down according to Jonarse.
> 1183
> luminous b #1177 - Just a few small pointers:
> In the most common and widely used understanding of friction, ie and as you said constant (coefficient of) friction µ, you just severely violated Newton's second law.
Though you fail to say why. A force acting on an object will slow it down. and constant friction will cause a constant force retarding motion.
But the loss of kinetic energy to frictional forces (such energy needing to be removed to cause an object to halt) reduces over time.
Energy = Force x Distance
But if velocity reduces, Distance per unit time reduces, and the rate of energy dissipation reduces, making for a negative feedback that is not constant over time.
Which is what luminous says in 1179.
So two cases where luminous is correct.
Still not one case where Jonas pointed out any error luminous made.
This has to be because not even he can find one.
When is displacement not displacement?
When Jonas says so.
Jonas Second Law of Motion.
>I have a really hard time believing that you are sincere, when you now start arguing that every object is sliding around (slowly) unless the surface is perfectly level.
But, yes, at a long enough time scale, everything is sliding around, even on level surfaces, perfect or not, even what for the nonce seems strongly anchored. You could probably profit from getting away from your computer and your mother's basement, and take some time out and go hiking in the mountains and looking at rocks and thinking about time.
I'm sure you need a mental break. The cognitive dissonance must be stressful. You poor dear.
Jonas,
We're making progress. I'll take that shifting of the goalposts as a tacit admission that you were lying about who brought up the velocity of the hand.
It started as an honest question why GSW brought up something irrelevant, but it turned into a highly illustrative demonstration of the pathology of denial. At any point he (or you) could have said something like "fine, it was poorly phrased, but you know what I mean"... but no. Heels were dug in... deep. Here you are, weeks later, still having your little fit over it.
So.
Now that we've established that you were lying about who brought up the velocity of the hand, all you need to do is acknowledge that the way it was brought up implied it was a separate variable (specifically: "also").
So take your Ritalin, take a deep breath and re-read 1484. It'll come to you Jonas, just relax.
Or, if that's too much for you, perhaps you can tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists.
"I did show that one paper in that list showed that at least 50% of the warming of the last 50 years was due to human influences. What's more, that paper indicated that without human influences global temperatures would very likely have been cooler over the last 50 years, which implies that more than 100% of the warming in the last 50 years is due to human influences."
That really sounds like sturdy science, duh. Foil hats conventum.
"Jonas hasn't yet countered the facts of what this paper concludes..."
Facts? Really, facts? You read some alarmist paper and it automatically is "facts"? Cherry picking, people, cherry picking. luminous Stupids
"And polar bears, luminous, polar bears. Can't forget the polar bears."
Yes, lominous, don't forget the polar bears. The polar bear population hasn't been so large as it is today in several decades. In fact, they today are so nomerous that there is licenced hunting on them. Poor, poor polarbears. luminous Stupids, why are you lying?
Stu
Apropos 'lying', I found this little statement by you further up [#1684, my emphasis]:
>Okay, Jonas, either you are confused or the dumbest man alive next to GSW. Let me ask you outright: when pushing an object with your hand, can your hand have a different velocity than the pushed object? **GSW thinks so**, and so far **you've been defending him**. That's why the subject of physics is closed to you.
(and I am certain I can find many more instances with similar statements)
I asked you why you came up with that stupid notion, and why you have kept obsessing about it. Since it so obviously is nonsense, both the different velocities, and that anybody else (but you) brought it up.
So why?
And no, GSWs comment was not the least poorly phrased. The poor part of this sad story is your utter incompetence wrt to essentially anything being discussed here. You can' really blame anybody else for your inabilities and lack of comprehension ... although you are trying your hardest.
>Here you are, weeks later, still having your little fit over it.
Well, I can remeber only one person having a 2½ week long fit over it, and it certainly wasn't me. And you are still whining, and that's exactly what you do, over the fact that things were not explained with even more detail to you.
It is pathetic beyond belief.
Do you know the paper that is being discussed? Have you studied it? Have you studied its references? Do you have a substantive argument against what is set forth in it?
You don't, do you? Disagree with you = alarmist = false = cherry picking (that you harp on that while defending the M&M laugh riot is yet another level of projection).
It is spectacularly rude to start butting in a thread without reading it first. It was a sarcastic statement, nitwit.
Also, [Citation needed], because it sure doesn't look line it.
luminous
Your
>at a long enough time scale, everything is sliding around, even on level surfaces, perfect or not,
Sorry, but sliding involves relative motion of two clearly distinguishable sursfaces. What you refer to, and what happens on geological timescales is not called friction or sliding. And there is no fricking way you were thinking of that when you started out with your infamous #1177
Hence I stand by my
>I have a really hard time believing that you are sincere
And this is really the only method left to you. Pretending things you know are not true ...
And of course, you do believe in the climate scare and that there is solid, irrefutable science behind all the many claims!?
But maybe maybe, those two were just incidental, right?
But then again, you just argued that the coefficient of friction actually **goes to zero**.
Well, I have been following the climate scare cultists for years, but am still amazed with what they manage to come up with.
>What you refer to, and what happens on geological timescales is not called friction or sliding.
If you say so, it's so. So?
Stupid
"Have you studied it? Have you studied its references"
No. Have you?
Folks, these cretins are not worth our time.
luminous
>If you say so, it's so. So?
Yes pretty much when it comes to the laws of motion, understanding of friction, solving simple 1D differential equations. Correctly, mind you! Comprehending physics, statistics, handling math, knowing what modelling can accomplish, ans what it can't. Yes! That's is what you (and so many more) are having really bad problems with.
That's why people have been calling for having me banned. Because I know much more than they.
Further:
>You could probably profit from getting away from your computer and your mother's basement
Another instance where you try things you most certainly know not to be true .. to buy you same slack and regain a little face.
Hence I stand by my:
>I have a really hard time believing that you are sincere
But I really (and honestly) appreciate your efforts and all that has come out and crept into the open because of them .. Priceless stuff. Wow's pencil sliding down from the table .. Stu's whining for not having had the simplest physics explained to him in sufficiently enough detail. And that this omission made him behave like a raving lunatic for weeks ..
Priceless!
Impressive. We'll add "friction" and "sliding" to the list of things you have private and magical definitions for.
Jonas, Jonas, Jonas... I thought we were making progress! Did I or did I not just point out who brought up hand velocity, and where?
Why yes, I did. Hmm. Now, if I didn't know any better, I'd start to think you're not trying to discuss this in good faith and would rather play pretend until your dying breath in order to avoid being wrong on anything, ever.
Again, my precious, lying little cupcake:
That was not me, Jonas, that was GSW @1484.
Again, I did not set out to imply that he meant that there were different velocities, I asked why he brought hand velocity into the discussion since it was so obviously and by definition irrelevant. But he dug his heels in, as you did for a while, implying over and over that hand velocity was relevant. I still think you finally realized that and are now trying to pretend GSW never wrote 1484 in the first place.
I'm sorry it's up there for anyone to see, as is your flailing defense of it. It is so clinically insane that the only thing left to do is to make fun of it, hence The Physics of The Force.
I know what he meant. I know what you mean. I'm just pointing out how you are incapable of admitting even poor phrasing. How loopy deep-rooted denial can make a person. And you're still demonstrating that, in spades. You can't even form a coherent sentence about who said what, sweetheart (as Wow points out @1857).
You are completely irrational. The only thing you have over the obviously dense and delusional such as GSW, Olaus and PentaxZ is that you've had more practice hand-waving and staying sufficiently vague to avoid being nailed down on anything substantive, but (as this thread amply demonstrates) as soon as anything concrete is discussed, you have nothing but fallacies, distractions and evasions.
Hey, that reminds me, Jonas. What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Jonas:
You cannot possibly be this pathetic and insecure. Please, tell me it's an act you're putting up as hazing for the Trolling Society.
>And of course, you do believe in the climate scare and that there is solid, irrefutable science behind all the many claims!?
I believe there is solid, irrefutable evidence for AGW and that the mean climate sensitivity for doubling CO2e from many lines of evidence is 2C-4.5C, and is accurate if imprecise. The most likely value being about 3C.
It is, at present, a matter of concern, not fear. Although, for someone of your abnormal narcissistic tendencies, it is very possible you don't understand the difference.
Don't panic! It may only become really scary in another 50 to 100 years or more __if we fail to act on our knowledge__, or some other act of human stupidity makes it all moot.
A course you seem to believe in beyond reason. That _is_ scary!
Stu
It seems that you once more correctly managed to copy in GSWs quite correct statement. It contains statement about the hand and its increasing velocity.
It still does not contain any single one of your misconceptions.
And it mentioned the hand which is necessary to accomplish what is described. Nobody has said that the hand or its velocity was not mentioned. On the contrary, that statement contained both.
The topic (to which you were left alone for over two weeks) was whether there was a difference in velocity between box and hand. That query was answered 14 minutes after you asked. 2½ weeks ago!
What you believe is relevant or irrelevant wrt essentially any question discussed here, is totally irrelevant. It seems that nobody can help you out of your misery. You are with all your empty comments and sometimes posturing totally irrelevant.
If you (as you claimed) indeed know what he meant, why would you derail on a 2½ week detour about things that no one (but you) came up with!? Making you look like a raving lunatic!?
Now, don't get me wrong. I have no problem with that. But I think that even you are smarter than you make yourself to be here. Maybe not a lot. But no one can be so mad to display his own nonsense knowingly for more than two weeks. But that's what you did. And you try to make others responsible for it ...
You say:
>It is so clinically insane
But still, you haven't faulted on single part. Instead you went off on a 'clinically insane' spree of nonsense spouting about different velocities .. All by your own. Unprovoked!
And regarding 'denial'
We have here seen numerous instances of outright denial, of even the simplest laws of physics. And you gladly joined in ..
Nobody pushed you there either. It's just you, it's the kind of things you do .. repeatedly.
luminous
>I believe there is solid, irrefutable evidence for AGW and that the mean climate sensitivity for doubling CO2e from many lines of evidence is 2C-4.5C, and is accurate if imprecise. The most likely value being about 3C.
Yes, that is what you believe. And I actually do believe you believing it. But when somebody told you that it ain't that simple, or just that he wasn't quite as convinced, or even tried to explain why that 'science' wasn't as solid as it pretended to be ..
.. you felt the need to use the label 'idiot' I don't know how many times.
I have no big problems with your fears and anxieties. I don't even mind the name calling from those insecure shouters.
The funny thing is that whenever one scratches just a tiny bit on that surface, the whole thing crumbles, just as you did when starting to play pompous with (knowing by name) Navier Stokes equations, but not being capable of even getting the simplest laws of motion right.
And not only did you make mistakes (everybody can make them) but when called upon them, you 'upped the ante' and started to try bluffing your way through.
Unfortunately, this behavior is not restricted only to know-nothing blog commenters, most of the more prominent CAGW (so called) experts are equally incompetent.
And that just is not convincing.
Look, I can't take your faith away from you. But I definitely can point out to you that it is faith and nothing else. Even if you deny it, and try to violate almost every scientific principle while doing so.
If it is any consolation, I can tell you that you are not the only one.
Jonas,
>But when somebody told you that it ain't that simple, or just that he wasn't quite as convinced, or even tried to explain why that 'science' wasn't as solid as it pretended to be ..
I listen skeptically and carefully to his arguments. If his arguments are nothing but hand waving exercises, supported only with more hand waving assertions of "I'm smarter than you" and the like, combined with recursively numerous non sequiturs, then I feel reasonably justified in calling that person an idiot.
You're an idiot.
Well, Stu_pid, you didn't answer my question, have you read it? By your reaction I'd say no, you haven't. But thats al in order, it's the ol' alarmist way, raving about how "deniers" won't read shit loads of references thrown at them, references alarmists often don't read themselves. So lame, dude....sorry, mean Stu_pid. So lame.
Jonas,
>just as you did when starting to play pompous with (knowing by name) Navier Stokes equations...
This accusation would have me totally baffled, were I not aware of your penchant for projection. I merely asked you if you knew the basic underlying physics of GCMs __without naming those principles and equations__, and N-S is all you could come up with.
Sorry mate, but you're the one who's been meaninglessly throwing N-S around like a bludgeon. I haven't even touched upon it.
Clue: N-S is an incomplete and failing answer to the question.
Can you do better?
Jonas:
Since he said "also", he implied a possible difference in velocities. But you know this. Does anyone fall for this crap in your real life, Jonas, or are you stuck winning arguments with trees?
No, mendacious dimwit, the topic was why it was brought up, since bringing it up was stupid and irrelevant. And you know that, Jonas. The only reason hand velocity is relevant in that entire experiment is if it is different than the velocity of the box.
Why are you trying to pretend I did not ask for clarification in 1485? I got back a "they have to be the same", which (listen carefully, Jonas, very carefully) still does not explain why GSW brought up the hand velocity in the first place.
Throughout, there was always the option for GSW and now you to admit that yes, hand velocity is completely irrelevant in this experiment, so 1484 is poorly worded.
Think long and hard about why that is, Jonas.
luminous
You asked about N-S, not only once but tried several different approaches. And failed. Instead:
>and N-S is all you could come up with.
Says the one who cannot even get a simple ordinary 1D differential equation right. Who needs to invent geological time scale phenomena to describe his understanding of 'friction'
Sorry for not taking you seriously one bit. Telling you that you are not quite as abyssmally stupid as Stu and Wow, of course is hardly a compliment here.
But then again, it wasn't meant to be one.
I really admire Jonas persistance. Even if i think he would have a much more rewarding conversation with a brick wall, because it propably has a higher IQ than the foil hats on this site has all together.
Stu
I agree that what you brought up is dimwit stupid and irrelevant. But you still seem to be unaware that it was you, and nobody else who did bring it up.
In spite of this having been established beyond any doubt.
I recon this is just as stupid dimwit irrelevant to go on obsessing about it.
You were indeed asking for clarification, and you got it some 114 minutes later.
The question is not about what GSW said (and what he said was perfectly sensible). The question is about why you felt the need to spend 2½ weeks raving about your own lunacy about things that were never said ..
And yo still do!
And hand velocity is still the primary cause of the box moving at that same velocity. And the question still is about what force that hand exerts when acceleration that bos.
But I know, we are way over your head here again. Sorry, but I am incapable of stooping to your level here.
Ah, more vapid whine and bluster in Swedish stereo.
Still not a single substantive argument against AGW.
What a surprise. Let me guess... you'll now evacuate the thread for a few days again and then come back pretending like these last few dozen posts never happened.
Correction
Some 14 minutes later, although 114 minutes is close to the 2 hours from his first incredulous statement of disbelief ...
Okay, no problem. You simply don't know what a dependent variable is. And if you don't by now, you never will.
Let's move on to more interesting things before you temp-flounce again, Jonas: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Well Stu_pid. As said, talking to a brick wall would sertanly be more relevant than talking to you. You really can't get into your head that CAGW is a opinion, or a religion if you preferre that, not a fact in any way. In other words pseudoscience. But then of course, you are literally under the water and in a sect, so I, in a way, understand your ignorence. Brain washing has that effect on stupid people, Stu_pid. Oh sorry, I naturally mean you Stu_pid Hollander. (Who by the way has one of the ugliest languages in the world. As if they has porridge in the mouth while talking. Grose).
PentaxZ, friendly tip: if you're going to call people stupid, it helps to check your spelling.
Things like
You do know that there are freely available tools to prevent this from happening, right? Or will you join the rest of the Swedes in stubbornly looking like abject fools in this way as well?
TampaxZ said:"Brain washing has that effect on stupid people".
..says he who gets his 'science' from Monckton and ... the Jonases.
It's like they can't help projecting.
luminous
>I listen skeptically and carefully to his arguments
Yes, and we all know how that went, regarding a simple example concerning the solution to a simple linear 1D differential equation ....
>If his arguments are nothing but .. assertions of "I'm smarter than you" ... I feel reasonably justified in calling that person an idiot. You're an idiot.
Brilliant! This is not even an owngoal ...
Because what you have delivered here lately is not only
>arguments [which] are nothing but hand waving exercises, supported only with more hand waving assertions of "I'm smarter than you" [like] You're an idiot.
You have done far more than that, you have actively and boneheadely argued some dozen sheer nonsense positions, and written equations you hoped describe and justify them. Your latest blind blooper was:
>As the velocity approaches zero, the coefficient of friction also approaches zero
Priceless! But you got two more incompetent nitwits to even support you there ... And that's gotta be worth something, ain't it?
:-)
So Stu
Why have you boneheadedly been going on like a raving lunatic about 'different velocities of hand/box'
Are you telling me that that stu-pidity is related to your 'understanding' of 'independent variables'? Another of your hang-ups nowhere relevant to anything discussed here?
Look kid, nobody really cares about all the stuff you don't comprehend. Apparently not even you. The original example #1484was:
>If it was a matchbox on a table, and the applied force was your hand, then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also. If it moves at constant velocity you are only applying F friction.
You declared that it didn't make sense to you. OK, I believe that. It seems you still haven't understood it, since you are still obsessing pathetically ..
OK, so what?
Stupid #1888
So, are you so out of arguments that you feel that you have to rave about my (miss)spelling. Well, that's quite all right. Because, as we all know, empty bins rattles the most.
So, please, with sugar on top, keep going, Stupid, keep going. Otside this alarmist sect you are making a komplete arse of you self. And that's not a bad thing at all.
(by the way, you still haven't answered if you have read the paper you referred to. Have you or have you not, Stupid?)
TampaxZ, before you get on your high horse, you haven't even begun addressing the arguments in #1710 in response to your introductory gish gallop yet.
Oh and copy'n'pastes from political blogs do not count, nor do Jonases-style arm waving, evasions or further unreferenced claims.
What an honor, to be treated to the rapier wit of not one but two denialists!
It's okay, Jonas, it's obvious by now you don't understand that 1484 brought up hand velocity as an independent variable. We can move on now. Do you have anything substantive? Like, about climate change?
PentaxZ:
It's the only thing to address, since you haven't brought forth any. Just trying to help you not look like a fool, really. But you don't seem to mind: empty bins rattles, Otside, komplete...
I'm sorry, I must have missed the substantive arguments you've made against it. Could you point them out to me?
Jonas,
The linear equation to which you cling so desperately is not a law of physics, but merely a semi-empirical approximation. The problem with this simple linear equation is that it is discontinuous at zero velocity. This is non-physical in that it doesn't agree with real world empirical observations nor well understood parameters of physical theory. The facts are as that as velocities approach zero, that approximation loses its validity and the the relationship is no longer simply linear, but [exponential.](http://virtual.cvut.cz/cemlibmodules/0PmD4xOWh+QQ3NaB.png). Yes, the force of friction does [approach zero as velocity approaches zero](http://virtual.cvut.cz/cemlibmodules/D1KYH1uV26uw6ln7.png), and conversely increases as the velocity increases from zero. I should add, this too is an empirical formula, but one that is derived from careful observations and not idealized assumptions. The reason why objects come to a complete rest rather than slowing at an infinitesimally decreasing rate depends on the microscopic presence of non-linear and asymmetrical/non-conserved forces that come into play at very, very small velocities.
You can rail on forever about how these microscopic displacements aren't what you and only you define as sliding, but that won't make you right. It just makes you a solipsistic narcissist and a cowardly willful idiot.
Jonas,
>You asked about N-S, not only once but tried several different approaches. And failed.
I asked what is the basic underlying physics of GCMs. I didn't ask specifically about N-S. That was your oblique and incorrect answer to my question. N-S is only one component of the basic underlying physics of GCMs.
If I've failed, it is only in getting you to make a substantive response to the question. That is hardly my fault.
I'll ask it again:
What is the basic underlying physics of GCMs?
luminous
More complete nonsense from you, and actually so stupid that I seriously question your sincerity (I have been for a while)
First thing. the 1D linear differential equation is also called the second law of Newton, you even wrote it up yourself (#1201):
>Newton's Second Law states that the vector sum of all forces acting on a body is equal to the change of momentum with respect to time (acceleration or deceleration). Since change of momentum with respect to time is the quantity of interest here
or #1254 & 1259
>F = m · âv/ât
It definitely an absolute central part of all physics! And many of your 'arguments' have violated that explicityly or implicitly. Starting with your #1177 which now is #1179 (*). And you still are!
Second:
When you now argue that 'linear equeation' you score the second owngoal. Friction is (as you correctly state) an empirical observation. It is as far fram linear as you can possibly get. On the contrary, the friction we have beed discussing the entire time is 'constant friction' which gived you a friction force proportional to the normal force via the coeffictient µ of friction:
>F = µ·N
You make more owngoals when you claim:
>The problem with this simple linear equation is that it is discontinuous at zero velocity. This is non-physical ...
Well luminous, you just argued and needed it to be continuous (see below). And I just told you that it certainly is not. Friction and sliding are very much discintinuous through the zero. (The box/body at rest, with no relative sliding, ie v=0, has never been the issue. And this has been stated clearly all along)
But I am not the one 'clinging so desperately to a linear equation'! You are now! Since you wanted and needed (#1842)
>As the velocity approaches zero, the coefficient of friction also approaches zero
And the figure 4.4 in your link, indeed shows you such a linear relation for small v>o (which is wrong, though for reasons already stated: boxes do not slide around slowly). And the text states something different, quoted by you:
>friction is a continuous function of displacement.
Read this once more. Because it (contrary to figure 4.4) contains some truth! Do you know what it describes? A force being a funtion of **displacement**!? Well if not (and at this point I am not assuming you know/remember one thing any more):
It describes a **spring**! Did you understand that? A (linear) spring responds with a force dependent on (proportional to) displacement! A spring!
ANd it is true: As long as there is no macroscopic slinding, ie as long as v =
0, friction force will be in equilibrium with applied, and only deformation (of the invovled parts/components) will give you a displacment.
That's owngoal number four only in #1896. Since you vehemently argued that the *spring* (which you now include in your friction description) did not give you a negative feedback whereas the friction itself did. (Sorry kid, you bring this onto yourself all by your own).
Another owngoal in that post is your argument that:
>You can rail on forever about how these microscopic displacements aren't what you and only you define as sliding, but that won't make you right
Sorry kid, but what we have been discussing, pendulum at small angles, boxes over the warehose floor, books/matchboxes on tilted tables, pucks sliding over ice etc .. has absolutely nothing at all to do qith your latest pathetic attempt att saving that completely sputtered face of yours.
Absolutely nothing in this 'discussion' (tutoring) I have had with you for a month now, depends on what exactly happens with friction when the puck comes to a stop, or when that book starts sliding on the tilted table! All you deliver here is pure nonsensical, incompetent and uninformed waffle. All of it.
The sixth owngoal is your link to what you call [exponential relationship](http://virtual.cvut.cz/cemlibmodules/0PmD4xOWh+QQ3NaB.png) wich you declare is different from 'linear'. But that again is gibberish. The exponential terms therin describe something distinctly different. (I know what, but you don't), and the second link [force of friction does approach zero as velocity approaches zero](http://virtual.cvut.cz/cemlibmodules/D1KYH1uV26uw6ln7.png) shows exactly what you were just denying: A [linear relationship](http://virtual.cvut.cz/cemlibmodules/D1KYH1uV26uw6ln7.png) through the zero!
And one which is unphysical on top of that. As I said, it would mean that any object released on a sloping surface would initially start acceleration downwards with g·sin(α).
The seventh owngoal is your description of when things come to rest:
>The reason why objects come to a complete rest rather than slowing at an infinitesimally decreasing rate depends on the microscopic presence of non-linear and asymmetrical/non-conserved forces that come into play at very, very small velocities
It is utter nonsense, and violates both simple physics principls, and whatever you have been trying to argue just before. Complete boneheaded BS. The reason why it comes to a stop, is that as long as it isn't, ie as long as there is sliding, there is a substantial frictional force, and (for all practical purposes) it is accurately and sufficiently described by Coulomb friction:
>F = µ·N
You can easily test this when driving a car (you do have a driver's licence, do you?). You go at a speed v > 0 and you hit the breaks, firmly, but not locking the wheels (or the anti-lock system), and you will deccelerate, lose speed.
You will feel that (negative) acceleration a < 0 quite distinctly, as being pulled forward. And this will continue until the car stops. Just before it stops, when still v > 0, you will still be aware or it. But most importantly, you will very distinctly notice the difference between, the transition from constant decceleration (when your breakpads are still sliding) to when that sliding stops. **Suddenly**, the wheels motion forward will be zero, v = 0, and that perceived force pulling you forward in the seatbealt will disappear. Momentarily! And the car/suspension system will give you a slight jolt (when that force dissapears, abruptly)
You know this (even Stu and Wow do, but htey haven't got a clue). So don't give me any microscopic BS attemtped face savingcrap ...
I know far far **far** more than you will ever lear about this too!
I have been generous here, only counting every new f*ck up once, and that was seven owngoals in one comment only. (Not counting all contradictions with earlier 'statements')
And I notice you still think the term 'idiot' is appropriate!?
Well kid, lets call that eight then.
:-)
(*) It seems like the numbering is changing here, which makes referring to earlier posts ambiguous. I wonder why Tim Labmert feels the need to insert new comment# a month later!? But it sure helps to hide and confuse all of luminous stupidities.
check, dear little fool, who's arm waving? Certainly not me, or Jonas, or Olaus, or any other realist. We don't need to, because we are not lying through our teeth. And we also don't have to worry for loosing our faces, like you, stupids. You know it, but of course won't admit to it.
Stupid
"Could you point them out to me?" Why should I? Do you thing I care the least about the paper? Or any alarmist paper you throw at me? I'm not the least interrested in interpretations biased alarmists make. Empirical data is da shit, and from them you get zilch support, and you know that, Stupid, all to well.
luminous #1897
You tried to play knowledgable by asking about Navier Stokes equations. And by (repeatedly) pointing out that they rely on conservation of energy and momentum
Your point apparently was that there is 'physics' behind the GCMs.
But that is a totally empty (and ignorant) argument. It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the many shortcomings of GCMs which are the issue.
If they would violate even that, they would be at your level here, trying to describe friction with voodo mechanics. But that is not the issue.
You have here, lengthily, argued that friction is modelled and described based on emprical observations (And that is true, allthough you've argued the most stupid non-empirical idoitic things, with equally nonsensical arguments defying simple physics).
But in the climate system, there are so infinitely many more effects of equally non-linear, poorly understood, not at all understood, not correctly quantified etc phenomena which **cannot* be derived from basics physics. And which, all of them, are coupled meaning that they may influence each other, again in non linear fashions.
That's why GCSs cannot be used for fortune telling (of future climate) or even to validate a proposed climate hypothesis with any confidence.
I can promise you: All the things going on in the climate system are far far more, and far far more comlicated than the simple phenomenon of friction of a box on a floor.
And anyway: You bungled the box on the floor badly, and have still not managed to get on level ground again, a month after you started.
But you want to tell me that you much much better understand GCMs? And would not make all those stupid viloations of basic physics, when you talk about them, their output and how they handle phenomena far far more complicated than friction!?
You want me to believe that?
And if so, should I put it down as yet another owngoal?
Stu
What GSW said about hand velocity was correct. What you have argued for 2½ weeks has been utter nonsense. And, as you've shown, sheer products of your on fantasy, which is afflictied with abundandt ignorance about most of the things.
And no, that is not anybody else's responsibility ..
But going back to the core issue:
Is there any part of GSWs #1484 which you still don't understand?
(You seem to have droped that idiotic 'different speed of hand/box' now, since this was only your stupid fantasy which lasted for weeks. Dependent or independet variables are not an issue either)
What is described contains a box, a hand pushing it, with a force, a velocity, that changes, and a frictional force due to the sliding.
All very simple things (for anybody having studied physics for a semester).
Now, you said you hade severe problems with that?
Can you precisely explain what it is you don't understand? What you take issue with? (Without involving fantasies about things not in there)?
Can you?
Because so far, you haven't. Instead you have been lamenting like a lunatic about things only existing in your fantasy
(you do that a lot, I have noticed .. it seems to be almost endemic)
luminous
As I have said before, I can see only two options here:
1. You do actually and honestly believe in what (crap) you post, or
2. You are aware of that (parts of) your postings are nonsense.
Alternative 1) implies stupidity and ignorance beyond belief, alternative 2) implies disingenuity.
Now, I know for certain that you are quite poor with physics, math, laws of motion, statistics, logical arguments and so forth.
But I still have a hard time believing you are quite as incompetent as your (collective) postings here imply. Meaning that you (probably) are aware of how badly you flunked it in some instances earlier. Also your desperate search for various descriptions of 'non constant friction' to save you from your earlier f*ck up regarding what you (wrongly) called both 'constant friction' and 'constant coefficient of friction' indicate that you are (at least somewhat) aware of what you need to move away from.
