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.
And what happens to the damage done by a tsunami if the sealevel rises?
There are meteotsunamis, which have a meteorological origin.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/29/93/94/PDF/nhess-6-1035-2006…
> Abstract. In light of the recent enhanced activity in the
study of tsunami waves and their source mechanisms, we
consider tsunami-like waves that are induced by atmospheric
processes rather than by seismic sources. These waves are
mainly associated with atmospheric gravity waves, pressure
jumps, frontal passages, squalls and other types of atmospheric
disturbances, which normally generate barotropic
ocean waves in the open ocean and amplify them near the
coast through specific resonance mechanisms (Proudman,
Greenspan, shelf, harbour). The main purpose of the present
study is to describe this hazardous phenomenon, to show
similarities and differences between seismic and meteorological
tsunamis and to provide an overview of meteorological
tsunamis in the World Ocean. It is shown that tsunamis and
meteotsunamis have the same periods, same spatial scales,
similar physical properties and affect the coast in a comparably
destructive way. Some specific features of meteotsunamis
make them akin to landslide-generated tsunamis.
The generation efficiency of both phenomena depend on
the Froude number (Fr), with resonance taking place when
Fr 1.0. Meteotsunamis are much less energetic than seismic
tsunamis and that is why they are always local, while
seismic tsunamis can have globally destructive effects. Destructive
meteotsunamis are always the result of a combination
of several resonant factors; the low probability of such
a combination is the main reason why major meteotsunamis
are infrequent and observed only at some specific locations
in the ocean.
Cretin - let's establish some basics.
A survey (Doran) is a sample of individuals from a population with a view towards making statistical inferences about the population. A survey, if properly conducted, should therefore be representative of the individuals in the population.
A petition (Oregon) is a list that individauls opt into. The opinions of dissenters from the petition are therefore excluded. You cannot therefore draw any conclusions from a petition unless the numbers signing the petition represent a high proportion of the population eligible to sign. In the case of the Oregon petition that would mean about 5 million signatures. Only 31000 signed.
To clarify, 5 million signatures represent about 50% of the population eligible to sign the Oregon Petition. (Not sure why I am bothering to clarify, The Cretin wonât understand).
chek
So you too think that you talk for many persons?
It is strange that you have the need to blindly guess so much. But it also explains why you (plural) so often are so lost wrt to the topic.
Your problem is that I can actually read the references, whereas many here just repeat the catch-phrases and believe they are the science.
I understand this is highly disturbing to the regulars here. Hence, they avoid talking even about the references they themselves provided. Or start to bluster about almost anything but their content .. You are a good example of that!
And once more you provide a âreferenceâ which not addresses the issue, as proof of what?
Here is one where Pachauri claims that [the tsunami was worsened by AGW]( http://www.hindu.com/2011/03/23/stories/2011032356101000.htm)
Re:
>who couldn't find a primary information source if their lives depended on it
Do you remember how it started here? With the regular cultists jumping up and down? When I told you that the most prominent AR4 claim wasnât based on any real science? And when I asked for a primary source proving me wrong?
That was in august! And although everybody here was very sure about its existence, nobody here could find that âprimary sourceâ. Because there wasnât any. Henceforth, most of you are just angry and frustrated spewing all kinds of stuff, avoiding the topic.
And you still havenât answered my #2286
sidcup
you can draw conclusions from how many ansered the survey, and what questions they answered to.
And you might want to remember how that word 'consensus' is used by the climate hysteria. It is sweepingly used (without ever asking) for a wide range of statements (where they simply aren't true) and implying that everybody who never uttered a word about the core questions, is behind it by virtue of his silence.
For example: You cannot draw any conclusion from say all those academies who allegedly say that they stand behind something.
> you can draw conclusions from how many ansered the survey
0.06%.
> and what questions they answered to.
Do you know what questions they answered?
> And you might want to remember how that word 'consensus' is used
We do remember.
> It is sweepingly used (without ever asking)
What does that mean?
> for a wide range of statements (where they simply aren't true)
Like your oregon petition? Yes, that's correct: consensus doesn't exist there, except one that says "It isn't humans".
Like the science consensus is that AGW is real and an urgent problem? It certainly exists there.
> For example: You cannot draw any conclusion from say all those academies who allegedly say that they stand behind something.
Do you want to try finishing that sentence.
From that link Jonas gave, the quote:
> In the 20th century, sea-level rise was recorded at an average of 17 centimetres. If the sea-level was significantly lower, clearly the same tsunami would have had a less devastating effect.
So do you disagree that a higher sea level makes for more damage in a tsunami?
Remember, the damage a tsunami causes is caused by the waves rushing over land.
I'm not drawing any particular conclusion from Doran alone. It was The Cretin who drew conclusions from comparing a survey with a petition.
What conclusion are you drawing Jonas?
Wow
your ramplings are totally brainless, not worth commenting on. But I'll answer one question:
>do you disagree that a higher sea level makes for more damage in a tsunami?
Yes, that is so. Global see level is irrelevant for tsunami effects. And locally, deeper water at the shore decreases the effects of an incoming tsunami. (But I will not explain that to you either. Those few here (if any) who understand the least bit about science, should know that already. And you most certainly arenât among them.
Further, the 17 cm sea level are mainly due to thermal expansion of the water since the little ice age. Almost none of it can even possibly be attributed to the A in GW. It is (as usual) a total red herring ..
sidecup
My conclusion:
Whenever someone starts going on about 'consensus', you can be pretty certain (s)he doesn't have any better arguments.
It is slightly (but only just) higher on the irrelevant-argument scale compared to 'denialist' or 'Dunning Kruger' and I'm surprised that there still are people around using it ...
> > do you disagree that a higher sea level makes for more damage in a tsunami?
> Yes, that is so.
Ah, there you go. Proof you're a brainless dolt.
Stop being so evasive Jonas.
What conclusion do you draw from Doran?
And I would say that whenever someone starts going on about "Whenever someone starts going on about 'consensus', you can be pretty certain (s)he doesn't have any better arguments" you can be pretty certain (s)he doesn't have any better arguments.
sidecup,
Look up the two questions that were asked. I could almost have answered yest o both, if I were inclined to uinterpret them generously.
There is no beef at all there.
Wow - You are a real treasue and source of bottomless and self afflicted ignorance. A manifest over the quality of this site's regulars ...
As I've said before. I have a really really hard time thinking that anybody can make so many and soconsistently über-stupid comments like you, and still believe that he is saying somthing.
Yes Andy, you could say that. But you would be wrong again.
Re "starts going on about"
Did you miss that my statement was in reply to a direct question?
Jonas. You could almost have answered 'Yes' to:
If you were "inclined to interpret them (the questions) generously". You're funny Jonas.
I think your grievance with Doran, all those science academies, all those published scientists, and with AGW in general, is that nobody consulted you before publishing their papers or their scientific assessments. Pentaxz is profoundly stupid, whilst you are monumentally and pathologically arrogant. You really do believe you know better than all those scientists, despite never having contributed anything to the scientific realm.
Oh don't sell Jonas short: he's monumentally stupid as well.
He's sort of the dark side of a Renaissance Man. The counter to a polymath.
I don't know Wow, with the right medication Jonas could be an average guy.
Isn't that the catchline for that Roy Castle signature tune for his show "Record Breakers"?
Medication, that's all you need.
If you want to do your best,
and you want to beat the rest.
Medication's what you need.
(cue trumpet solo)
Just in case you missed the proof of his incapability, lord_sidcup, take a look at his statement in 2323.
Proof that he's incapable of rational thought.
Jonas @ #2312 "And you still havenât answered my #2286"
That will be because I'm still waiting for the 15 or so references requested @ #2211 that would support your Gish-gallop of a response to the Björck paper you made @ #2189.
Not that I was really expecting any, after all you don't do any recognisable science, you just make face-saving assertions by Jonas decree.
Jonas @ #2313 "You cannot draw any conclusion from say all those academies who allegedly say that they stand behind something".
[No alleged about it](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change), you sadsack.
[PentaxZ says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5844200):
>And so, what is then 1+1, stupid?
and [also says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5844130) (referring, at least four times, to the proportion of scientists who accept the human-caused global warming model):
>It's most certanly isn't woting [sic], or as you call it, consensus, allthough [sic] 0.0024% really isn't that much.
[My emboldened emphasis]
Astounding irony, coupled with a profound lack of self-awareness.
sidecup
It boils down to what you deem to be the value of 'significant'. It is not defined in the questionaire. And if you by significant mean 'detectable' or 'observable' compared to natural fluctuations and variations, I could answer 'Yes' (to the do you think' part of the question). If you, on the other hand mean 'the dominant part of the observed warming, I would have to say no. That is nowhere established. In both cases I would be giving my **opinion*, not making a scientific assessment of the facts (which I wasn't asked to do)
But these nuances weren't my point. Instead, I tell you that this questionaire was so vague, that whatever answers you got, you simply cannot hold them up and beat any skeptics over the head with them. You ask a bunch of (self-selected) 'climate scientists' about what they think, about a very vague question. And you get a poll about what they indeed **think** about the very same **very vague** question. There is not more to that than what they actually asked, ant the answers they received. You simply cannot draw any bigger conclusions on the outcome than what was actually asked.
You may call this, my observation, for 'pathologically arrogant' but I seem to be the only one actually reading what is done. Instead of just fantasizing what it possibly can be concocted to mean.
This has been the issue for a long time: I check what is actually done, and those who don't get exceedingly more angry with me because I do.
And sidecup: You have absolutely no clue to what I have contributed to real science! You are just guessing and hoping blindly as so many others!
PS Siding with signature 'Wow' is really not the best strategy here .. If you really have point, why not just make it!?
chek
I read **your** reference to Björck and explained what it said. Björck **is** the reference needed to see what is done there. If you can't read 'sience' on this level even, then you just can't. Which I expect that you can't ..
But that wasn't at all the question. I asked what you found so profoundly significant in mgr's comment that made you your comment #2178. I asked three times before. This is the forth time: Don't you even know what you meant?
That's OK. I don't expect you to know what you are talking about. Just because you have no method to 'recognize any detectable science' doesn't mean there isn't any. And the contrary applies even more: Youst because you found some phrases confirming your beliefs, doesn't mean that those words anywhere were based on science.
Still flapping those arms mightily I see Jonas.
Flap, flap, flap went the Jonas, by way of distraction.
Your evasion really is pathetic and shows you have nothing at all to back up your 'explanation of' airey dismissal of Björck's paper.
You should really stick with your idolising crew of fuckwitted chickens, although I sort of can see how attracting a crew of that calibre would leave you bitter and detesting higher achievers.
e.
chek
are you just plain stupid? Can't you even read what Björck wrote? There is no science presented in that 'paper'. But you say, you still can't read what it says?
As every time previously, when you made claims, and 'the science' didn't support them either!?
That's why you want to talk about some *"idolising crew of fuckwitted chickens"* instead. Because you have nothing. Not even the 'references' you yourself brought up.
And you still didn't answer the question about your 'significant point' which you hade missed but mgr pointed out. Presumably because you know what would happen if you dared to 'phrase' that 'argument': I would point out how much it would actually be worth, and what Björk said about it in your link!
I understand that these are scary prospects four an empty waffler like you. But as you know: lying in written forum was never a good idea!
There's never any science in scientific papers with you, is there Jonas?
And scientists don't know science, and thousands of working scientists around the globe don't understand the consensus they've agreed to. Yes, we know Jonas.
I'll make my own decison on who the stupid ones in this thread are.
If there is no science presented, there is no science presented, chek. It's as simple as that. You guessing the opposite is irrelevant. And whatever you guess that 'thousands of scientists' agreed upon is as irrelevant. No real scientist makes 'consensus' an argument.
And you still haven't answered my question. Presumably because you realize that that's the best option for you right now
lord_sidcup #2310
_"In the case of the Oregon petition that would mean about 5 million signatures. Only 31000 signed."_
Well, what can we then tell about the "97% consensus", with 97 self reportet scientists of which 75 believe in AGW? Shall we call it an owngoal on your behalf?
Wow, you are aware of that the past years the sea level is lowering, hence the damage the big waves, also called Tsunamis, can cause is deminishing?
...also called Tsunamis, can cause is decresing?
"There is no science presented in that 'paper'" opined a troll.
Somewhere else a chicken farted.
Andy S, you just don't get it, do you?
If there were any science presented there, you would be able to read it! It would be presented there. That's the original purpose with writing a paper. (But many nowadays, believe that the purpose is to list it on your CV instead).
And in this paper, there **is no science presented**! How do I know? Because I read it! And if you think there is any (new, real, performed) science in that paper, you would be able to find, read about it and point it out. Your blindfolded opinion is just that an nothing more:
>Somewhere else a chicken farted.
Not the smartest comment, after your preceding sentence. And you might want to remember that you are here at Deltoid, and at what level the regulars here operate ...
Jonas N,
Even a chicken fart would have understood the distinction between the statements "there is no new science presented but a survey of already published science pertinent to a certain question" and "there is no science presented". But not a troll, obviously.
> ...also called Tsunamis, can cause is decresing?
Sentence, making one, you are not.
You've asked for catastrophes caused by AGW, several have been given, and now you're saying that they don't count because you don't like them.
Are you basically saying that you're asking for something you know can't be proven?
That's a little dishonest of you.
> with 97 self reportet scientists of which 75 believe in AGW?
Wow, you're so frothing at the brain with rage, you're unable to even get NUMBERS right.
Not only that, but the 77 were currently practicing climate scientists. They didn't select themselves, they were selected.
But among your panoply of ignorance, statistics is merely one small segment of your incapability.
> Wow, you are aware of that the past years the sea level is lowering#
Only the culpably ignorant know that sea level is lowering.