So my previous assessment still stands:
>I have a really hard time believing that you are sincere
From early on I hade the strong suspicion that you were only a waffler, a sciency term-throwing commenter, who knew little or nothing about all he put forward. Yeah, just like so many others. But you are one of the few who persisted even when your bluff was called. Making things 'worser and worser' as Alice would say. Still making things more worse, scoring owngoals en masse in almost every new post.
Here, I only wanted to point out one more such obvious uninformed wiki/google-based attempt att mouthing back, while instead revealing how uninformed you actually were.
I early on explained to you that constant friction is known as Coulomb friction, and I explained what that meant. You seemed to both accept that, embrace that, then don't understand that, then redefine that, and now wanting to distance yourself from that description (bungling it again: Both the distancing, and the alternative descriptions).
But when I brought it up, and you (once more) tried to sound knowledgable about it, you once more revealed that you had absolutely no clue. Because in your reply, you mentioned both Coulomb friction (which was correct, and what I brought up) but you tried to bring it together with **electrostatic Coulomb forces** aka Coulomb's law, which are something entirely different.
You did that in #1358, once more revealing that you are only an empty know-nothing waffler, who does a few internet searches, finds a phrase that sounds good, contains some sciency sounding terms, and posts a comment without understanding the issue at all. [Coulomb friction](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_friction) and [Coulomb's law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb's_law), at that time.
And the funny thing is that essentially every climate scare commenter I have ever met, discussed with debated, or heard putting out his best arguments, has needed to be disingeneous in that and other similar manners ..
No wonder so many of you get it so wrong, lying to yourselves is really on of the best methods to make yourself (even more) stupid ..
The Jonases @ #1900: "But in the climate system, there are so infinitely many more effects of equally non-linear, poorly understood, not at all understood, not correctly quantified etc phenomena which *cannot be derived from basics physics. And which, all of them, are coupled meaning that they may influence each other, again in non linear fashions.
That's why GCSs cannot be used for fortune telling (of future climate) or even to validate a proposed climate hypothesis with any confidence.
..and so with one unsupported claim after another and a wave of his hand, climate science was dismissed.
You really are just a batshit crazy old crank aren't you?
chek
you seem incapable of distinguishing *describing* from *dismissing*
But that is just what I expect from you, a commenter who posts a bunch of Skeptical Science links and thinks he has made the argument.
>a batshit crazy old crank aren't you?
You haven't even started to engage. I'd expect you are about as knowledgeable as most of the others here ...
You have been cheering for the louminouses, Stus ans Wows here. And the Bernards and Jeffs before.
You even once dared to mention 'redefining Newton'
Well well, as I always said: I expect people to come up the best the have (left)
I expect you too are doing just that ...
chek
>with one unsupported claim after another
Really!? Are you telling me that there are less than say 10 various effects included in the GCMs which are understood and modelled more poorly than simple friction!?
Well that would indeed be "one unsupported claim" ..
As I said, I expect you to make the best you can, and everybody can see what comes out of it ...
The Jonases :"Really!? Are you telling me ...
Yes, you're a batshit-crazy old crank.
The Jonases again: "But in the climate system, there are so infinitely many more effects of equally non-linear, poorly understood, not at all understood, not correctly quantified etc phenomena which *cannot be derived from basics physics. And which, all of them, are coupled meaning that they may influence each other, again in non linear fashions".
and again: "As I said, I expect you to make the best you can, and everybody can see what comes out of it ... "
Indeed. So, to correct myself, what comes out of it is you're a batshit crazy deluded old crank.
Your 'argument' by assertion may work (I promise you) on your creepy chicken coop (and I assume Tampax, Oluas/Olaus and GSW are the best support you've got) but out in the real world remember Jonas - no real professional scientist will give you the time of day. That's how 'smart' you are.
chek
I surmise that this is the best you can come up with .. 'redefining Newton'
Pathetic, as it has been since i entered here.
>no real professional scientist will give you the time of day
So you pretend to speak for them now? Against me? At a site which with nothing but henhouse cackle incompetence?
My questions to you would be:
How the heck do you establish that your blind guesses actually guessed anything right, and much less so: every time you tried?
Or do you by 'real scientist' mean the likes of blindly guessing Jeff Harvey who couldn't address one single topic, stamping hes little angry feet, waiving his ficticious CV and boasting about his ignorance as a virtue!?
Why is it that not any single one of you is capable of addressing even one of the many fully correct statements and pointers I make? Why does it instead make essentially all of you incompetents scurry off in the completely wrong direction?
Are you really all that incompetent?
The Jonases:"do you by 'real scientist' mean the likes of blindly guessing Jeff Harvey
Well there is of course Jeff, the past editor of Nature, the leading science journal on the planet. But let's also not forget more recently Grant Foster (Tamino) who also detected'n'ejected your sorryass, shit-for-brains, moronic routine within 200 of your slimy, devious words.
Good times...
How you must hate them with every trashcan you empty.
chek
Yes, there is Jeff H who never dared to argue one single point of any of the topics discussed here. Who supported/endorsed some of the most stupid commenters here at all. One Michael, but even Stu and luminous (and probably others I have forgotten).
And there is Tamino who after one mild comment where I did not much more than asked if he really meant what he posted, needed to block all following comments where I pointed out his many inconsistancies.
What I actually don't understand is how an know-nothing waffler, reading Skeptical Science and such, believes that he can make any calls whatsoever regarding who has a valid point or not!?
You certainly have not had one single valid point opposing me. Two months ago, you declared that you hoped that Johan Mashey had some valid points. And I think that was an honest declaration. But when asked what it all came down too, you didn't have an answer either, like the rest of you.
And since then, you have been siding with the abyssmally stupid here, 'redefining Newton' ..
And I believe it was you who started with the shrinking glaciers scare too ..
Your problem, coinciding with so many other's here, is that you have no method at all deciding what is valid and what is vapid ... just blind guessing. And as I've told you, that will land you in the wrong position every time .. even in those few instances when you by pure chance happened to get a guess right ..
So you say now, Jonases.
What everybody else saw is that you had your chance and you blew it.
Let's just say that nobody was at all surprised.
chek
That was my point. You have no clue at all assessing what is said. Tamino (probably) is just a trifle smarter than you and realized he has to delete every following comment.
Boneheaded relgious belief is just not gonna get you anywhere. And here, where (in this thread) comments aren't deleted yet, you've had nothing. Noting at all!
You couldn't even spot the weaknesses in Taminos (or luminous) attempts. Only hoping that somebody else got it right ..
Closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears. That's the preferred method here. And not one single one (non-idiot) even tried to save luminous from further embarrassments. Probably because you couldn't either. Because you had no clue!
Or did you chek, did you actually have some beef when talking about 'redefining Newton'!?
Did you, chek? It's a Yes/No question!
I can well appreciate your need to construct myths to disguise your own incompetence. Especially with all those spectacularly stupid young chickens you cultivate who seem convinced of your .. um .. 'invincibility'.
But lest we get distracted by yet more of your frantic handwaving, let's take a moment to recall that when you had your chance and push came to shove, you had nothing ... nothing at all.
Just like every other time.
So, you are trying to defend Deltoid and the know-nothing commenters here by talking about
>those spectacularly stupid young chickens
and their
>need to construct myths to disguise [their] own incompetence
Priceless chek
So, you are trying to defend Deltoid and the know-nothing commenters here by talking about
>those spectacularly stupid young chickens
and their
>need to construct myths to disguise [their] own incompetence
Priceless chek
So, you are trying to defend Deltoid and the know-nothing commenters here by talking about
>those spectacularly stupid young chickens
and their
>need to construct myths to disguise [their] own incompetence
Priceless chek
Tim, can you please put chek out of his misery? He's really suffering out there. A lame duck like that would benefit a lot from a restraining order.
Jonas generously tries to help him out, using all known (basic) science there is, but chek's delusions and pompous self seem to block any remedy, for instance the facts and logics in Jonas' prescription # 1900 and following. But instead of reading what's actually being said, chek just goes on Jeffie-style about anything but the topics at hand, fabricating his own little world where he still is fighting down ignorance and stu...
Freud would have had a field day with him, and the rest of the touretting junior league here at Deltoid.
Waw, chek, Stu luminous et al, the definition of useful idiots. The liar Pachauri surley thanks you for your efforts. You'r so owned. And it's hilarious that you don't know it, stupids.
James Delingpole wrote after the Climategate a quite funny peace why Panchauri, the nuthead who claims that earth quakes are man made, he should stay as the chairman for the IPCC and concluded with these words:
âBut letâs not underestimate the scale of the struggle we climate rationalists have ahead of us. AGW is the biggest and most far-reaching scientific scandal in history, whose tentacles spread into almost every aspect of our lives, from how we dispose of our trash and how we light up our homes, to how we travel and how we are taxed and regulated. Big business stands to make a fortune out of the scam; for governments itâs a way of extending their control and increasing power; for eco-fascists itâs a way of destroying industrial civilisation.
This conspiracy is much, MUCH bigger than one unfortunate bearded troll-impersonator.â
Delingpole? The guy who admits he does not know the science but feels he is competent to interpret the interpreters?
" The guy who admits he does not know the science..."
You mean as the foil hats habitating this site? Anyhow, if you think it's ok that your IPCC-pope claims that earth quakes can be blamed on AWG, I rest my case.
The IPCC coffin is so full of nails, it wouldn't be right to recycle it as wood, but as metal.
TampaxZ, if you really believe - as I think you do - all that global klimate konspiracy trash, then take it over to Alex Jones site or similar where you can discuss it with a class of moron much more in keeping with your intellectual capacity.
Meanwhile, please note that after 1900+ posts, that you and the Jonases Klub haven't even hazed the paintwork of AGW or the IPCC, let alone banged so much as a nano-pinpoint into it. All the Jonases can now do is weakly murmur 'I know you are, but what am I?' like a petulant six year old at the peak of their powers.
Moronic cross-repetition of unattributed nonsense across the deniosphere does not indicate either 'being correct' or 'making progress'. It merely indicates, as was succinctly put long ago, that there's one born every minute.
Never heard of treenails (pr. trenalls) eh?
Yet another ignoramus is PentaxZ.
Richard S, you did better before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAOy4KggUTc&feature=related
Chek, pay attention, Lionel A's going berserk. :-)
cheknut, I don't need a mutual admiration society. Although the MSM has a tendency to only report alarmist poo, slowly it's starting to publish realistic reports to. The AWG ship is big, but finally, it has started to turn. And in time, it will have the right, scientific direction. So, please stupids, go on with your arm waving and foot stomping as the (mentaly) three years old infants you are.
"haven't even hazed the paintwork of AGW or the IPCC" only shows how deeply indoctrinated you are in the AGW-church. Foil hats Inc. You really makes me laugh.
Lionel A
Yet a stupid alarmist without a brain to use?
Anders believed in the same thing that you do, didn't he?
And from the same source, Christopher Monckton, isn't that right TampaxZ?
It seems that David Duff scarpered just before I could have him [join the Scandinavian Syndicate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/november_2011_open_thread.php#c…). Too bad, because I was hoping that he would put his convictions on the line just as [Jonas N, Olaus Petri, and GSW have](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/october_2011_open_thread.php#co…).
Never mind. I see, coming back in here, that there's another new kid on the block who seems to share the conviction of his fellow Scandinavian Denialati...
So, pentaxZ, I put this to you...
...are you prepared to accept the challenge that I have put to others, [as outlined here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/october_2011_open_thread.php#co…)?
I will take the next posting on Deltoid by you, that does not explicitly decline the challenge, as being an explicit acceptance of the same challenge. As I said to David Duff when I put the same offer to him, it will please me greatly to have you on board, and I am sure that Jonas N, Olaus Petri, and GSW will welcome you to their little fraternity.
Jonas N, Olaus Petri, and GSW:
I have posted here again because it seems that my efforts to attract your attention elsewhere are being met by conspicuous silence. So, [as I have asked previously](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/10/october_2011_open_thread.php#co…), I am very keen to know if each of you are prepared to enter into legally-binding contracts to solidify the informal ones that you entered into last month? For the record, I intend to stipulate that your estates become liable for your debt in the event that the demise of any of you occurs prior to the first melting event specified in our original agreement.
If you are so prepared, could you please forward your contact details to Tim Lambert for him to pass on, so that I can start the ball rolling on collecting a year's salary (as specified by our initial agreement) from each of you at some point in the future. If not, could you please explain why you are choosing to renege on your original acceptances of my challenge?
As I said to Duff, I am keen to establish a fund to mitigate in a small way some of the impacts that will occur concurrently with the fulfillment of my challenge, and your cooperation in enabling me to recover moneys owed would be most helpful. Given that your anti-science stances on the matter are contributing to global delay on emissions action, it is only right and fair that you should compensate for the damage that you are helping to inflict...
Please note - I am not interested in arguing the science with you, because as you have each demonstrated time and time again, you accept none of the science that has been produced by the world's professionals. I am simply calling you on your convictions that you are correct, and that thousands of trained and experienced experts are not. If you believe what you say, in the face of whole disciplines of science that say otherwise, you will believe that you cannot lose.
Let's see just how courageous you are.
Bernard J
Of course i decline your callenge. And why wouldn't I. Regardless of my answer you alarmists will see it as a "victory" for you side. Like Jesus said, why do you ask me a question which answered either way is wrong. Foul play indeed.
> Of course i decline your callenge. And why wouldn't I
Indeed.
The mouse would always be better off refusing to challenge the lion.
So Jonarse and his chums cannot even between them find an example of even one of the "many" posts Jonarse has made showing luminous incorrect in the science stated.
I wonder why he complains that we can't do it, though.
Wow, stupid.
Your comment #1928 kind of proves my point "Regardless of my answer you alarmists will see it as a "victory" for you side." But your'e propably to stupid to realise it.
If I was to make you the same, but opposite callenge you would gladely accept it, wouldn't you, dumb head?
What's, wrong little mouse?
Nobody listening to you roar?
PS have you just agreed with Bernard's bet, just refused to bet it with him, but instead willing to bet the same deal with me?
OK, lets do it.
We'll use Bernard to hold the money, you pass it on to him, he passes it on to me when you lose.
Or we could both use Tim Lambert to hold the money.
PentaxZ.
>Of course i decline your callenge. And why wouldn't I. Regardless of my answer you alarmists will see it as a "victory" for you side.
Why wouldn't you? Eh?!
Excuse me, but you are ranting and raving about how climatologists and physicists are wrong about human-caused global warming.
If you actually believe your own claims, you would expect to not lose an acceptance of the challenge, because according to your story the world is safe from CO2-induced harm. Whatever 'science' you rely on, you seem to believe it enough to not accept the professional work of more than 95% of the world's scientists. At least, your comments on this thread would imply so.
Just as you are, your Scandinavian buddies here are adamant in their insistence that "catastrophic" warming will not occur. I simply say that melting of Arctic sea ice constitutes an indication of such "catastrophic" warming, and if and when it happens that event renders your arguments and your buddies' falsified.
If you are correct then acceptance of the challenge is not a victory for me. It is simply a kick up my arse. My victory would only occur when your claims are falsified in the future, and by your words such would not happen.
It's interesting though that you don't believe your own rantings enough to put them to the test...
Jonas N, Olaus Petri, and GSW - I'm still waiting for details with which I can start legally formalising your acceptances of my challenge.
Bernard J
"It's interesting though that you don't believe your own rantings enough to put them to the test.."
I sure believe in them, make no mistake. But why in the hell should I have to accept a bet to prove that? I can ask you the same as Wow, if I was to make you the same, but opposite callenge you would accept it?
Bernard J
You seem to wonder why nobody takes your *'legally binding'* drivel seriously ..
What idiotic nonsense do you even think you are presenting?
Legally binding pecuniary contracts and bets with such incompetent, cluless, outright rude and (most of all) disingeneous and dishonest nitwits like your self?
to
>solidify the **informal ones** that you **entered** into last month
Are completely mad? I mean, I know you where delusional and quite stupid before, but (if you take yourself seriously at this level) this borders sheer lunacy ...
A wager without upside, but with a madman ...
Wow #1929 ..
If you suffer from autism, you have my empathy ... otherwise not!
What does that have to do with your inability to find even one example of what you claim to be an error in luminous' physics posts here?
Nothing?
Why bring it up? Are you so mentally retarded you think that a "look! Monkeys!" gambit will stop people seeing that you're unable to find a single example of what you complain everyone here has missed?
> You seem to wonder why nobody takes your 'legally binding' drivel seriously
No, we know why you won't take that legally binding bet seriously: you KNOW you're wrong.
You are unable and unwilling to put your money where your mouth is because you're hoping like hell (and only barely figuratively) that you will die of your excesses before any downside of AGW hits you.
Pure selfish greed.
Hence you're not willing to risk a single penny on anything. Not on the risk that you will be affected, nor on the risk that you could be wrong.
>A wager without upside...
Jonas N, you are growing shrill.
I did not present my challenge as a wager, but simply as a challenge. A challenge to test the courage of your convictions - convictions which suddenly seem to be slipping given [the name-calling in your post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5761390), and your refusal to enter into a legal contract...
"Incompetent"? What in my challenge has anything to do with your accusation of incompetence on my behalf, exactly? I simply put forward a challenge, a simple challenge to test your faith in your stance, and a challenge the resolution of which, in time, will easily demonstrate either your correctness or your error.
"Cluless" [sic]? What in my challenge has anything to do with your accusation of cluelessness on my behalf, exactly? I simply suggested that the Arctic summer ice may eventually melt, or not, and that you stump up and stand by your insistence that humans won't catastrophically affect the climate.
"Outright rude"? Erm, where in my [two](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5759311) [posts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5760819) have I been rude, and in particular where have I been more rude than you?
"Disingeneous" [sic]? Please, do explain how this is so.
"Dishonest"? Please provide evidence that I have been dishonest. Be prepared though, because I suspect that more than one poster here will be pointing to some of your own dishonesty soon enough...
"Nitwit"? Oh, my poor hurt feelings!
PentaxZ.
>I sure believe in them, make no mistake. But why in the hell should I have to accept a bet to prove that? I can ask you the same as Wow, if I was to make you the same, but opposite callenge [sic] you would accept it?
You don't "have to": I have never said that you do. And it's not a bet, it's just a challenge to test your belief in your 'science'. And it appears that your belief is as tenuous as Jonas N's, when push comes to shove...
I have to say, it is interesting indeed to see the Scandinavian Syndicate suddenly start to sweat now that they are being called to actually stand by their claims that they are correct, and informed, where the world's best scientists are all incompetent, and/or are liars, and/or are frauds, and who collectively have no idea about their own areas of expertise.
It seems that they are prepared to argue in circles for months about the science, but when asked to simply stand by their statements it all melts in the sun. Obviously talk is cheaper than the courage of one's convictions..
What's the word I'm looking for...?
A whole lot of raving, but still no answer neither from Wow or Bernard if they eagerly would accept such a stupid challenge, only that it would be the other way around. As said before, empty bins rattle the most. Stupids.
Bernard, Wow, Chek and other sensible posters,
My advice is to ignore the semi-literate Swedish clowns and their acolytes here. I have been away in India for the past two weeks and nothing has changed as far as the vacuity of Jonas N and Olaus and their minions. They remain as hypocritical as ever.
For instance, Olaus accuses Chek of fawning over my arguments when he has been slavishly stroking Jonas' vast ego from the very go. Then Jonas has the audacity to call my CV 'fictitious', which it is nothing of the sort. I have more scientific acumen and qualifications in my little finger than Jonas has in his entire body. When you've done the mileage, Jonas, you can open your huge mouth. My CV shows that I am a scientist in every sense of the word. You are an unemployed bum for all I know. You refuse to tell us anything about your qualifications which means you don't have any. If you did, rest assured, we'd all know about them by now. But your resounding silence means you are afraid to let your fan club know what you really do for a living (if anything).
I submitted the titles and abstracts of several scientific articles examining the phenomenon of glacial loss in the Himalayas, and Jonas ignored them (of course he hasn't read a thing on the subject).
I presented the argument that every National Academy of Science on Earth has agreed that the current warming is primarily due to human actions and that actions should be taken to mitigate C02 emissions. Jonas responds by claiming that there is a vast conspiracy amongst a small coterie of climate scientists and that the views of these prestigious academies was dominated by this small number of scientists. Of course, he presents not a single shred of evidence to prove this, NOTHING. It is as if he has come to his own convenient conclusions and that this conspiracy theory fits nicely in there. Evidence? None needed. Just ignore the issue and move on. Pure and utter hypocrisy.
Guys, this clown is a waste of space. I'd ban him from his own thread, if that was possible.
And there's a suspicion that at least one or maybe two of the "current wastes of bandwidth" are sockpuppets, at least in my mind observing from afar before having "kill"ed them.
Jeff
You have absolutely nothing scientific to bring to this table.
You have explicilty been supporting the most incompetent, scientifically, logically, mathematically ... you name it .. ilitterates
You attempts to 'create' facts from your own fantasy, and and based on them cojure up even more 'facts' border the lunacy displayed by Bernard J and his 'legally binding contract'-idiocy!
And I have told you so many times now, that just blindly guessing will land you in the wrong place essentially every time. And those few times you just happen to get it right, it will still be for the completely wrong reasons.
No real scientist does stuff like that, and you do it all the time.
No wonder you get essentially everything wrong here.
The only consolation I have for you is that you are in good company. Scientific ilitteracy is abundant here. And I certainly include you among them ..
One commenter, who actually argued his case, has spent more than month, totally bungling one of the simplest lawas of physics, over and over again. And still is in denial. And has been cheered on eagerly by the even more incompetent. (One of them with alleged six years of physics studies)
And I mean really: Things you should have learnt in your preshman classes.
It is absolutely pathetic! And you are omong them, Jeff ..
I believe the best solution is to require any comment by Jonarse to be properly cited, since he's demonstrated absolutely in post 1825 to have made up what others have said in the past.
And every time he whines about how nobody has acknowledged his claim of errors in lb's posts, he's asked to show where and how, since he's also been proven to have been incorrect in at least one case.
Until he makes sense and describes accurately, there's no need to counter his jovian proclamations.
> but still no answer neither from Wow or Bernard if they eagerly would accept such a stupid challenge
What "other way round"? Do you want us to put money on the idea that you're right??? And you were asked first, so you have to refuse and admit you're unwilling to back your assertions.
YOU are the one claiming that the science is all wrong. Are you willing to put money to that? Or is it just hot air?
Money or hot air.
Choose one.
> You have explicilty been supporting the most incompetent, scientifically, logically, mathematically ... you name it .. ilitterates
You have failed, explicitly, to say not even what illiterate incompetence has been displayed on here.
Not. One. Example.
Nothing.
All we have are your claims that you've made the claim.
What illiterate or incompetent claims have been supported by Jeff?
australianclimatemadness.com/2011/11/g20-to-australia-youre-on-your-own-on-carbon/
Just keep on, stupids. Your'e the worlds laughing matter.
I'll check back in a few days to see if Jonas and his fanclub have renewed their Ritalin subscription and returned to anything of substance.
No rush.
Jeff contd.
RE: Conspiracy & Academies
I said nothing of the kind (your fantasy playing tricks on you, as usual)
But instead, I asked the right and proper question, how those statments were established, what questions they supposedly presented a stance on, how the answers to those questions were established, in which way their memberships were involved while establishing this etc ..
Without asking (and having answered) such questions, you know absolutely nothing about what a statment by a society is worth. It is just a statement, usually by the board, and most likely 'decided' upon at a meeting somehow.
And indeed, most of these academies esssentially copy-paste text from the IPCC SPMs, nothing more.
And copy-posting is not a method strengthening an argument. Not for real scientists, but for posturing clowns like you Jeff, and all others here who belive that any phrase found in a publication, therefore also is sience (even 'the science' as quite a few here seem to believe)
Sorry, kids, that is not how science is done, not even read. Real science, that is.
Wow - You have now told everybody that you cannot find one single instance where I have told luminous that he is wrong, that he viloated basic principles of physics, the second law of Newton for instance ... and why!
It must have been at least 20 times ..
That's OK. If you can't find them, you probably can't find them. Although they are all still available above.
You probably also find it difficlut to grasp that when I write 'bungled', what I actually mean is 'bungled'. Or if I happen to write 'violated' I actually do mean 'violated'. Or if I refer to a post as #xyz, I am actually refering to that post #xyz
Well Wow, sorry all this is so darn insurmountably difficult for you.
I understand that navigating in the real world, or just in one sequence of blog comments, must be eceedingly difficult too ...
And, in a tragic way, it all makes sense too.
But you did manage to slide a pen over the edge of a table, did you not? Bravo!
:-)
> You have now told everybody that you cannot find one single instance where I have told luminous that he is wrong
I haven't found one. Correct.
> I have told luminous that he is wrong, that he viloated basic principles of physics, the second law of Newton for instance ... and why!
Here is one place you complained of that:
> 1183
> luminous b #1177 - Just a few small pointers:
> In the most common and widely used understanding of friction, ie and as you said constant (coefficient of) friction µ, you just severely violated Newton's second law.
But looking at 1177:
> Yes, all kinds of systems can have positive or negative feedbacks or no feedbacks or net neutral feedbacks. And all these systems obey Newton's Third Law of Motion
Which isn't a violation of Newton's Second law, nor the Third Law.
> Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
Frictional forces slow a body down, this is what luminous says. If they didn't, that would be a violation of the second law.
> Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.
The frictional force on a body has nothing to do with the third law explicitly.
So, in short we have a statement about a comment that didn't mention any violation of Newton's laws. Unless you, Jonarse, wish to propose that frictional forces slowing down bodies is a violation of one of Newton's laws.
Ergo, AT LEAST ONCE of those times you proclaim an error, the post you refer to doesn't make a claim in error.
Since nobody (maybe not even you) understand your thoughts, you will have to show exactly where you make your best valid claim.
Invalid claims abound from you.
And you can't seem to find one yourself, showing that it's likely there ARE no valid claims.
> > You have now told everybody that you cannot find one single instance where I have told luminous that he is wrong
> I haven't found one. Correct.
You also haven't found one. You, on the other hand, refuse to admit it. This would be "denial", yes?
I have also found several claims you made that were wrong, but you haven't spotted a single one of them, have you.
This would be because you're supporting incompetents on this site (yourself), yes?
Jonas,
>You tried to play knowledgable by asking about Navier Stokes equations. And by (repeatedly) pointing out that they rely on conservation of energy and momentum
>Your point apparently was that there is 'physics' behind the GCMs.
My point was attempting to elicit from you what your understanding of the basic underlying physics of GCMs. On that point, you failed. It was your incorrect answer that the basic physics is wholly derived from N-S. Navier-Stokes is derived from conservation of momentum. N-S is not dependent on conservation of energy. That requires additional terms besides N-S. (Additional terms are necessary to account for conservation of mass, also.) That is your mistake, not mine. You are projecting again.
What additional elementary principles of physics described by GCMs are dependent on conservation of energy?
Wow
Your problem is that you do not read what is claimed. And I mean **additionally** to not understanding what actually do read.
luminous post #1177 has been renumbered to #1179 (for reasons I don't know).
If you had been awake, you would have noticed, since I already said that in #1898
> Starting with your #1177 which now is #1179 (*)
You would also have noticed since I specifically rephrased his #1177 (now #1179) in my (now) #1183, which you quoted (but either didn't read, or understand or both)
But I have no interest in spoonfeeding you my own arguments I have already put forward above. They are all still there, the numbering is messed up (a little) but take your whining to Tim Lambert about that.
I don't expect you to understand one single word I have written. You just have to take my word for it, that everything I've told luminous since #1179 is correct and valid for the physics, and conditions specified. Everytime I told luminous he got it wrong, he indeed got it wrong! I am even pretty sure I spotted exactly where he f*cked up some of the times (but admittedly, that's speculation). For instance, at one point he either violated Newton's second, or third (or both). His ramblings are not conclusive wrt that. The end result however was nonsense. Conculsively.
luminous as f*cked up so many times, it is beyond belief. And although I have patiently explained how it is done correctly, he tried more BS to save his face. It's all up there. For everyone to read. I just don't expect you to understand one single word.
You appear to be even more stupid than Stu (and that's quite a tall order). And the most funny thing is that the CV-waiving, incompetent clown sorry ass excuse fore a scientist, Dr Jeff Harvey, counts über-incompetent you (and some more of similar stature) to his side here.
That's just hilarios. It's like Jeff proudly proclaiming, that all his carrots and other vegetables agree with him, that he knows exactly what they are thinking too. And that he thus wins the argument on head count (since I don't rely on neither lettuce nor cucumbers). It's just outright hilarious
And actually, what he does in fact argue is not so far from that.
The crucial difference being of course that you have no competence Jonas, hence your whining, drivelling, incoherent, self-referential word splatter posts that only have some sort of appeal to your gaggle of conspiracy paranoids who commumicate in similar drivelling style. And what's with the too ashamed to claim Monckton thing? Bad for PR? Surely not after TampaxZ's insight into the mind of crackerbox denialism.
And you lot really aren't going to improve at all, although ever more ridiculous is a definite probability.
Jeffie, I'll give you credit too, if you just showed me some real science instead of your CV. Promise, we have heard all about it many many times already! Still, its more than pathetic that you actually are jealous of Jonas because I acknowledge him for dealing with topics in a scientific robust manner, ergo not taking stuff for granted AND explaining, step by step, what his stance is and why â to your regret.
And even more important; he hasn't hysterically waived his CV in front of him, behaving like a spoiled princess crying for obedience when somebody questions him. You have though, major time. In fact, I don't think I have ever met a man so totally self absorbed like you. The level of self-idolatry is off the scale and combined with your fragile pompous ego its down right scary.
Sorry, Jeff Harvey, from me you will have to earn the respect that you so desperately long for. Meanwhile you have to be content with little wow, chek, stu, bernie, LB and some of the other groupies that follow you around like puppies.
QED.
Oluas/Olaus what you perceive: "I acknowledge him for dealing with topics in a scientific robust manner, ergo not taking stuff for granted AND explaining, step by step, what his stance is and why"
the rest of the world (i.e. not just here) perceives as whining, drivelling, incoherent, self-referential word splatter nonsense.
But then you are widely recognised as notoriously stupid.
chek ..
The difference is that I know what I am talking about, I have competence in every topic I address. Whereas those mouthing off, mostly are blindly guessing, making up stuff as they go, or as you, reading cartoonist John Cook hoping he got it right, .. without any method to navigate, only guessing and hoping. Hoping that somebody else know's his stuff. Often without even knowing what that 'somebody' is saying, or understanding what position he hopes to challenge is. Like Jeff ... who couldn't get my position right one single time .. Instead fighting off his fantasies with more of the same.
And with schmucks like you as cheering bystanders.
And you know what!? Every pro AGW-site is just like that. Know-nothings shitting their pants, demanding that knowledge or competence is banned and censored. Same thing here ...
Except 1950+ posts clearly show you don't have a clue what you are talking about. And the more probable reason is that every evidence-based pro-AGW site can see that your waffling, whining, self-reverential, arrogant drivel illustrates that well.
John Cook doesn't express his cartoonist's opinion - he links to the peer-reviewed science, something you are scared witless of. And he has a pretty capable team who prove to be more than a match for your creme de denialists such as Roger Pielke.
You should stick to your cluck of impressionable chickens who mistakenly think your being a crank is a sign of genius.
But they're the only ones that do.
[PentaxZ blusters](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5762335):
>A whole lot of raving, but still no answer neither from Wow or Bernard if they eagerly would accept such a stupid challenge, only that it would be the other way around.
Why is it stupid? If you are correct, and you have been adamantly insistent that you are, then you have not a thing to lose. In fact it would be a clever way for you to show the world how confident you are in the claims that you make against accepted science.
Still, if you are too cowardly to stand by your discounting of impending significant climate change, we can do things another way...
Let's start by doing this - tell the thread what your best estimate is for the minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040. You are encouraged to provide a précis of the science/statisitcs that you have used to derive your figures, but it is not necessary for this exercise - as long as you stand by your numbers.
Once we have your numbers, I'll continue...
And [Jonas N says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5765848):
>The difference is that I know what I am talking about
Eh?!
So you know all about physics, chemistry and ecology, and the world's professionals do not? Exactly how does that work Jonas N? You must be a world-famous polymath, published widely across disciplines and nominated many times for Nobel prizes. Could you please direct us to the literature that you produce, or at least to the literature that you use to support your claims that contradict accepted science?
And please, can you also answer the question above that I put to pentaxZ...?
Just so there is no confusion, [I am referring to PIOMAS estimations of summer Arctic sea ice volume](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5767814), or their future successors.
*The difference is that I know what I am talking about, I have competence in every topic I address*
What an arrogant p&*^%. This is why Jonas is a leading candidate for the Dunning-Kruger Hall of Shame. He has no formal training in any of the fields he superficially discusses, but somehow thinks that this is not a pre-requisite for infinite wisdom. He refuses to answer Stu's quite simple question: How many climate scientists are REAL scientists, because he'd be forced to claim that most are not in his opinion. On the other hand, he thinks he's a real armchair expert in quite diverse fields, even though he's never published in said fields or attended a single conference or workshop in his life and is therefore a complete unknown.
As far as the National Academies are concerned, Jonas the p*&%$, they do not reach consensus easily. If you knew one iota of the scientific method, you'd realize that this broad consensus among the views of every National Academy on Earth was reached after considerable internal debate and discussion. How do I know? Because, you nitwit, I am an insider - a 'real scientist' who speaks to many peers on issues such as this and I am involved in many scientific committees. I was also once an editor at the journal Nature, where these discussions were frequently aired. You still haven't told any of us here what you actually do as a 'day job', hence why my take is that you are in reality an unemployed bum, at least until you claim differently. And several of us here have presented peer-reviewed studies to back up our arguments/. Your approach has been to bluff your way around them, because you have not read much of the empirical literature and are left telling everyone here what an expert you are. All this while accusing me of being arrogant!!! What a wretched hypocrite you are.
So, smartypants, do you think you know more about climate science than James Hansen? Kevin Trenbarth? Gavin Schmidt? David Viner? Or any number of other bonfide Professors in the field who have spent years honing their craft? Of course these eminent scientists have never heard of you and never ever will. You may be a legend in your own mind but this status is confined there forevermore.
You and your acolytes will not take up Bernard's quite simple bet for the simple reason that you do not want to place your money where your mouth is: in other words, because you will lose. The current meltdown of the Arctic will unquestionably be an ecological disaster, and will have massive implications for both biotic and abiotic processes across the globe.
As I said yesterday, you are a waste of useful space.
Bernie.
What's the fuzz about the ice in the Arctic? There is nothing out of order there so what are you rawing about?
Olaus,
You can also jump into one of your many Swedish lakes for all I care. I presented the titles and abstracts of several peer-reviewed studies expressing concern over the rate of glacial loss in the Himalayas, and Jonas did not read a single one or bother to comment on them. In other words, if you don't have a clue what you are talking about, dismiss something by ignoring it. That has been Jonas' tactic on this thread since the beginning. Inconvenient facts or questions? Ignore them, and waffle endlessly in your own stew.
And where is your science, bonehead? All you have done since entering here is to cheer on your pet poodle whilst bolstering his ego. You have not presented anything remotely scientific, you utter hypocrite. And Jonas doesn't need to wave his CV here because he hasn't got one to wave. More insidiously, he constantly tells everyone here what an authority he is in a range of diverse fields. Problem is, he lacks any intellectual authority in any scientific field, except that which he professes and which you endlessly bolster.
I have discussed areas in which I have actual expertise, namely the ecological effects of warming, and defer to 95% of climate scientists who argue that humans are responsible for that warming. As I have said numerous times, but which you and your pet poodle constantly ignore, is that Jonas should toss his ideas into a broad scientific arena - meaning journals and conferences - where they would be scrutinized by actual experts in the field. But he won't do that because he knows - as you do - that they would be chewed up and spat out in a millisecond. So he's left on weblogs where his ego has swollen to gargantuan proportions on the basis of what? Nothing.
Jeffie
And here you make a own goal. Hilarious.
"As far as the National Academies are concerned, Jonas the p*&%$, they do not reach consensus easily."
If the science REALLY was settled there would not be a problem at all to reach a easy consensus. Consensus has never been science, and it will never be.
So we see that even a CV-waving idiot can be stupid.
chek #1960
"clearly show you don't have a clue what you are talking about"
Somewhat remarkably IMO, Jonas has been correct about everything discussed here. From AR4 'opinion' science, the physics of Newton, to the 'un-layering' of the (unpleasant) personality problems of the CAGW crowd that post here (It must be hell inside your heads)
Chek, either you haven't been following the thread, or you can't tell chalk from cheese.
PentaxZ,
I see that you have joined the denial idiots club. Well done.
Of course science has never been about consensus, but *public policy must be based on it*. Otherwise nothing will ever change because there will always be some outliers for whatever reason.
The positions reached by National Academies should be more than enough to stimulate worldwide action to reduce GHG emissions. The scientific community, by and large, thinks that the evidence for human effects on the current warming to be sufficient enough for political action to be taken. Its scientifically vacuous twerps like you who think that the whole thing is a con.
*IMO, Jonas has been correct about everything discussed here*
In YOUR opinion. Ha! That says it all, GSW. Your opinion ain't worth jack s&%$.
Jonas/GSW/Olaus/pentaxZ = the banality of evil ... or rather, the evil of banality.
Jeff #1969
The (unpleasant) personality problems referred to in my last post weren't directed at you specifically. In your case, it's a close run thing between your "lack of intellectual capacity" and unpleasant personality as to which is your more prominent characteristic. You excel and take pride in both it would seem.
TampaxZ, as it's way over your head, you likely just feel obliged to spout some second hand bilge you read somewhere, to wit: "If the science REALLY was settled there would not be a problem at all to reach a easy consensus. Consensus has never been science, and it will never be.
So we see that even a CV-waving idiot can be stupid".
The consensus is over the probability (>90%), not the science. Probability is a currently non-existent state estimating a future state and so can't be certain.
Just as you might be personally upset if the government didn't estimate the probability that your town might need new hospitals and schools, or more water/electricity supplies, or roads by the time its population doubled and act on that probability. But that may be too complex for you to understand
Because we see that as usual, a Jonas idiot can be very, very stupid.
Jeffie
"Of course science has never been about consensus, but public policy must be based on it."
Yah , well, why in hell does the "scientists" with IPCCcp make decisions with hand waving, sorry, consensus?
And no, public decisions should be based on empirical, unbiased real science, not Greenpiss or WWF pseudoscience.
The own goal is yours, the "save" fails big time.
And no, sugar top, I'm not a denialist, I sertanly accept there is a climate. The CAGW on the other hand is pure bogus.
I suppose Michael Mann will be as rediculed in the future as Ancel Keys is today. Both realised that to make a splash in the scientific world you have to manipulate the data.
youtube.com/watch?v=v8WA5wcaHp4
[PentaxZ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5770970):
>What's the fuzz [sic] about the ice in the Arctic? There is nothing out of order there so what are you rawing [sic] about?
If there's nothing to worry about you should be able to come up with estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040. It should be easy, in fact, because you shouldn't need to get involved in any of that highfalutin' modelling nonsense with which those so-called scientists try to dazzle lay folk.
So come on, what's your best estimate? If you can't come up with one I could always pick one for you for the next stage in proceedings...
And Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, and sundry Scandinavians - I am very interested to hear your best estimates as well. I'm keen to start betting against you, in addition to securing legal status for your acceptances of my original challenge.
Come on smarty-pantses. Stop your chatter, and start showing us how much you really believe your own statements of no "C"AGW...
I suppose pentaxZ's failure to comprehend can in part be excused because English is not his native language, but mostly it's because he is incredibly stupid. This is like someone saying "I don't give praise readily, but that meal was delicious" and pentaxZ idiotically and incoherently countering "If the meal REALLY was delicious then you would have no problem giving praise" ...
Yeah, right, science is what ignorant morons like you say.
Bernard,
I think the consensus is - you are playing on your own. It may give you great pleasure playing with yourself in this way, but it's your own private fantasy I'm afraid.
If you do need a hand playing with yourself, you should try Jeff or chek, they've demonstrated skills in this area, 'experts' I would say.
Weren't you in some sort of self imposed confinement on the Open thread? or was that just more half hearted, self obsessed b***ocks?
;)
> Consensus has never been science, and it will never be.
Explain how people agreeing that gravity pulls things toward the center of mass isn't a consensus.
Well Bernard boy. I don't have to come up with anything. In my world I preferre to let nature take its course, like it has for millions of years. Sometimes there is a lot of ice in the Arctic, sometimes very little. What in the hell is unusual with that? It's you alarmists who makes unrealistic predictions, not realists. You have to back up these predictions, but you can't. Still, you want the whole world to dance by your flute.
Read and learn, stupids.
australianclimatemadness.com/2011/11/a-level-playing-field/
GSW:
>I think the consensus is - you are playing on your own.
And that's the point, isn't it? When all is said and done, you and your mates are just chicken-shit scared to actually stand by your tripe, your lies and your pseudoscience. None of you lily-livered petals have the intestinal fortitude to stand by your guff.
Or you could prove me wrong, and tell us exactly by how much "catastrophic" global warming won't occur, by presenting your best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040.
As to why I'm back here - it's to test your conviction. And in the process of demonstrating either that your claims, or or your respective convictions in them, are flim-flam, to potentially part you from a not-inconsiderable sum of your hard-earned cash.
The rest of [your post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5772224) is simply a reflection of where your puerile mind resides.
Wow, wow, now you really make your self look stupid. Hilarious beyiond belief.
The foil hat way, when you don't have a clue, try to steer the topic at a different direction.
Try instead to explain why you are so stupid, stupid.
PentaxZ:
>I don't have to can't come up with anything... You have to I can't back up these my predictions, but you I just can't.
There, fixed it for you.
And don't worry, there's no charge for the service - I'll collect when you find the courage to put your money where your mouth is...
chek
The 1950+ post are overwhelmingly by the ignorant crowd here, cussing and touretting. Mostly empty waffling like your and Bernard J, or jumping up and down, stamping their little feet repeating *'I'm important, I have a CV, they let me mingle with some big guys'* like Jeff H. Or sheer stupidity like Wow, Stu, ianam etc. The few who actually argued a topic (mostly luminous, earlier clippo) revealed how shallow their understanding was, mostly only throwing around 'sciency' sounding terms they don't master. In luminous' case, trying to BS himself out of his own mess, making things worse and worse for over a month. And most of all: incapable of learing anything new, even when he correctly copied things (from Wikipedia etc) and they were explained in detail.
And this is abundant here: Unability to debate any topic in a grown-up fashion. BS-ing when you don't know. Unability to learn anything new. Even incapability to read and correctly interpret what was read. Not only science, but even shorter blog comments.
You cant blame me for this gaping hole leack of substance, chek. My comments have been much more substantial (although I admitt to have responded to some of the über-stupid trolling occasionally)
PS A very very few commenters here did not fit into the above descriptions. Who actually managed to behave like grown-ups. I challenged those more educated to help poor luminous in his darkness, but nobody dared (or was able).
Any real scientists (believing there is a real climate issue) must be cringing with embarrassment.
Bernad boy, why don't you explain what catastrophic events will occour due to the mind blowing 0.7ºC degree increase in temperature the last 150 years (and for the past 15 years paused). Let's put your beliefs to the test.
Because, dear, I don't se anything saying that the climate change is man made. Or for that matter any catastrophic events on which climate change is to be blamed. So shoot, stupid, let's se what you are made of.
Bernard,
No Bernard, the reason you're back here, having stomped off in a huff (never to return I think you said), is the disappointment that nobody actually gives a stuff - your 'contribution' was not missed, you have no point to make, no counter argument, just ineffectual jabbering.
Nobody seeks out loons to make 'challenges' for them, no matter how comical you try to make yourself in the your pleading.
PentaxZ
Like the 'foil hat' meme for CAGWers, precautionary principle and all that. BacoFoil must be making a killing from this lot.
;)
And Bernard dear, I don't make predictions, you do. I preferre to live my life in the present, not a diminutive future. Nobody can predict the future. Not even with the biggest of big super computers. So, dear, put your mouth where your money is and explain what catastrophic events will occour due to the mind blowing 0.7ºC degree increase in temperature the last 150 years. Look into your chrystall ball and tell us, stupid.
Jonas N and pentaxZ.
Stop hiding behind your blather and bluster, and show your grasp of science. Tell us exactly by how much "catastrophic" global warming won't occur, by presenting your best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040.
You claim that professional climatology is wrong. If you know this to be true, you should also know how best to estimate these two numbers.
You're both strong in accusing others of (coincidentally) stupidity - show the thread the strength of your convictions and step to the crease by demonstrating what you understand of future Arctic sea ice volume trends.
Exactly how stupid are you, Bernard? The burdon of proof always falls on them who makes odd claims. And it's inpossible to proove a non-event (but of course you know that, your'e just playing foul. It's like when religious stupids says that there is a God, and it's to the non-believers to prove there isn't). So what are you raving about? You obviosly aren't half as smart as you think you are, megastupid.
> Your problem is that you do not read what is claimed.
Your problem is you never claim anything concrete.
> luminous post #1177 has been renumbered to #1179
Since that post says:
> When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down.
This isn't a violation of Newton's laws. It's a statement of Newton's laws, and a correct one at that.
So again, your claim that luminous is incorrect is false.
> The burdon of proof always falls on them who makes odd claims.
That would be you.
> And it's inpossible to proove a non-event
You *ARE* the non-event.
You have to show that the warming we will get WILL NOT be Catastrophic. That's a positive claim: warming will not become catastrophic.
So support it.
So far, the AGW predictions have been correct.
The burden is on you to prove them wrong.
Wow, thank you for your very valued contribution. You are quite correct:
>When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down.
does, by it self, not constitute a violation of the laws of Newton
chek (contd.)
Cartoonist John Cook, writes lite posts in support of AGW and CAGW on the level of his understanding. At least that's how he started out, and it was a bit banal and simple (but decent back then). He only addressed his own understanding of objections and criticsm, and avoided every issue where the 'explanations ' are weak or entirely missing.
And yes, he linked to papers in suppport, sometimes because they said the same thins, other times because he though they did.
But it was always low level stuff. And he couldn't and still can't discuss the science (he links to) or other science. Instead his site has turned into a activist site, trying to attack and discredit everything not fitting with his narrative. He too must delete comments, and even rewrite his own posts and comments later, to 'revise histori'. As so many pro AGW-sites, he cannot have/allow grown-up debate, and desperately needs the delete-button (I don't know if 'banning' also is included among his arsenal of 'arguments').
I am not the least surpirsed that this is where you got most of your 'understanding' from. It shows too ...
TampaxZ said: @ #1987 "The burdon (sic) of proof always falls on them who makes odd claims".
TampaxZ said @ #1918 "AGW is the biggest and most far-reaching scientific scandal in history, whose tentacles spread into almost every aspect of our lives, from how we dispose of our trash and how we light up our homes, to how we travel and how we are taxed and regulated. Big business stands to make a fortune out of the scam; for governments itâs a way of extending their control and increasing power; for eco-fascists itâs a way of destroying industrial civilisation".
Tampax, that's quite the burden you've got to explain there.
PentaxZ:
>I preferre [sic] to live my life in the present, not a diminutive [sic - ?!] future. Nobody can predict the future.
I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I predict that high tides will follow low tides, will follow high tides. I predict that the coming southern hemisphere summer will be warmer than the passing southern hemisphere winter.
I predict that Arctic summer sea ice volume will fall below one thousand cubic kilometres well before 2050, [something that hasn't occurred for at least 700 thousand years](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_the_Arctic#Modelling.2C_…), and I will put down odds on each decrement of one thousand cubic kilometres starting with four thousand cubic kilometres, for the periods to 2025 and to 2050.
I'm just waiting for you cowards to put your estimates on the table first, to see how much you actually trust your own grasps of science.
>The burdon [sic] of proof always falls on them [sic] who makes [sic] odd claims.
The odd claims here are that several unkown Scandinavian trolls are apparently all polymathematical geniuses, and that tens of thousands of professional scientists are incompetent, fraudulent conspirators.
The odd claims here are that these same geniuses know that there will be no human-caused global warming that will severely affect the global ecology and human society, but that they can in no way stand by their claims...
>And it's inpossible [sic] to proove [sic] a non-event (but of course you know that, your'e [sic] just playing foul.
I think that you're extremely confused.
I am not trying to "prove" any event or "non-event". I am trying to ascertain how confident you are in your claims about future climate. I am most certainly not playing foul - I'm offering you the opportunity to show us how scientifically clever you are, and to stand by your vaunted scientific understanding. I'm offering the chance to show us what you know, and to test it through empirical consequence - to let the unfolding of the future absolutely and irrefutably prove who was correct.
That's eminently fair.
Except perhaps to crusty cauldron-stirring crones and their familiars who confabulate fair with foul. Which leads me to observe that there's certainly something hovering in the filthy air wafting from the caves wherein dwell the trolls, and it's not just carbon dioxide...
> and that tens of thousands of professional scientists are incompetent, fraudulent conspirators.
Though *extremely* competent conspirators. Not a single thing was found in the near 20 years of emails from CRU's computer break-in, for example, gives an indication of collusion.
THAT'S extremely competent collusion, that is!
> > When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down.
> does, by it self, not constitute a violation of the laws of Newton
There you go: you're saying you find luminous' post correct in the physics explained, then.
So why all the winging about us not finding it incorrect, when you too agree that it's correct?
Wow:
>>...and that tens of thousands of professional scientists are incompetent, fraudulent conspirators.
>Though extremely competent conspirators.
You forgot to note that they are also stupid, extremely competent conspirators. "Stupid" seems to be a favoured descriptor amongst the Scandinavian set. It must mean something different in Swedish than it does in English...
Exactly how stupid are you, Bernard? The burdon of proof always falls on them who makes odd claims. And it's inpossible to proove a non-event (but of course you know that, your'e just playing foul. It's like when religious stupids says that there is a God, and it's to the non-believers to prove there isn't). So what are you raving about? You obviosly aren't half as smart as you think you are, megastupid.
> The burdon of proof always falls on them who makes odd claims
Yes. You're making a claim that there is no such thing as a catastrophe.
This is a VERY odd claim.
Bernard dear, you really, really are in to the deep. And you very well know that predicting the suns movements is vast different from predicting future climate. You just behave utterly foolish and childlish.
And no, despite your arm waving and foot stomping, the burdon of proove lays on you. You alasrmists claims that the climate is going to change due to human activity, nobody else. So, shoot, what kind of CAGW events are we to see in the coming years, stupids?
>You obviosly [sic aren't half as smart as you think you are, megastupid.
Yeah, right.
As much as I know how easy it is for buttons to click inconveniently, one should be careful about [foot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5773482) and [mouth](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5774182).
Especially when one is spraying spittle about "stupidity". And most especially when reposting immediately after a comment about one's preoccupation with "stupidity".
But thanks for playing.
>So, shoot, what kind of CAGW events are we to see in the coming years, stupids [sic]?
[Stupid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5773891).
> You alasrmists claims that the climate is going to change due to human activity, nobody else
Your spittle hit the keyboard again, nutter.
The claim is that the climate HAS changed because of CO2 concentrations.
There is proof of it.
YOUR claim is that the current ongoing increases won't cause climate change.
Prove it.
Wow, Wow. You really have a reading comprehension problem. Or, your'e just plain stupid. Or a combo (my bet).
"There is proof of it." Really? I mean, Really?
Hahahahahahaha...your'e so funny Wow. Or stupid.
> You really have a reading comprehension problem.
Yes, it's because you're an incoherent babbler.
> "There is proof of it." Really? I mean, Really?
Yes, really.
In a world populated entirely by people like pentaxZ, fire and clothing would not have been invented.
Until and unless Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, Pehr Bjornbom, and sundry other unsubstantiating denialists can actually put some hard, testable material on the table, it would seem that their own cowardly capitulation is proof-incontrovertible that they don't actually believe what they say, and that they are simply happy to sell the future of the planet for their own selfish, short-term ideological gratifications.
They are happy to obfuscate, confabulate, calumnate, obliquate, fabricate, and prevaricate, but they are contitutionally unable to substantiate. I'm sure that they will continue to ramble and waffle, dance and dither, but I know that they won't actually put forward any scientific rebuttal or other testable material.
They are flim-flam artists. They are cowards. Their pseudoscientific trolling is stone-frozen in the harsh light of objective scientific scrutiny. Theirs is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing.
They might be proud of their efforts at propaganda, but they are scientific failures.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
> In my world I preferre to let nature take its course,
What's natural about the Internal Combustion engine? What's natural about electric motors?
In TampaxZ's world, there are no unnatural items.
What's unnatural about CO2's GHG warming effect? What's unnatural about increases in CO2 causing warming from the GHG effect? What's unnatural about CO2 being the result of burning hydrocarbons?
In TampaxZ's espoused world, AGW is real. But even TampaxZ's statments about his world aren't believed in when it becomes inconvenient.
PentaxZ (and other trolls).
It's been immensely amusing watching you wiggle and jiggle like worms on hooks, but GMT+10 somnolence beckons, and who am I to argue?
However, whilst Morpheus rocks me you might consider doing your homework, as all good little boys should, and attempt to progress a little on estimating those two oh-so-difficult numbers. Whilst doing so, remember that according to yourselves there is no AGW, C or otherwise...
I look forward to your (novel, and unlikely) bravery.
Wow #1995
If you try to think really really really hard, and put all your concentration and intellectuall capacity, you maybe maybe, just maybe, find out what your are missing ...
Or maybe not
;-)
Past 2000 comments I see.
What a monumental waste of time!
> you maybe maybe, just maybe, find out what your are missing ...
Why should that be so difficult when you've missed it all this time, despite insisting it exists.
You've missed showing any error in luminous' posts and have even admitted they're right.
...and so it quickly became apparent why the swedish inactivist possepuppet became persona non grata at any climate discussion board.
Usually in even a weak thread, there's something to be learnt. Hre the most that's been learnt is 'aren't some swedes complete numpties?'.
From a recent Wikipedia-link:
>There is currently **no scientific evidence** that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean existed anytime in the last 700,000 years
And how could there be? This was translated by one of the regulars to:
>Arctic summer sea ice volume will fall below one thousand cubic kilometres well before 2050, **something that hasn't occurred for at least 700 thousand years**
What can one say at this level of 'scientific understanding'!?
There never really was a case here. If there had been, I'd rest it right there ...
> What can one say at this level of 'scientific understanding'!?
Accurate.
Unlike yours.
I do think you need rest, Jonas. Rest long and hard so you can come up with something substantive. Hey, maybe, if you rest your weary bones long enough (after driving PentaxZ to his AA meeting perhaps) you can even answer what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Stu
Have figured out why you derailed 2½ weeks over 'different velocities for hand/box' and 'dependent variables' over a perfectly correct description of a hand pushing a box and accelerating it?
Becaues if you have, I missed it ...
(But relax, I wasn't holding my breath, won't this time either ... ;-)
And it goes on. Quite amazing, non of you foil hats can thus point out even a single CAGW event that will appear due to the "catastrophic" rise of the temperature by 0.7ºC in the past 150 years. I wonder why that is.
TampaxZ, flooding.
It's been pretty catastrophic in the past. And AGW will cause flooding events in the future by raising the sea level.
Flooding. AGW means more moisture in the air, therefore more rain and too much rain causes flooding.
Drought. Higher temperatures mean quicker evaporation, therefore areas will experience more drought because of AGW.
Wow, Wow. Finally. And then, of course, I ask you how much the sea level has risen due to the 0.7ºC we have today.
Further, in the past when humans didn't have large cities by the shores, in which way was the rising of the sea levels in any way catastrophic?
Wow #2020
Yeah, and earth has of course survived that in the past, and will in the future. The problem is the humans which have a habit of deforesting slopes and thus creates optimal conditions for floods.
#2021 has no evidence in the science. In other words speculation.
TampaxZ said @ #1918 "AGW is the biggest and most far-reaching scientific scandal in history, whose tentacles spread into almost every aspect of our lives, from how we dispose of our trash and how we light up our homes, to how we travel and how we are taxed and regulated. Big business stands to make a fortune out of the scam; for governments itâs a way of extending their control and increasing power; for eco-fascists itâs a way of destroying industrial civilisation".
Funny how TampaxZ posts such claims as above while complaining of others' wearing 'foil hats'.
And #2021 is [evidenced in the science](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6017/554.abstract) with the 2005 one-in-a-hundred-year Amazon drought swiftly followed by the similar 2010 drought. As predicted by AGW theory.
Jeff #1963
My experience is that anyone who uses terms like âdenierâ or âdenialistâ when arguing has absolutely zip to contribute to any discussion regarding climate, climate change, and a possible anthropogenic component in such. Zip!
And if they additionally feel that terms like âDunning-Krugerâ, DK-afflicteeâ (and/or âidiot/moron etc) are central to their âargumentsâ, that just affirms this observation further.