The real world knows it is [rising](http://www.skepticalscience.com/hiding-the-incline-in-sea-level.html).
then again, we don't expect anything other than bald-faced lies from such idiot liars as yourself, Gonads and Oaf.
Wow, the stupid.
"_You've asked for catastrophes caused by AGW, several have been given_"
No, none have been given. You haven't pointed out one single catastrophic event caused soley by AGW. Droughts, floods, fires all occour and has always occoured. Long before the so called AGW. I'm asking you to point out at least one such event that wouldn't occour without AGW. Clear enough?
"_and now you're saying that they don't count because you don't like them_"
Whether I like them or not is irrelevant, I ask for irrefutable, empirical data, no more, no less. And no, climate models don't count as such.
"_Are you basically saying that you're asking for something you know can't be proven?_"
Well, what do I know. You claim AGW is causing all sorts of catastrophes, so it's your job to prove your theories. If it's impossible or not I don't know. And again, models isn't proof of anything.
"_Only the culpably ignorant know that sea level is lowering._"
Well, if you, instead of looking at an alarmist blog, look at the actual measured data for the past couple of years you might get surprised, stupid.
How much is IPCCs predictions really worth? Well, not much at all.
(http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/09/horngate.html)
> Well, if you, instead of looking at an alarmist blog
Well, you could stop reading WUWT then and stop being alarmed by his scare stories and instead go to the data set itself.
Or you could take the Alarmist decree that sea level rises have reversed and not ask "what are the error bars on that?". You know, uncritically accept what you're told rather than be skeptical.
In other words, stop being a retard.
> No, none have been given. You haven't pointed out one single catastrophic event caused soley by AGW.
And, now that you've found that your orignial claim of:
> 1983
> 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
Has been answered and you're unable continue with it, you move your claim to "Solely".
Like I said, you are asking for proof of something that cannot be proved, because if it ever is, you'll change what you're asking to something else.
A denialist retard through and through.
> Droughts, floods, fires all occour and has always occoured. Long before the so called AGW.
Deaths have occurred before guns were invented.
I guess to a retard like you, this proves Guns can't kill anyone.
[Jonas N says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5849760):
>If there is no science presented, there is no science presented, chek. It's as simple as that.
True words, and evidence hinting that monkeys could perhaps type out the complete works of Shakespeare...
So, Jonas Monkey, when are you yourself going to produce an attempt at science? You've assiduously avoided mentioning my [wager alternatives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133), and you have even avoided simply telling us what your best estimates are for record minimum summer Arctic sea ice volume to 2025, and to 2040.
You are cavalierly free with criticism of the consensus science pertaining to human-caused global warming, but you simply refuse to actually document where you think the science has turned to mush.
Where's your science?
[Special pentaxZ, you just can't catch a trick, can you](http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?title=special-ed-s-ball…)?
[You say](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5844130) that 0.0024% of scientists accept what is the IPCC position on the science of climate change.
Really?! Consider this...
I know upwards of several hundred scientists, either though directly working with them or in close proximity to them; or meeting them at conferences or seminars or through sabaticals or guest visits; or by corresponding with them; or by living near them or by being related to them. I do not count those whom I know to be scientists, but whom I have only contacted via blogs or similar fora.
Doing a quick BotE calculation I figure that the number of scientists known to me is at least 300 (it's likely to be much, much more...), but let's keep it at 300 for argument's sake.
Of all of the scientists I know, only one argues against the IPCC consensus, and he would swear that black was white and that the moon landing was faked in a Calcutta brothel, if he could turn it to his advantage. Given that my previous-mentioned total of personally-known scientists is at least 300, let's say that I know 300 who agree with the IPCC consensus.
Your figure, 0.0024% only of scientists who apparently agree with the IPCC consensus, is equivalent to 1/41,667. I have five (more) questions for you:
Andy S, you quote:
>"there is no new science presented but a survey of already published science pertinent to a certain question"
appears exactly one time on this thread. Where you wrote it that only time! So why in quotation marks?
And it is not a distinction from my:
>"there is no science presented"
It contains exactly the same information, and some additional description.
Your problem is that the trolls on this site, several of them, repeatedly tried to claim that *'it is indeed science'*!
But 'understanding' is not what those 'chicken farts' are particularly good at, nor reading. But waffling and owngoals .. yes!
The Cretin at 2338
You still don't understand the difference between a petition and a survey do you? If you are trying to discredit the 97% figure in Doran you have to provide an explanation for the lack of 'sceptical' respondents. It couldn't be because they were too busy writing scientific papers to respond - they are largely absent from the published literature as well (Oreskes 2004). You could provide counter evidence such as further surveys of scientific opinion on climate change such as Anderegg (2010) or Bray and von Storch (2008). Sadly for your case, both those completely undermine you. You could name some science academies or professional bodies of scientists that do not adhere to the prevaling view. Sadly for your case, there are none.
Where are all these 'sceptic' scientists, other than inside your pea-sized brain?
"_consensus science_"
What an enormous owngoal!!! Despite your unbelievable CV you really can't grasp that science isn't consensus and that consensus isn't science. What an stupid fool you are. Wearing a foilhat of course. Hilarious beyond belief!
lord_shitcup
You really don't understand that I really don't care about percenteges here and there. My point is that the consensus about the AGW don't exist other than in your foilhats brains. And once again, science isn't consensus and that consensus isn't science. Simple as that. Now, go empty your bucket full of shit, stupid.
It's perfectly clear that Jonas and his troll circus make statements that they don't understand and they're too stupid to comprehend. Simple-minded fodder for a remote denier repeater outpost. Made for each other.
Cretin
For someone who doesn't care about percentages you have you have bandied an awful lot of percentages around recently. Seems that when the evidence (in the form of percentages) cannot be made to fit your worldview you are no longer interested in the evidence.
I avoided using the term consensus as I know that deniers like you will always misconstrue it. Nevertheless all the evidence I and others have highlighted demonstrates where the prevaling scientific opinion lies.
My browser is developing a aversion to this very long thread and I have better things to do than argue with the the Swedish trio of dumb, dumber and dumbest. See the sensible chaps on some other thread.
chek
I now ask for the fifth time:
>I asked what you found so profoundly significant in mgr's comment that made you your comment #2178.
Do you even know?
And if I were you, and/or had the crowd here on my side, I **definitely** wouldn't make talk about:
>make[ing] statements that they don't understand and they're too stupid to comprehend
This site is riddled with people fitting that description. And you are one of them ..
sidecup
Your point, if there indeed is one, is very very moot. And if you take that point and apply it appropriately to the (C)AGW-side of the debate, not much is left of it's arguments or support. Mostly just words and wordplay.
And bringing up Oreskes 2004 today!? Not the smartest move either .. A methodology-wise and factually deeply flawed letter that wasn't even peer reviewed.
But again, that to was exactly the same 'argument' as still attempted here and among other activists:
*'I looked (a little) and found now indication or resolute statements to the contrary. Therefore I conclude that my beliefs must be the truth'*
Over and over again, that is the gist of the presented argument. And that's nowhere any science whatsoever.
No way!
> > I asked what you found so profoundly significant in mgr's comment that made you your comment #2178.
> Do you even know?
Why should he tell you?
> This site is riddled with people fitting that description.
And you then go on to reflect your stunning DK. What a retard.
The thing is Jonas you revisionist troll @ #2358 , I requested the 15 references to support your Dunning-Kruger wordsplat of assertions at #2189 in post #2211 wrt the Björck paper.
At #2214 you in your customary evasive way asked me for further explanation - providing evidence evidently being beneath you, as you practice your own special-needs version of science-by-assertion while hypocritically claiming scientists provide no evidence.
So let's see your the references for your evidence, troll.
Bernard
I have no opinions about future arctic ice. I think the entire arctic ice part of the debate is a big red herring. As ar polar bears, droughts, sea level rise, weather events, glaciers, low lying countries, fresh water supply etc.
The only relevant questions is whether CO2-levels can (and actually do) influence the climate in a way which is at all measurable, observable. And if so, to what extent.
And what I have noticed is that everybody who believes the answer is 'Yes, definitely' when asked some relevant questions, goes off on various tangents about completely unrelated stuff. Usually immediately, or very quickly. If that faith is not accepted.
Only very rarely have I encountered anybody who is at all capable of discussing the topic intelligently ...
The point is: People who start screaming, cussing, name calling, repeating their faith, angrily referring to authority, or incessantly changing the subject ..
.. are just not very convincing. Don't even look very convinced themselves to me.
chek, read the frikking paper, the one **you** linked. You don't need a single reference to read it. And you don't need a single reference saying that there is no carried out science presented in there. But you need to actually read the paper. And (preferably) also to understand the words ..
And I can ask you the sixth time what (if anything) you meant by #2178:
>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.
Your Di you think that I care the least little bit what a whining scared little incompetent AGW-grupie **requests** that I do for him? A climate scare junkie who is afraid of even reading his own references he brings to the table?
Who cannot phrase one single argument for his own stance, who only has perceived authority (he doesn't even understand) to hide behind. Who stamps his little feet, repeating phrases like Dunning Kruger, denialist and more hoping it may impress someone? Even convincing someone?
You little pile of Deltoid dirt, do you think I care the least about what you demand? You are almost as pathetic as the other trolls here, who post and post and never connect with anything.
What a farce this is ... chek cannot even read his own linked paper.
Scared chicken farting .. was a quite apt description by Andy S (who actually assessed the paper correctly #2342, but apparently wasn't aware of whom he was slapping ...)
> And you don't need a single reference saying that there is no carried out science presented in there.
He does need to know why you claim that.
After all, you are not, despite your delusion, God.
Jonastroll, you don't seem to realise that your words carry zero authority, and your assertions even less. Likewise with your cuckoo 'logic'.
If you can't back up your arguments with actual references just say so. It's taken as read already.
Neven, all the way back in #1, wrote
Isn't it about time Neven's strangely unprophetic aphorism came true? At the moment, Deltoid seems to be the place where trolls come to prosper. They are taking longer to die than an old B-movie western actor!
Seriously, I know the arguments for and against "communicating" with these trolling D&K sophists (and I vacillate between the ends of that yes/no communication spectrum myself), but please, please, please, isn't it yet time ye all resisted their idiotic ramblings here?
chek
Yes, blind belief in perceived authority, that seems to be the only way you manage to 'navigate' in this topic.
But I didn't ask you to take my word for it. I told you to go an read the very same 'paper' you linked, your self! Your paper is the frikking reference containing exactly what it contains. Which I even described and summarized for scared little whining chicken you. In #2189!
I you claim there is actual science carried out, described in that paper: Go right ahead and detail it, explain and describe what is done!
If you think there is! You seem to be scared even of just looking!
P Lewis ...
Why not helping some of your fellow travelers not compulsively and incessantly making total fools of them selves?
The length of this thread is largely determined by Deltoid trolls incapable of getting even the simplest things right. Repeating nonsense (and worse) over and over again .. hoping .. I don't know what.
To conquer and defeat reality?
Bernard: There's no way pentaxZ could handle that level of mathematics. It's hard!
From my experience, I'd agree with you about the proportion of scientist who accept that AGW is taking place. I've been out of research for quite a while now, but about 20 years ago I attended several conferences and workshops of crop scientists. Most of the attendees could have readily outlined the concepts of AGW and usually included physicists working on the energetics of photosynthesis and transpiration who would have been well clued in. A frequent topic was to try to anticipate changes resulting from global climate change. Although there were vigorous arguments on other topics, including people yelling at each other across the room (who would then happily go to lunch together), as I recall not one person at these meetings ever questioned that AGW was to be expected.
> Bernard: There's no way pentaxZ could handle that level of mathematics. It's hard!
Heck, the retard even has problems with the sum of 1 + 1 !
> Which I even described and summarized for scared little whining chicken you. In #2189!
Well, lets see what you wrote:
> What you call 'decoupling' of Milankovic and CO2 is not performed here.
Proclamation. No evidence, no specificity.
> And it does not relate to climatic variations on the relevant time scales necessary to call the last decades or so 'anomalous', nowhere!
And it wasn't proposed as one. Other papers do that. This paper was to see what paleoclimate tells us.
> The absence of such observations is his explicit argument.
Yes. If you want to claim a global event, you need evidence to support it. No such evidence exists. Rather odd that you don't get it since you continually prattle on about "proof" of the AGW theory and proclaim "no such evidence" as proof AGW doesn't exist: *your claim of absense of such observation is your ONLY argument!!!*
> He doesnât even define and quantify âanomalyâ.
Yes, many words are used without defining them. Such as "it", "warm", "north" and so on. That you need handholding to find out what anomaly means in climate temperatures indicates quite clearly how little you know of science.
> And yes, he makes an argument, you call it an âinformed argument, which means he is stating his (informed) opinion.
Yes, and informed opinion. Since nobody was alive 40000 years ago, we can only go on our informed opinion.
Well, obviously YOU can't go on informed opinion, since you never bother getting information.
> The relevant questions is what he bases this âargumentâ on.
This is what the paper is about, what evidence he bases his argument on. Did you actually read it?
> 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
Really? How do you know what he knows? What evidence do you have that he doesn't have it? Proclamation again.
Both price- and bottomless ...
Jonas N 2352,
I was putting "there is no new science presented but a survey of already published science pertinent to a certain question" in quotation marks because I was saying something about that statement.
The fact that it doesn't occur elsewhere is this thread is hardly surprising, because it would have been a fairly sensible thing to write. Now instead we got "there is no science presented", which does not contain exactly the same information. To say that it does simply doesn't make sense. It's illogical, irrational, absurd, it's like spitting on Bertrand Russell's grave.
And the owngoaling goes on and on and on....