At best they can repeat the kindergarten level talking points like Al Gore, or read John Cook, this blog or others alike. And usually they donât even understand the pro-AGW arguments. When âdebatingâ with someone outside the religion, when their gospel isnât accepted as truth, when it is criticized or challenged, or just presented with a counterargument, and none of the memorized snippets work, they become clueless. They start repeating the (memorized) claims a bit shriller, and usually they lose it quite quickly. And revert to the name-calling. You can see it perfectly well here.
And you are one of those. Donât know anything about the climate, what parts are discussed, what the controversial parts are, donât know the position and arguments of either side, but still demand that your ignorance should be taken seriously, even authoritative, and listened to. I canât even start to imagine why you think anybody should even heed any of your comments here.
But when you, and whatever you tell us here, is (at best) smiled at, you start cussing and lamenting. Which only confirms the picture of a spoilt child .. who dropped his popsicle in the dirt.
Point in case: My initial assessment of you (and quite a few more) was perfectly correct and spot on. And not only that, now you draw your âsupportâ here from quite a few who I initially would have ranked (and expected) to be far below your level. But I appreciate that, and also those others who attracted you to their level and âargumentsâ. Itâs been quite revelation (and I can assure my initial expectations were not high)
Regarding the Academiesâ statements: I asked you if you knew how they arrived at their positions. If they even polled their membership. And of course, you have no clue. I can tell you for certain, that any scientific method was not used there. Certainly: polling ainât one, and Iâm quite sure very few (if any at all) polled their membership.
Further, I know far far more about the scientific method than you (and almost anybody here mouthing off). I have repeatedly tried to cure you of once of the worst violations you suffer from: Your compulsive and excessive desire to just invent your own âfactsâ and to build fantasy-narratives on top of them (using more imaginary delusions). But you seem patently and boneheadedly incapable to letting go of that habit!
From the first post on, you have attempted to telling me who I am, and what qualifications, skills etc I have, and more often do not have. Itâs been an ongoing theme of yours since august. Its utterly flabbergasting: You, a CV-waivin,g DK/denier-calling, adulation-demanding climate ignorant, stamping your little feet, shouting* âI know you are an unemployed bum, I just know it, itâs the truth because I feel it so intenselyâ * and repeating this for months!
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 Jeff.
And I donât need to bluff around anything. Being disingenuous, dishonest, insincere is what people feel compelled to when they have been untruthful earlier, when they are insecure, feel threatened and inferior etc. There is lots of that on your side. And your desperate desire to make up your won facts is quite revealing.
And I donât think Iâve ever called you arrogant. I would use a quite different vocabulary if I were to describe your personality.
(I see that you even join in on Bernars über-stupid bet, which isnât a wager, but he calls challenge, and then bet, and tries to construct nonsense-logical conclusions from. A total farce, and quite telling about the playground level of quarrelling)
And of course, you wanât people smarter than you banned Jeff, in one way or the other, thatâs what you leftie-loons dream of secretly, and let slip through occasionally. Itâs the same here, the (C)AGW crowd wants nothing more than âthat the debate came to an endâ .. And for the most obvious reasons.
PS I havenât bothered to answer Stuâs âsimple questionâ for several reasons. Firstly, because he is incapable of arguing anything at all. Doesnât know left from front or a ping pong ball. But others too
Substance, Jonas, substance. We've already established that you simply do not understand what I was talking about.
That you keep clinging at the subject to avoid having to address anything substantive is getting a little obvious now; it is time for you to change tactics soon. Might I suggest going back to hand-waving about "90%" again, trying with all your might to pretend it has not been addressed? Or maybe an encore of your "I know more than all of you"? Ooh, maybe a little dose of "I don't have to call you idiots, idiots" routine! That was good, too.
Or, maybe, you could tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists. That would at least allow us to strike one thing of the long lists you're in pathological denial of.
> My experience is that anyone who uses terms like âdenierâ or âdenialistâ when arguing has absolutely zip to contribute to any discussion regarding climate
No, your experience is that anyone who uses such terms has accurately described you and stymied your attempts to fog the issue, causing you difficulty in stopping discussion.
> Being disingenuous, dishonest, insincere is what people feel compelled to when they have been untruthful earlier, when they are insecure, feel threatened and inferior etc.
Yup, which is why you and the sock brothers do it.
> Yeah, and earth has of course survived that in the past
The earth survived the extinction of 98% of species.
This doesn't mean it isn't a catastrophe. Or was that the sound of goalposts moving?
> I ask you how much the sea level has risen due to the 0.7ºC we have today.
Moving the goalposts again?
Is flooding a catastrophe or not?
Is a drought a catastrophe or not?
Is AGW contributing to these catastrophes?
Or are you unable to answer these simple questions?
> I havenât bothered to answer Stuâs âsimple questionâ for several reasons. Firstly, because he is incapable of arguing anything at all.
That isn't a reason for YOU not to answer questions.
> Doesnât know left from front
Also not a reason for YOU to not answer.
> or a ping pong ball.
Still not a reason for YOU not to answer.
> But others too
Since not one of these are reasons for you not to answer, why did you say this? You need at least one to then go "and others too".
You being unable to argue anything at all is a reason for you not answering questions.
And so we see that you can't answer questions.
Like, for example, any question about what you've asserted is wrong in LB's posts.
Jonas Dunning-Kruger stated: "I can tell you for certain, that any scientific method was not used there".
[Citation needed]
Jonas Dunning-Kruger stated: "Certainly: polling ainât one,".
Polling who? The governing bodies? So you actually don't know for certain, you're speculating when you said: "Iâm quite sure very few (if any at all) polled their membership". - the "if any at all" being the giveaway.
That is exactly the kind of dishonesty that makes you the deserving butt of every insult on this thread. And the greater joke is you're not even aware you're doing it, even though all your .. er ... contributions are similarly larded with it. Thanks for providing such a clear example.
Oooh, crossed with a Jonas Wall-O-Text. Let's see if there's substance.
...nope.
Jonas, did you seriously bring up Al Gore and John Cook? Wrong kind of substance.
Those are truly the dumbest scare quotes I have ever seen.
What a lovely mangled metaphor, Jonas. And coming from you, that is truly a compliment.
Oh but you must share those, Jonas! Other than me being stupid, what magical reasons do you have for being incapable of telling us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists? If not for me, why not tell Olaus and PentaxZ so they can parrot that precious wisdom?
[TampaxZ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5773263),
What [pause?](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/to:2010.17/last:180/plot/best/to:…)
TampaxZ,
>Quite amazing, non of you foil hats can thus point out even a single CAGW event that will appear due to the "catastrophic" rise of the temperature by 0.7ºC in the past 150 years. I wonder why that is.
I can go you one better, dude:
>These facts show that global warming is playing a significant role in the rising number of extreme events. Analyses performed by Munich Reâs [natural catastrophe](http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/company_news/2010/2010-08-05…) database, the most comprehensive in the world, substantiate this increase: the number of extreme weather events like windstorm and floods has tripled since 1980, and the trend is expected to persist.
@LB
Apologies, from memory, but I do remember a paper from the LSE(?) based on the Munich Re database that found no increase in insured losses due to weather(climate) related disasters over the last few decades. I think it was discussed on another thread here some time back. Do you recall?
Wow! Totally debunked! Good thing nobody was arguing that then.
GSW,
My recollection is that paper found no increase in insured losses when corrected for development in higher risk areas. Not un-increased losses in absolute terms. What wasn't corrected for was improvements in zoning and building codes and the like which mitigate against such risks. Simple things like raising first floor elevations above high flood marks, improved foundation anchoring, stronger and better designed wind-resistant roofs, walls and windows, etc.
What wasn't discussed is the uninsured losses of poor people who are forced into even higher risk areas at higher population densities as a result of said development, living with sub-standard and non-code compliant buildings and infrastructure.
@LB
Thanks LB, glad you remember it also. I think it was on Deltoid some time ago, but can't remember which thread?
;)
Of course what GSW is doing in his customary obfuscatory role is conflating the number of catastrophic events with losses (costs), losses being subject to ordinary inflation amongst other things with events being the straightforward comparison. Purely to raise doubt, and presenting no evidence whatsoever.
From LC's provided link: "Munich Re has been analysing natural hazards and natural hazard losses for more than 35 years. For this purpose, Munich Re has set up the most comprehensive natural catastrophe database in the world, which currently comprises more than 28,000 events. It documents major events from 1950 onwards, all claims-related events from 1980 onwards, and the effects of natural catastrophes on individual economies, the insurance sector and the population.
Our database clearly indicates a sharp rise in the number of weather-related natural catastrophes per year, in terms of overall and insured losses" .
Stu
Only one person has been going on about *'different velocity hand/box'* and only one about *'dependent variable'*
All by himself, even after the fact it was explained once again. Do you know why you derailed for 2½ weeks?
You went on and on obsessing about this. And when I finally put you out of your misery, pointing out that no one but you kept lamenting about it ..
.. you now try to turn it around that it was everybody else's fault, because they didn't understand what you really meant?
I guess, it's the same thing with all those other wicked physics thingies, it's somebody else's fault all the time. After all, six years is a very short instant (at your learning rate)
:-)
@LB,chek,
Yes it was from "The Australian's War on Science 59: Quote Mining". Tim's criticism at the time was the fact that the quote;
"Peer-reviewed paper by Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthe of London School of Economics and funded by re-insurers Munich Re in Global Environmental Change, November 18, 2010:
Applying both [conventional and alternative] methods to the most comprehensive existing global dataset of natural disaster loss [provided by Munich Re], in general we find no significant upward trends in normalised disaster damage over the period 1980-2009 globally, regionally, for specific disasters or for specific disasters in specific regions."
had been taken 'out of context'. The crime being the omission of the following;
"Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already."
The peer reviewed paper post-dates the Munich Re link above. The website has not been updated obviously.
It's hard to read the words "one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period" as a ringing endorsement that there definitely have been.
As stated before, all that is required for you guys to continue your 'belief' is that CAGW remains 'barely plausible', despite the growing evidence to the contrary.
Instead of tooling off into another one of your bitter, self-indulgent, 100+ word crank binge episodes, how about addressing your blatant dishonesty @ #2025 and apologising to the people here, Jonas?
I think we can now safely conclude that since Jonas is still whining because he still does not understand what comment 1484 implies, he is too scared to actually tell us what percentage of climate scientists he considers real scientists.
I wonder why. I mean, he's smarter than all of us. He knows more than all of us. Why oh why can he not answer that simple little question? I know, I know, I'm too stupid. I do think though that even my addled little brain can grasp a number between 0 and 100. Or maybe it's one of those magical other reasons that Jonas has for not answering this one, simple question? Oh, be still my beating heart... maybe some day he will share those wonderful, magical reasons with us!
GSW it should be apparent to you that that paper is primarily concerned with economic impact (talk of 'normalisation' and the LSE authors being the giveaways).
However if you look at the graphs on pages 51-52 (figs. 8 & 9 of the [paper](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1720414) you will notice an upward sloping trend of approx 20º between 1980 and 2010 for the number (not value) of weather-related disasters
@chek,
Thanks chek, I do remember the paper. I think the main point is we do not seem to be heading for CAGW meltdown anytime soon. The Munich Re database discussed above is scant evidence of anything, no matter how you choose to spin it.
;)
Stu
2½ weeks of complaining about things you didn't understand, making up things completely irrelevant (outside you narrow mind)
Do you really think that **anything** you can come up with would scare me? **You**!? Of all the commenters here?
You don't even know why you kept lamenting about 'different velocities' although you knew they would be the same.
It's as if you can't distinguish your own goalposts from all the strawmen you brought here. And on top of that, you think that you'd scare anybody?
Well, I think you are a perfect example of the crowd hanging here. And a fine one at that. As I've told you many times now: I am certain that many here are proud of having you on their side, Jeff Harvey is one of them. Have you heard about his CV. I am told it's something extraordinary.
I can also assure you that when he starts waiving it, people not accepting his belief, people refusing to adulate him, get really really scared. Shivering at the mere though of how important 'big guys' he sometimes is allowed to mingle with!
When ever this guy makes something up, it simply must be the truth. He has told the world how much he hates to waste time and space of others. When he feels it, whatever he feels simply has to be the truth ..
And he is proud to have you, Stu, on his side. And Wow.
Boy how humbled should I (not) be in your presence!
What are the simple laws of Newton, in the presence of you and your lofty waffling assertions of a higher intensely felt truth, not only about simple boxes, but also about everything else you don't understand.
Science by feeling how it must be. Just like that. And not only 'it' .. how everybody else must be! Because you just know. By simply knowing! Deltoid stile!
Well OK, it is a bit scary after all. I admit ..
;-)
GSW said:"I think the main point is we do not seem to be heading for CAGW meltdown anytime soon".
Tell that to the increasing number of random victims. It can take more than a year to restore a home in the UK post flood, with our excellent infrastructure and resources. God knows how much worse it would be in Thailand.
Have you checked the expiry date on your meds recently, Jonas?
Jonas, Jonas, Jonas... still no substance. Still not a single shred of an argument against AGW. Nothing but an ongoing tantrum. This spittle-flecked word salad is not helping your cause any.
I'm sorry you're this insecure, Jonas. I'm sorry that you're not getting the validation you so desperately seek. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that comment 1484 brought up hand velocity as a seperate variable. I don't know whether it is because of your denial, your stubbornness or your shockingly poor grasp of the English language (for someone who knows more than everyone, who is smarter than everyone), and perhaps we'll never know.
So fine, you're not scared to tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists. It must be one of those other, magical reasons then. Care to share, or is that too much for you as well?
Stu
You can try as much as you want (and certainly you have tried), but you are still the only one going on about the nonsense you yourself realized was nonsense.
Not on single other individual is accountable for your nonsense. You introduced the 'different velocities' and nobody else did. You tried to 'rationalize' that with 'dependent variables' and nobody else even considered such stupidity. Only one person did.
The same person who is now trying to blame the rest of the world for his incomprehension.
Look kid, I really don't care about any of your misconceptions. But you spent 2½ weeks lamenting about them. All by your own. And when put out of your misery, you atared whining about bot being understood.
Look kid, if you seriously think that anybody but you argued 'different velocities' you could simply point us to that comment. But you can't. That stupid nonsense existed only in your head. And you are still trying to defend it.
Or blame it on that nobody understands you ...
Well kid, there is not anything to be understood. The lack of understanding is where it has been all the time. I just think it's funny you so desperately wanted to share it with all the world ...
Still no substance, still no answer, but ah! We get to figure out one thing!
Comment 1484. By GSW. In this thread. As I've said over a dozen times now.
So, denial it is. I'm not surprised. You do seem to overlook quite a lot of things. Such as:
You're not scared to tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists. It must be one of those other, magical reasons then. Care to share, or is that too much for you as well?
@chek
You just don't get it do you? just to repeat the main finding of the Munich Re paper again.
"Applying both [conventional and alternative] methods to the most comprehensive existing global dataset of natural disaster loss [provided by Munich Re], in general we find no significant upward trends in normalised disaster damage over the period 1980-2009 globally, regionally, for specific disasters or for specific disasters in specific regions."
Nobody is saying that disasters aren't bad, there just isn't any evidence to suggest a worsening as a result of increased levels of C02 - at least according to the Munich Re database touted above.
You're like a 'foil hat' butterfly chek, flitting from one imagined problem to the next. Did you ever find any portents of doom in the glacier atlas(#1421,#1413) you were reviewing? I assume not, judging by the fact that none of it has appeared here.
;)
Is there any way of phrasing and/or evidence that would convince you, GSW?
GSW, the graphs I referred you to previously indicate an unmistakeable upward trend in the number of events over the past 30 years. That's what the data are indicating quite clearly. Events are what affect people.
Your comprehension of terminology and desire to dismiss are irrelevant.
Wow #2028
You are real stupid, aren't you? What in the hell has past catastrophes to do with AGW? Goalpost moving, that's a alarmist trade, stupid.
Wow #2029
And so, you obviosly can't produce one single "catastroph" related to 0.7ºC rise in temperature. Pathetic.
----
"what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists."
A really stupid foil hat question with no relevance what so ever. It only makes you stupids to look even more stupid.
TampaxZ doesn't seem to have heard of [polar amplification](http://www.acia.uaf.edu/) in which a 0.7ºC rise in global average temperature means higher increases in other regions.
Not that the well-honed ignorance of the Jonases will come as any surprise to our regular readers.
Jonas is overly obsessed with my CV. This is the same arrogant nutcase who has repeatedly said that he "knows what he is talking about".
Jonas, just because my scientific CV shits all over yours is no sorry excuse you to become too unhinged over it. The fact is that you know diddly squat about climate science. The difference between you and me is humility. Whereas I defer to the knowledge and expertise of the scientific community working in the field, the vast majority of whom believe that humans are forcing climate, you are a denier who thinks that you're some world class expert - minus any kind of specialized training.
I have repeatedly asked you what your professional background is to be so certain that you "know what you are talking about" when your views are counter to conventional wisdom. You refuse to answer this, even though, as I have said many times also, professional qualifications in the field of climate science matter when one's views are different from most of the experts in the field. But you remain silent on this. I think it is because your day job, if you indeed have one, has nothing to do with any scientific endeavor. Once you tell us all where you have gleaned your wisdom your cracking edifice will begin to crumble.
I would like to ask you if you think you know more than, say James Hansen, about climate science. This is not a difficult question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice. I use Professor Hansen as an example of a world class expert in climate science who strongly argues that humans are driving climate change. This also relates to Stu's repeatedly asked question as to how many climate scientists you think are 'real' scientists. This is not such a difficult question, but it is from your perspective because you have painted yourself into an intellectual corner. You know fully well that the rank and file members of the climate science community agree that humans are forcing climate, and so by agreeing that most are, in your opinion, 'real' scientists, you are openly admitting that your views don't hold water. On the other hand, if you claim that most aren't 'real' scientists, then you are either suggesting that there is some vast conspiracy amongst these and that your non-existant qualifications somehow trump theirs. This is why you are so hostile to Stu - because he has put you in a lose-lose situation, and you don't like it. The same when I repeatedly ask you why you haven't written your grand ideas up for a peer-reviewed journal or for a seminar at a conference. You know you'd be a laughingstock so your strategy - if one can call if that - is to play dumb. You feel all intellectually superior (and safe) in a weblog where you can wheel off non-sequiters to those here and be very selective in your responses. I am afraid in the scientific world your ideas would be stripped bare and there would be nowhere for you to hide. You are both a coward and a hypocrite, and you know it.
As for PentaxZ, his overuse of the word 'stupid', combined with his comic-level book grammar and spelling also shows a profound measure of hypocrisy. This clown clearly does not understand the importance of scale - both temporal and spatial - in his/her arguments. For a largely deterministic system, it is impossible to tell if a 0.7 degree C change in the time period covered is important or not in the time frame covered. However, this 0.7 C change ignores local (smaller scale) effects, whereby changes in temperature regimes have been significant. As the models of Keeling and others predicted in the 1950s, the effects of C02-induced warming should be most notable at higher latitudes, whereas at lower latitudes we might see more significant changes in other climate-related phenomena, such as rainfall regimes. This is exactly what is happening. Temperatures in regions farthest from the poles are increasing much more profoundly that in equatorial regions. In central Europe temperatures have risen by 3 C since the late 1970s, and in the Arctic by as much as 5-10 C since then. These kinds of dramatic shifts will have all kinds of serious (and many unanticipated) consequences for ecosystems in these regions. We are also seeing changes in seasonal temperature a precipitation regimes in many parts of the globe, undermining the functioning of ecosystems as well. Wetlands and areas dependent on seasonal rainfall are particularly at risk. While in India at the end of October I saw first hand how repeated failure in the seasonal monsoons over the last half decade in some areas of the country were impacting ecosystems that are dependent on their regularity, thus impacting areas of great conservation importance. In Brazil, serious droughts that should occur once a century or even less are becoming a regular phenomenon, which will seriously impact the tropical wet forest ecosystems there.
I would like to ask Jonas this: do you think that there are any examples of human activities that are seriously compromising the health of ecosystems and biomes across the biosphere? Given that humans are a potent global force that is affecting nutrient cycles and the hydrological cycle over vast scales, why do you think that it is so inconceivable that we can alter climate regimes? These are questions that scientists are exploring, and most of us think that there is little doubt that our fingerprint is all over the current warming. This explains why you shy away from the 'real' scientists question. It was you who brought this ludicrous term up in the first place, but then, when challenged over it, you retreat to your hole.
Dunning-Kruger has found its model study subject. Well done, Jonas.
lightbulb #2033
Well, the past 15 years the mean temperature has not risen at all, despite the rise in CO2. Which virtually would be impossible if CO2 in fact was a greenhouse gas. What makes a greenhouse a greenhouse? A hint, it has nothing to do with which gases is within them.
Jeffie #2057
"For a largely deterministic system, it is impossible to tell if a 0.7 degree C change in the time period covered is important or not in the time frame covered"
And yet your'e so utterly sertain about CAGW. Really stupid indeed.
You know, the time when (CV waving) scientists had monopoly on information is long gone.
Jesus. What a fecking cretin.
Will Jonas - who declares he is only interested in real scienc- now provide a (inevitably tortuously and tedious) critique of:
> Well, the past 15 years the mean temperature has not risen at all
Really? What is the trend. Please remember to include error bars
> Which virtually would be impossible if CO2 in fact was a greenhouse gas.
Really? You're wrong. Because it would only be impossible if greenhouse gasses were the only item affecting climate.
And what makes a greenhouse gas a greenhouse gas? Hint: it's got nothing to do with a glass roof.
Well, lord, if you don't understand you don't. Can't help you with that.
> What in the hell has past catastrophes to do with AGW? Goalpost moving, that's a alarmist trade, stupid.
We've had AGW already.
Is that the best "defence" you could manage???
> You introduced the 'different velocities' and nobody else did.
Jonearse, if velocities between two objects are independent, then why are they NEVER different?
Git Says What maintained that the speed of the hand and the speed of the matchbox were indepenedent.
Ooops!
scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/gross_errors_ipcc.pdf
Pentaxz's 2058 about sums up the value of Jonas's very own thread. Its gone from bad to abysmal.
To The Cretin - greenhouses work by blocking convection.
Re lord_sidcup @ #2059
No, lord_sidcup, PentaxZ is sadly not one of those who failed to develop mentally because he somehow escaped early detection for thyroxine deficiency. Screening for congenital hypothyroidism in Sweden is very good. I don't think there's been a case missed in the last 13 years (though this could obviously be an exception).
His condition is just a plain ol' case of nonsyndromic mental retardation (NSMR). Of course, in his case, the diagnosis of NSMR is also exacerbated by a severe case of D-K syndrome. A most unusual combination in one so affected! I'm not sure it can ever be treated. No blame can be attached to PentaxZ in this matter. One can only pity him and chastise his responsible adult for allowing him internet access when he should be being supervised during his remedial therapies.
Jeff
You really can't get one single thing right her, can you?
>Jonas is overly obsessed with my CV
Bollocks! You are the one, using half your comments telling me about it. Over and over again.The other half you usually try to tell me who and what I 'really am' and making up stuff and 'facts' as you go. And in this latest post, you do it all over again!
And no, the difference between you and me is knowledge. One of them! Another is that I can actually read what is claimed and what is not. Yet another is that I can apply my knowledge and skills to what is claimed and see what it is based on. And I can also see when the words are just phrases, tentative descriptions and hypthetical explanations, discussions or just handwaiving and the oh so typical climatice waffling that has infested far to much of science ...
The difference is that I can do this, and you can't! That's why you avoid essentially every relevant topic or question about climate. As so many, you can't even keep changing climate (or temperatures) separated from any possible anthropogenic component thereof in your mind. You talk about 0.7 °C, whereas The IPCC says it is pretty certain that half of ~0.4 °C can be attributed, that is 0.2 °C! But as we know now, not on science, but on modelruns and handwaiving.
You and others go on about local variations (which are both larger, and change faster) and have absolutely no way to say that these are caused by an antropogenic component. Claiming attribution on those scales (temporal & spatial) is pure gibberish.
You talk repeatedly about my 'earth shattering views' or 'revulutionary ideas' or now my 'grand ideas about a cracking edifice', and when asked what (if anything at all) you perceive are my 'earth shattering views', you have now clue!
You don't even know my position in the topics, you don't know! You are just once more yapping at your own fantasy imagination. That's all you are Jeff. An incompetent yapping, barking frustratedly at the fantasy pictures and imaginations concocted up on the inside of his head!
It's just flabbergasting Jeff. You are barking, and have been since august, and don't even know what you are barking at. Although it is there to read, has been the entire time!
And this is because you are incompetent. Because you cannot even read, because you don't understand the words you do read, and because you fill in all the gaping holes in your understanding of the world with homemade-up fantasies!
And you are wrong about the 'real scientist' issue too! Stu is totally irrelevant here (He too makes up his own fantasies and yaps at them for weeks). I have told you, several times even, what is required of a real scientist. And one central part is to adhere to the scientific method, if you abandon that, you cease to be a real scientist. And it not that difficult to see when this is done. For me, that is. And for real scientists. You on the other hand, have no clue about what the scientific method is and what it requires. You have demonstratively shown that here in almost every comment. Projecting your own incompetence and fantasizing up 'fact' you desperately 'need' for that stupid narrative in your head, which only exists there (and similarly empty heads)
Also you babble about 'conspiracy' is nonsense. You really don't even know what is the topic, do you? Although I explain it. You just don't understand the written language, enlish, when it doesn't agree with your la-la fantasy. You've spent 2½ months barking, but completely clueless about what I am actually saying. Still are!
Your lack of both method, logic, knowing, understanding, and even basic concersional skills, as you demonstrate here, is so depressingly embarrassing, that I have a hard time imagining you producing anything of quality in your 'grown up life'. But heu, maybe it isn't required there either ...
Looking at your delivery here, you seem to feel very much at home with the likes of Stu, Wow, Bernard and luminous ...
> And no, the difference between you and me is knowledge.
Yes, you're lacking in any of it.
> The difference is that I can do this, and you can't!
If by "this" you mean continue to talk complete bollocks, then yes. However, among SANE humans, this isn't considered an advantage.
If by "this" you mean find any example where luminous' posts on physics are wrong, then NONE of us, including you and your chums can do it!
Really Waw? Are you doing historical revisionism now? How could we have had AGW if we didn't had the modern, industrial society? Are you stupid?
Jeff, if I were you (and I am so thankful I'm not), and were so demonstrably incapable of reading what is stated as you are, I really wouldn't refer to Dunning Kruger that much. Because it looks like yet another of those many owngoals.
You know, many among the crowd bring up D-K, and may even feel a bit clever and snug when they do, but I promise you: Together with the displayed level of 'arguing and debating' it is magnificant owngoal every time.
>I see that you even join in on Bernars [sic] über-stupid bet, which isnât a wager, but he calls challenge, and then bet, and tries to construct nonsense-logical conclusions from.
[Jonas N](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5775710), it seems that comprehension isn't nearly as developed a forté within yourself as you seem to believe.
The thing that I called a challenge is a challenge (which you accepted by the way, but wonât ratify in legal form), and the bet I speak of is patiently waiting for you to first come up with two numbers - your best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040.
And in case you missed it, [I've already explained to you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5773891) that a bet, separate from the challenge, is in the offing. Surely a polymath as vastly gifted as yourself figured this out?
Seriously, if you can't establish this simple narrative, how is it that you are believe that you are capable of credible discourse in science? Oh, that's right, in more than two thousand posts you have not actually presented any science that contradicts established physics or climatology.
Really seriously - where's your science that contradicts the consensus that you so rabidly disparage? Where is it, exactly, that the world's physicists and climatologists have it wrong? Where's your bloody case?
And where are your best estimates for for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040? I am champing at the bit to put my money against yours, my science against your 'science', but you are obviously too yellow-bellied to man up and support your psuedoscientific nonsense.
I predict that you'll continue to balther and bluster, but not put forward any figures that we can test.
And the rest of the trolls here - your silence is noted also...
As the only person who still does not understand that comment 1484 brought up hand velocity and implied it could be independent of that of the box, that is yet another level of irony previously unreached.
2000 posts in, the only reason we wouldn't is because you haven't stated them correctly, fully and unambiguously. Care to point out where you did? Care to share the magical reasons why you can't tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Also, calm down. You're going to give yourself an aneurysm if you don't get therapy for that inferiority complex of yours.
Bernard J
You ramblings about your challange and bets is sheer lunacy. But thank you for repeating that you take your drivel deeply seriously ...
You once more display that you (too) are capable of creating 'facts' from the thin air (presumably in your own head). And for that I thank you too ...
Stu still goes on telling the world what a fully sensible dscription of a hand pushing a box when trying to accelerate it implied for him in his head .. And he tells us more about what happens inside it. And that too is appreciated
> How could we have had AGW if we didn't had the modern, industrial society?
Because that 130 year history of industrial society is in the past, where history happened.
You don't seem to understand what "history" and "past" means.
Ah, that wonderful world of projection, where each and every denier like Jonarse lives.
Care to tell us why you made up your statement in 1825?
Care to tell us where you made your case for an error in the physics LB wrote down in this thread?
No, because in the World Of Projection, your errors do not exist, they all live on other people, projected from your diseased mind onto others.
Really?
If it was a matchbox on a table, and the applied force was your hand, then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also.
So in the Swedish denialist breeding reactor, it is common practice to state tautologies as profound insights, and do it so poorly it implies lunacy?
Eureka! That explains a lot, actually.
Anyway.
Are you sure you're not afraid to tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists? The longer you, with your superior intellect and all, refuse to answer such a simple question and even refuse to tell us your magical reasons (other than being afraid) why you will not, the longer you whine, bluster, whine, evade and whine... it's becoming more and more likely that even with all your insecurity-fueled grandeur and denial, you are simply afraid. Maybe it is the last remainder of your grasp on reality that tells you that Jeff was right about why you're not answering.
Wouldn't you like to prove Jeff wrong? All you need to do is answer, Jonas. No need to be afraid.
> Are you sure you're not afraid to tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Well, I'm sure he's not afraid.
Terrified of anything coherent and clear is what it looks like. After all, if you make a coherent statement, then you can be proven wrong. If you only post incoherent babblings like the Swedish Socks here, then you can't ever be proven wrong.
See, for example, how Jonarse can't find a single example of his illustration of LB's errors. Can't actually find one, only insist that he can.
It's terror of saying anything that could be proven wrong, not fear.
Terror.
Its great to see Jonas getting more an more insanely hysterical with every posting. We all know the guy is a crackpot, but this is getting priceless.
So, Jonas, now that you, a full-blown imbicile, has given his opinion as to what a 'real scientist' is, then answer Stu's question. How many climate scientists do you think 'adhere to the scientific method', and thus how many are 'real' scientists? Since you have never done an experiment in your life, its hard for me to even contemplate how you, of all people, can have any idea whatsoever of what a 'real' scientist is. But since you are a legend in your own mind, so you ought to be able to answer this question.
The fact is, that most of my peers, in other words 'real scientists', wouldn't touch your ideas with a ten meter long barge pole. They'd think yolu were some kind of nut, a crank, a crackpot. Just like most of us on this thread think you are. And, as for my CV, you, Olaus and PentaxZ keep bringing it up in every one of your postings. I know how envious you must be of my scientific achievements, and the fact that you certainly do wish you had my standing in the scientific community, which is a helluva lot more than you do. Truth is, you hate scientists and the 'scientific method', because your views on climate change are way, way out in left field,
>You ramblings about your challange and bets is [sic] sheer lunacy.
Yes, it would be if one is a science denialist, and knows full-well that one so is...
For me, it is eminently sensible, and potentially very profitable.
Given Jonas N's continued display of cowardice, it seems that the Scandinavian Syndicate is too scared to actually stand by their propaganda when push comes to shove, so I will simply cover all options in establishing bets.
For the period to 2025, I offer five options, from which the trolls may choose one (or, independently, more):
1a) I will bet that by 2025 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below four thousand cubic kilometers. I will put ten thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against ten thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
1b) I will bet that by 2025 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below three thousand cubic kilometers. I will put ten thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against twenty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
1c) I will bet that by 2025 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below two thousand cubic kilometers. I will put ten thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against fourty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
1d) I will bet that by 2025 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below one thousand cubic kilometers. I will put ten thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against eighty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
1e) I will bet that by 2025 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below five hundred cubic kilometers. I will put ten thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against one hundred and sixty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
For the period to 2050, I offer five options, from which the trolls may choose one (or, independently, more):
2a) I will bet that by 2050 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below four thousand cubic kilometers. I will put twenty thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against twenty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
2b) I will bet that by 2050 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below three thousand cubic kilometers. I will put twenty thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against fourty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
2c) I will bet that by 2050 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below two thousand cubic kilometers. I will put twenty thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against eighty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
2d) I will bet that by 2050 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below one thousand cubic kilometers. I will put twenty thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against one hundred and sixty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
2e) I will bet that by 2050 the record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value, as estimated by PIOMAS (or its successor), will fall below five hundred cubic kilometers. I will put twenty thousand Euros, with adjustment for inflation between now and 2025, against three hundred and twenty thousand similarly inflation-adjusted Euros from each of any accepting individuals in the group consisting of Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, pentaxZ, Ingvar Engelbrecht, and Pehr Bjornbom.
If the Scandinavian Syndicate are unsure as to which alternative offers the most favourable option for them, I suggest that they ask Tamino very nicely for his advice - though he has rightly dismissed Jonas N as a Denialatus fluffer, Tamino might yet even deign to explain to the the trolls the odds that they might actually win a bet. I'd be most interested to see them discuss the nuts and bolts of the relevant time series analysis and probabilities with a genuine professional, in establishing the credibility of their claims against the credibility of the analyses of the climatological and physical bodies professional.
Now, should the Scandinavian Syndicate actually enter into a wager with me...
If, at any time during the aforementioned periods to 2025 and/or 2050, the minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value falls below the value stated in any accepted bet I, or my heirs, will immediately claim victory and move to secure payment owed.
If, by the end-time stated in any accepted bet, the minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume value stated in any accepted bet has not been passed I, or my executor(s), will pay the accepting person in full, subject to them claiming victory and providing banking details within six months of end-time: that is, by 30 June 2026, or 30 June 2051, as applicable to the end-time of the relevant bet.
Those odds seem fair to me, given that the Scandinavian Syndicate deny that the planet will warm "catastrophically". If they choose to decline the offer of wager, or if they disagree with the size of the odds, I challenge them to use science and statistics to explain why.
Note to the realists on this thread - I am happy to syndicate my side of the bets with you, and share the spoils in the event that any of the the trolls here are actually sufficiently brazen to stand by their nonsensical claims, and accept one of my alternatives.
Let's see just how much they themselves believe the thousands of words with which they've polluted Deltoid...
Jeff
>We all know the guy is a crackpot
What you mean when you say that you 'know' have you displayed amply for 2½ months! It means 'fantasize about'
But you can't even formulate what 'earth shattering ideas' I am supposed to have. I guess it is those, you 'know' your alleged real scientist peers won't touch with a pole. I guess you 'know' that too, don't you.
And in the very same fashion, you just 'know' that I am envious of you, your standing or your achievments, right? You just 'know' both that and that I hate it and the scientific method. (A method you unfortunately are completely unfamiliar with).
What more? You 'know' som much about me, you have written many many comments for several months about who and what I really am! And seemingly you even 'know' that it always is somebody else who is bringing up your CV :-)
Well Jeff, thats all fine and dandy. But only with your world, with your version of 'knowing'. In the real world, fantasies don't mean squat.
And re: 'we all' and 'crackpots', need I really remind you what and whom you have on your side? Even draw your support from? Or can you not read their comments either? And just 'know' that they must be knowledgable, skilled, and right to the point in their logical 'arguments'!? Hilarious, Jeff!
Well well Jeff-kiddo, 'knowing' by closing your eyes, putting your fingers in the ears and hollering about your denial ...
It's all very entertaining. Please don't stop!
:-)
> What you mean when you say that you 'know' have you displayed amply
Sentence fragment yet again.
And what he means when he says he knows, is that we all know you're a loon.
> But you can't even formulate what 'earth shattering ideas' I am supposed to have
That's because he knows you HAVE no earth-shattering ideas. In fact, you have no ideas whatsoever. Just fractured sentences and bollocks.
> You 'know' som much about me, you have written many many comments for several months about who and what I really am!
Yup. We all know you're an idiot denier.
> In the real world, fantasies don't mean squat.
It seems you know this but don't know what "fantasies" means.
> need I really remind you what and whom you have on your side?
Science
Logic
Coherency
Every national science institute
Now remind us what you have on your side?
Bloviation?
Nutcases?
Fantasies?
Seems about right.
Bernard J
I notice that you voice opinions about the many words polluting Deltoid ..
That's cute, coming from you. At the end of that comment too. But given their capabilities, how could expect anything else?
Still [no anaylsis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784255) showing why the consensus science of physics and climatology is wrong.
[Piss-weak](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784255), Jonas N.
Step to the plate coward. Accept [one of my alternatives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133), or tell us your own best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040.
If you would like to keep these consistent with the terms of my wager, you are welcome to extend the peroid of the second estimate through to 2050. I don't care - I just want to see you actually engage in some substance on this thread.
Heck, even Tim Curtin was able to present scads of working and reference, even if it was always way off base. You - you just shit all over the thread, and produce nothing besides.
There are no prizes for being a substanceless tosser Jonas N, other than being the biggest substanceless tosser on the blog. Given your performance to date, you are definitely in the running to win that title hands down.
Glad you brought that up, Jonas! I almost forgot.
See, since I asked you what those ideas were @2073, and since you haven't responded, we're going to be forced to assume that you don't know what ideas you have either.
Help us out here, the Napoleonic whining bluster is getting really boring. Could you try and make an argument? Any argument? Anything at all? Or maybe you could tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
>I notice that you voice opinions about the many words polluting Deltoid
And I will stand by that, absolutely.
You have spent months bad-mouthing professionals, experts in their fields, disparaging their work, and you have offered no evidence, no analysis, nor any other support to substantiate your nonsense.
You're a vacuous, pointless, substanceless coward, afraid to actually test your claims, and unable to offer anything except the same guff after guff.
Seriously, pick something from climatology or from 'greenhouse' physics with which you disagree, and let's examine it. Or put your money where that big flappy mouth of yours is, and stand by your claims by accepting a wager, or at least by providing your own best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040.
Oh, and answer Stu's question, there's a good little boy.
We can play this game for a very long time, troll, so let's see how silly you are prepared to make look the name "Jonas N"...
This thread started at the basement level and since then it has just kept digging downwards. Since the arrival of PentaxZ (suspected double-troll) the digging has intensified, and a new mother lode of stupidity is being mined. It is actually becoming quite funny, in a morbid sort of way.
And contrary to all Jonasâs loud and long-winded proclamations of his own intellectual superiority and of how abysmally stupid everybody are who disagree with him, it was he himself who set the level. Actually, he did so at his very arrival at this blog, long before he was contained in his own thread.
Yet, this freakish thread is probably Jonasâs greatest intellectual achievement ever. No wonder he clings to it with such vigor.
> Yet, this freakish thread is probably Jonasâs greatest intellectual achievement ever.
Not, however, in a good way.
Jonarse has no ideas, has not found an error in others' posts on physics and just complains that we can't find things that don't exist.
Andy S
At some point you noted that 90% < 100% (which is correct), and after I explained what this actually meant wrt to the topic discussed then (validity of the various and different reconstructions) your only contribution has been repeating Figure 9.9 which **displays** the AR4 claim for which there is no scientific substance.
I understand if you avoid engaging in anything on topic thereafter. And I have nowhere claimed that everybody is abyssmally stupid, or that this judgment is based on whether or not somebody agrees with me.
But it's true, I thought you were smarter than to jump in here occasionally expressing sympathy and support for those left. And I don't think it is smart to misrepresent things either ..
And it is definitely not me setting the level here. The cussing and name obsessive calling is endemic and almost compulsive among many of the regulars ...
And it has been for a long time ..
Thanks for so rapidly proving my point, Jonas N!
> and after I explained what this actually meant wrt to the topic discussed then
Whilst ignoring that the science says ">95%".
Then you used that as proof that AGW was political and there was no science behind the 90%+.
Rather indicative of your thought processes: nonexistent.
Jonas, now that you've limped down after your ranting crescendo @ #2068, why not publish your paper, y'know the way the real scientists who you're better than do, and see how it ... er ... stands up.
Who knows, perhaps you are so goddam blindingly brilliant, despite the mountainous piles of tosh you drivelled here ... on a blog ... to no avail.
But I think the answer to that is already known, both to you and all here.
Well, I don't really know why this foilhats makes such fuzz about the 97% consensus among 79 scientists. There must be a lot more climate scientists than that.
"...close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly arenât buying it." as so accurate written in THE HOCKEY SCHTICK.
We don't.
But when you demand there is no consensus, then that 97% agreement is quite appropriate.
Devastating to your case, we know, hence your bullshitting.
'sfunny. TampaxZ here has a huge problem making a statement from a sample size of 79, but hasn't made a peep out of Curry using only 47 Antarctic stations to produce the global temperature trend to proclaim that BEST shows no warming trend.
His demand for rigour is highly dependent on whether he likes the answer or not.
Inspite all the drivle above, no one, not a single one of you CAGW advocates has managed to point out a single catastrophe which can be blamed on AGW and the poor little CO2 molecule. Not one. Yet you are willing to spend billions of £$ to "save the climate". But of course, it's allways easier to spend someone elses money. You're nothing else than the worst kind of talibans, namely climate talibans. In the future people are going to wonder how people like you could be so utterlu stupid idiots.
Dear little Andy. I can asure you that I'm not a double troll. Not even a single one. I don't read any other posts on this site except Jonas thread. Simply because your alarmist nonsens don't interrests me the least. You foilhats have such a distorted wiev on everything so reading it is quite pointless.
> managed to point out a single catastrophe which can be blamed on AGW
I did several times.
Deaths in Europe 2008 too.
The fires and drought in Australia.
The floods in Brisbane.
'course, now Tampax is going to run his little goalpost move again like he did in 2070.
Obvious and stupid lie. I linked to a survey of 1273 scientists back @1783. Did you really think you could get away with pathetic crap like this?
Wow, Wow #2094. In deed are you owngoaling en masse. When and where am I demanding no consensus? Have you trouble reading and understanding the English language again? And I suppose "We don't" is an answer to "Well, I don't really know why this foilhats makes such fuzz about the 97% consensus among 79 scientists" It's nice to read that you finally admit to you guys being foilhats. It thereby means that calling you foilhats foilhats no longer is namecalling here on Deltiod. Thank you for that.
Wow #2095 "making a statement from a sample size of 79" What are you dilluding about now? You foilhats claim that 97% of the worlds climate scientists believe in AGW, when it really is 75 out of 79, in other words 96% of 79. Quite a difference, wouldn't you say, you stupid foilhat?
> When and where am I demanding no consensus?
Post 1789.
And Jonas in several posts, Olaf in several and GSW in several.
There are more than just you on here. Even if you are all the same person...
> claim that 97% of the worlds climate scientists believe in AGW, when it really is 75 out of 79
No, you claim it's 75 out of 79.
PS 75 out of 79 IS 97%.
What does 79 have to do with that 97% being wrong?
And, looking for "97% of the worlds climate" on here, I find...
Only you.
Looking for 97%?
"97% of the relevant scientific experts"
Oh, and your post in 1785 where you whine about the consensus, as per your demand for where you complained about it.
Wow #2097
"Deaths in Europe 2008
The fires and drought in Australia
The floods in Brisbane."
Well, foilhat. You say people dies in Europe. Ok. There is fires and drought in Australia and floods in Brisbane. Yeah, so what?
Now, present the evidence, from a neutral, non AGW source that claims that the things above can be blamed on the microskopic rise in CO2 levels or the furious 0.7 degree rise in temperature. Come on, shoot, foilhat.
I wouldn't be surprised if Jonas N, Olaus Petri and PentaxZ were the same village idiot, but I think GSW is from a different hamlet. That they "both" suffer from NSMR is probably entirely coincidental.
> You say people dies in Europe.
No, I say people died in Europe from the heatwave.
> Ok. There is fires and drought in Australia and floods in Brisbane. Yeah, so what?
So they are catastrophes.
> present the evidence, from a neutral, non AGW source
Hmm. Where would you get such information about climate, weather and the effects of GHG on both other than climate scientists? Who are 97% in agreement with the IPCC report?
And will you therefore reject them?
No.
CO2 traps heat at the earth's surface, we see more heat on the earth's surface.
You'll have to prove that this has no effect on heatwaves, droughts and the water content of the atmosphere.
PS didn't ol' Tampax here engage in ad-hom: the evidence from some people will be labelled wrong if it comes from people who he maintains are pro AGW.
This is ad hom: refuse the argument because of who made it.
Yep, Wow... and a pre-emptive one at that. Like that study of 1273 scientists that found a 95+% consensus: it was done by PNAS, so it was wrong, because it found a consensus.
At least I think that's how it goes. I'm not fluent in loon.
Wow #2105
Please, you really can't mean that people hasn't died of heatwaves before 2008. Ãberstupid comment, indeed.
Yes, droughts, fires and floods in Australia are catastrophes. And they most certainly has occured in Australias whole history. Cause, you know, Australia actually had both changing weather and climate long before the Inglese came along and made the whole island a prision.
Well, foilhat, if you look past and beyond IPCC and those 76 other foilhats you actually might find real, honest climate scientists. So, put your money where your mouth is and stop dodging the question. Find the scientist.
"You'll have to prove that this has no effect on heatwaves, droughts and the water content of the atmosphere."
Actually no. You're making the claim, you have the burdon of proof, your stupid foilhat.
Something interresting for you to read.
theclimatescam.se/2011/10/07/hur-mattad-ar-koldioxidens-varmeabsorption/
theclimatescam.se/2011/10/28/vad-betyder-det-att-koldioxidens-absorption-av-varmestralning-ar-nastan-mattad/
A la recherche des temps perdus...
Is it possible to remove this thread from the "recent comments" list? It's getting painful to watch these four horsemen of the DK continue to make fools of themselves.
Let this poor thread die in peace.
Tmcm,
Personne ne vous oblige à lire.
Yepp, that's the alarmist way. Shut opponents down when arguments dry up.
Stop lying, idiot.
Unbelievable.
These poor trolls just cannot remember what they are arguing. They are arguing climate change (which has occurred all the time, denied only by the ME Mann and a few followers the last thousand years) and conflate climate change with anthropogenic causes. Happens all the time .. Yet 20+ years after the IPCC started to make a fuss about AGW, they still cant keep their eyes (minds) on what the ball actually is.
Tmcm
If you have anything, of substance or just halfway relevant to contribute, you are of course more than welcome ..
You can hardly lower the level among your friends here, even if all you can muster is the same old Dk-waffling as so many others .. It was an owngoal already the first time
And another pointless, 100% content- and argument free, self-aggrandizing, delusional, irrelevant whining dingleberry of a comment by Jonas.
Do you have an argument? Any at all? Or is this continuous petulant whining the only way to keep your deep insecurities at bay? You know what might help? Telling us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists!
Really Jonas, try it. You can do it, pumpkin.
Stu - Why not tell us what you actually meant by different velocities of box/hand or dependent variables, which you kept on lamenting about for 3 weeks.
Because if anything, that was three weeks of content free whining, you now whine about.
And let's not forget, that was on your own initiative. Nobody else forced or even provoked you. Three weeks of continuous owngoals, not even under any pressure ..
:-)
Ask GSW. He brought it up. In comment 1484. Which you know. You sad, sad little man.
Still no content. Still no argument. Still no unambiguous statement of your position. Still no contradiction in luminous's comments. Still no answer to what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists.
Still trolling. Badly. You should be ashamed of your incompetence in even that.
Nope Stu - you're yet again losing track of what the ball is!
You, and nobody else brought this up!
What GSW meant was perfectly clear and sensible. (To me, and anybody who has studied physics at freshman level, that is) And GSW does not have the answer to where you lost him or what part you couldn't wrap your sorry little muddied mind around.
He neither talked about different velocities, dependent variables (or even variables at all). He described a hand pushing a box with a force in order to accelerate it.
That's why I have been asking **you** why you went on a 2½ week frenzy lamenting about **different** velocities.
Only you know the answer to that, since only you ever brought that up.
And now you cannot answer that either? Is it because you don't know? Or are afraid to tell us why? Or are embarrassed that you were unable to understand GSWs #1492 too?
>Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force
You even acknowledged this in your own following post #1493:
>Yes, since that is the case, the velocity of the hand is the velocity of the box
So why the 'different' velocities, Stu?
Denial and lying in the same post?
>Still no argument
You just indicated us once again, that you saw nothing wrong i luminous lengthy violation-wiggling of physics, that you didn't even see where I pointed out his many misconceptions, later turned dishonesties ..
And you told us you studied physics for six years !?
Yeah, right! Sure, Stu ... that's what you must have done during those six years. Studied, learnt, Jeffie-style ... so that you just 'know' today!
:-)
What can one say but:
Wow!
Jonas, we've already established you don't understand the argument. It's up there for all to see, and for everyone but you to understand.
Since you still bring no substance and no argument, I'll leave you be before I can be accused of egging on the mentally ill any more than I already have.
Jonases, this is going nowhere - the same nowhere it's been going for 2100+ posts now.
If you had even a tenth of the Dunning-Kruger ability you credit yourself with (which you don't) the way forward is clear: write your gibberish paper about natural variability, submit it, and see what happens.
Then you can join all the other oppressed cranks and get back to your admiring coop of li'll chickens waiting to wet themselves over Monckton the moron's next outreach newsletter to far-right crank groups like yours.
As it stands, your pathetic science-by-assertion, arm waving and chicken-coop support act are just beyond ridiculous. You have realised you're a laughing stock by now at least, haven't you? Please dear God don't tell me you might think your circus troupe here is taken seriously.
Just to encourage you, some Swedes have the know-how to do more than whine on other peoples' blogs and [actually publish](http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v48/n1/p5-11/) their work.
Attaboy!
It would drop off if folks like Stu, chek and wow would stop engaging the idiots.
Stu - Denial and dishonesty ...
Do you have any idea why you lamented about **different** velocities?
The physics are easy, simplest level elementary stuff. But if you don't know them either, it is of course hopeless for somebody who either studied physics for six years, or lied about and tried bluffing by blindly guessing.
But yes:
Leaving is the best strategy left for you. Since you cannot even argue your own stance, you whined about for weeks. But never starting or blindly entering games where you don't know the rules, the field, the players, the umpire or what it is about would have been a far smarter strategy still for you.
Key word here is 'smarter' Stu. Had you been smarter you would have acted very differently. About the physics you know zip. But must have believed it smart to lie about it. Well, it wasn't for the same reason!
>I'll leave you be before I can be accused of egging on the mentally ill
Says Stu who has been lamenting all by his own for 2½ weeks about stupidities he concocted up all by his own. Not even knowing why! And trolling for attention for the two preceding months. Without getting it!
Shutting up is always the 'smart' option for people like you, Stu. I am glad you finally consider it. If you did it for the right reasons and by yourself it might almost qualify as 'progress' ..
But that of course is just speculation. With people like you, you can never rule out 'natural or internal variability'
chek
Progress is slow, that is true. In one earlier thread, continuing in another, it took almost as long for people to accept that the most prominent claim of the AR4 was not based on science, but rather a political statement of opinion. Most of those originally believing there was actual science behind that statement, finally and grudgingly admitted that it was mostly belief in the models modelling the hypothesis they modeled and that the SMP-authors very much wanted to believe in them.
That took 1000+ comments (mostly by those defending the false belief).
It is the same thing here. Early on, I explained things about how statistics are used and for what. And some sour grapes felt the need to mouth off, but nothing serious. After some repetition they stopped arguing their confusion.
But what this thread has been about (mostly) is luminous poor understanding of simple physics. Again, it started by him pretending to know so much more than he did. And when this was pointed out, it took some 1000 posts (almost) to stop his nonsense.
One can only hope he stopped because he finally realized how badly he had been caught out! And the large number of posts is not due to me, but because of the many who want to cheer on utter nonsense. Or like Bernard or Jeff trying to inject their nonsense fantasies.
Writing a paper about how badly various anonymous signatures on a pro-AGW site bungled freshman physics? I don't think so. What has been discussed here is mostly on the level of those who flunked those classes/finals even with extensive tutoring, and allowing every help the could find. There notworthy in how poorly people manage to argue here. Why would anybody care about how many times that anonymous crowd managed to write 'denier' or 'denialist', 'Dunning Kruger', 'idiot' or 'moron' or alike. Without ever arguing anything on a level higher than 'But John Cook said it's like this ... '
It's rather te other way around. This is the level you expect to find among the posts and comments at essentially every pro-AGW-site. Name calling and demands to ban those who know a little more. Ineviatably.
Maybe it will be interesting field of study in the future, when this hysteria has been history for some time. But I doubt it. It's been fourty years, and still nobody really has investigated why so many among the easily led were taken in by the 'promises of socialism' and starting cultist sects just like here, arguing the same 'everybody must learn to believe in the cause' and 'those who don't accept the scripture are heretics, they must be condemned'
We've seen it before.
You link to a paper by Björk, and his 'point' is that due to the poor quality of paleorecords, nobody has ever documented(!) an event like the one we've been seeing now. Probably meaning the warming since the mid 70s. Did you even read it? It is almost entirely an opinions piece. He explicitly says: 'that he thinks 'this is what we ought to think since we don't know better'
I know this passes as 'climate science'. But real science it is not!
[PentaxZ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5785570) howls:
>Inspite [sic] all the drivle [sic] above, no one, not a single one of you CAGW advocates has managed to point out a single catastrophe which can be blamed on AGW and the poor little CO2 molecule. Not one. Yet you are willing to spend billions of £$ to "save the climate". But of course, it's allways [sic] easier to spend someone elses [sic] money. You're nothing else than the worst kind of talibans [sic], namely climate talibans [sic]. In the future people are going to wonder how people like you could be so utterlu [sic] stupid idiots.
[Special pentaxZ](http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=15066&title=ed-…-), you really donât understand what this is about, do you? Humans are changing climate in the blink of a geological time-period eye, but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye, which is what youâre expecting. Your point is akin to a captain who is running his supertanker straight for a rocky coast, and who says to his navigator, after scraping across a couple of bommies, 'What do you mean, "catastrophic consequences"? Point to one bad thing thatâs happened from full-steam ahead. We've got a business to run â we can't afford to change direction!'
>I don't read any other posts on this site except Jonas thread. Simply because your alarmist nonsens [sic] don't interrests [sic] me the least. You foilhats have such a distorted wiev [sic] on everything so reading it is quite pointless.
I'm curious to know then, how you found your way here in the first place... finding and reading only the Jonas thread is a very unlikely thing to do by random chance.
And speaking of Jonas... JN, are you to chicken-shit to accept any of my alternative wagers?
> not a single one of you CAGW advocates has managed to point out a single catastrophe which can be blamed on AGW and the poor little CO2 molecule
I've given six examples so far.
How many more than 1 do you need?
> That took 1000+ comments (mostly by those defending the false belief).
Your false belief was that there was NO SCIENCE behind the 90%+.
Then around the 800s you admitted that the science supported 95+%.
> Do you have any idea why you lamented about different velocities?
Yes we all (apart from you deniers) do.
Git Says What thinks that the velocities are independent variables. This means that they can be different velocities. Since Git doesn't know anything about physics, this restatement of what "independent variables" means shows that he's wrong in a way that even an idiot can understand.
However, you're unable to say that any fellow denier is wrong, so you have to defend him.
TampaxZ@ 2108
Why do you believe that nobody has ever died of heatwaves before?
> Yes, droughts, fires and floods in Australia are catastrophes
Good. There you have your examples of catastrophes from AGW.
Or do you believe that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?
That's why you're a do-nothing content to drip doubt into the minds of your gullible little pack of ignorant followers. Frankly it's truly amazing that the required regulation of an industry brings so many loonytunes out of the woodwork.
Yes I read the Björk paper and it's an *analysis supported by 28+ inline citations* showing that present global conditions are exceptional. Your own agenda blindsides you to actually understanding that simple point.
Note it's not an 'opinion piece' - that's your own method. Referenced support is something your approach can never be accused of, with you preferring your menagerie of semi-trained monkeys following you around for support.
What is ironic is the likes of TampaxZ complaining about discussion being shut down, when it's obvious they mean that their unresearched denier talking points aren't accepted, and even when points are corrected they just continue to repeat their received disinformation ad nauseam. That's not discussion, and it's notable that you, the self proclaimed man of science never see fit to correct them either.
That's because science isn't your real agenda.
>I know this passes as 'climate science'. But real science it is not!
Jonas N.
Whilst you are busy calculating your best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040, you might also consider a sideline challenge of listing the climatology papers that you believe constitute "real science", and those that do not.