Wow, stupid #2370
You can't blame any other than yourself for not understanding a simple metaphor.
#2371
"_If you want to claim a global event, you need evidence to support it. No such evidence exists._"
Exactly what I have been telling you foilhats the whole time. And of course you mean AGW. So, that wasn't so hard, was it? Now we know that there isn't any evidence for AGW. Funny that it should be you of all the foilhats who finally proclaimed that.
Jonas at 2189
âThat 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.â
Unfortunately for you, a conference submission is not peer reviewed. Journal publications are, and the primary purpose is to ensure that the article is consistent with current standards and practices. As the article concerns itself with a fairly mainstream topic to the discipline, and all the potential controversial statements are likely contained in the 2007 Lynd and Bjork paper, the peer review was likely short. I am not sure why you have a parenthetical statement set off alone in a complete clause but whatever Dudeâthe standards for climatological study and analysis are the same as those for any historical science. In regards to my comment about Sir Isaacâs opinion which was meant to satirize your risible standard for scientific rigor (by the way where did you get the notion that the scientist conducts all empirical research, from your primary school teacher?), all I can say is âwhooshâ as the point sails over your head.
âWhat 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).â
Not sure what you are implying here. If you followed the paper, you would see a mention of a direct relationship between SH climate patterns and carbon dioxide concentrations with the warming following the last glacial maxima. Further, there is discussion on the relationship between insolation and climate patterns in the near term (last 2,000 years) both which to the reader signal that very relationship is at the fore of the authorâs and the scienceâs conderation (there are other relevant mentions in the paper as well). The term anomaly is indicative of a trend in which previous causal or correlations to not appear to apply. Understand?
âNo, 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.â
First sentence, sorry incorrect, he does not discuss a âmodern recorded warming (the word modern appears nowhere in the paper)â being discernable by proxy records. What he says is âThe best analogue to the global warming scenario similar to what is expected in the coming centuries, and with some detailed and robust data may be the last interglacial....â Quaternary and Holocene scientists already know that a lack of synchronicity exists between the NH and SH through the recent termination of the Pliestocene, this has been the case since attempts to classify the âYounger Dryasâ as a global or regional event. (Note that there is a problem with his argument which he notes in the abstract but not in the body, regarding the dating of older period records--see Minzie Stuvier labâs efforts with C14 calibrationâthat the lack of synchonicity may be due poor time resolution). âProbably correctlyâ is an understatement, the lack of synchronicity rests on the climate variations between a largely continental NH and largely maritime SH, and feedbacks between the two. What is important to note is the mechanisms for these asynchronous events are well understood. What is also apparent is the global climate trends would be more easily resolved with SH proxy data, with the proviso that negative feedbacks from NH responses to warming need to be better understood.
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.
Look up anomaly in a dictionary, it is not a technical term, see if that definition fits (hint, it is a term subject to qualification, not quantification). If it doesnât then complain. The data scarcity is only your ignorance of the published record that Bjork recapitulates.
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.
His argument rests on the efforts of Quaternary and Holocene scientists since Agassiz. Just because he does not cite them all, does not mean they are not incorporated by reference. The summary he provides of recent geological history without his unique emphasis on the lack of synchronicity between NH and SH events is practically the same narrative I recall since the 1970âs. The data requirements you make in the sentence are impractical and insane. You may want to talk to some of your Scandinavian homeboys who work on varves why that might be.
âAnd of course, he doesnât have that, knows he doesnât and thus is quite careful and tentative with his phrasing.â
This conclusion follows from mistating and misunderstanding the argument.
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.
The paper does not discuss a 20 millenium anomaly, it attempts to evaluate the best documented data and interpretations over the last 20 millenia to ascertain if an analogous situation may be resolved.
At best, it is one more comparison (Fig 1) saying âit still might beâ, but even there he is vague (for god reasons)
Figure 1 is from a 2007 paper by Lynd and Bjork. It is their discussion of the relationship of the data represented in the diagram that allows for Bjork to offer the interpretation that global climate events in the two hemispheres are not synchonous in this paper, and that the variable is likely feedbacks between both hemispheric systems.
âYou 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..â
No, the original science here is the minor changes (corrections once the community accepts his argument) he makes to the narrative of Post Pliestocene events. But that is also moving the goal posts, nobody argued that the article contained âoriginalâ science.
âWhat 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.â
Aside from your point being incoherent. I do not have to do anything. But, let me know if I have this wrong: you, who have no idea of the time and effort require for palynological research, lay out an infeasible and unreasonable research programme to resolve temperature variation to a tenth of a degree and within timeframe of decades for a period of 20,000 years? Hate to tell you this, if that effort were feasible, the result would provide less variability, and would resolve the rate of temperature change far better than what we have now.
âYou just cannot compare these reconstructions (any of them) with global satellite data (or even instrumental modern records).â
Duh. The only reason you bring proxy records into the period of when global satellite date or modern instrument records are available is for calibration for the period when you do not have it.
âSo no: There is no real science supporting that claim!â
Sorry, if science is the endeavor to explain the past and predict the future, then the claims made in the article are scientific. It may not be the science you want (you are welcome to fix that, after all you have proposed a research programme (albeit of a highly questionable scope)), but it is the science we have.
âNote: It is not the advent of civilization, or higher CO2-levels he calls âanomalousâ (they are), but specifically the climate and recent warming.â
This concluding statement in the abstract: âHowever, as long as no globally consistent climate event prior to todayâs global warming has been clearly documented, and considering climate trends over the last millenia (sic) in different parts of the world have in the last century or so, changed direction into a global warming trend, we ought to regard the ongoing changes as anomalies, triggered by anthropogenically forced alterations in the carbon cycle in the general global environment.â , seems to contradict your claim. However, I think you failed to catch my point about the episteme of scientific traditions.
Mike
P.Lewis @ #2366 Deltoid, the place where trolls come to die.
...and die 2300+ deaths they certainly have.
What this thread has illustrated beyond doubt is that the domain of denialism is firmly in the hands of facile, arrogant cranks and the totally ignorant, idiot wingnuts they exploit. No need to name names.
In other words, the very opposite of opinion formers and those who would be listened to by their peers. In fact, it's very likely (>95%) many reasonable people will find the evangelical idiocy of the Jonas circus and their equivalents so repellant they'll most probably be inclined to believe the polar opposite of their view must have a lot going for it. As the saying goes, give them enough rope ...
Thank you Jonas & Co. for a job well done.
Andy S
I don't even know what point you are trying to make. You seem to agree with me on the issue, and think that I should have mentioned that it surveys results from some other studies. Which I had. So what was your point?
Saying:
>it would have been a fairly sensible thing to write
does not agree well with much being said here, nor with your comments about chicken farting.
And I didn't say that the two sentences contained the exact same information. I said, yours contained an additional description. So what was your point?
Is it really that hard?
mgr, dude: Use paragraphs, blockquote tags, and the preview button, please!
ianam (and others)
Apologies for the black wall on 2375. Server here has been slow for the last week, and composed response on word program. Lost tabs and line breaks when I pasted. Distracted here by co-worker with limited English skill and did not preview Because of size, will not repost.
Mike
mgr
that was a long comment about a lot of things that are not contained in the Björck paper.
You are wrong however. Conference papers may be peer reviewed, and special journal issues for a conference most certainly are. But by a more narrow group, usually the conference organizers and their scientific committee. Meaning it is a smaller and more closed circle. Nothing wrong with that, but 'pulished' or 'peer reviewed' doesn't mean content or quality automatically. Those are red herrings.
You don't need to read the paper again to me. I've read it. Twice actually. And you only describe what I already have read. But as I said from the start, there is no new (or original) science presented therein.
But you seem to be missing several more points. Milakonvic cykles are not and were never coupled with CO2-levels. The latter however historically followed temperature changes. While the connection between Milankovic cycles and ice ages is far more lose and not very well understood in detail.
What you probably mean is that CO2 has risen now, for other reasons. Which is true. But phrasing that as 'decoupling from Milankovic cycles' would be totally misleading. Even the more correct 'decoupled from glaciation/interglacials' would be a red herring, since no one questions that a noticable part of CO2 has anthropogenic causes.
More relevant: The modern warming worth discussing really is only a few decades from the mid 1970s. And it is not particularly 'anomalous' in the known history. It has been as warm globally several times before, and especially as warm as it was in the seventies or fourties. So what you need to make claims about anomaly of synchronous warming is global data with a resolution of a few decades and a precision which is impossible to achieve even during human history before say ~1900.
There is simply no way of making claims which **must** on such precise information with out that information. And Björck is quite careful not to overstate his opinion. Because that's all there is.
You say that my standards for science are too high. But that's bollocks! If you want to make statements on this level, you cannot resort to arm waiving, or that uncertainties always are so large. That 'we have to' build mainly and mostly on conjecture.
Requiring rigor in one's assessment is the opposite of insane. And it is what drives much of the crowd here so angry. You seem to be saying that 'data on this detailed level' is so difficult to come by, that it would be 'impractical' for the purpose of making broad statements ..
Well, there you have it: If you don't have the data, you simply cannot make assertions like that. If you still do, if it is more practical to base statements on what you don't know, you've left science and are entering fiction.
If you don't have data to show:
>the lack of synchronicity between NH and SH events
for 20.000 years, you cannot make statements of how 'anomalous' the last few decades are. Simple as that.
You also totally seem to miss what would actually be required. But maybe it is just as you state: From where you come from, this is how little actual basis usually is needed. 'We still call it science' .. but that I don't know. As I said, Svante Björck's phrasing is far better. He does not overstate anything. I just find it depressing that he lowers his standards so much that he can present one word (anomaly) at a 'climate science' conference.
But you say one more thing which I partly agree with:
>"the standards for climatological study and analysis are the same as those for any historical science"
Because if historians would start making statements about the precise history to come, not only describing present day and providing analogies with the past, but 100 years ahead of time, they would be laughed at. Rightfully so.
But I would go a bit further. And way that much (not all) of climate science is closer to social (and some political) sciences, or gender studies. Where one's belief system is the main determinant for 'seeking explanations'
chek #2367
I asked you before what you meant, when you wrote:
>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.
This is the seventh time I asked. About **your** own statement. mgr at least seems capable of explaining what he meant. (He essentially confirms what I said, but wants to asign more 'value' to it, or that there rarely is more than this)
It's funny though, that you talk about 'evangelical' when you are the one clinging to your faith, afraid to argue (even read) what merits there actually are ..
Maybe saying six 'Dunning-Kruger' and three 'denier' with your 'Amen' will restore your faith ..
... yes Jonas and prior to that I asked about references for your own statements - or string of assertions as they actually are. Still waiting ... though by now not expecting anything from a tiresome, evasive, D-K pissartist like you.
chek .. the reference is the one you already provided. As I've already told you.
So now, if I ask an eighth time: Do you know what you meant by #2178? Or is your nonsense about 'provide 15 refs' yet another fleeing cop-out? Do you by the way have any reference showing that you know anything. Anything at all? Should I 'request' an affidavit that you are grown up and mentally sane? Do you even have one? Or one affirming that you actually have read your won linked paper? Because, so far you have not by one single statement indicated that you have one clue what it is about. Not even since mgr, myself and others have discussed its content.
Thing is, chek: Climate sites are littered with people like you. And I don't mind exposing them. Understandably, you don't. And you have no method to counter that exposure. I guess, that's why we hear so much about your wishful hopes instead ..
>a tiresome, evasive, D-K pissartist like you.
I understand that it is tiresome for you (and your ilk) to have to face somebody who can actually read. Sorry, but you can hardly blame me for your predicament ..
No Jonas N (2377), it s not even 'exactly the same information but with additional description'. You are just spewing complete nonsense. Anyhow, you have now proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that your pronouncements of what is science are worth less than a chicken's fart.
Nope, Andy S, just wordplay. The chicken and the farting are all on your side of the fence. And you know it it too ...
Jonas @ #2383: "chek .. the reference is the one you already provided. As I've already told you".
No you Dunning-Krugerating moron, it is your arguments that paper that require the references.
The thing is Jonas, climate sites are littered with idiots like you. And I don't mind exposing them. Understandably, you don't. And you have no method to counter that exposure. I understand that it is tiresome for you (and your ilk) to have to face somebody who can actually read. Sorry, but you can hardly blame me for your predicament ..
Jonas, Pentaxz and their small coterie of uneducated 'experts' are nothing more than sanctimonious pricks. Deceivers, liars, manipulators, call it what you like. I've stayed out of this thread for some days, watching these two endlessly skewer themselves on their own constructed 'facts' as they accumulate more and more b*.
First of all, one has to hand it to D-K wannabe Jonas when he writes, *Conference papers may be peer reviewed, and special journal issues for a conference most certainly are. But by a more narrow group, usually the conference organizers and their scientific committee*.
How the hell do you of all people know this? Since when did you, dimwit, ever attend a scientific conference or peer-review any kind of scientific article (except in your dreams)? Of course, this is utter nonsense. I have recently written an article for a peer-reviewed journal for a conference in which I was one of about 10 keynote speakers, and most of the articles were sent to experts in the field who did not attend the conference. How do I know this? Because my partner was on the organizing committee, and she told me how the review procedure was done.But I have known this for a long, long time. I think it takes remarkable hubris for Jonas, a twit who refuses to tell us his day job (out of sheer embarrassment, obviously) how science works. Its been noted by many of us here that the guy is a legend in his own mind. No wonder he spits venom when scientists like myself and Bernard counter his nonsense; its the politics of envy at work.