Just to try to actually get a skerrick of substance from you, that has to date been conspicuously and completely absent...
Alert deltoids! A new study from the fossil and tobacco industry advocates:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/new-study-shows-temperature-in-gr…
It can't be true, can it?
Speaking about buzz words, pay attention to the conclusion. Hilarious:
"Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100."
Translated into Deltoidish, the last sentence of the citation is real climate science, the first is buzz words.
:-)
Ah, the other sock has come back from the wash!
> It can't be true, can it?
What "It"? Since Greenland isn't the globe, then this has nothing to say about global temperatures and therefore nothing to say about Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming.
Struck a nerve did I Wow? ;-)
Well lets keep our fingers crossed that further research will make it global? Wouldn't it be great? An unpreceded happiness coming your way deltoids?
chek
Thank you for once more illustrating what I mean. This paper by [Svante Björk (which you linked)](http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c048p005.pdf) does indeed contain some 50 references (existing publications of various kind), which I assume Svante has actually read, to produce a 51st reference, a publication. An essay about some already published papers, and opining about them. The possible 'work' contained therein is one Figure, *presenting* a few earlier results from one pond on an atlantic island*together* with some pacific Fe-data and Chile precipitation! That's it!
And it really is only an opinion paper. The opinion it presents is that we have only one climate event which has been properly observed and recorded globally, and that is the modern (global) warming. The entire point is that previous events (including glaciation, and leaving it) were not documented or recorded (through proxis) globally as is done now. Therefor it should be regarded an 'anomaly'. The causation (attribution) he doesn't even touch, just says they are (supposedly) 'triggered' by anthropogenic alterations.
He even explicityly states that this is an opinion, that it is his (and that he doesn't expect everyone to accept it):
>**I find it fair** to conclude that in the perspective of 10 to 20 millennia, the ongoing global warming seems to be an anomaly. Owing to often incomplete chronologies of the proxy based paleo-archives, especially in relation to the last 150 yr of daily to annual instrumental records, **it may, however, be difficult to find clearcut evidence** for such a statement
and his rationale for it is the **lack of information**:
>as long as there is no positive and clear evidence for distinct, globally synchronous climate events (since the LGM) with consistent climate signals, we should consider the ongoing global warming as an anomalous climate event
As so many times, it is blatant violation of the simplest logic: Since we know so little, and have so little proof or not even any records, we should assume that the few records we actually have must be unprecedented.
(It's like Bernard J claiming that that arctic ice is at a 700.000 year minimum, because no records exist (anymore) that it has been icefree during that time)
And this is what passes as 'climate science' (*). And in the spirit of how 'climate science' often is done, the next time anybody refers to this 'reference' they will probably just mention somthing like:
'.. has been shown [S. Björk, 2010] to be a unique global climatic anomalous event during the last 20 millenia caused by human alteration of the carbon cycle ..'
As I said, this pracice, both the opining, and backward (non-) logic, and the distorting through referencing are common practice in the field of 'climate science', and I've seen far to much of it.
(*) Nota bene, Björk's statements in that opinion piece, are reasonably well presented. The lack of substance, the backwards reasoning ('Since we don't know, lack the data, I feel that .. it could possibly be regarded ..that ..') are not untruthful by them selves. An open and reasonably trained mind, can clearly see that it there is neither substance or content, nor work performed, just arm waiving and opining based on 'not disproven' or 'since nobody has any data'.
> Struck a nerve did I Wow? ;-)
Nope.
I notice that you don;t know why Greenland has anything to do with the global temperature either.
I guess I struck a nerve, hmm? So rather than explain what the hell you meant, you posted bollocks which didn't add anything.
> And it really is only an opinion paper.
No, it's a science paper.
But you wouldn't know what science is, would you.
After all, you haven't managed to give even one example of LB's posts that were incorrect, despite your continued whining that you made many such proofs.
Or were those claims just your opinion of LB's science?
Olaus
That what funny.
Why would an empirical paper about historic records, and temperatures, in **its Abstract** include prophecies about a future, based on climate models? When absolutely no part of the work is about prophecies?
Models are hardly even mentioned it the entire paper. Only in its very final paragraph 5.4 Future Context, AR4 model scenarios do appear briefly.
I can see two possible explanation candidates:
1. Either, the authors are aware of that you need to say your 'Climate Amen' for your work to have a reasonable chance of being accepted, or
2. The mentioning of 'climate models projection for the future' was added 'value' through the quality 'gold standard' provided by peer review
3. The last possibility, that the authors actively thought it would be wise to draw as much attention away from their actual performed work (by waffling about the future), I would assume is the least probable explanation.
Why Jonarse Talk Like Tarzan?
> When absolutely no part of the work is about prophecies?
Science does prediction, not prophesy.
And one part at the very least is about prediction: where it says "if the current change continues..." and in the same area, it also talks of models.
Pretty bad reading comprehension.
Even illiterate Tarzan could do better.
But I guess you're just a Cheeta.
So can we take it that you agree that you can't find any examples of incorrect physics posted by lb?
Jonas, we know it funny witchery. Wow feel it science. ;-)
Wonder what Cheeka will say on the matter?
Uh-huh. That's why he's the scientist presenting actual researched work, and you're just a trollarse with a troupe of monkeys.
So Olaf can't find any examples of Jonarse showing errors in the posts by luminous.
That's conclusive, then.
Wow, no worries on my behalf, LBs poor performance is there for anyone to see. Your disability to understand concerns me though. My hypothesis is that your severe science dyslexia comes from spooning with Jeffie too long.
But what the heck, lets focus on the happy news from Greenland, shall we?
> LBs poor performance is there for anyone to see.
Except you can't see it.
Because it doesn't exist.
Wow #2134
"I notice that you don;t know why Greenland has anything to do with the global temperature either."
Well, then, what does droughts, fires and flooding in Australia to do with global temperature?
You're going on doing owngoals on and on and on. It's very funny, and stupid, you know.
And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to bring forward catastrophes caused by AGW. So far you haven't managet that.
> Well, then, what does droughts, fires and flooding in Australia to do with global temperature?
You really don't know???
Here it is in baby language so you might have a chance of understanding.
Hot warm air is hot and warm. This means that wet water dries up.
We adults call this "drought" when it happens too much.
Hot warm air evaporating all this wet water becomes wetter. When it does rain, there will be more water to rain out.
We adults call this "flooding" when it happens too much.
Hot dry ground will burn easily.
We call this burning thing "fire".
I personally didn't know you were so ignorant of physics and weather as you have just demonstrated.
It certainly has been an eye-opener.
> And by the way, I'm still waiting for you to bring forward catastrophes caused by AGW
The problem apparently being you don't know what "warming" means.
I've given six so far, but you don't know how floods happen, so you're unable to recognise the phenomena.
Stupid #2111
Stop lying about what? I can't help if you are caught with your pants down by your ankels. You only have your self to blame, you stupid foilhat.
ianam #2120
There's no stopping Stupid, check, Wow or the other foilhats. Simply because they're not interrested in science, but in winning the debate. They don't realise that they have lost it long ago, together with the science. A loose-loose situation with a bundle of owngoals on their behalf.
Bernardboy #2123
_"Humans are changing climate in the blink of a geological time-period eye, but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye, which is what youâre expecting."_
So very convenient for you foilhats. You can rave about this and that, but the supposed effects won't be visible for anyone today to see. Well, in that case Wows raving about Australia has nothing to do with AGW. Please, tell him just that.
Bullshit, even if the main effects would manifest it self way in the future some minor changes would have manifested itself in the present. And it has not, despite all the perfectly normal weather phenomena in Australia.
Well, I klicked a link someone had posted in a thread. No big deal. Of course I did surf around a little, but pretty soon realilsed that Deltoid is exactly as pseudoscientific as all other alarmist blogs/sites. The only real sciense here is presented by Jonas in his own thread. So that's why I only read this thread on Deltoid. Satisfied?
So, having shown he doesn't understand what "warming" means, how floods, fires or drought occur, and failed to desrcibe either what Greenland has to do with global temperatures nor where there are any reports of error in lb's posts, TampaxZ goes all four-year-old on us.
You asked for catastrophic effects. I gave them.
Wow #2144
Well, you are really stupid. I perfectly well understand how weather phenomenan you describe occour. And, they has so from the dawn of Earths climate. There is nothing unusual abouth these weather phenomenan.
So, yet again, where is your catastrophic climate events? Or do you not understand the question? Bernard says that these Australian phenomena can't be ralated to the climate change. But you of course don't agree?
> The only real sciense here is presented by Jonas in his own thread
Yup, Deltoid does science. Jonarse does sciense. As in "not science".
Go on, show us what science Jonarse has done.
> I perfectly well understand how weather phenomenan you describe occour.
No, you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't have asked this question:
> Well, then, what does droughts, fires and flooding in Australia to do with global temperature?
If you don't know what temperature means to flood, drought, etc, then you don't know how those phenomena occur.
> So, yet again, where is your catastrophic climate events?
Flooding in Australia.
Droughts in Australia.
Fires in Australia.
Droughts in Russia.
Droughts in America.
Flooding in America.
Deaths in Europe.
[It can't be true, can it?](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.abstract)
[Maybe it's a new paradigm](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/the-moscow-warmin…)
[Even the Daily Mail gets it](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058981/Natural-disasters-linke…)
Exactly chek
>Uh-huh. That's why he's the scientist presenting actual researched work, and you're just a trollarse with a troupe of monkeys.
This is usually what AGW-groupies have left when they run out of arguments. Which they usually do pretty quickly. And if you actually read what they link to and explain what it actually says there. It reveals how little they know about science, and what science is. And they sputter even worse, revealing even more.
Happens all the time. Many times only in this thread!
Not even what your own side writes can you read and understand correctly. To comprehend what it actually means, and what is done is way way more difficult.
Happens all the time. And yu guys are not even particularly good at all that name calling you then try covering up for not ever doing your homework properly ... Even that is copy-pasted stuff ..
Wow, stupid. Your own words: "_Since Greenland isn't the globe, then this has nothing to say about global temperatures and therefore nothing to say about Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming."_
I'll corrected the text for you: _Since Australia isn't the globe, then this has nothing to say about global temperatures and therefore nothing to say about Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming._
_Flooding in Australia. Droughts in Australia. Fires in Australia. Droughts in Russia. Droughts in America. Flooding in America. Deaths in Europe._ Still not anything out of the ordinary. Or are you really, REALLY so stupid that you say that fires, droughts, floods and deaths (in Europe) never has occoured on earth before the supposed AGW. You rave about how smart you are, but you can't even make the distinguish between weather and climate. How crasy are you, you fucked upp, stupid foilhat?
*This is usually what AGW-groupies have left when they run out of arguments. Which they usually do pretty quickly*
You'd think from this dumbass remark from Jonas that the vast majority of climate scientists dispute the human contribution to the current warming. But of course the opposite is true. By 'AGW-groupies' our resident moron is attempting to smear pretty much the bulk of the climate science community.
Is it little wonder that Jonas has become something of a comic-book level parody? Despite his claims to be interested in 'real science', not once on this thread has he discussed with any kind of acumen the actual science underlying climate change: the physical science which is found in abundance in the empirical literature. As the above thread, 'Blainey's false history' demonstrates, the relationship between atmospheric C02 concentrations and a warming climate have been discussed in detail for more than 50 years. Too bad Jonas conflates his right wing political ideology with 'real science'.
Then theres' this from our other illiterate denier: *There is nothing unusual abouth [sic] these weather phenomenan [sic].
What?! Like two 'once in a century' droughts occurring in Amazonian Brazil in 2005 and 2010? Or the 'once in a millennium' heat wave that devastated much of Russia in 2010? Or the 'once in a millennium' heat wave that resulted in 50,000 or more deaths in Europe in 2003? Or the 'first time in 700,000 years' loss of Arctic ice projected to occur around the middle of the century? What kind of a twit are you? The hilarious statement *The only real sciense [sic] here is presented by Jonas in his own thread* sums old PentaxZ up nicely. He/she doesn't know the first thing about science in any field of endeavor, but, since Jonas' denial resonates with him/her on an ideological level, then this is fine.
And Wow makes yet another owngoal:
_We develop a theoretical approach to quantify the effect of long-term trends on the expected number of extremes in generic time series, using analytical solutions and Monte Carlo simulations._
Very, very much of empirical data here. Or not. _theoretical-generic time series-analytical solutions-Monte Carlo simulations_
As I have said before, it doesn't matter how big computers you have, nobody, absolutely nobody can predict the future. Espescially not something so caotic as the weather and climate. Stupid, stupid Wow.
PentaxZ,
May I advise you to learn to read and write properly before accusing others of being 'stupid' and 'foilhats'? You routinely accuse others of ignorance whilst writing at the level of a 10 year old. Your grammar and spelling are so utterly appalling that its hard to keep a straight face when reading your nonsense. Given the basal level of your discourse, its impossible to believe that your scientific knowledge exceeds that of a primary school student.
Your self-projection is quite accurate and telling Jonas.
What you do is an impression of sounding superior, without any substance that backs up the impression. You seem to believe that dismissing a peer-reviewed published paper can be done with a dash of attitude and a wave of a hand like a pub bore. That is obviously enough to impress your circus who possess zero understanding, but it's laughable in its conceit.
As with the rest of this thread, your critique shows no evidence that you're the great thinker you believe yourself to be, just another denier idiot with no clue.
PentaxZ,
You are overdoing it in 2153. Nobody is going to believe that you really can be that thick! Try to keep it at a more realistic level. ;-)
Jeff, dear idiot.
_Like two 'once in a century' droughts occurring in Amazonian Brazil in 2005 and 2010? Or the 'once in a millennium' heat wave that devastated much of Russia in 2010? Or the 'once in a millennium' heat wave that resulted in 50,000 or more deaths in Europe in 2003? Or the 'first time in 700,000 years' loss of Arctic ice projected to occur around the middle of the century?_
_once in a century, once in a millenium, first time in 700,000_
Well, once again, this things happens and has so done in the past, without any trasce of AGW. And they certainly was perfectly normal weather changes. Now, stupid, why should it be any different in modern days? Why in the hell does you foilhats act like the climate would stop changing because we have created our civilisation?
And Jeffo, why does you alarmists always come dragging with political right-left rubbish? Is it something you do when your arguments are finito?
TampaxZ said:"As I have said before, it doesn't matter how big computers you have, nobody, absolutely nobody can predict the future.
...which of course is why lotteries, casinos and bookmakers are going broke every day. Not.
Once you can grasp that underlying concept, you may understand what climate (not weather) prediction is about. But then you are quite the prize moron so more likely not.
Jeff
As I just said: When I read out 'loud' (copying the relevant passages, explaining what they say), you AGW-groupies have nothing left but name-calling.
Have you even read the paper chek (and I) linked? Are you claiming there is anything else to it than what I summarized?
Because I don't see one single relevant objection. I see the same blind and ignorant barking at the shadow of the fumes of your own fantasies. As you have been for 2½ moths now, but nothing else!
So, if you can let go of your own stupid fantasies that never were the issue, and additionally can point out where you disagree with my reading of Björk, please let us know.
Because if you can't, you just did exactly what I described:
When you incompetent AGW-groupies are spoonfed with what your own side's 'science' actually says, and what it doesn't contain ...
.. you losie it and go bonkers. And have only name calling and cussing left!
PS In your case Jeff, I knew this to be a 'fact' for a very long time. A person who cannot read simple english text even, who gets it entirely wrong repeatedly even after his error has been pointed out repeatedly, is not a person capable of anything in real science. You just cannot cheat or make up your own 'facts' in science, and somebody doing it compulsively as you are Jeff, is a demagogue, an activist. But not a scientist. No way!
PentaxZ the illiterate:
*Well, once again, this things happens and has so done in the past, without any trasce of AGW*
NONSENSE. DRIVEL. As I said, these events should be occurring once in a thousand years or less - and now they are occurring over time intervals that are highly statistically shorter. The rest of your arguments, if we can call them that, are without any empirical foundation. The IPCC predicts that one of the side effects of warming is that extreme events like those I listed (and there are many more examples) will increase in frequency. This is exactly what is happening. One of two more droughts like those that have hit the Amazon basin in the past ten years and a tipping point will have been exceeded, leading to a dramatic shift in the susceptibility of these wet forests to fire, die-back and a concomitant massive loss in biodiversity. This would be an enormous catastrophe. Have you read the Scheffer et al. paper on ' tipping points' in Nature? Do you know anything about alternate stable states? About deterministic versus stochastic processes? Of course not. You've never heard of the term.
I am sure that 'foilhats' like you (to coin your own ludicrous phrase) consider other anthropogenic changes across the planet to be 'natural' as humans have taken a slash and burn approach to the biosphere. In concert with these stressors, climate change is likely to be the final nail in the coffin for many natural (and even managed) ecosystems. Since you clearly have no expertise in any field of science, its clear why I bring up political agendas, since that's the only reason left that a dimwit like you would wade in here with your willful ignorance.
Climate threat lovers out there, you are on a roll right now, me thinks:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/only-52-days-left-get-on-with-the…
It seems we are not up for extinction â yet. That's a good thang, isn't it? First Greenland and now doomsday postponed, in one day! Let us celebrate friends! :-)
*When you incompetent AGW-groupies*
Exactly as I said. Jonas is smearing pretty much all of the scientific community.
The this gem: *Jeff, is a demagogue, an activist. But not a scientist. No way!*
It seems like the vast majority of my peers in science disagree with you, dopey. I was invited to the University of toronto to present a seminar on my research just today - this in addition to giving a plenary lecture at a conference in South Africa in July and a keynote lecture at a conference here in August. And of course there is my CV which you so much loathe, because it proves that I am every bit a scientist - unlike, well - YOU!! Jonas, when did you get your PhD? When did you publish your last peer-reviewed paper? When did you last give a lecture at a university or conference? On what editorial boards of scientific journals do you sit? How many scientific articles do you receive to from journals to review every year? You see, these are all the duties of a scientist in which I partake. But you, poor Jonas, would answer 'none' to every one of these questions.
Point made.
So, hmmmm...who do I believe - some Swedish clown (Jonas) who won't tell us his day job because he is too embarrassed to admit what he does, or my many peers in science, my students, colleagues etc. who are quite convinced that I am a scientist. Gee, now that's a toughie!
There's no 'we' about it TampaxZ. Those with your intellectual capacity do not 'create' civilisation, they destroy it, mainly through the kind of hostility you display to things way beyond your understanding such as science and the growing understanding of complex systems as with climate science. These must be attacked by you because they're beyond your comprehension.
No, the most that could realistically be expected from you is achieving body temperature. And don't let chicken-cultivating old cranks such as Jonas flatter you by telling you any different.
Gee, Olaus, the true total of climate-related deaths since 2007 has probably only been in the several hundreds of thousands. That should make you feel better.
As for the Greenland article, nowhere in it does it say that the current warming is not anthropogenic. And, if you read the abstract, it clearly says that, if IPCC projections are correct, then by 2100 temperatures in Greenland will have exceeded the historical threshold they postulate on the basis of their proxy. Its also typical of WTFUWT to be super selective in interpreting the results of this study whilst excluding the caveats. But heck, the deniers do this all of the time. Moreover, its also interesting how WTFUWT can blow the results of a single study in a single small area of the planet out of all proportion on the basis of one study measuring one parameter in estimating historical temperature trends, but to scream from the rooftops when studies using more proxies leads to more significant global trends. Again, you deniers are cherry-pcikers extraordinaire.
As for human extinction, we are certainly accelerating that possibility, not only through tinkering with climate-control mechanisms, but in the whole approach our species takes to the biosphere. But clearly, like your pet poodle, you do not have a clue about cause-and-effect relationships in systems ecology (ever heard of Whitaker? Tilman? May? Naeem? Others?) and how anthropogenic assaults are reducing the capacity of nature to sustain human civilization.
chek
Maybe you didn't notice!? I read that 'paper' by Svante Björk (I don't know him personally) and I summarized its content for you. I
1. Summarized his conclusion and main 'finding' (opinion) of the paper, I
2. Copied those parts for you to read, highlighting keywords and -phrases.
3. I explaind what method he used to arrive at his opinion, and
4. Copied those sentences too, highliting his own reservations wrt to his opinion, and
5. I explained that his assessment method was one of 'not knowing' any better. That he explicitly argued that 'Since we don't know, we should assume this to be an anomaly'. And
6. I also said that this is a quite common practice in 'climate science', assuming 'since we don't know, since uncertainties are so large, it might be really really bad'. And finally
7. I pointed out that not knowing, not having any data, not having been proven wrong, is not science. It is armwaiving.
You may (or may not) have different views on these points. But you haven't presented any. So far you've been mostly talking about me and my persona (a recurring theme here, among the wafflers without arguments)
And you (as Jeff too, everytime) get it completely wrong, must compulsively misrepresent what I say (I guess you just cannot do any better). I explicitly said that
- Björk's statements in that opinion piece, are reasonably well presented
I don't argue what he says, because he is clear about it being an opinion and why (I would have said very different things, but he is not dishonest). Your problem is that I actually read the paper, but you (and Jeff) seem incapable of reading anything and extraction its substance and relevance. The thought process and 'logic' seems to be
a) It is peer reviewd and published, and thus
b) Jonas must be wrong.
Your understanding doesn't seem to go deeper than that. Possibly because it saves you the effort of reading what is actually done (nothing in this case) and claimed (some opinions in this case)
As I said, you guys over and over again confirm what I expect from AGW-groupies.
2167 - "not having any data". Jeezus, is Jonas trying to compete with PentaxZ now?
Jeff
Are you once more pretending to speak for 'the scientific community'!?
It was a lie back then, and it still is. You don't!
And Jeff, I don't know you peers. If they are like you, if they lie and cheat and make up their own facts, they aren't scientists either. No real scientist I know does any of the things you do compulsively.
I was close to complementing you for not waiving your CV for two whole posts. But it did't last very long, did it?
You know, there are plenty of nutcases in academia. And to some extent it is even accepted. But cranks and nutcases usually don't make real scientists. In very very rare instances, one of these cranks whom nobody understands actually is a genius. And advances science. But he is outnumbered 1000-fold by the nutcases.
And still: None of the real scientists invent their own 'facts' to 'win an argument' the way you do!
Are you telling me that your students, your peers, your colleagues, and role models behave like you?
I would certainly hope not. And additionally if the do, I would like to know the names of them as well.
Now, in my line of business, reality is the sole reference for whether your work is good or not. As it is in real science where physics, logic, math and experiment are central parts of all that. Cheating and making up facts or results is forbidden.
If you are so proud of your CV, why must you then make up your own 'facts' about essentially not agreeing with you?
To me that indicates two thins:
1. Dishonesty, and
2. Deeply rooted insecurity!
Why are you lying about so much Jeff? Why can't you stick to the facts or truths when your faith isn't accepted?
Do you even know?
Andy S
Are you too approaching Jeff-level arguing? Mouthing off without even knowing what the topic is?
Don't answer that. You left the conversation around when we discussed likelihoods for various scenarios. From what I Saw, you never really had any challenge to what I said:
1. That AR4 claim (shown in Fig 9.9) was not substantiated by real science, and
2. Those historical temp-reconstructions, essentially falsified each other.
Which was based in both instances on correct treatment of available data. You tried a little, not very hard, but never really came up with anything better.
Since then your small appearances have been cheering for the home team, involving intellectual beacons such as Stew, Wow, luminous, Jeffie and chek.
OK, I'll accept your choice of sympathies, but any substance there hasn't been ..
Jonas, dude, Bjork's paper is science. In case you missed it several of the articles cited include him as author. The article is typical of palynology(e.g. very conservative language regarding the findings), but that one pond you refer to is one of the few complete Late Pliestocene-Holocene pollen records we have from the Southern Hemisphere. The article fits this data point into our overall understanding of Pleistocene and Holocene dynamics. What you failed to note was 1.)the reference to the decoupling of the Carbon dioxide signal to the Milankovich solar forcing, 2.) the context is geological time, in which makes it next to impossible for a trained geologist to evaluate short term perturbations; and,3.) that it Bjork's reasoned argument that it is this decoupling that brings the geologist to consensus with the climatologist.
Mike
2167 - "not having any data" - let's see Jonas N try to wiggle himself out of that for 2000+ comments more. First attempt: misdirection, misrepresentation and denigration. We'll probably see a lot more of that.
What Jonas is trying to do is pull the lawyer's gambit.
He doesn't have the wherewithal to find better data and advance his own hypothesis in order to refute the paper, so he alludes to some mystical as yet undiscovered data which would overturn the applecart, should it ever come to light.
Any day now ...
So yes, in his own way just as pathetic and clueless as TampaxZ.
mgr
Björks paper is a **publication**. His 'findings' were his opinions about how to assess that there wasn't any better data. He explicitly said so.
As you say: His 'findings' are 'consistent' with what climatologists hypothesize about. And explicitly because there wasn't much data or records to the contrary.
As you say, there is one data point treated. Together with some more southern hemisphere record.
But what you seem to fail to notice is that his main finding is the today's global event being an anomaly in the last 20 millenia. And that this is based on the lack of more information.
One island does not make it global. And if I understand you correctly, that one proxy does not falsify his opinion or belief. Well, that's what he said: He can still maintain that belief.
But I would never say that this: " brings the geologist to consensus with the climatologist"
That is a far stretch, and not science. But I know, in other disciplines this is good enough.
chek
No! But you are actually confirming what I said. I am not a lawyer here, I am pointing out where you fail in scientific method.
The 'prosecution' says: We know almost nothing at all, but the scant data we have doesn't exclude the possibility that a crime (anomaly) has occurred. It doesn't even address if there is a perpetrator or why and how a possible crime was committed. Only that the lack of data doesn't exclude the possibility of a crime.
You give it away once more here. I read that paper correctly, but as the AGW-groupie or activist you seem to be, you want to jump to the conclusion that I now must refute the guessing by providing the **lack of data** that guessing was based on in the first place.
Once more, a perfect example of what the scientific method **is not**
(Did you pay attention, Jeffie?)
No Jonas, that is based on the existing information as detailed in the 28+ supporting papers.
If you really had a clue about the scientific method, you would have an idea of where data might be found to contradict the paper. But you don't - you just wave your arms and stamp your foot and declare it doesn't meet your standards of 'logic'. Well, whoopy-do to you.
It met the standards of peer review by experts in the subject, and as usual your anonymous, uninformed opinion means nothing.
If you wanna be taken seriously Jonas, it's no good sitting there scratching the scabs off your scabby arse and expecting your rapier-like insight to stun all and sundry.
You can see all too well how that tactic is working out but still you persist like a battery operated toy pointlessly banging against a door that it will never open.
Ya gotta do the work and present the data. Which we all know will *never* happen.
Jonas:
All science is the scientist's opinion if one accepts your poor reasoning (Like dude, there have not been sufficient empirical analysis of gravity or of motion or friction to be assured it operates, it's just Sir Issac's opinion).
Let's take baby steps here.
The author is a palynologist, and like most that I have studied with is trained as a geologist. It is almost unconscious reflex for them to remind themselves they are working with a paucity of data, as it should be with all paleontologists (eg pointing these statements out as essential to any scientific arguments they make are red herrings). What he makes is an argument informed by his research, and is not offering opinion. One of his likely target audiences are those members of the geological community that believe (superficially) the current phenomona adheres to past patterns (this was very common amoung the vertebrate paleontologists I knew in grad school)
It's a publication (duh), but do you not note the submission and acceptance dates? Peer reviewed opinion? What you miss is that the article draws from his previous work, and that his pollen analysis fills a critical gap in the pollen record, as almost all pollen records are in the northern hemisphere. His narration of the climate history incorporates thousands of secondary references to other pollen studies. That record is not impoverished. This is opinion he shares with hundreds of tertiary and quaternary palynologists.
However, unlike geologists, many palynologists have to be grounded in climatology. The climatological perspective is epistemologically grounded in geography. The scale of time for geography is within tens of thousands of years (the ecological advent of man), and does not fit well into the geological perspective (remember,civilization is a geological anomaly).
The author's point is that from the geologist's perspective, carbon dioxide and milankovic directly covary, and they have no instances within recent time (or in the deep past) of the two not doing so, that that decoupling implies a unique event similar to the advent of civilization. (It is also in this time frame that Jeff Harvey's expertise comes into play--the one extinction event we do not have in the record is the extirpation of all multicellular organisms)
You lack the expertise and scientific background to have read the paper correctly. Insisting that you have indicates you have little in the way of scientific temperment or reasoning, and lecturing others as the appropriate mien of the scientist is at the level of gobsmacking chutzpah (similar to Rick Perry's debate performance).