As for Pentaxz, who actually accuses most here os being stupid or ' foilhats' (very rich considering he cannot write proper English), he actually cites the OISM 'survey' as evidence that most scientists do not support the hypothesis that the recent spike in temperature was due primarily to human actions. This instantly disqualifies him from being taken seriously. First of all, most of those who signed the GCMI-supported petition are not statured scientists in any way, shape or form. Second, the petition that was sent out to universities across the United States was accompanied by an article alluding to the benefits of increased atmospheric C02 on natural and managed ecosystems that was co-authored by Arthur Robinson (of the puny Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine based in Cave City, Oregon), his home-schooled son and two well known climate change deniers. The paper was type set in the format of the prestigious National Academy of Science Proceedings, deliberately misleading those to whom it had been sent. The paper had not been published anywhere at the time, and certainly not in PNAS. The NAS took the rare step of officially saying that they had nothing to do with the article or the petition.
Like Bernard, I know many hundreds of professional scientists working in various fields. I have been a professional scientist since I obtained my PhD in 1995, and since then I have held three post-doctoral positions as well as a brief stint as Associate Editor at Nature before my current post, as a senior scientist. I have spoken with several thousand scientists during my career, and of all those, I can list on one hand the number who hold any reservations about the human fingerprint on the current warming. None of these are dogmatic about it either - they just think that more empirical evidence is needed to convince them. The rest hold little or no reservations on the subject. Unofficial petitions like Robinson's are not scientific and are therefore meaningless.
> > "If you want to claim a global event, you need evidence to support it. No such evidence exists."
> Exactly what I have been telling you foilhats the whole time
So you've been telling us the whole time that there is no global MWP?
Why have you been telling us this, when we already know this?
Ohh... I get it. "Foilhats" are your name for Gonads and Oaf, yes?
Jeffie dear.
"_ I have spoken with several thousand scientists during my career, and of all those, I can list on one hand the number who hold any reservations about the human fingerprint on the current warming._"
You know, shit attracts flies, not butterflies.
Wow, the super stupid foilhat. You really don't get id do you? Of course there is an GW (which currently has taken a fifteen year pause). Without it earth surley wouldn't be a pleseant place to be on. It's the A in AGW I don't agree on with you foilhats. The GW is a perfectly natural and unharmful event and there isn't a shred of evidence for the A in AGW.
But why argue on this, since you oficcially has admitted that there isn't any AGW? Wow, the stupid master of owngoals.
> Of course there is an GW (which currently has taken a fifteen year pause).
Really? So you've proven that there is a pause? Where is your data and your results?
Or are you parroting what you've be programmed to say?
> Without it earth surley wouldn't be a pleseant place to be on.
Yup 100% of CO2 is causing, with feedback mostly from water vapour, 33C of extra warmth.
Now if you increase that CO2 to 140%, more water would occur, yes? That's how that H2O got there in the first place.
And if that 40% is from us, then that extra global warming is from our actions, yes?
So there is AGW.
And I'm glad that you agree that there is no proof for a global MWP, at least some progress is being made to your ignorance.
TampaxZ @ #2389"You know, shit attracts flies, not butterflies".
That's already been deduced from you class acts we see visiting from the ordure repository known as the 'climatescam' circus.
The most important thing for liars to do is to keep their story straight, otherwise their lies dissolve away to nothing like salt in water.
You climate liars have already agreed that AGW is happening - that's why you've moved the goalposts to call it 'CAGW', a term you yourself have used.
But as your inconsistent lies reveal to us, you're just a parrot parroting lies you haven't a clue about. Or to twist a phrase, a useless idiot. If it's any consolation, you're certainly one of the most impressively useless idiots I've encountered.
"_Or are you parroting what you've be programmed to say?_" Hahahaha....really funny coming from a IPCC/AGW-secterist...I'm falling off my chair laughing....you are a stupid foilhat, but still you have some humor!
"_you're just a parrot parroting lies you haven't a clue about._" Hahahaha....really funny coming from a IPCC/AGW-secterist...I'm falling off my chair laughing....you are a stupid foilhat, but still you have some humor!
But at least you now agree that there is no global MWP.
Progress, as with all the terminally duped, is slow.
PentaxZ 2392: "I'm falling off my chair laughing..."
Did your parents forget to fasten the safety strap?
No Andy S, I think it's a defence mechanism that enables the continued holding of two contradictory ideas at the same time.
Otherwise their pointy little heads are likely to explode.
Jeff
Still: Making up your own fantasy-facts to fit your narrative ..
.. is what quarreling playground kids do.
When will you ever grow up and behave like an adult? I don't even require that you argue your case as a real scientist would do, I know you can't. But why not starting arguing a case, or at least attempting to do so? I know this too is difficult for you, since it would require knowing what the topic actually is, it would require to read what was actually being said, what was claimed, what actual arguments were presented and based on what facts, physics, logic and empirical observations etc. To argue your own stance, to make a case of your position, you first need to know what the topic is. And to argue it effectivley, you need to understand also the arguments you try to counter.
This is what real science is about. And it requires both brain, knwoledge, method and meticulous, sometimes often tedious work.
And you, Jeff Harvey, have spent 2½ months avoiding every issue that has come up. Instead you started out by walzing in claiming "I am a senior scientist ..." and expecting (even demanding) from there on that your CV should be taken as an authorative source settling the topics being discussed.
How the hell are you even thinking there? Hoping that your lack of real argument (and knowledge) would convince?
Here you try the same thing once again! And again totally unaware of what the topic was. It was 'mgr'in #1375 who claimed:
>Unfortunately for you, a conference submission is not peer reviewed
I am pretty certaing that even you know that this is not generally true. But that's not the argument. His was that 'peer reviewed' would automtically make a paper 'science', which is simply wrong. The value and quality of (if any) science carried are determined by other things (ultimately 'reality'). I instead pointed out that there are different levels of peer review, and that conference journal issues have a somewhat more lax level of peer review, compared formal journal submissions.
But it seems you want to take issue with that too, Jeffie!? Really? Your main objection seemed to be that the 'reviewer' not necessarily attended the conference. But where did I ever claim that, Jeffie? Once more you are fighting against your own demons.
No, let me tell you why a conference journal issue usually is considered a little less prestigeous than an individual and accepted submission:
It is because that issue's existence is already decided upon. That there will be a number of papers drawn from the conference contributions. And that it is through the conference organizers those are selected, after peer review. And it usually happens exactly as I described! The conference organizers select reviewrs and papers.
Gosh, your childish need for hoping to nail me with (som detail-) inaccuracies is pathetic, Jeff. Especially when you miss all the time. And when you never address the actual topic!
Once more the same thing happens: I read the paper (that chek linked) and when I explain what it contains what is done there what it is worth, the chicken here start screaching trying to find an excuse for why I shouldn't have, for reasons to pretend there is more than there was.
And it is because I actually bot do, and am capable of doing what you and many others won't are not, that you chicken get sp stirred up and angry!
You Jeff are a perfect example. And are you really unaware of that it is you (and Bernard) who are spitting the venom, and doing it as a method?
And are you really believing that you (or Bernard) are 'countering' anything I say? You who are so afraid of arguing the topic, or only taking a stance on it?
You are truly delusional Jeff ...
Same thing is true about your fantasies that I should 'envy' you. Envy you for what? For the total lack of capabilities arguing one single stance? C'mon, Jeff, can one even be so totally deluded?
> But why not starting arguing a case, or at least attempting to do so?
'sfunny, we've been asking you to present your case all along.
2400 posts later and you're asking us what your case is???
> To argue your own stance, to make a case of your position, you first need to know what the topic is
Go on, then.
Tell us what the topic is.
And this time, make complete sentences.
chek
I have asked you before, and repeat again: What was it that was so insightful to you in mgr's comment #1271?
Because, given that you have desperately avoided even touching upon one single thing written, presented and argued in the very paper you linked ..
.. your exclamation (#1278) sure sounded like the usual posturing I come to expect from the AGW-groupies, those who can say 'peer reviewed literature' 100 times, feel snug about it, but never know what it actually says and is worth, hardly ever read it (and if they do, won't understand the words).
It seemed like you hoped that mgr might know some more, sufficiently enough to at least contradict me(*), and that you thought it 'smart' to pretend to agree, in the vain hope to look a little bit smarter than you do here.
Well, even if that doesn't require much, trying to pass of knowledge you don't possess, or being caught out lying and/or cheating, will cause the opposite: You will look even dumber!
Just like Jeff Harvey, who once more scored a fabulous own goal while frantically waiving his CV ...
(*)he didn't really on any of the contents, he argued that it rarely is better than that ..
> and repeat again: What was it that was so insightful to you in mgr's comment #1271?
That's lb's post.
Still nothing on what the topic is?
Or do you not know either?
Jonas,
Where is your science countering the prevailing view that humans are the main forcing agent behind the current warming? You haven't presented any science here, except to dismiss studies you do not like (including those I presented on glacial loss in the Himalayas) and the recent Bjorcke study. Provide counter evidence from the empirical literature, Mr. know-it-all! Trouble is, you can't. I have experienced other deniers on Deltoid over the years who routinely deride studies they do not like in the most prestigious journals, but never come up with any studies in top journals that support their own denialist views. And I note that most of the deniers, like you, Jonas, have absolutely no scientific qualifications whatsoever (except those you make up in your own head)
Then you make things up about things you know absolutely nothing about, such as the peer-review system. Where is your evidence? As someone on the inside, I know a hell of a lot more about peer-review than you do. I have reviewed articles for over 60 scientific journals... how many have you reviewed at last count?
Conference proceedings are most definitely NOT considered less prestigious than other submitted manuscripts. Many conferences publish their contributions in very top journals, and these articles are then heavily cited. You wrote,
*Conference papers may be peer reviewed, and special journal issues for a conference most certainly are. But by a more narrow group, usually the conference organizers and their scientific committee*.
Nonsense. Most conference proceedings are peer-reviwed by external experts in the relevant field. Conference organizers and committees do not have any time for that kind of thing. Besides, where is your evidence?
So I return to some relevant questions for Jonas:
1. How many scientific publications do you have in climate science, or in any field of science, Jonas?
2. How many scientific conferences have you attended, and at how many of these have you presented a lecture or seminar?
3. How many scientific journals have you been a peer-reviewer for, and which journals?
4. How many scientists with pedigree do you know working in any field?
5. What is your professional background?
6. What percentage of climate scientists, in your view, are real scientists?
Here is my guess as to the answers Jonas would provide if he were being honest (and of course he won't answer them because they would shred what little credibility he has).
1-3: None.
4. Very, very few, if any.
5. Some non-scientific field.
6. The vast majority - > 95%. (Of course, given that these 95% would think he was a loon, he might give the opposite answer).
Back to Dunning-Kruger: Do you know anything about the 1999 study, Jonas? What it was about? Charles Darwin once said that 'Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge'. This describes Jonas perfectly. He hasn't given any evidence why the huge number of studies supporting AGW are wrong. He just dismisses them with the wave of his D-K hand.
Just popping in to savor the delicious irony of
This while describing what "real science" is.
If that is how Jonas describes "real science", I'm all of a sudden not so curious about what percentage of climate scientists he considers real scientists. I'm afraid the answer would melt my brain.
Jonarse @ #2398: "chek I have asked you before, and repeat again:"
Yes, and I'm waiting for the references that I requested prior to that, which might provide some credibility to your Gish-gallop of reply as previously stated.
And then perhaps we'll catch up with Stu's outstanding question to you: How many climate scientists do you consider to be real scientists?
Perhaps once those two outstanding items are dealt with your asymmetric demands might be taken seriously.
Wow, you got one thing correct: It should have been #1371 and #1378.
chek (or should that be 'chekarse' in your language?)
You have been given the reference. It is there for you to read. If you don't agree, feel free to make an alternative assessment. Your 'demands' are just scared stalling for time, excuse to run from the topic, desperate wish to change the topic ..
You haven't even presented any argument or even 'stance' against what you call my 'gish gallop'. Only informed me of that you won't take my word for it.
And since you can't even read your own references .. what good would it be if I provided you with detailed explanations for every other point you don't understand?
You most likely wouldn't understand them either! Nor read! You haven' so far.
And it is not me making demands here. I asked you a question (~10 times) about something where you actually know and have the answer. What you meant!
So far, you don't seem to have meant anything. Since you are so desperately are stalling for time ..
> Wow, you got one thing correct: It should have been #1371 and #1378.
When are you going to get one thing correct?
When are you going to give any science that isn't solely and purely your personal opinion?
And you do this "you've been given this" a lot.
Funny how you can't actually give it again. Nor, despite you being able to post things like "#1371", you're unable to refer to the post you apparently gave the reference to before.
Like with your claims of proof of lb's incorrect physics, not even you are able to actually state what they are clearly again and would insist that everyone pick the single right one message out of 2400.
Why? Because no such claim exists and you know it.
What a retard.
I note too that you've not read my refutation of your diatribe against the Bjork paper.
Your claims against that paper were a pavane ignorance and you have been unable to respond to any of the points proving this that I made.
Yet here you are, post 2403, still whining like a spoiled "Special Needs" child who demands that everyone else do the thinking 'cos it's too hard.
Have you got any responses to my points? Or do you cede the issue and retract your ignorant rant against the paper?
Well, let's see. Let us measure ourselves by that paragon of honesty, wit, smarts and scientific knowledge: Jonas. Our shining beacon finds it entirely normal to dodge a simple question at least, let's see... #1354, #1381, #1390, #1405, #1409, #1418, #1440, #1456, #1459, #1475, #1482, #1490, #1491, #1496, #1517, #1529, #1532, #1544, #1547, #1549, #1551, #1557, #1565, #1574, #1575, #1581, #1584, #1587, #1589, #1612, #1644, #1648, #1652, #1662, #1663, #1673, #1680, #1684, #1704, #1782, #1795, #1828, #1836, #1846, #1864, #1873, #1887, #2016, #2026, #2032, #2049, #2051, #2055, #2073, #2077, #2085, #2114, #2116, so ~58 times or so.