Mike
Mike @ #2171
Thanks for your welcome insight Mike.
The significance of that point completely sailed over my head. Kudos to you for bringing it to our attention.
[Special PentaxZ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02jPkg5AhEc).
[You said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5796441):
>So, yet again, where is [sic] your catastrophic climate events? Or do you not understand the question? Bernard says that these Australian phenomena can't be ralated [sic] to the [sic] climate change.
and in doing so have proved that you are a filthy liar.
I have never said what you ascribed to me, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
I also challenge you, Jonas N, Olaus Petri, GSW, and any other of your band of Denialist fools who claim that there is no possibility of "catastrophic" warming, to inform us what are your best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040.
[Says Jonas N](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5798114):
>Now, in my line of business, reality is the sole reference for whether your work is good or not. As it is in real science where physics, logic, math and experiment are central parts of all that. Cheating and making up facts or results is forbidden.
Just what is your "line of business", mate? What physics do you employ that contradicts the physics used by professional physicists, and that shows that the understanding of thousands of experts (in consensus) is wrong?
What mathematics do you employ that contradicts the mathematics used by professional mathematicians, statisticians, and scientists, and that shows that the understanding of thousands of experts (in consensus) is wrong?
What logic and experiment do you employ that contradicts the logic and experiment used by professional scientists, and that shows that the understanding of thousands of experts (in consensus) is wrong?
What of Stu's very frequently repeated question? Just how many professional climatologists do you consider to be real scientists? More to the point, can you go through the list of published climatologists and tell us which ones are real scientists, and which are not?
And to go back to [my own ignored-by-you questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5793458), can you list the climatology papers that you believe constitute "real science", and those that do not. And for the umpteenth time, and for the second in this post (because comprehension is obviously not one of your strong points) when are you going to get around to telling us what are your best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040?
Finally, why are you and your Scandinavian troll-buddies so shit-scared to accept any of [my alternative wagers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133)?
_"The significance of that point completely sailed over my head."_
Well, it's not only that point which is sailing over your head, chek. I would say that wirtually every topic here does just that.
Thanks Mike for the excellent insight. I have been trying to make the point that human activities are generating changes in physical and biological properties of the biosphere in the blink of an evolutionary eye, and much faster than would be occurring in the absence of some major forcing. This is what escapes the deniers - they equate change of largely deterministic processes in the context of a single human generation, showing their true inability to understand the concept of scale.
As for Jonas, again, his arguments reveal a singular lack of even the most basic scientific training. It is evident from his posts that his knowledge is the result of 'self-teaching' in immensely complex fields, and he holds no reservations when parading his ignorance as 'informed scholarship'. He baits me time and again by claiming that I am not a scientist, and when I reply with proof that I am, I am accused of arrogantly waiving my CV in his face. The he claims that my concerns over human-mediated stresses to the biosphere, including climate change, are not shared by most of my peers in science, which is utterly untrue. Working as I have in academia for the past 20 years, it is clear to me from discussions with colleagues in various scientific disciplines that climate change is taken very seriously, and that by now the evidence accrued is so strong that there is little dispute that humans are primarily to blame. The Jonas demands that I provide bonafide statistics showing this to be the case but of course this is impossible; however I take it on good faith that most Earth and life scientists do not dispute the human fingerprint over the current warming. The crux of the argument is that Jonas has put the onus on contributors here to prove that humans are the primary forcing agent, whereas in reality, given the position of most scientists, it should be up to him and his acolytes to prove that our species is not.
Jeffie
_"As for the Greenland article, nowhere in it does it say that the current warming is not anthropogenic"_
I really, really hope you don't take that for evidense for AGW. Because if you do so it's bad, bad science, or actually pseudoscience.
> I really, really hope you don't take that for evidense for AGW
Then Be Joyful! Because he isn't.
He's not, unlike you, taking it as evidence AGW is wrong.
So, still nothing on the "sceience" [sic] that Jonarse has produced here?
Still nothing on any post pointing out an error in lb's physics?
I guess neither of them exist, then.
TampaxZ, who bleeds from his mouth once a month, proclaims:
"Since Australia isn't the globe, then this has nothing to say about global temperatures and therefore nothing to say about Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming."
But since Australia is PART of the world (you DO know it's a real place, don't you? You DID take geography, yes, and didn't assume that that little plastic ball was the actual globe, yes?), then GLOBAL TEMPERATURES affect Australia.
Here's a version you may understand.
You depend on your mother for money, food and laundry. But your mother doesn't depend on you for money, food and laundry.
> Very, very much of empirical data here.
Very very much ignorant of what a monte carlo simulation is.
What a shock, eh?
Oh, by the way, Jeff:
Posh on that, Jeff. He doesn't need any, because he is much smarter than all of us, and knows so much more than all of us. And if you disagree with him, you're not a scientist anyway.
Remember, in Jonas-world, science is only science if it agrees with Jonas. Actually, non-science is science in Jonas-world if it agrees with Jonas. In Jonas-world, words mean what Jonas wants them to.
I think you're all still underestimating how insecure, insulated and downright loopy this guy is.
As a matter of fact, I'll just answer my question to Jonas for him. All climate scientists are real scientists. That measly 97% of "climate scientists" that agree that climate change is anthropogenic and catastrophic aren't scientists at all, they are leftist commie drones working for Big Windmill and Al Gore.
Jonas, correct me if I'm wrong here.
mgr #2177
I read you the first time. And no, I donât agree.
That paper is actually a conference contribution (and a CR special issue), and its submission, review and acceptance are all irrelevant red herrings to its content or quality, even more so with a special conference issue. (Like I said, this is âclimate scienceâ and standards are very different and individually applied there). Therefore you must read carefully what it actually says. Comparison to Newton or gravity are even worse herrings, completely irrelevant.
What you call 'decoupling' of Milankovic and CO2 is not performed here. And it does not relate to climatic variations on the relevant time scales necessary to call the last decades or so 'anomalous', nowhere! And if anything the alleged âanomalyâ (due to GHGs) is on that time scale (decades).
No, rather Björckâs argument is there in the available climatic proxy data, few synchronous climate events between NH and SH can be found, but that the modern recorded warming is one. The absence of such observations is his explicit argument. Being well aware of how difficult it would have been to even detect such NH/SH covariation with that resolution. He points out (probably correctly) that NH variations have been more stochastic and varied more than in the SH.
Björck makes assertions about a supposed âglobal climate anomalyâ and particularly addresses the cause of any such. But phrases them as opinions, since they are not much more. He doesnât even define and quantify âanomalyâ. And data scarcity being the normal state of things does not make speculation or lack of data more âscientificâ. So that was a red herring too.
And yes, he makes an argument, you call it an âinformed argument, which means he is stating his (informed) opinion. The relevant questions is what he bases this âargumentâ on. That others share it once more is not science, it is just more opinion. Keep that in mind! And he explicitly bases it on lack of observations of synchronous events. And to do that he needs essentially independent (half) global NH and SH climatic data with time resolution of a ~decade, and precision of some 0.1 -0.2 °C. For essentially the entire time span.
And of course, he doesnât have that, knows he doesnât and thus is quite careful and tentative with his phrasing.
So no: That conference-contribution does not constitute any real science supporting any â20 millennia anomalyâ. It doesnât even define what a such would be to qualify.
At best, it is one more comparison (Fig 1) saying âit still might beâ, but even there he is vague (for god reasons)
You say he based it on various own and other studies! Essentially he reviews (repeats) what they say about various effects and earlier variations. But repeating statements is not original science either..
What you need to compare this to is how difficult it is to pin down even the last 1000 or 500 years global (and NH/SH-) temperatures using proxies, to resolutions of tenths of a degree C, and of decades. Every individual proxy will give you both faster and larger variations. And even the âglobally constructedâ will show the same.
You just cannot compare these reconstructions (any of them) with global satellite data (or even instrumental modern records).
So no: There is no real science supporting that claim!
Note: It is not the advent of civilization, or higher CO2-levels he calls âanomalousâ (they are), but specifically the climate and recent warming.
Note that Jonarse works under the auspices of Proof by Assertion.
But this is how he gets to claim everyone is dumber than him: Say it is.
> temperatures using proxies, to resolutions of tenths of a degree C, and of decades. Every individual proxy will give you both faster and larger variations.
[Astronomers know you're talking bull](http://keithwiley.com/astroPhotography/imageStacking.shtml)
You can get 1/4 arc second resolution in an atmosphere that has a "seeing" resolution of 4 arc seconds.
Jeff #2181
>I have been trying to make the point that human activities are generating changes in physical and biological properties of the biosphere in the blink of an evolutionary eye
I have never challanged that statement. On the contrary. But any detectable and local changes due to a possible anthropogenic signal inte climate are the least of those.
Locally any such are even more difficult to detect than globally. And attribution is far more difficult too.
So once more a red herring and a strawman. And it is your exceptionally poor performance when arguing the issues that I note, and of course that you usually spend half the comment on fantasizing about my shortcomings (while you hardly ever even manage to get my position correct). The other half is often spent on CV-waiving (this time too), which is as little an argument as you excessive use of climate groupie trash talk terms.
Gosh, isn't it ironic. Jonarse and the Sock Brothers complaining about "Group think".
> I have never challanged that statement. On the contrary.
Compare and contrast with:
> Björck makes assertions about a supposed âglobal climate anomaly
But if there's global climate change detected, then it is a global climate anomaly. Both statements by Jonarse can't be true.
The least of what? Could you stop posting while drunk?
Bernard #2179
You have not seen me violate any physics, statistics or other math here.
The fact that you claim so, once more proves that you are ignorantly waiving your arms in your own dark mist. And perceived (guessed) âconsensusâ is still not an argument.
Furhter I have given detailed answers (to Jeff, repeatedly) what is required to be a real scientist. Everybody who consistently does so, qualifies as a âreal scientistâ. It doesnât mean he is an excellent or good one too. But strict adherence to the scientific method, and truthful reporting of results and data are paramount. A person finding a reference saying
>â There is currently no scientific evidence that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean existed anytime in the last 700,000 yearsâ
And then reports this as:
> Arctic summer sea ice volume will fall below one thousand cubic kilometres well before 2050, something that hasn't occurred for at least 700 thousand years
is not a real scientist. It is yet another waffler, who (just like the truthers) claims: Since the opposite is not proven conclusively, I assume that my view alsoe is the truth.
And we do get a lot of that and similar arguments. Donât we Bernard? Everything from acceptance of pecuniary contracts to attribution of specific tenths of a degree to causes, while we canât properly explain variations an order of magnitude larger
Well then Jonas, you should have no problem taking Bernard's bet, right?
Especially since sociopath Jonas has never paid off on a bet in his entire life.
[Quoting Jonas N](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5806858):
>Bernard #2179
>You have not seen me violate any physics, statistics or other math here.
Once again, you are either demonstrating your expertise in non-comprehension, or you are deflecting from the actual questions put to you. Personally, I suspect that you are able to master both alternatives simultaneously...
I did not comment on whether you had "violate[d] any physics, statistics or other math here".
I asked you:
>Just what is your "line of business", mate?
I received no answer from you.
I asked you:
>What physics do you employ that contradicts the physics used by professional physicists, and that shows that the understanding of thousands of experts (in consensus) is wrong?
I received no answer from you.
I asked you:
>What mathematics do you employ that contradicts the mathematics used by professional mathematicians, statisticians, and scientists, and that shows that the understanding of thousands of experts (in consensus) is wrong?
I received no answer from you.
I asked you:
>What logic and experiment do you employ that contradicts the logic and experiment used by professional scientists, and that shows that the understanding of thousands of experts (in consensus) is wrong?
I received no answer from you.
It might be possible to employ any or all of these alternative practices in contradiction of consensus, and still be not in violation of the respective laws of the disciplnes, but you won't answer the questions, so we just don't know, do we?!
I asked you:
>What of Stu's very frequently repeated question?
I received no answer from you.
I asked you:
>Just how many professional climatologists do you consider to be real scientists? More to the point, can you go through the list of published climatologists and tell us which ones are real scientists, and which are not?
I received no answer from you.
I asked you:
>And to go back to my own ignored-by-you questions, can you list the climatology papers that you believe constitute "real science", and those that do not.
I received no answer form you.
I asked you:
>And for the umpteenth time, and for the second in this post (because comprehension is obviously not one of your strong points) when are you going to get around to telling us what are your best estimates for the two future minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume values from PIOMAS that will eventuate between now and 2025, and between now and 2040?
And for the umpteenth time, I received no answer from you.
I asked you:
>Finally, why are you and your Scandinavian troll-buddies so shit-scared to accept any of my alternative wagers?
And, surprise surprise, I received no answer from you.
The only things in which you seem to demonstate any competence are, as [I said earlier](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5774399), obfuscation, confabulation, calumnation, obliquation, fabrication, and prevarication, and non-substantiation.
Just answer the questions, troll.
And given your 're-interpretation' as listed above, it's a bit rich when you come up with your complaint that:
>There is currently no scientific evidence that a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean existed anytime in the last 700,000 years
versus
>...Arctic summer sea ice volume will fall below one thousand cubic kilometres well before 2050, something that hasn't occurred for at least 700 thousand years
is somehow an indication that I am not a "real" scientist (you're wrong, by the way). Perhaps you would like to go into explicit detail as to why framing the latter quote as it is on this blog thread - a contextual observation embedded within a wager - is substantively different to the first quote.
Is it that you are trying to imply that the lack of scientific evidence for no seasonal Arctic sea ice melting for 700 thousand years doesn't mean that it hasn't melted, say every ten thousand years or so? Are you perhaps nervous that the absence of evidence is no the evidence of absence?
Why would that be? After all, you're (apparently) a hot-shot polymath (although self-praise is no recommendation), so you should be able to figure out, in 5 minutes sitting in the smallest room in the house, how to determine whether there has been any melting more recently that 700 thousand years ago.
If you are afraid that there may be melting in the near future, does this then imply that you are expecting warming, in contradiction to your claims that things are climatically fine? Does this imply that you are in fact expecting what would constitute catastrophic warming? Does the fact that you have given no scientific explanation why such warming might occur naturally, indicate that you harbour a suspicion that there might be human involvement in the warming?
So, so many questions for you Jonas N, but you just can't answer any of them with scientific analysis or with empirical evidence, can you Jonas N? You're just a big, windy troll, afraid of the light of focussed scrutiny, forever lurking just within your cave of obscuration and dissemblance, banging the ground with your club of ideological umbrage, screaming in high dudgeon, but never, ever, ever actually making a point in refutation of the overwhelming consensus of professional scientists around the world.
Bernard #2179
_"I have never said what you ascribed to me, and I challenge you to prove otherwise."_
Well, you write like this in #2123:
_Humans are changing climate in the blink of a geological time-period eye, but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye _
And now, how would you interpret that? In my world, the droughts, fires and floods in Australia is nothing else than normal weather phenomena. Any "AGW" effects wouldn't, by your own statement be wisible. So, am I lying, idiot?
Wow the foilhat. Once again you show how out of arguments you are in #2184. For your information, Greenland, Arctic and Antarctica also is parts of the world. But do what you do best, moving goalposts. That's ok with me. Just don't call it science.
And by the way, your life situation isn't even close to mine, so you don't have to expose yours like that. We already know that you are depended of your mother.
[PentaxZ](http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=cough-syrup&video…).
>So, am I lying, idiot?
Yes.
Resoundingly, yes.
Either that, or you confused the word "lying" with the word "an". Which wouldn't surprise me...
When I say:
>Humans are changing climate in the blink of a geological time-period eye, but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye.
it means exactly that.
It certainly does not translate into:
>Bernard says that these Australian phenomena can't be ralated [sic] to the [sic,/i>] climate change.
If you really can't understand why this is so, then you should reserve the labels of stupidity and idiocy for far more special people than myself...
Stupid #2188
Of course you mean 95%. 75 of 79 scientists is 94% not 97%
Stupid #2188
Of course you mean 95%. 75 of 79 scientists is 95% not 97%
corrected.
Bernardboy
You can't eat the cace and at the same time keep it intact. And it's just what you are trying to do. Read your own words once again and you perhaps will find your owngoal. If you don't you of course must be stupid.
(http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/bloggers.gif)
(http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL049444.shtml)
(http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf)
A very good from theclimatescam.se (http://www.theclimatescam.se/2011/11/12/planeterna-solen-och-jordens-kl…)
A google translation:
"The third dimension!
It is easy to try to find their own favorite among climatic stressors. You can choose to focus on a natural tracegas of 0.03% of the atmosphere and add any explanations suplorting that theory in the egg basket. Excluding the third dimension on the basis of our interplanetary position as climate driving is actually very strange.
One finds it easy to focus on things we think we understand and be able to have a faith tha is "ready" and says that we understand everything. It is hard for many to reconsider the old "truths". The IPCC has really put a stick in the climate science wheel. We have examples from the past when the dogmas has not been questioned, and the parallels to the Catholic Churchs worldview in the Middle Ages is a pure deja vu when heretics once again pointing out into space as a reference to the prevailing dogma here on earth.
Putting the little blue planet's climate in relation to the gigantic cosmos is upsetting heretical. Climate bishops in the IPCC does not have this worldview enshrined in their writings.
That there are many explanations for both large and small undiscovered forces to climatic fluctuations is to me quite obvious. Corbyn is a real rebel and if he nails his latest long time forecast for the winter so can not the establishment ignore him anymore. To review Corbyn SLAT technique is to do research "backwards" because we do not really understand the forces and effects Corbyn is making his forecasts by. Unlike the CAGW church whose scenarios points further and further away from their targets, Corbyn delivers and that is what distinguishes and generates interest and credibility. Some see new ideas and discoveries as threats, others with open skeptical curiosity.
I am already sure that meteorology / climate science is facing a "giant leap" if they dare to welcome these new findings and observations. Corbyn is a game hanger and a growing number of independent studies is pointing in the same direction as Corbyn is already working at."
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the not so... delusional sweeds. And just say thanks to you for not teaching the delusional English speaking ppl Swedish.
>Putting the little blue planet's climate in relation to the gigantic cosmos is upsetting heretical.
Sir, you are a genius. I bow down to you.
Magnus W.
You have my sympathies.
In balance though, Australia has more than its own fair share of crackpots,so we know how you feel!
2205 - PentaxZ delivers again! A therapy blog for retards, or a Poe? That's the question!
Well, it seems there is a Swedish guy who seriously thinks he 'represents' the non-delusional swedes and can 'speak for them'.
Or maybe he really meant only the 'sweeds' (whoever they are) and is actually chosen to 'represent' them.
Which reminds me of that we in Sweden actually have ha blog like this one, heavily censoring and moderating, delivering the PC party line message, alarmist style, in exactly the same fashion as here. Same methods too, 'Denier' usually being their best argument, and constantly complaining that others are not sufficiently polite to them.
Incidentally, one of the co-blogger's name is Magnus W, but he rarely ever dares to stick out his nose outside his fenced comfort zone. Yes, as almost all the other climate scare activists ..
As Bernard J says, everybody seems have a fair share of them too ...
Unfortunately, and for obvious readons the idiot brigade get bored with each other's sockpuppeting company on their own trash blogs and feel compelled to go out and pollute new territories. Hence the need to moderate influxes of morons, deniers, liars who parrot whatever this week's line from the think tanks is, and self-aggrandising cranks who invent their own 'science' as they go along.
Speaking of which, one can only admire your transformation from gormless ignoramus to self-assessed 'expert' in your 'critique' of Björckâs paper @ #2189. I count you require 15 citations in your not so much hand waving or arm waving but more a helicopter impersonation of an appraisal. Perhaps an expert can find more.
You could just have said 'how interesting' and left it at that but no, naturally an egomaniacal boor must put on a show of invincibility for the sockposse - otherwise their religious faith might be shaken - but out in the real world it really just makes you look a silly, sad old fart of a man.
chek #2211
"_Hence the need to moderate influxes of morons, deniers, liars who parrot whatever this week's line from the think tanks is, and self-aggrandising cranks who invent their own 'science' as they go along._"
Yeah, right. It hasn't absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you foilhats don't have any valid science to back up your religious AGW beliefs, made by IPCC ?. Bullshit, and you know it, stupid.
Thanks for illustrating exactly what I mean TampaxZ.
Of course, the fact that you couldn't find a single 'religious belief' claimed by the IPCC if your life depended on it does not deter you from making an absolute arse of yourself and spouting someone else's catchphrases in defence of your creepy old guru.
The very picture of group-think denialism in action.
chek
The polluting on this blog is done by the large crowd that (seriously, still?) believes that 'idiot', Dunning Kruger' or 'denialist' carry any explanatory value. The ammount of crap delivered here by the ones cheering for the home team is just amazing. And has been all the time. So if you would for one second claim that the censoring, moderating and banning is 'necessary' for those purposes, you'd be outright wrong, if not blatantly dishonest.
We've had plenty of examples of commenters here 'inventing their own science' as the went along. And don't you even pretend posturing that it bothered you one single bit. I'd rather say you you are part of that .. at least when it comes to choosing sides.
I was not the one bringing up Björck's paper. You were (in #1219). And I read it (I reckon you hadn't) and told you what it contained and was worth. As I said, I think it is a perfect example of what passes as 'climate science'. And I both told you how and why. Several times, and in more and more detail.
One commenter 'mgr' tried to say something to the contrary (you complemented him on his 'insight' in #2178) but whatever he argues was not what Björck's paper presented. Honestly, I think that his attempt with *"climatological perspective is epistemologically grounded in geography"* is just the same waffling we've heard so many times.
And what he said wrt Björck's actual paper did not make sense. I really wondered what you found so prfoundly 'insightful' and significant about it. I mean, if you were not only pretending to understand and support some sciency sounding phrases (unrelated to the topic). I really cannot see any connection between what mgr said in #2171 and the paper by Björck you linked. Was that only more Deltoid 'climate posturing'?
Now it even seems you complain about me having read that paper and explaining it, what it's worth. That I instead should have said 'how interesting' and left it at that!? Is this (as it seems) really only because you don't want to be *'shaken in your religious faith'* about what climate science says? And is?
Because if you don't agree with my assessment, you could very well challange it, say that it contained both analysis and real science worth taking seriously. But I don't see any of that. Instead I see exactly what I find so despicable about much of climate science:
A completely empty handwaiving, here about 'anomaly, not seen in 20-thousand years' which first gets 'published' in a 'peer reviewd' journal, and thereafter elevated to 'truth' repeated by the faithful, not be challenged or you are labelled as a 'denialist' and much worse.
But when you look at what's actually done, there is essentially nothing!
I understand why you climate scare groupies hate it so much when somebody actually reads what it is about and explains it. Given the religious nature of that cult, it is understandable. What I don't understand is why you are so junkie-addicted to that faith, and fight reason with every fiber of your body when the scare falters in the light of reality ...
>Bernardboy
>You can't eat the [sic] cace [sic] and at the same time keep it intact [sic]. And it's just what you are trying to do. Read your own words once again and you perhaps will find your owngoal [sic]. If you don't you of course must be stupid.
[Special PentaxZ](http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=15048).
Given your struggle with English as a second language (and leaving aside completely with your struggle to understand even basic science), I hardly think that you're in a secure position to tell me what I am saying, and what I am not saying.
I'll repeat, and I'll type really, really slowly so that you might have a chance at keeping up...
When I say:
>Humans are changing climate in the blink of a geological time-period eye, but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye.
it means exactly that.
It certainly does not translate into:
>Bernard says that these Australian phenomena can't be ralated [sic] to the [sic] climate change.
Get a clue.
I admire the way Jonas writes so much but says so little, except to remind that a) he is called names (the poor hypocrite) and b) we are wrong, which is so self evident he doesn't need to explain why.
Bernard
It doesn't matter that you winds like a worm on a hook. The supposed "AGW" has occured, in your words, _in the blink of a geological time-period eye_. That must be a really short time period. _but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye._ That's a even a shorter time. Ergo, the weather events in Australia can't possibly be related to "AGW", the timespan is far, far to short. Stop moving the goalposts, idiot.
Hahaha, you guys really have some brain in your lines.
(http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/naomi-kleins-crippling-problem-with-nu…)
Yet something the AGW-church will not speak of:
(http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/co2-emitted-by-the-poor-nations-and-ab…)
[Special pentaxZ, you're nothing but a space cadet](http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=15058).
>It doesn't matter that you winds [sic] like a worm on a hook. The supposed "AGW" has occured, in your words, in the blink of a geological time-period eye. That must be a really short time period.
No, the human-caused shifting of climate is occurring on the order of magnitude of approximately one hundred to one thousand years. Initial consequence following cause is on the order of decades.
For reference, humans have been consistently and increasingly emitting carbon dioxide on an industrial scale for about 250 years.
And in spite of your desire to think otherwise, I am most decidedly not squirming, wriggling, or otherwise gyrating.
>but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye. That's a [sic] even a shorter time.
On the order of one tenth of a second, I'd say...
>Ergo, the weather events in Australia can't possibly be related to "AGW", the timespan [sic] is far, far to [sic] short.
Eh?!
How many errors can you squeeze into one sentence?
1. Climate change is about climate, not about "weather events". The time spans involved with human impacts on climate thus far are on the order of decades to centuries (and will extend to millenia), and therefore are absolutely in proportion to changes already seen, and to changes to come in the future.
2. Changes in weather trends (-> climate) can (and will) be manifested in weather events, so changes in the pattern of weather events can be increasingly attributed to global warming.
3. In spite of all of your bluster, you still haven't been able to substantiate your lie that I said "Australian phenomena can't be ralated [sic] to the [sic] climate change".
The only way that you could ever be clever would be if you're actually Poe. And in that case you'd be shiningly brilliant...
[Quoting Joanne Codling](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5820295) is an automatic fail.
The sad thing is that you wouldn't have the slightest clue why.
One more thing, pentaxZ...
Why won't you accept any of the [alternatives wagers I have offered you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133)?
1. _"Climate change is about climate, not about "weather events"_
Exactly. So why in the hell are you repeatedly bringing up weather events i Australia and elsewhere as CAGW?
2. "_so changes in the pattern of weather events can be increasingly attributed to global warming_"
Can. CAN! Yet you foilhats are certain. You are living in a bubble but don't realise that.
3. "_ in the blink of a geological time-period eye_" "_ but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye._" There you have it. Or, do you not understand english although raving about my poor englis?
"_Quoting Joanne Codling is an automatic fail._"
But of course, every man or woman, scientist or not, is automatical a fail if they don't promote the (C)AGW-dogma. I know that you think that. But it don't make it right, does it?
Convenient for you to just discard things soley by who has wroten a bloggpost. Why don't you comment the content instead? Or is JAXA a too big competitor for you? You are just another rattling empty bin. An a stupid bin that is.
1. _"Climate change is about climate, not about "weather events"_
Exactly. So why in the hell are you repeatedly bringing up weather events i Australia and elsewhere as CAGW?
2. "_so changes in the pattern of weather events can be increasingly attributed to global warming_"
Can. CAN! Yet you foilhats are certain. You are living in a bubble but don't realise that.
3. "_ in the blink of a geological time-period eye_" "_ but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye._" There you have it. Or, do you not understand english although raving about my poor englis?
"_Quoting Joanne Codling is an automatic fail._"
But of course, every man or woman, scientist or not, is automatical a fail if they don't promote the (C)AGW-dogma. I know that you think that. But it don't make it right, does it?
Convenient for you to just discard things soley by who has wroten a bloggpost. Why don't you comment the content instead? Or is JAXA a too big competitor for you? You are just another rattling empty bin. An a stupid bin that is.
Jeez what an out of date the blog program on this site is. Really vintage.
Pentaxz, your inability to use a simple commenting system doesn't give me much confidence in your ability to grapple with a complex subject such as AGW.
Well John, Occhams razor, you know. AGW is too complex to be true.
Great! PentaxZ managed to chop off his own head while brandishing Occam's razor.
>So why in the hell are you repeatedly bringing up weather events i [sic] Australia and elsewhere as CAGW?
I'm not.
>Can. CAN! Yet you foilhats are certain.
Erm, if you didn't go editing for convenience, you'd understand that "changes in the pattern of weather events can be increasingly attributed to global warming" is a completely valid statement.
If you disagree, detail why it's not a valid statement.
>"_ in the blink of a geological time-period eye" " but the changes don't manifest in the blink of a human eye._" There you have it. Or, do you not understand english [sic] although raving about my poor englis [sic]?
Oh, I understand English very well. I also understand that I know what I am talking about, and that you are completely clueless.
Seriously, pentaxZ, you're proving yourself more and more foolish every time you try to make out that you have any point at all on this matter.