So keep going, my insecure, willfully dyslexic little hypocrite. Quite a ways yet to go.
> Only informed me of that you won't take my word for it.
Hehehehe.
Self-proclaimed "Skeptic" doesn't know what skepticism means!
Wow, why do you think the rules apply to Jonas? He knows more than all of us, is a better scientist than all of us and is smarter than all of us. We know this because he told us so.
He doesn't need any scientific qualifications, publications, stated background, ability to put together a coherent sentence or even spell correctly. He told us, and that should be enough.
Why don't you understand this yet, idiot?
Ah, well, if Jonarse had said that, then I could believe him ('cos he told us).
However, you're one of the foilhats that Jonarse's couterie of admirers insist are all wrong.
Therefore, since you say that Jonas is right because he says so, and that he says you're wrong every single time, then because Jonarse is right all the time, this means you're wrong and therefore he's wrong!
WE HAVE THE TRUTH!
Jonarse and pals are insisting they are wrong!!!!
(please do not look behind the curtain or ask for coherency. no such coherency is required in Jonarse World (R)(tm)(c))
In 2403, Jonas N admits that he is doing the Gish gallop.
Not verbatim, but his comment contains exactly the same information, and some additional description.
Jeff
Once more you try flaining your arms in your own thick mist of incomprehension. It is not pretty and it is not worthy ..
What I do (in contrast to you) is that I actually chek what claims are made, what they imply and what they are based on. I check those claims where I think that the results or certainties are overstated.
I just did here wrt a paper that chek linked (which both he and you now are trying to get away from by absolute stupid bickering, and even cheating/lying in your case. Chek probably really has no clue)
And no, most conference proceedings are not formally peer review (as you describe it). Special journal issues are. As I described it, and as you seem to (very unwillingly again) accept. And yes, every conference has an organizing committee, and a scientific one, for the obvious purposes.
And contrary to what you claim (or hope to believe) conference issue publications are less prestigeous than individual papers. Now you of course wouldn't know about that, since you think 'publication' is the highest standard by which science is measured. It is not, believe me Jeff, it is not. Only by the scientifically ignorant and illiterat ..
We (well I, not so many else, excpet possibly 'mgr') have been discussing [a paper by Svante Björck](http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c048p005.pdf), it is 'Climate' journal, and (hopefully) peer-reviewed (somehow) and it is almost devoid of any science, it is a 'talking paper' and possibly a ticket-paper for that conference, and presents no analysis what so ever.
I think it is a very good example of what may pass as 'climate science' among those who use 'peer reviewed' or 'supported by tens of thousands of publications'. Ie it carries no weigth at all wrt the core issue.
If you care (dare?) to challenge that, please go ahead. But of course, you have to read it first, and understand it. Those are two major obstacles. And then you still have to formulate why it should be considered worth much more than I say. And you wouldn't manage. So your best strategy is (also this time) stay as far as you can from the topic.
You said early something about a 'pissing contest with a skunk'. And indeed you really really what to enter a pissing contest instead. In fact you have been CV-pissing for 2½ months, still are, and nothing but your own stink has resluted from that. You still are scared shitless of getting close to any topic or arguing a case by your own (Only 'argument' you have is 'Somebody else knows this and got it right', although you are completely ignorant of what they do claim and based on what arguments).
And yes, I've read the Dunning Kruger paper, although it is some time ago. And the funny thing is that almost the only ones who keep obsessing about that are total (and I really mean total) ignorants, cheering AGW- and CAGW-bystanders rooting for 'their home team' in the climate debate on censoring banning blogs, who know almost nothing about that topic or any other.
Who (like here) can't even get a linear equation of motion correct, who repeatedly violate several basic principles of physics, who 'invent new facts/physics/math' etc as the go to save face. You are one of them.
As I've said many times DK-references inevitably reveal that you're dealing with an uniformed AGW-groupie.
On last example (it is just a repetition of your standard fallacy here). You write:
>He hasn't given any evidence why the huge number of studies supporting AGW are wrong. He just dismisses them with the wave of his D-K hand.
Once more, that is typical Jeff-Harvey-inventing his own 'facts'. I have not dismissed any paper I haven't read. And (if you hade been paying attention, you would know that) I read those papers, and see what they actually claim, and usually what there is actually done is far more modest than the grandiose cliams by the DK-denialist-chanting ignorants who link (but rarely read, almost never understand) them.
Already your wording gives you away, Jeff, when you say 'supporting AGW'. Because AGW is a scientific hypothesis (not that well supported in its current IPCC-form). And papers just 'supporting' that hypothesis are completely irrelevant to the validity of that hypothesis, if they do not adress the core parts of it, and do so scientifically.
This means that mentioning 'AGW' or repeating the hypothesis, or various claims thereof, or just speculating or referring to others predictions, scenarious etc .. all those are completely irrelevant to the core question, Jeff! There is no need to dismiss them. Although I find it depressing that waffling about AGW in papers dealing with completely different things is deemed do 'necessary'.
Did you get that, Jeff? Because it is basic 101-science method:
Every paper that does not explicitly target the core question, whether CO2-levels can control the earth's climate, and to what extent, all those are irrelevant to that question. The don't need to be dismissed, because they don't address that question.
Or the other way around: Those of you, who think that one (or ten) more publications relying on AGW being the correct explanation, or studying the effect or (possible future) consequences thereof ..
.. that those publication support AGW, or strengthen that hypothesis ..
.. all thos of you who think so, once more show that you are no real scientists! Because you once more lose track of what ball you need to keep your eye on.
And of course, I would expect those with so mushy intellects to start chanting Dunning KRuger, denialist, moron, idiot, and much more as soon as you run out of rehearsed talkning points, which here seemed to happen almost instantly for quite a few!
> We have been discussing a paper by Svante Björck, it is 'Climate' journal, and peer-reviewed and it is almost devoid of any science
Nope, you CLAIM it is devoid of science.
However your claims are bunkum, as I explained earlier.
You see, we won't take your word for it that some paper isn't science. You have to explain why it isn't science, supporting with what "the real science" is.
However, all you have are claims that there is no science.
We, unlike you, are skeptical of unevidenced claims.
...aaaaand we're done here. Christ on a crutch, Jonas, anything else you'd like to make up?
In 2411, Jonas N admits that the Bjork paper contains science and analysis, and that he himself is a Dunning Kruger, denialist, moron, and idiot.
Andy S #2410
With your 'logic', that might very well be so. But remember, that's with your logic(*). In the real world, this is called 'childish wordplay' ...
(*) But maybe such fills a purpose with the crowd here ..
Surely a diseased mind. Lets look at one claim made:
> Because you once more lose track of what ball you need to keep your eye on.
Well, lets see what this disfunctional idiot has to say is "the ball" to be kept an eye on.
> Every paper that does not explicitly target the core question, whether CO2-levels can control the earth's climate, and to what extent, all those are irrelevant to that question.
So, according to this statement, it's purely about CO2 properties in climate control.
But lets look on in the labyrinthine delusions of this broken and insane individual:
> Those of you, who think that one (or ten) more publications relying on AGW being the correct explanation, or studying the effect or (possible future) consequences thereof ..
These then would be papers that were brought up by someone talking about the paleoclimate. Someone called "Olaus Petri".
So if we answer questions someone other than this frothing mad individual, we have "lost the ball" and:
> once more show that you are no real scientists!
Well, if "CO2's effect on the climate temperature" is necessary to keep this maniac amused, how about this one:
[CO2's effect on the climate](www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf)
Do you, you raving lunatic, have a paper that proves that CO2 has no effect on the earth's atmospheric temperature?
Additionally, since this moronic individual spent countless words dissing Bork's paper which does not
> explicitly target the core question, whether CO2-levels can control the earth's climate, and to what extent, all those are irrelevant to that question
Then by this pinheaded dunderhead's own "reasoning" (if anything so coherent could be assigned to the tangled mess of this psychopath's meandering mumblings)
> once more show that [he is] no real scientist[s]!
Jonas N 2415,
You are so very humble, but credit where credit is due. I was using your logic. And the fact that you humbly try to belittle your own genius by calling it 'childish wordplay' just proves what a fantastically humble person you are.
Stu
If your brain would melt, that would evaporate six years worth of studied physics ... and that must sure feel like a huge loss
To you ...
;-)
Re: #2403: chek (or should that be 'chekarse' in your language?)
Like your whole schtick here, that doesn't really work
whereas 'Jonarse' sounds like a milds mispronunciation of your actual name - and - you're an arse. Which combines to make it risible if slightly juvenile. Again, just like you.
Think (for the first time I can ever recall anywhere) who felt the need to loudly proclaim "I know what I'm talking about!". Like an arse, because it isn't self evident in the way it would be for anyone who actually did. In fact you're such an arse I do believe we'll have you similarly declaring your not insane in another 500 or so posts.
Hilarious. Your declarative style may work on your tame homunculi like Oluas/Olaus, GSW and TampaxZ et al, but it's come to the attention of many here that your relationship to the truth ... is casual if not accidental at best.
Hmm. Again, Jonarse talks about something that isn't explicitly targeting CO2's effect on the climate. Again, he is given a paper reference that he MUST have read, but has nothing to say on it.
His eye is not on the ball and he is once again showing that he is no scientist.
Andy S - I usually assume that folks use the best arguments they have (left). You have come a long way since you (quite correctly) pointed out that 90% < 100% ,,,
Jonas has finally understood that 90% < 100%. That is great progress, Jonas! And that is the best argument you have. For or against what, I don't really know, but I suppose it can be used anywhere, anytime. Good for you, Jonas!
In 2411, Jonas N admits that all the things he mentions are completely irrelevant to the core question.
And in 2419, he is very worried that his brain is going to melt. Only if you use it too much, Jonas, only if you use it too much. Didn't your mother teach you that?
Stu
Yes, you have asked that question many time (as a diversion, of course. You are both uninterested in the answer, and in what constitutes a real scientist, a question which I have indeed answered, at least partly, several times. But you probably missed).
So, no: I have never made any claims about any percentage.
If you would understand the least about science, you would also understand what is wrong (several things) with your question. But it's funny, it made other posturing 'scientists' jump on your bandwagon. Which is just hilarious
You know, the difference is that chek actually made exactly that comment I have been asking about, about *'the significance of mgr's insightful point'*
He knows the answer to what (if anything) he meant. That's why I am asking, you see?
It's a little like asking someone who for 2½ weeks kept lamenting about *'different velocities between hand/box'* why he did that, when he was the only one ever talking about any difference. Even after others pointed this out.
Because this guy brought it up, and he is the (actually only) one who knows why.
Chek is the only one who knows what has previously sailed over his head, that he felt it necessary to thank mgr.
Now, was that too difficult too?
;-)
Jonas N 2422: "You have come a long way since you (quite correctly) pointed out that 90% < 100%"
Jonas N 2425: "So, no: I have never made any claims about any percentage."
Why are you lying Jonas? You had indeed made a claim about a percentage just three comments before!
chek ..
It is really funny. so many of you are so obsessed with name calling, you hardly manage anything else.
I can repeat what I said:
Björck's paper contains no new or original science, and no analysis what so ever.
I explained earlier what he has done, and how he argues his 'main result' which he him self presents as an opinion.
Not one of you has even come close to stating anything to the contrary. What 'science' or 'analysis' there actually would be contained within that paper.
Because that's kinda the thing (chek, Jeffie, Wow, Stu, Andy and all others):
You present your science and your arguments, and your results, and your methods, and your analysis, and your calculations, and your methods, experiments, observations, or data used etc when you publish it as science.
So whatever is new, original, or analysis, must be contained in there, chek. Readily to point out, if you just manage to find it!
(I will not ask you about 'insightful significant points' again, you obviously wrote that, but are afraid of telling anyone what you meant)
Andy S, you are rapidly stuping to the levels of Stoo and Wow
Jonas N (2427) confesses that he is so obsessed with name calling, he hardly manage anything else.
He also admits that his opponents on this thread are real scientists:
"You present your science and your arguments, and your results, and your methods, and your analysis, and your calculations, and your methods, experiments, observations, or data used etc when you publish it as science."
Yes, we do.
Jonas N (2025): "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!"
Jonas was arguing, and he was using the terms âdenierâ and âdenialistâ. Draw your won conclusions, folks!
Ah, are those the same magical reasons why you are unable to answer the question we've been dying to hear about?
With your amazing scientific intellect, you should be able to tell us these magical, wonderful reasons why you cannot tell us what percentage of scientists you consider real scientists, right? That should be easy for someone of your staggering intellect, publication history and mastery of the English language.
Right, Jonas?
Obvious and stupid lie. See #1484 and #1485. I've offered to let this go half a dozen times now, Jonas... why are you insisting on making an even bigger fool out of yourself?
Still congenitally unable to admit you were wrong about anything, ever? Does that come with your brand of staggering intellect and encyclopedic knowledge of climatology, ecology and physics? Not to mention your expert wordsmithing?
Stu
There are still no different velocities among hand/box there (#1484 & #1485), never were, and never implied, already pointed out (#1492):
>Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force
My question is/was why you kept lamenting about different velocities. But you don't need to answer. Finally you realized (seemed to?) that it was a stupid notion to start with, and that your lamenting about your own stupidity, was equally stupid.
Fine. Agreed ... I should stop mocking you for that, that's true. But with your track record here, it is like a continuous replay of owngoals, and you simply cannot stop laughing about it ... Sorry, that's my twisted sense of humor.
(Honestly, your 'studied physics for six years' is as hilarious, again for more than one reason. I can come up with three on the spot. But I guess I shouldn't mock you for that either!?)
So where were we?