>But of course, every man or woman, scientist or not, is automatical [sic] a fail if they don't promote the (C)AGW-dogma.
Once again, you're lying about what I said. You really struggle to avoid strawman arguments, do you not?
And I will repeat, quoting Joanne Codling when it comes to climate science is an automatic fail.
>Convenient for you to just discard things soley [sic] by who has wroten [sic] a bloggpost [sic].
For once you are correct, but I suggest that it's a purely random phenomenon.
And yes, it is convenient to be able to dismiss Joanne Codling purely on her consistent and absolute lack of credibility.
>Why don't you comment [sic] the content instead?
What, try to explain science to a large concentration of recalcitrant ignoramuses and ideologues who simply cannot and/or will not understand anything that conflicts with their precious subjectivities?!
It would be easier to shovel shit up hill with a little stick.
So Bernhard
You say you:
>try to explain science !?
I've seen you do plenty of things here. A lot sounding like your last sentence. But explaining any science? I must have missed that. The closest to an 'argument' I have seen, has been of the kind:
Since we don't know, since nobody has proven the opposite etc .. we therefor ought to continue believing.
And there has been lots of that kind. Not only from you. But it science, it most definitely is not!
[Jonas N](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5822119).
>I've seen you do plenty of things here. A lot sounding like your last sentence. But explaining any science? I must have missed that.
That would be because, despite repeated requests that you actually address the scientific points of consensus climatology and physics with which you disagree, you haven't actually produced anything. All you've done is argue Newton with Luminous Beauty.
It's a bit difficult to explain the science of climate change to you, if you won't actually discuss where it is in the consensus understanding that you think that tens of thousands of professional scientists have it wrong.
Now, given that you think that we're all completely scientifically marooned in the Seas of Unknowing, perhaps you are ready to deprive me of my hard-earned cash by [entering into a wager with me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133)?
Or are you still too afraid to put your money where your breezy mouth is?
Yes Bernard, that's what I mean. I ask what science you think you have been explaining, and that I haven't seen any such. And you reply with:
>That would be because .. you haven't actually produced anything
It seems once more that you feel that somebody else should be responsible for you not explaining anything.
But you're wron too about the Newton/luminous/frictio-part. That's not at all the only thing I've argued.
Long before, I pointed out that the most prominent AR4 claim (from the SPM) wasn't based on proper science (it isn't) and (also then) you tried challenging me in the most peculiar ways, tried to use backward-logic to maintain faith in that claim, because of me not having or wanting to read papers where the sought for science couldn't be found. Or (like Jeffie) arguing that a specific quantitative claim about certainty was 'science' because of a 'larger community consensus', or just was very heartfelt among some.
Nowhere did you argue any science at all. On the contrary: You actively attempted for non-disclosure of such 'science' if it indeed existed. (But in reality, you were defending your faith. Which is not, and never has been 'science', regardless of by how many it is shared)
Another (unscientific) observation I've made is that among the crazy-loon CAGW-shouting crowd, there seem to be an abundance of ecologists, and other eco-friends-of-the-earth-motivated activists. And the sure make a helluva lot of noise.
But the combination of environmental activist, political utopist, one-issue-only narrowmindedness, eco/enviro-education (if any), lack of understanding of physics and any real sciences, in my view, is one of the worst combinations for critically assessing what happens, or may happen with the atmosphere and climate system, and what makes it both fluctuate and vary, and by what controlling mechanisms.
And funnily enough, it is among those the shouting and activism is the worst. Among those the least suited to both address the issue from a rational POV scientifically, or handling policy to accomplish measurable results in the real world.
Don't get me wrong here. Not every ecologist (or even enviro-activist) I know is like that. But most certainly, there is a very strong correlation. And that this 'expertise' (if any) is almost completely irrelevant to the core questions regarding the climate. And that it is those we hear the loudest. The next IPCC group of authors I expect will show that once again.
Perhaps ecologists are concerned because they are more aware of changes to the ecology than you are.
Richard, I am sure they are. But that was nowhere my point. My point was almost the exact contrary.
Bottomless stupidity and ignorance.
@ no. 138 November 2011 Open thread.
john, says, "We know you [moi] are a sad little man and I pity that you choose to waste your twilight years trying to protest that you aren't a pedophile in vain on a scientific web-site."
To the uninitiated, john's comment might lead one to think that child-rape and pedophilia are unlikely subjects for a "science" blog like Deltoid. But that would be the wrong impression.
Among the "scientifically" inclined Deltoids, child-rape is, on the contrary, very much a lively topic, provided, that is, that it can be cast in terms of child-rape threats to the families of Australian climate scientists and "deniers" tagged as defenders of child-rape (especially when such discussions are seemingly timed to help promote a controversial carbon-tax bill at a critical moment). (See comment 29 on the October 2011 Open thread and read through the threads on the "Another Day, Another Death Threat" and "Australian Climate Scientists Get Death Threats" posts on this blog).
And, when initially raised here on Deltoid, the subject of child-rape prompted a series of by-name challenges to "deniers" to condemn child-rape (I was glad to offer mine). At which point, in all innocence, I then proposed a generalized condemnation of child-rape, and urged a personal condemnation of pedophilia by all of Deltoid-land. I led by example. Simple enough, right? Well, in fact, it wasn't so simple, after all. With my last suggestion, all "scientific" objectivity in Deltoid-land took a conspicuous powder, in a hurry.
The typical, lefty freak-show followed: "How dare you suggest that climate scientists could be pedophiles!" Followed incongruously by, "Pedophiles are everywhere!" And, then that "oldie but goodie" trick employed by lefties when a subject gets a little too uncomfortable, "You must be a pedophile yourself since you raised the subject! You're projecting!"
Curiously, only luminous beauty and I ever condemned pedophilia, that I recall. wow, was willing to condemn child-rape but did not condemn pedophilia, as such (comment 26, October 2011 Open Thread)--which suggests he just might be making a distinction between the two terms. Who knows?
GSW surveyed the scene and offered his estimate "You [moi]seem to be outnumbered by a gang of angry perverts."
(comment 34, October 2011 Open Thread). Maybe he had a point. Who knows?
And that is the context of john's little crack about pedophilia directed at me that he accidentally neglected to include with his comment--quite a lapse on a "science" blog, I should think. Shocking really.
And, john, you needn't worry about my twilight years. Whatever can be said about my stature, I am not a "sad" little man. Quite the contrary--the present stage of my life's journey allows me to look back on my past labors with a sense of satisfaction and even a measure of pride. Indeed, I can even still manage a few small pleasures and pursuits that happily sustain me as I enter my dotage. And in that regard, nothing adds more unfailing zest to my golden years than to drop in on my ol' Deltoid pals, from time to time, and take you arrogant pricks down a notch.
Whatever, mike. Have fun shouting at yourself in the oubliette. As a countryman of yours claimed after anther little fracas, "Mission Accomplished".
> So why in the hell are you repeatedly bringing up weather events i Australia
You asked for catastrophes.
Then, when not given them quickly enough, you complain that there are no catastrophes being given.
Then, when given some, complain about them being given.
Do you want to at least TRY to make up your mind about what you want?
Wow, problem with understanding? I did NOT ask for catastrophes. I asked for catastrophes irrefutable caused by AGW, which you haven't managet to point out. You are pointing out weather pehnomenan, nothing else.
> I did NOT ask for catastrophes.
You seem to have problems reading your own posts:
> not a single one of you CAGW advocates has managed to point out a single catastrophe
> You are pointing out weather pehnomenan, nothing else.
Uhm, you again:
> Yes, droughts, fires and floods in Australia are catastrophes
#2242
But not catastrophes irrefutable caused by AGW. Trouble with your undestanding of English?
But catastrophes like droughts, fires and floods are weather.
So when you're given examples of such catastrophes, you then complain that they're weather not climate.
So do you WANT examples or not?
Tampax: "Not one ... has managed to point out a single catastrophe"
Tampax: "Yes, droughts, fires and floods in Australia are catastrophes"
Tampax: "I did NOT ask for catastrophes."
Tampax: "You are pointing out weather pehnomenan, nothing else."
Tampax: "Trouble with your undestanding of English?"
Trouble with understanding what a denialist is asking for when even the denialist itself doesn't know what it wants is hardly my problem.
The IPCC tactical retreat has begun. The consensus isn't as strong as you believers think.
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183]
Hey stupid, what in the sentence "catastrophes irrefutable caused by AGW" do you not understand?
Cutting sentences out of contex to make your point just makes you look even more stupid. I have all the time asked for catastrophes caused by AGW, and you sure know that, your stupid foilhat. But of course you nutheads know how to build strawmen.
From the link:
> On the one hand, it says it is "very likely" that the incidence of cold days and nights has gone down and the incidence of warm days and nights has risen globally.
> And the human and financial toll of extreme weather events has risen
That would be climate change, yes?
> There is "low confidence" that tropical cyclones have become more frequent
But no confidence they've become less frequent and says nothing about the strength.
And so on. Nothing about consensus at all in it. In fact, it merely repeats the consensus.
Was there a point to that link, Tampax?
Hey, denialist, what part of "you asked for catastrophes then complained that they were given to you" don't you understand?
> "catastrophes irrefutable caused by AGW"
Was that the Whoosh! of a goalpost move?
You wanted, and I quote (yet again):
> point out a single catastrophe which can be blamed on AGW
And I gave several. In Russia, in Australia, in the USA, in Europe.
Floods, fires, drought.
And when it gets warmer, what happens to the temperatures?
They go up.
It's the definition of "warmer".
So there you have catastrophes that were caused by AGW. Without the warming of AGW, these would have not been the catastrophes they were.
Even the MSM is beginning to realise the truth. Nice indeed.
(google translated)
(http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=…)
Given your hash-up of the last link, why would you be any more correct in the attribution of this one?
And yet, despite claming that, you don't have the slightes shred of evidence that the catastrophes you line up is caused by AGW. It's only your religious belief, nothing else. So once again, show us that these catastrophic events are irrefutable caused by AGW, or else just shut up, your stupid foilhat.
(http://www.helagotland.se/gt/artikel.aspx?articleid=7228299)
What happens when the globe gets warmer?
Now, if you want to prove that AGW didn't have any effect, you're going to have to prove it.
and given that the paper uses a short period that BEST (and even Judith Curry) says is too short to make a trend, and then proclaim that it's cooling (a trend assessment, no error bars again, you notice), why do you think this isn't just a load of crap, Tampax?
Is it because you like what they say?
PS they also say that in the 1800's we had a 0.5C/century trend. Well now we have a 3-4C/century trend.
An accelerating warming trend, just as we're accelerating the increase of CO2 from human sources in the atmosphere.
Well, the "accelerating" trend has paused for the last 10-15 years. How can that be an acceleration when it stands still?
No way Hosé, you claim the existence of AGW, you'll have to prove it exists in the first place. _"What happens when the globe gets warmer?"_Totally pointless remark, the same thing will of course happend werther the warming is caused by natural causes or AGW. The point is that even if 75 scientists in consensus says that CAGW is a reallity, it don't make it a fact.
> the "accelerating" trend has paused for the last 10-15 years
So what's the trend for the last 15 years? Error bars, please.
> you claim the existence of AGW
Has nothing to do with your demand.
YOU claim the nonexistence of a causal relationship between temperature and drought.
Prove it.
> The point is that even if 75 scientists in consensus says that CAGW is a reallity, it don't make it a fact.
It does make it a fact if 75 out of 77 there is a consensus.
That's what you claimed: No consensus.
You didn't ask for proof that consensus proved AGW. Just parroted the tired old line of "there's no consensus".
What proves AGW is the science, over at the IPCC you can find a summary of the science with links to the scientific papers.
Feel free to make a paper that refutes all (what?) 7,000 of them.
@ 2239
Hey rhwombat, get your ginzu-samurai butt over to the dictionary and look up "Pyrrhic Victory."
Yeah, I suspected that you were taking the discussion on the November 2011 Open Thread in a direction that you hoped would lead to my further marginalization. After all, your tactic had previously gotten me confined to the Open Threads, so it wasn't as if I were unaware of the potential for more of the same.
So you might wonder why I so recklessly "took your bait." Well, to understand that, rhwombat you have to consider the curious history of my engagement with this so-called "science" blog.
In my earliest visits with my dear Deltoids, I just randomly dropped troll-bombs intended to maliciously screw with my good buddies' heavy-petting group-think. And, for the most part, my earliest comments were either quickly deleted or dis-emvowelled (although, most usually, their loss was immediately preceded by a flurry of awkward, undergarment adjustments by Deltoids in the organ loft). But to my astonishment a few of my "Deltoids are Dorks with Zits" comments survived--despite frantic calls by the Deltoid laity and lesser clergy to excommunicate me from the blog altogether.
That earliest experience helped me to work up my troll-act so that more and more of my good stuff survived--either altogether or, if deleted, lost only after the comment had remained up for most of the day. Indeed, in one remarkable instance, I lost all of my October 2011 Open Thread comments to moderation. But, then, suddenly and miraculously they re-appeared as if raised from the dead (even the one where I called Bernard J. a "pompous ass blowhard"). That, if nothing else, convinced me of my "value" to this blog.
For a while there, I was puzzled by the forbearance of the blog-master for my "juvenile" jibes aimed at Deltoid's up-tight rectors and parvenu, front-pew burghers and their greenshirt pieties and status-anxiety. But ultimately I discovered the solution to the puzzle. In a catty little comment on Eli's blog, the Rabbet, himself, disparaged Deltoid's "troll parade", indulged for the sake of running up page-view and comment counts.
As you can imagine, rhwombat, Eli's slip was a liberating revelation for me. I suddently realized I couldn't loose. As long as I kept my troll-work entertaining, I estimated I could probably get in a good long run of free-wheeling Deltoid baiting before the blog-master judged the risk of losing the congregation out-weighed the benefits of a fuller collection-plate. So throwing all caution to the wind, I just had a good time, secure in the notion that when the curtain at last and inevitably closed on me, I'd have the final satisfaction of taking my not-inconsequential page-view and comment counts with me. A win either way, as I both saw and see it.
I mean, think about it rhwombat, why would anyone choose this blog for the spectacle of a bunch of weener-head pricks, like you, rhwombat, groping up their goobers and swallowing them whole when they can get the same thing, but with better quality, at Eli's blog? Or even at the hen-house--if you have a taste for its kinky blend of old-biddies, useless-pecker capons, and shewonk's cutesy-wutsey chickenshit.
No, rhwombat, sorry to burst your bubble. Deltoid's blog-traffic in not driven by the likes of you, but by trolls like me. And us trolls win either way.
Wow - I don't want to interrupt your many monomaniacal rantings here, but do you really believe all the stuff you write? I mean, You seem to have incredible difficulties already understanding the simplest sentences, especially if they contain more than one piece of information, or a qualifying condition.
It is completely amazing that anybody should have as difficult a time to comprehend what is actually said as you display. Regardless of whether or not that somebody agrees.
> but do you really believe all the stuff you write?
Yes.
Why do you ask? Are you in the habit of writing stuff you don't believe?
One problem is that your sentences are so simple, they lack any actual meaning, requiring people to request what you actually want to say. Which then lets you complain that the problem is OUR reading comprehension, not YOUR incomprehensibility.
"_YOU claim the nonexistence of a causal relationship between temperature and drought._"
Really? You have a big problem with the reading comprehension. Never have I claimed a nonexistence between temperature and drought. However, I claim a virtual nonexistense between CO2 and AGW. Can your two braincells in that empty head of yours grasp that or have you a complete vaccum between your ears, stupid?
Here is a simple yes or no question for you, Wow the foilhat. Your high priest, Rajendra Pachauri, claims that esarthquakes can be blamed on the rise in CO2. Do you agree with him?
Wow
>Why do you ask? Are you in the habit of writing stuff you don't believe?
No I don't, but I've noticed that quite a few here, when cornered, write stuff the don't believe in. Or just make stuff up, when the have no better arguments. Presumably stuff they don't believe in either. I wonder why so many have that urge ..
It looks a bit desperate from outside the cult.
But I asked because essentially everything you write is so completely out of touch with the topic, because you you seem to completely miss the gist of even the simplest arguments. Because you cut off sentences, don't read the whole post, and seemingly object to things explained in detail even in the same sentence/comment not being the topic.
As if you had no clue at all what is being discussed even when you 'reply' to the very explanation/sentence/comment where it is detailed. Your total disconnect is just mind boggling ...
From your many postings, it seems just like keeping one thing in your head at the same time seems to be at least one too many ..
Sorry pal, it this really is you at the top of your capacity, you have my empathy. But it's only that where I live, no grown-up comes even close to your level of detachment.
But I am glad you got Jeffie to mention you as support for his stance ...
:-)
So lying denialati scum repeated say, but it never happened ... rather, some idiot journalist attributed this claim to him and lying denialati scum have propagated it. Here is the actual statement:
You sure are on a roll tonight reverend Ianam! :-)
P.S. I realize that tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, but the Japanese tsunami was a current event and it would have been easy to misspeak and mention tsunamis when talking about floods and other catastrophes and their effects on human populations. Also, I believe that Pachauri has said that sea level rise can intensify the effects of tsunamis, which is possible. But the bottom line is that lying denialata scum stupidly claim that Pachauri said that CO2 causes earthquakes and then idiotically ask if we agree. Well, no, you moronic slime, we don't.
ianam
Here is the right quotation:
"_Given that human actions are increasingly interfering with the delicate balance of nature, natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes and tsunamis will occur more frequently, said Dr Rajendra K Pachauri, director general of TERI, and the chief of the inter-governmental panel on Climate Change._"
So, who is lying, stupid foilhat? What a nice high priest you have in your sect, indeed. And you follow him like the ducklings you are.
(http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/top-un-scientist-co2-affe…)
By the way, since you weirdos are so found of consensus, here is another nice site for you. They also admot to the consensus way of life. You should feel like home among other foilhats.
(http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/)
... They also admit to...
That's an easy one. Denier blogs always lie.
It's all they can do, which is why you couldn't quote a primary source if your life depended on it.
The Times of India article that's lifted from does not have a direct quote saying that.
Says the indoctrinatet, dogmatic foilhat chek. Hillarious.
That's a quotation of a journalist, as I said, you stupid lying dumbass ignoramus sack of garbage. Pachauri never said "earthquakes".
... says the half-wit, Jonas team arm waver TampaxZ, unable to find a primary source and proving my point.
P.S. You can find "the right quotation" -- that is, something that occurs within quote marks -- at http://news.amrita.edu/news/2011/03/11/institution-day-celebrations-at-…
pentaxZ is the dumbest poster here since sunspot ... he even surpasses Olaus.
Did you say it was 97%? Well 75 vs 31487 is more accurate. Quite a draw back for you foilhats when it actually is more like 0.0024%
(http://www.petitionproject.org/)
Here is your "real" scientists at work. Frightening.
(http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/docu…)
Of course he didn't, ianam. Rewriting history, are you?
chek, do you know the difference between you and tampons? They get p***y every time, you don't.
There's barely a word you write that isn't a transparent lie. Just above, I wrote:
Nor do we agree that human interference causes tsunamis, which he did say.
Yeah, a newspaper report that paraphrases someone is history, whereas the actual words he uttered are a rewrite.
PentaxZ just keeps delivering:
> Did you say it was 97%? Well 75 vs 31487 is more accurate. Quite a draw back for you foilhats when it actually is more like 0.0024%
(http://www.petitionproject.org/)
> Did you say it was 97%? Well 75 vs 31487 is more accurate.
No, that would be less accurate. 75 vs 77 is accurate.
Unless you want to count those who agreed with the denialist position (31,487) vs the number of people who have the qualifications similar to that group (some few million).
The Big Lie being propagated here is of course by the knuckle-dragging deniers, for whom an earthquake is an earthquake is an earthquake. A simple concept for simple deniers.
Not so.
There is [research that suggests](http://www.cprm.gov.br/33IGC/1339389.html) that the loss of gigatons of ice at the poles can lead to shallow tectonic instabilities and cause quakes (and by extension their regionally related tsunamis). It looks like Pachauri keeps abreast of research.
There are of course other quakes which originate very deep in the earth's crust where the pressures involved are way beyond anything measurable on the human scale, but nuance is a capability way beyong your average Tampax's ability to comprehend.
> but I've noticed that quite a few here, when cornered, write stuff the don't believe in.
Really? Got any examples? Or this yet another of your substanceless claims?
> because you you seem to completely miss the gist of even the simplest arguments.
Nope.
Tampax asked for catastrophes and when he couldn't say he hadn't gotten any, then claimed they didn't count because they were WEATHER.
It seems like there is no gist to your denialist arguments, just convenient claims.
> Because you cut off sentences, don't read the whole post
Oh, I read the whole post.
And after I answered the whole post, I get idiotic claims that "that doesn't count, it's just weather".
And entire posts from the likes of you wander deeply into gish gallop territory, never making one full claim, but making a dozen half-formed claims.
> Your total disconnect is just mind boggling ...
I thought it was supposed to be me not believing in something, not a disconnect.
Can't you make up your mind on what you claim I'm doing?
Or are you flinging shit to see what sticks?
But it's instructive to recieve from you once again a post with absolutely NO CONTENT, just claims of what you want other people to be thinking.
No response to the answers, just attacks against the one giving the answers.
Why?
Wow, wow, so now they are not thousands, but millions. Impressive indeed. Mowing goalposts and making owngoals, that's your thing for sure. Please, keep going. =)
chek, stupid, "_There is research that suggests that..._" states no fact what so ever. It's speculation and nothing else. Or do you also have a problem with understanding the English language?
You foilhats have a habit to entierly dismiss a scientists whole work based on one or two (in your eyes) flawed statements. I wonder why you don't use the same criteria for dismissing Pachauri. After all, he only talks for 0.0024% of the scientific community. But of course, Like the catholic community is incapable to slander the pope, you can't slander your high priest. Dumb asses.
> Never have I claimed a nonexistence between temperature and drought.
So are you saying that warming has nothing to do with temperature?
Or are you saying that Anthropogenic Global WARMING has nothing to do with warming?
Or are you just weaselling out of your idiotic claims that the drought has nothing to do with AGW because you don't want any examples of a catastrophe caused by AGW?
chek
>Denier blogs *always* lie
Sounds a bit scary and cultist to me. And I would say the opposite: Most of the dishonesty is on the cultist side. We've seen ample examples of that here!
But I wanted to ask you about Björck's paper you linked. You commented (#2178) favourably about mgr's #2171, his: 'insight of that point's significance'
I wonder what you were referring to, what point and what significance, and where in Björck's paper ...
> so now they are not thousands, but millions.
Yup.
On university will give out a thousand BSc's a year. Each person will live another 60 years. Do we have less than 166 universities worldwide, tampax?
> Sounds a bit scary and cultist to me.
Yes, deniers are a bit of a cult in general.
> And I would say the opposite: Most of the dishonesty is on the cultist side.
No, you just agreed with him: deniers always lie.
Take monckton's "I'm a member of the House of Lords" and "I was a science adviser to Margaret Thatcher". Or Wegman. Or McIntyre's "I need your data". Or Watts "I will agree with whatever the BEST project comes out with, even if it disagrees with me".
Or you.
Wow #2285.
Or that the warming has nothing to do with AGW. Interresting how you consistently fail to understand that. You clearly must have a reading disability.
And, it has nothing to do with what I want, it's just what independent, observed empirical data shows. It's you in the CAGW-sect who wants things to happend.
Read, dumb ass!
(http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/docu…)
Of course, the persuit of CO2 is [causing earthquakes](http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/11/14/1950245/did-fracking-cause-r…)
Actually Tampax, it's not that hard to comprehend, even for a moron like you who doesn't understand scientific research or how it is framed. Here in the UK where the landmass is still rebounding from the last ice age, we get several small quakes a decade.
So actual real research by actual real scientists finding actual real results consistent with the fact far outweigh your know-nothing, arse-scratching opinion pulled from your anus.
Wow
I don't believe you read the whole posts, You most certainly don't understand what is said. (For instance, you have still not seen anything wrong with luminous many attempts, not even where I pointed this out). Many of your 'replies' make no sense what so ever! As I said before, it seems that
>keeping one thing in your head at the same time seems to be at least one too many ..
Here is an example:
>I thought it was supposed to be me not believing in something, not a disconnect.
>
>Can't you make up your mind on what you claim I'm doing?
The first (wrt to your beliefs) was a question. The second was an observation. But essentially everything you come up with is confused on so many levels, that it is really hard to imagine an adult person writing it and meaning it, believing it to be arguments.
That's why I asked!
> Or that the warming has nothing to do with AGW.
So you're saying that Warming has nothing to do with temperature, then.
> I don't believe you read the whole posts,
There's a lot of facts you don't believe, not just that one.
> For instance, you have still not seen anything wrong with luminous many attempts, not even where I pointed this out
Nope, you've never pointed that out. Just made a claim that you had.
Not once have you managed to say one single thing that lb's post said that were incorrect.
We found several claims of error that you made that did not hold up to scrutiny.
> Here is an example:
> > I thought it was supposed to be me not believing in something, not a disconnect.
Yes, it seems that YOU are the one not reading all YOUR posts. Projection again.
So sad.
Wow #2293
You have just proven that you are stupid for real, and have a monumental reading disability. You obviosly can't understand even the simplest sentences. Really tragical. The foilhat fits you like a charm.
chek dear. It's more and more obvious that you are completely out of arguments. Your arm waving and foot stomping just underlines that even more. The foilhat fits you too as a charm. Please, keep up the good work.
> Wow #2293
So why do you find it impossible that those events were not caused by AGW?
I note that you cannot and will not actually explain yourself if there is any possibility at all to make a personal attack instead.
chek #2282
You link did not say that. And earthquakes related to AGW are as stupid as it gets with climate hysteria ..
And yes, Pachauri mentioned tsunamis with his climate scare scenarios ..
Whatevere he is 'ahead of', it is not the science.
PS It's funny that you mention 'nuances' here, after all what has been said by the regulars here.
> And earthquakes related to AGW are as stupid as it gets with climate hysteria ..
So why do you keep coming up with such stupid things?
> And yes, Pachauri mentioned tsunamis with his climate scare scenarios ..
Are you saying that tsunamis don't exist?
Jonas I assure you that nobody here thinks either you or your travelling circus know anything about science whatsoever, and that consequently your opinions (and you only ever HAVE your own opinions, NEVER any references) are worthless and of no value at all.
You'll notice in the Times of India story that the reporter provides a precis of the earthquake /tsunami statement while attributing it to Pachauri without a direct quotation. That leads me to believe that whatever Pachauri said was qualified (as such a statement by any intelligent person would be - which is why it's beyond you) and summarised by the reporter.
The only direct quote in [the article](http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-03-14/coimbatore/28687…) is: "Unless we live in harmony with nature, unless we are able to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and adopt renewable energy sources and until we change our life styles, the world will increasingly become unfit for human habitation,"
Thus once again proving the Jonas posse a collection of moronic numpties who couldn't find a primary information source if their lives depended on it.
Wow @ #2288 "Yes, deniers are a bit of a cult in general".
I agree with that, but what we have manifested here on this thread is a weird Scandinavian sub-sect who follow Monckton, Delingpole, 'Goddard' and 'Nova' - a sub-sect of dribbling, drivelling conspiraloons in other words. And who further imagine Jonas to be an intellectual giant of some sort, although to be fair, in comparison to the rest of the sect, he might well be while remaining a pygmy to the outside world.
Wow the foilhat. What is the single most common cause of tsunamis? Then, _"And yes, Pachauri mentioned tsunamis with his climate scare scenarios .."_ And so, what is then 1+1, stupid?
Your whole #2301 is just a gigant goalpost move followed by a enormous owngoal. Congratulations. That's really an achievement, indeed.
> What is the single most common cause of tsunamis?
Big waves of water.
> And so, what is then 1+1, stupid?
2
Now, did Pachuri say that CO2 caused tsunamis?
"_Jonas I assure you that nobody here thinks either you or your travelling circus know anything about science whatsoever,_"
Well, none of us expect you to, simply because you don't have the slightes clue on what science is. It's most certanly isn't woting, or as you call it, consensus, allthough 0.0024% really isn't that much.
Well Wow, since you don't understand simple English.
What is the single most common cause of the big waves, also called tsunamis? Then, _And yes, Pachauri mentioned tsunamis with his climate scare scenarios .."_ And so, what is then 1+1, stupid?
Now, answer that and then pay attention to your teacher up front so your grades won't fall.
> And yes, Pachauri mentioned tsunamis with his climate scare scenarios
Did he say that tsunamis were caused by CO2?