Ah, what's wrong with that question, you asked. Well, quite a few things. But I had hoped that one of those claiming to be scientifically literate (on your side) would recognize at least some of the reasons why it is ill posed.
But instead, to my surprise (and delight) Jeff Harvey too brought it up, as one a 'relevant question'. (Of course, he has drawn his support from the most abyssmally stupid commenters here before, so I shouldn't have been too surprised)
The funny thing is that I had told him (more than once) what it takes to **not disqualify** somebody from being a real scientist. And he missed that (you too, apparently). But then again, this guy is patently incapable of reading what is said, and instead fills up the gaping holes of his 'understanding' with his prejudiced imagination fantasies.
But I can give you another answer, pertaining to what is wrong (and still tantalize you, Jeff, Bernard and others wrt to that question, to what is wrong with it)
It is that you asked it! Because absolutely nothing in your persona here indicates even a shred of interest in anything pertaining to reality. You are completely uninterested in whatever number that would be. Completely! As with so many others, it is just a decoy, to steer away from what is relevant.
Same reason Jeff clings to it, or Bernard repeats it, or why he keeps on talking about wagers regarding arctic ice in 40 years. Or chek 'requesting' that I provide references of my reading of Björck.
Empty waffling, and nothing else. No, I tell you, if anyone here wants to make a real argument about anything. Especially challenging me on my stated position, they have had 2½ months to show this.
There have been some signatures here (very few) who didn't lose it early on and reverted to what you can see now ..
And since I am not very impressed bu neither your (plural) arguments nor your behavior or capacities, I am quite content with the remnant of you hear displaying at what level you are ...
Sorry Stu, if that still didn't answer your question (only one part of it). But I can make a promise:
Whenever one of you (including you) comes up with a relevant critique of your long-time-posturing question, I will acknowledge that, and even explain it.
So: Do you not see anything wrong with your question (apart from your posturing, already acknowledged)?
Anything at all, Stu? Or all the others?
Usually you are so keen on finding and exposing flaws.
Wow stupid #2393
Yet again are you making stuff up. Please, just point out where I make such a statement, stupid.
Jonarse @ #2427: "I will not ask you about 'insightful significant points' again, you obviously wrote that, but are afraid of telling anyone what you meant".
.. and so with one mighty bound, The Great Jonarse was free from having to explain his Gish-galloping, evidence-free, junk opinion dismissal of a paper. The sort of stunt that would earn an automatic fail to a 15 year old, but which he, The Great Jonarse of Mighty Intellect feels cannot but fail to be acceptable, for he is The Great Jonarse.
What a transparently ignorant, pathetic, little jerk.
Jonas N 2432: "Whenever one of you (including you) comes up with a relevant critique of your long-time-posturing question, I will acknowledge that, and even explain it."
Let me have a go, please. I know, I know. Error number 1: Jonas N is a troll, so expecting a straight answer is really naive. Do you here that, Stu? Really naive!
Error number 2: the question can be answered in a single line, and Jonas doesn't do one-line comments. His faith demands monumental verbiage.
Error number 3: this is not a thread about Belgian toy manufacture. If that doesn't make sense to you, you are on the wrong thread.
What do I win?
chek
You fail every time, and seem to do it deliberately!
I read that paper (and I am pretty certain that I am far better suited to both read that, to assess it, to criticize it, and to summarize it than almost anybody here).
So i gave you my assessment!
You haven't even challenged anything of substance, pointed to anything in that paper which would constitute anything more rigorous than I explained!
You linked that paper, and now you are running, crying like a baby, 'requesting' that I provide you 15 references who detail the same assessment, so that you don't need to take my word for that it's mine!
How utterly stupid and pathetic can you get, chek?
Read the frikking paper, and point to anything were you want to challenge me! Anything! Only condition is that you have to find it there!
15-year old!?
I would rather say that what you (many here) do is more like what 5-year olds did when arguing:
My dad/link is stronger than yours ...
It's pathetic. You people, not even daring, much less capable of reading, and almost incapable of understanding what is presented in a (in this case) simple paper, with almost only words ...
Chek, you very much belong here. This is the perfect place for you and quite some more. I think you have demonstrated that in almost every one of your comments directed at me ..
So, is there anything you actually do dare to argue and stand up for? Or was all you ever had, your strong beliefs (in things you don't even dare to argue)?
great cause. easy to sign. for all who care about science.
http://www.standwithscience.org/
Andy S,
Me pointing out that 90% < 100% must really have struck some nerve, mustn't it? How long ago is that now? Two months?
And now you are down to the troll-level of the others ...
How does that work out for you?
;-)
Jonas at 2830 said: âthat was a long comment about a lot of things that are not contained in the Björck paper.â
Seeing that it contains direct quotes and citations from the article that ontradict your claims, you need to explain yourself better.
What I have done thus far in three postings:
1.)provided the conceptual frameworks that researchers in palynology (the study of fossil pollen) and climatology operate.
2.)gave a brief assessment of the intent of the author
3.)clarified the significance of the paper
4.)traced how the paper discussed one possible analogue consideration (that current warming reflects a decoupling of the observed direct covariance of the Milankovich Cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations seen throughout the Holocene)
5.)corrected your misconception or poor reading comprehension that the intent of the paper is the author perceives the current warming as discernable in the pollen record, and that rather he is examining the period from the last maximum extent of the continental glaciers to the advent of the instrument record for conditions analogous to the present
This is how I would summarize the article and evaluate its scientific context:
What the article reflects is an effort by the author to fit the data published in the 2007 Lynd and Bjork paper cited in the text along with a pollen diagram into our global understanding of climate change. In his discussion he stresses the non-synchronous pattern between the Northern and Southern hemispheres. When one reads the earlier paper, one notes that data from Tristen de Cuhna fills in an important data point in the Southern Hemisphere, specifically addressing climate conditions in the South Atlantic. The discussion in the Bjork article provides the authorâs interpretation of how his one data point fits into the larger narrative discerned by the current understanding of Pliestocene to Holocene climate dynamics.
Although it has been anticipated by some researchers (almost 20 years ago) that maritime conditions in the Southern Hemisphere would better reflect coupling of Milankovich shifts in the solar constant (reflected in changes in insolation) with carbon dioxide concentrations than would the Northern Hemisphere, the absence of contemporary pollen proxy data made this speculative. What also was assumed is that climate events in the SH would lead similar events in the NH by a period of time (lag). As each data gap was filled by new research, it became more and more discernable that the climate dynamics in the two hemispheres were heterogeneous. The author employs the term non-synchronous to describe this relationship which has some ambiguity to it, as it may imply either the lags run in both directions, or it may imply that climate events in the two hemispheres reflect a heterogeneity in which the Hadley Cell potentially restricts the transfer of energy between the two hemispheres, such that negative and positive feedbacks are restricted to the hemisphere in which they occur.
This analysis is cobbled into an introduction that identifies the apparent overall intent of the authorâs research programâto discern conditions analogous to the current warming. This search is likely to identify two possible historic conditions, 1.) warming occuring when insolation decreases (likely driven by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases); or 2.) warming occuring at a rate comparable to current conditions. In his review of the current understanding of climate change during the time period the author concludes no analogous conditions are forthcoming.
Efforts to characterize analog conditions have been undertaken since the earliest GCM. The intent is to better identify potential feedbacks to allow for better modeling and predictions by the GCM. The two past events considered were the Eemian (the interstadia before the Holocene) and the Eocene extinction event. Neither event lends itself to the use of pollen as proxy data, as a permanent depositional environment is unlikely to persist intact over a period of hundreds of thousand to millions of years. It had been considered that the Altithermal might provide that model except recent research indicates that Holocene climate event reflected regional climate conditions, not global.
The one significant failing of the paper is to properly discuss the issue of dating mentioned in the abstract. Consideration of this issue would only strengthen the authorâs interpretation of the climate history of the NH and SH as non-synchronous.
Overall the article conforms to 'normal science' characterized by Kuhn, but does little to discuss specific outcomes for the Baltic as posed for the conference it was presented for. Had I been a reviewer I would have had the author rewrite the abstract, but that is a minor quibble.
I have nothing more to say to you Jonas. I realize you won't be able to read or comprehend what I have written, but others may. It is not worth my time explaining what I have spent half a lifetime learning to someone like you that will not learn. As a humanist you offend me.
Chek--let me know if this accords with your understanding. If not we can discuss on the Open Thread.
Mike
When we find fault in our own question, you will explain it? What? The question? The critique? Your reasons for not answering? This is not even remotely coherent. Are you drunk again, Jonas?
Really? I refuse to answer that question because of magical reasons, which I refuse to give you, but if you can find fault in your own question I might tell you something, but since I'm an incoherent lying sack of crap you'll never know what that is, either?
Does this work on anyone where you're from, Jonas? Do you really think there's a sentient being on the planet that does not see what a sad, insecure little weasel you are for avoiding simple questions like this?
Also, you don't know what acknowledged means -- or perhaps you have your own, magical definition in Jonas-speak for that, too.
So stop trying to change the subject, little troll. What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Jonarse, as you keep telling us that you knows science really well like, let's assume for a moment that you're an ideologically driven moron and not a single word or comma you say can be believed on its own merit.
Now with that in mind, revisit comment #2189 and come up with independent references for each statement you've made to criticise the paper that give your criticisms validity. I make it 15 but perhaps an intellect as great as yours may feel that errs on the side of paucity, however 15 will be good enough for me.
Off you go.
Stu - I never made any statements about that. You keep asking (and it is a stupid question, exactly as I would expect from you. And you are totally uninterested in having it answered too).
But I take it from your ... ehrm .. 'answer' that you don't have a clue to why it is such a poor question.
(Apart from you pathetic posturing, and that any 'answer' is the least you are interested in)
And did you really ever believe that your posturing here was the subject? Before, or after your lamenting about .. what I said I should not mock you for anymore?
And are you really so deluded to think that I am scared of whatever is thrown at me here? Are you even aware of that it is me being here, and not you being out in the open (where banning/censoring/deleting is not available to you?)
What is it with you guys? Is this what happens after having lived behind a fence for some time?
About what, Jonas? Is coherence too much to ask for?
That is not the subject. Your continued piss-poor attempts at avoidance are noted.
That you are afraid to answer my simple question is now a matter of objective fact. That you are also afraid of admitting that to yourself is not my problem, cupcake.
Please, stop posting while drunk.
Are you still talking to me, or is this just more generic "help, help, I'm being oppressed" type whining?
Jonas, people ban you because you're a lying, sad, dense, obnoxious twit who impedes civil and productive discourse. Nothing more, nothing less.
Mike (mgr), I'd prefer not to let Jonas off the hook just yet, knowing he would eavesdrop on the open thread. But I will say for now that your contributions have illuminated important points in Björck's paper for me whose significance I hadn't considered before and which bear further thought.
Thank you, I'm sure others here also appreciate the benefit of your clearly articulated expertise.
chek
We know for a fact that this site is littered with ideological driven no-nothings, who wouldn't hesitate one second to lie or make up their own facts if it suited their narrative, or just helped them out of a corner they manouvred them selves into.
It is pretty obvious to me, that you also are one of them. I understand that you have now way of assessing the value of what you read, that as you say'believe' is your only method of navigating.
Now, I expect that from scared little farting chekken like you chek, and I don't moralize over human weaknesses. But that doesn't mean that I accept them as arguments.
If you want to take issue with anything I say, why don't you just do it!
Otherwise, just go off an shove your stupidities!
Yep, drunk like a skunk. Go sleep it off, Jonas.
Stu,
>About what, Jonas?
So you don't know what you've been asking about!? As I said, it's pretty darn obvious that you aren't interested in any number. Your purpose is the same as everybody else's ..
Finding an excuse to get away from the central topic ..
But, yes: Your stupid question is what you want to make the topic. And you tell me you have no idea why it is an ill-posed question.
I didn't expect you to. And if you eventually realize it, I don't expect you to acknowledge that either.
And no, despite what your deluded fantasy tells you, I am not posting here because I am scared of anything here, least of all Stu-pid commenters who feel the must lie about have studied six years of physics ...
But that doesn't mean I have to respond to every stupid statement or question made here! Do you even have any idea how much gibberish is thrown around here? (And I mean by others than you?)
I didn't respond to your 'different velocities between hand/box' for 2½ weeks. Because it wasn't worth it, but more because I wanted you to first let you dig a really deep hole.
Before I helped you out of your (completely) own misery. Which still stings, I notice .. :-)
But as I said, I would like to hear from those smarter than you, if they can see whats so poor with your question.
Just as I asked from anybody capable of understanding the simplest physics, to give luminous a helping hand .. :-)
Well, we all know how that went, don't we Stu?
Chek: Good enough. I'm back to lurking.
Mike
Jonas N 2438
>Andy S,
>
>Me pointing out that 90% < 100% must really have struck some nerve, mustn't it? How long ago is that now? Two months?
>
>And now you are down to the troll-level of the others ...
>
>How does that work out for you?
>
>;-)
Thank you Jonas N. I'm very gratefull for your telling me that 90% < 100%. It has really changed the way I look at the world. For instance, now I don't want the government to take away my money under the pretext of controlling the weather.
As for the troll level: I have learned from a true master! However, I humbly realise that I still have a very far way to go before I achieve your profuse verbiage and boundless arrogance. I don't think I can ever aspire to building such a beautiful pile of garbage (soon 2500 comments, some of them very long) as you have here.
Long live the king in the mountain hall!
Andy S
>credit where credit is due
Sorry, it was you who pointed that out. I only explained what it meant.
As for the '2500 post pile of garbage', I am afraid that you once more miss the finer (and relevant) nuances of your observation ..
Hint: 'Percentage' has something to do with it ...
:-)
*And no, most conference proceedings are not formally peer review (as you describe it). Special journal issues are. As I described it, and as you seem to (very unwillingly again) accept. And yes, every conference has an organizing committee, and a scientific one, for the obvious purposes*
Prove it, you utter moron. I want proof of your assertions. Not your own uneducated 'guess'. You never answer my questions as to what innate evolved ability it is that gives you the power to know how science works. Unless you are secretly working as President of the NAS or some other prestigious body, you are speaking off the top of your own, arrogant head.
As it turns out, conference "Proceedings" are almost, without exception, short abstracts (300 words or less). Nothing more. When the contents of a conference are written up into full length manuscripts, then these are sent out for external review. Without exception. And these full length manuscripts carry every bit as much weight as papers that were sent out individually. End of story.
But why believe me, a scientist with 20 years experience who has reviewed articles for 62 scientific journals? Let's believe Mr. Self-righteous arrogant prick, who I have asked more than a dozen times what special qualifications he possesses to be able to make bold assertions about the workings of science. Jonas has been annihilated here many times over because he would not be able to evade such questions were he to be in a face-to-face debate. He'd be forced to say what unique qualifications he possesses when asked, or to try and convince his audience that lack of education or expertise don't matter; that his home-schooled version of climate science has made him into a world-class expert. At this point the audience would break out into fits of gut-wrenching laughter, with most having tears streaming from their eyes, and poor little humiliated Jonas would slink away into the shadow of his anonymity from which he emerged.
As for Bjork's quite excellent paper, just imagine how the denialati would be spinning it if it had come to very opposite conclusions. WUWT would be screaming it from the rooftops. This is the epitome of cherry-picking, and the attempt to denigrate studies that do not support a specific view. Given that 98% or more of the published studies provide evidence supporting the link between atmospheric C02 and climate warming, this means that the denialati are involved in a massive cherry-picking exercise, taking bits and pieces from papers and spinning them to argue that the warming is either natural or nothing to be concerned about.
Jonas N 2450,
No, I think it was you who first formulated that profound insight, although being a very humble and generous person you attributed it to me. And you have continued to do so throughout this thread, so you must think it is really really important. And it is, it truly is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7VUg7nG3lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBadIoS-u4
By the way, this talk about 90% < 100% reminds me about when Jonas thought that "most of" meant "around 50%". There are of course many people that would interpret "most of" as something like "more than 50%", but not Jonas becuase he has special skills in intepreting the language in IPCC reports. That was just so awesome!
Andy S,
I am certain: You were the one arguing that [90% < 100%](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…), and quite correctly so.
And as I told you then:
When making those kind of statements about statistics, you need to to give two values: The interval, and the confidence level assicuiated with your claim of something being in that interval.
Ans yes, interpreting 'most of' in that context as meaning not less than half, is the (for the IPCC) most lax interpretation.
And as I also told you, that if you felt that the IPCC had real science supporting and even narrower interval, feel free to find support for that.
And as we now know, nobody even found anything close to giving the 50% interval any scientific credence. The stated claim, and fig 9.9 are still not the science behind it Andy.
Yes, it has been two months, and you might have forgotten what (ever?) you have learnt. But reality has not changed.
> I am certain: You were the one arguing that 90% < 100%
Since that post you linked to DOES NOT say that, why did you make a link to it as if it were evidence you used to maintain your certitude? The only place where percentages are mentioned is in this sentence:
> Michael: the error bars don't even have to overlap all the time, as they don't represent a 100% confidence.
Your post afterward is post [306](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…), in which you DO NOT say anything even *remotely* like:
> When making those kind of statements about statistics, you need to to give two values: The interval, and the confidence level assicuiated
Then again, you don't bother to back up any claim. You don't bother even pretending to be truthful and instead lie whenever is convenient knowing that your Gish Gallop can be repeated without evidence as you have done so before despite over 56 queries to the contrary.
> The stated claim, and fig 9.9 are still not the science behind it Andy.
The stated claim is the claim the science produces. It isn't the science itself any more than "an apple falls" is the science of gravity.
Wow,
What do you trust most: what I actually wrote or what Jonas N repeatedly has claimed that I wrote? Obviously, the latter should always be given precedence, because Jonas knows what he is talking about, and he can read letters. Hasn't he explained that many times already?
Jonas N doesn't lie: by his proclamations he makes reality change. If he says something, it becomes so.
_"Jonas has been annihilated here many times over"_ And yet you foilhats can't resist to hang around here on Jonas' thread. Gosh, I wonder why that is?
_"or to try and convince his audience that lack of education or expertise don't matter"_ Funny that americans think they can educate the rest of the world. For example, they "know" what's healthyt to eat, yet they are the most obese people in the world. Gosh, I wonder why that is?
I also learned a new word from Jonas 2456: "assicuiated". Iâm not really sure what it means, but it probably has something to do with asses (donkeys).
I thought I heard a buzzing.
Did anyone else hear anything?
http://www.thegwpf.org/best-of-blogs/4361-green-campaigns-a-the-bbcs-co…
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from. In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity". The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was £503,302, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.
The Board of Trustees includes:
* Lord Barnett
* Peter R. Forster (the Bishop of Chester)
* Lord Donoughue
* Lord Fellowes
* Martin Jacomb
* Lord Lawson (Chairman)
* Henri Lepage
* Baroness Nicholson
* Lord Turnbull
No Andy S, I don't need to lie.
Your argument was that those error bars not necessarily must "overlap all the time, as they don't represent a 100% confidence"
Which is correct, as I acknowledged. And that point actually does have some value. Which I explained subsequently.
And I think that is what many find so infuriating ...
> No Andy S, I don't need to lie.
We never said you *needed* to.
You just do.
> Your argument was that those error bars not necessarily must "overlap all the time, as they don't represent a 100% confidence"
But this isn't him arguing what you said:
> I am certain: You were the one arguing that 90% < 100%
So, as we see, despite no NEED to lie, you still lie.
Jeff ..
Still in fantasy la-la-land ..
You seem to agree that conference proceedings with only abstracts are not peer-reviews (in the formal sense, we are talking about). I'll tell you the same about preceedings with extended (1-2p) abstracts. And the same is true for many proceedings which contain conference papers.
Your claim:
>When the contents of a conference are written up into full length manuscripts, then these are sent out for external review. **Without exception.** And these full length manuscripts carry every bit as much weight as papers that were sent out individually. End of story
Is just plain BS! (Dishonesty or stupidity, or both). A simple Google search for â conference proceedings pdf â will give loads of proceedings with âpapersâ. Here is just [one, about âclimate changeâ]( http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NECR014)
If you tell me that it is common that Conference Proceedings with full length papers (but not published as a journal issue) that they have undergone the same (formal) peer review as journal publications, then those would have dates for submission and final acceptance. And those would differ depending on the amount and gravity of requested revisions.
If you tell me that this sometimes also happens with only *proceedings*-papers, I will not contradict you (but I wouldn't take your word either). But I'd tell you that this is not the common practice.
For good reasons is a 'conference paper' considered less prestigious than a journal paper (and as I said, for similar reasons, a journal paper in special conference issue weighs lighter than a stand-alone journal paper).
Most conferences, who ask for submissions (abstracts, extended ones, or full length papers) will tell you that contributions are (peer) reviewed before acceptance . Meaning somebody has seen them. But if you say, that this is comparable to the formal peer-review process of a journal, you are just dead wrong!
You yourself started out here with 'some journals being so prestigious'. Now you are claiming the opposite? That an accepted conference paper, published in proceedings only, ranks as high?
No, I don't think so, Jeff. You are just being disingenuous again .. as you need to be so often in your comments to me.
Further, you say you have some questions I should answer. Well Jeff, the funny thing is that you **for two months** (in almost every comment) have been telling me the **answers** to those questions! In spite of me telling you, you shouldnât make up your own facts.
So, have you been lying all the time when you made these claims? Have you been asserting âfactsâ, you donât know a thing about?
I asked you (repeatedly) if this is how you do it in your âdisciplineâ, if all those peers you brag about are equally lax with the truth?
And if you were to read what I actually say, and what claims I do make, and which I donât make, you wouldnât make half as many stupid claims as you do. (Admittedly, that isnât telling much, but still, it would be only half)
See for instance:
>try and convince his audience that lack of education or expertise don't matter; that his home-schooled version of climate science has made him into a world-class expert
Again total BS only existing only in your fantasy.
Your two final paragraphs are just the same BS you always concoct. (Calling Björckâs paper âexcellentâ is just a farce, his is an opinion, nothing more, and he even states that). But you do get one thing right:
>just imagine how the denialati would be spinning it if â¦
Because **imaginining** is what it is you are doing. Have been doing, still are doing, in almost every attempt at â¦
.. at whatever you are trying to accomplish!
So when proving that all swans are black, Jonarse takes umbrage at the statement that most swans are white and points out a black swan to prove that there are black swans.
Reads link: Proceedings of the 10th National Heathland Conference
Then we find out he's been pointing to a black bear.
Absolutely hilarious. Or it would be, if all commenters here were Americans (nope) or all climate scientists were American (nope) or only Americans acknowledged AGW (nope).
Wait, so no, actually it's not funny at all, just another blind swipe typical of products of the Swedish Insecure Jackwagon Factory.
No, we're definitely not doing that.
(Pro-tip: when bolding a very important word, it is worth double-checking you're not misspelling it so that you don't look like an abject moron. Again.)
Andy S
> "assicuiated"
Every excuse to detract from the topic is good enough, it seems. As I said:
" ... the best arguments they have (left)"
No, we have plenty more each time you put finger to keyboard.
Jonas,
You are full of it. Shit I mean. More steaming piles from the bullshit blizzard.
You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You have no idea how science works, and you are telling me, a scientist, about the peer-review process? Where is your information, you dork? You never back up what you sau with any kind of evidence. Its "Jonas said this, therefore it must be true". You write,
*For good reasons is a 'conference paper' considered less prestigious than a journal paper (and as I said, for similar reasons, a journal paper in special conference issue weighs lighter than a stand-alone journal paper). ost conferences, who ask for submissions (abstracts, extended ones, or full length papers) will tell you that contributions are (peer) reviewed before acceptance . Meaning somebody has seen them. But if you say, that this is comparable to the formal peer-review process of a journal, you are just dead wrong!*
You are making this up!!! Where is your evidence? How many conferences have you submitted articles to? How many publications do you have? Where do you get this information? Perchance please tell me, oh hallowed self-educated one.
Get this through your thick head, pal: I have spoken at more than 30 international conferences and workshops, and in several of these I have published my work as part of a special issue of a journal. In EVERY case, the paper was submitted AFTER the conference finished, and was sent out for external peer-review. Scientists submit only abstracts to conferences in which they wish to speak or invited. The papers are written either after completion of the conference or are submitted after it, and the papers are peer-reviewed. Again, you crazy jerk, DO NOT TRY AND LECTURE ME ON THE PROTOCOL OF ARTICLE SUBMISSION AND PEER-REVIEW. Some of the journals that publish proceedings have high impact factors (ever heard of that, idiot?) and the papers are very well cited. They are evry bit as prestigious as ones that went through the regular channels.
I have to admit, in all of my years of blogging, I have never met such a self-righteous arrogant prick as you, Jonarse. You take the cake. You have never done any science in your life and yet you lecture working scientists on scientific protocol. And you have never answered one of the questions I, Stu, Chek and others have repeatedly asked you. Again, if I were debating you face-to-face Iâd demand that you tell the audience what it is that you do professionally (or did). I would demand that you tell them how many conferences you have attended, papers published and papers that you have peer-reviewed in any scientific field. You would not be able to squirm your way out of it unless you were to lie, and lie through your teeth, which is very likely. But as you would have to present your full name, it would be easy to check up on your scientific âbackgroundâ. And we all know what that would show us. A great big, black gaping hole.
You would be a fantastic test subject for a new Dunning-Kruger study. I would be happy to refer these scientists to Deltoid and for them to read your posts. They would be gobsmacked at your arrogance in the face of your non-qualifications. Your arrogance exhibit no boundaries: you actually believe that you, and you alone, are a world class expert, not only in climate science but in scientific protocol and philosophy. Again, without any formal training. But lecturing me on the peer-review process?
Incredible.
Shut UP Jeff. Jonas is smarter than you. Jonas knows more than you. Jonas knows what words mean better than you. Jonas is a better scientist than you.
And we know this because Jonas said so.
All praise be Jonas.
Amen.
Let's see. Who is more credible here? The widely published ecologist or the unskilled and ignorant Jonas... That's a tough one.
Regarding Jonas N's oft-repeated claim that I said that "90% < 100%".
Some people might be tempted to call Jonas N a spineless 2-cent liar with even less credibility than a barker at a kind of establishment that would be inappropriate to mention here.
But no me. I simply say: Jonas N uses the best arguments he has.
Stupid Stu-pid, the second part of #2459 was ment for Jeffie, the pseudosciencer. But of course your two brain cells didn't get that.
An interresting picture indeed, at least for us realists:
_MSU UAH and Hadley vs ESRL CO2_
http://climaterealist.blogspot.com/2008/10/global-co2-emissions-rise-to…
You catastrophe advocates can relax, it seems:
http://notrickszone.com/2011/11/16/from-global-warming-to-spot-heating-…
Pentaxz,
Of course I realized that your pithy point was aimed at me. I just ignored it because you are a semi-literate troll. The point was ridiculous anyway; academies of science the world over support the consensus of AGW.
Pseudosciencer? Listen, pal, when you've actually done some science, you can open your big mouth. Until then, my advice is to shut up and to stop further humiliating yourself.
Two points about the links by Pentaxz:
First, the one from climate realist is, as expected, bulls#$@. First of all, the records stop at 2009, which was a La Nina year and somewhat cooler than preceding years. Second, 2010 was the second warmest ever (in the Hadley records) and the warmest ever (in the NASA-CRU records). Its hardly surprising for a non-peer reviewed source to cherry pick. Given the short-term effects of other global forcings, such as La Nina, El Nino and NAO events, the only way to measure climate trends is over longer periods. Short-term stochastic events mask the longer term more deterministic effects of greenhouse gases, when all forcings are factored in. Since 1980 it has certainly warmed. So the post was typical unscientific bilge.
As for the other denier, his web site 'no trick zone' is, IMO, a joke; not to be taken seriously. If you want to play the science game, Pentaxz (that is, when you learn to read properly). then support your nonsense from the empirical literature. Denier web sites are a joke.
Jeffie, dear master foil hat. If you say that consensus is science and science is consensus, you are not a scientist, despite hysterical arm waving, foot stomping and a impressive CV. Simple as that. You can write as many "wrong" you want, it still doesn't change the fact.
Pentie, dear illiterate munchkin troll, science is not based on consensus, but public policy must be based on it. Otherwise, nothing would ever be done to mitigate environmentally damaging practices, because there will never be a 100% agreement from the scientific community. But, since the vast majority of scientists agree that GW is a potentially serious problem, and that humans are primarily to blame, then policy should reflect this. It worked in dealing with CFC's, with aerosol pollutants and acid rain, as well as with other environmentally damaging practices where there were dissenters.
What simpletons like you expect is 100% unequivocal proof of a link between greenhouse gas concentrations and GW. The evidence is very strong and growing, but it will never be absolute, at least until the planet's life support systems are frying. If the politically-driven deniers had their way, nothing would ever be done until we had well surpassed critical tipping points. The time to act is when there is still time to avoid serious repercussions. The point is that, thanks to massive procrastination, in large part because of the huge efforts of the fossil fuel lobby and those mostly on the political right, we are pushing natural systems towards a point beyond which they will be unable to sustain themselves in ways that we take for granted. I despise many of the politically-driven deniers because they have no idea of what is at stake. All they can think of is short term gratification. It is utterly pathetic.
Pentax, sweetheart, calling people stupid packs a lot more zing if you can spell. Just friendly advice.
"_ It worked in dealing with CFC's, with aerosol pollutants and acid rain,_" You really believe in that, do you? Tragical.
So, now it's GW and not AGW? Are you trembling in your faith?
If science is not based on consensus, why in hell do you then write "consensus science"? Illogical.
Stupid. And still you understand what I am writing. Are you out of arguments or what, stupid foilhat? Men du kanske bara helt enkelt är ovanligt dum i huvudet, knäppskalle.
Smart americans:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image007.jpg
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image012.jpg
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image006.jpg
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image010.jpg
And the absolute winner, without any saftey gear an helmet:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image009.jpg
Out of arguments? Why, did I miss you bringing up anything that needs to be addressed?
Unless I'm sorely mistaken, you haven't brought up anything yet -- and fail to do so again in your last comments. The only thing you seem to do is call people stupid and "foilhats", so I thought I'd help you out with some friendly advice.
I do see that you buckled down in 2484 and made it through 2 full sentences and a fragment without any egregious abuse of the English language. Kudos, and keep it up -- a few more like those, and people might start mistaking you for coherent and semi-literate.
Hahaha...
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/hockey-stick-cl…
Come now Stu, as Jonas always says, people use the best arguments they've got, and TampaxZ has some zingers.
Why, there's 'stupid', then there's 'foilhats' and then there's 'stupid foilhats' of course, and then there's ... uh ... then there's .... hmmmm ... well you don't need any others. That's quite sufficient to be in Jonas' rescue crew.
Yes Jeff,
I am lecturing you about science, real science that is. And on the peer review process. And on what conference proceedings are. I don't think we disagree that much about how special journal conference issues come about. They go through a peer-review process, but the issue, the participants & authors are already decided upon. The 'rejection rate' is very low (if not zero). And I say that such a 'publication' does not rank quite as high as a submission competing with all the others for a slot in a future journal regular issue.
For me, this is a minor point. It is others that claim that peer review is the gold standard of 'science'. It is not! But i do say this: Published conference proceedings are (almost) never peer-reviewed, and quite a lot have full length papers in them. Special conference journal issues rank higher. They are reviewed before publication, but 'acceptance' is almost certain from the start.
And if that journal has a high 'impact factor' that doesn't change that fact: The special conference issues are a different kind of selection.
Now let me repeat that: I don't think that scientific value is assessed through procedures like that. But quite a few argue that the procedure itself is the argument. CV-waiving Jeff is one of the worst. And he needs to start lying and contradicting himself, the very moment I tell him something he knows to be true.
Many societies print books with their (full length paper) proceedings of annual meetings, and maintain very high quality, but are not peer reviewed in the sense we are talking about here. Instead, the quality level is achieved by selection of those being invited to writing article-like chapters on their contributions.
And still, you dimwit sorry-ass excuse for a (non-real) scientist, tell me that this never happens. How frickking dumb can you get, Jeff?
Look kid, you just wrote that the Björck paper was excellent science. And that really sets the standard for what you are worth. I am not saying that Björck's work in general is worthless (I don't think it is). But that chek-linked paper was almost only empty waffling, rehash of other already published work, and one new figure and a lot of opining thrown in. Even Björck seemed to be aware of this, and phrased his 'results' accordingly. Which honors him.
But you say (probably without reading it) that it is 'excellent science', and if you think it is, this kinda sets the level for what is considered 'science' and even 'excellent science' in your nick of the woods. Which does not honor you ..
How can you even take your self seriously, Jeff? Once more you demand answers to questions to which you proclaim the 'answers' yourself, just seconds later? How can you take yourself seriously? Is lying really the only method you have?
You draw supporit from the Wow:s, Stu:s, Bernard:s, even Michael but demand that I reveal my full name? To a crowd that has sliming, lying and person attack as only method? How can you even take yourself seriously for one second?
You are a total joke, and in every comment you write you confirm that once more, Jeff!
And no scientist makes up his own 'facts' Jeff! Let me rub this in: No scientist ever invents a reality to fit his desired 'answers' ...
I'm glad Nature sacked you as a 'editor' you are and were a disgrace to real science. Unfortunately, Nature has a long way to go ...
Jonarse, a serious question (or two).
How long is it since the psychiatric unit released you?
And are you still receiving medication for your bitter, unhealthy, groundless, pointless, unreal obsessions?
It's high time to have a conversation about stepping up your dose - people are starting to notice.
So take the URL of this thread along with you to your next consultation as proof, should any be required.
I can only imagine what a a long, hard road it must be, being the only legitimate scientist with the correct attitude left in the world - perhaps even the whole universe - and the responsibility must feel enormous.
Even your carefully cultivated coop of smooth young chickens are no longer a consolation. Ah well, they'd only have grown up, discovered women and sooner or later left you anyway.
But whilst all that may be so true it's painful and the realisation is hurtful, perhaps its time to share the load a little with Pfizer, your dependable friend.
I call irregular self-medication: you can tell it's evening in Europe when Jonas gets more incoherent than usual, ruder than usual and starts spelling like he is typing with his elbows. Yesterday was a good example: he was clearly drunk or bombed. And it looks like he's well in the bag @2488 as well.
At least I hope so... if not, he is probably having a string of petit mals and has nobody to notice and get him medical attention.
The pathological lying is a worrying symptom too, but even when [pointed out it goes unacknowledged](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5775893). Pursuit of his objective overriding all other civilised considerations, I suppose.
It was Wow earlier today who drew out the masterly evasion Jonarse employs: he (Jonarse) doesn't need to lie - he just does it anyway with examples of various gravity peppering this thread.
The Jonas N (for 'normal'? A protestation too far, methinks) thread is a case study in waiting for anyone that needs one.
chek, Stu: see what I wrote at #985, #1110, and subsequent.
In 2489, Jonas N asks if lying is really the only method he has.
I think we can answer that question with a resounding 'Yes'.
I hadn't thought that Jonas N might have a psychological pathology - shades of [NikFromNYC](http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/05/14/observable-dramatic-immediate/) on Greenfyre's...
The thing is, if it's psychological pathology, then it would seem to be a case of group hysteria to boot. Unless, of course, Jonas N's ra-ra team is in fact a collection of socks.
Makes one wonder...
Jon-ass,
You still have not answered a single questionI have asked of you (hardly surprising, since it would blow your vacuous cover). How on Earth do you know anything about how conference proceedings are published? How many have you published and how many committees have you been on? THESE ARE SIMPLE ENOUGH QUESTIONS - ANSWER THEM!!!!!! I have had three of my publications submitted as conference proceedings, two in Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata and one Biol Cons one was sent back and forth to reviewers about 3 times before acceptance. I know how the system works, pal. When I told my partner, who was recently a member of a conference committee, about your comments she was flabbergasted, to say the least. As others have stated, she wonders why i waste my valuable time on a pitiful creature like you.
And I reiterate that the Bjork study is excellent. A well written commentary, with a lot of supporting evidence. It was certainly reviewed by at least 2 and possibly 3 or 4 expert peer-reviewers. Just because denying idiots like you don't like it does not mean that it is not a solid contribution to the climate change literature. Like creationists, the deniers do not have any science on their side; their strategy consists of poking holes in studies supporting AGW. I recall another denier on Deltoid who routinely smeared articles (and the authors) that had been published in journals like Nature and PNAS. And, like you, dopey, this person had no expertise at all in any field of science. It takes remarkable hubris for laypeople to believe that they possess wisdom that allows them to dismiss articles in the most rigid journals (and to bolster crap that appears in the lowest journals if it supports their own denialist views). But I see it all the time. Its just that Jon-assis a textbook case of pathological denial.
Finally, you write:
*I'm glad Nature sacked you as a 'editor'*
Now you are really making an idiot of yourself. I was not sacked as editor, you piece of s@@@. I was offered a permanent position at a research institute near to where my partner was working. It was a very difficult decision for me to leave Nature, as I loved the job and they very much wanted me to stay. But in the end, personal considerations were also important to me. The fact that you make up such a statement tells me what a lying piece of scum you are.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183
"_Like creationists, the deniers do not have any science on their side;_"
And THAT really came from the RIGHT MOUTH. Occasionally you have a humor, Jeffie. This was really funny, coming from a secterist. =)
Jeffie dear, if Jonas says that your were sacked from *Nature*, then it must be so. Cause Jonas knows what he is talking about, and he doesn't need to tell lies, and he can read letters, and anyhow your own account contains exactly the same information with some additional description. And don't take my word for: take Jonas's!
So you had better update your CV at once!
[PentaxZ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5892633).
I'm struggling to think of a single post of your on this thread that is actually coherent.
If your could point to your proudest moment I'd be most interested to hear of it...
Bernard J, you have won the prize of 2500 trollbucks. Unfortunately, they have negative value.
Google translated, but I suppose you foilhats will understand mostly of it:
http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=…
"_This is another big tipping point on the slide out of the Great Global Scam. IPCC scientists â facing the travesty of predictions-gone-wrong â are trying to salvage some face, and plant some escape-clause seeds for later. But people are not stupid._"
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/ipcc-scientists-test-the-exit-doors/
IPCC says: _"Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain."_
So what now, foilhats? Your church is porpably going to back of from the extreme alarmistic wiev. In that case, will you do the same?
http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/4369-natural-variability-to-domin…
It's all about money, isn't it?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financia…
A comment spot on:
"0.7 degrees warmer climate has been difficult for me to see as extreme , I don't notice it and no one else I know either.
That 0.7 degrees can provide extremely storms, rain, drought, floods, polar bear cannibalism, melting glaciers, melting poles, hurricanes, peace prize, global climate meetings, thousands of climate-friendly chefs, millions of climate-friendly cookbooks, millions of people who reveal themselves as non-independent gregarious without independent thinking, a press that is totally wrecked and a total disarmament of democracy.
It's bloody hell not a bad job of a group of corrupt UN officials."
Jeff H
>Now you are really making an idiot of yourself. I was not sacked as editor, you piece of s@@@. ... **The fact that you make up such a statement** tells me what a lying piece of scum you are.
That must have been the owngoal of owngoals here!
Let me rub this in, Jeff:
You have been making such things up in (almost) every comment for (soon) three months. Every comment! And by your own words, that making up derogatory 'facts' makes you a:
*'lying piece of scumbag idiot'*
These are **your own words** about that despicable, notorious and compulsive habit of your! Yours, not mine ..
PS But if I was wrong (and I have only your 'word' for it), I can of course correct myself: I'm *sorry* that Nature did *not* sack you as an editor. I read your 'review' of Lomborg, and it was as abominable as your postings here: Full of hate speech and strawman attacks, avoiding the core questions almost completely ..
What a bitter, unhealthy, pointless, obsession you have there 'Jonas'. Oh and I forgot, ugly too.
And all over a lying sack of shit like Lomborg, who by the way isn't a scientist (political 'science' being at the 'media studies' or even 'handicrafts' end of the spectrum of science).
Let's not forget that uniquely, in Denmark the DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
1.Fabrication of data;
2.Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
3.Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
4.Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
5.Plagiarism;
6.Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.
I suppose that can all be summarised as 'dishonesty', which seems to be the necessary primary qualification in denier circles. In other words all the traits your unbalanced mental state projects onto the IPCC and other real, working, professional scientists.
Funny that, isn't it Bjo ... I mean 'Jonas'?
Jonas N is calling Jeff a liar. This brings up some interesting philosophical questions, and in particular the ["Liar's paradox"](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox) (according to Eubulides of Miletus). If a cretin says "the cretins are always liars", is he lying or telling the truth?
"_1.Fabrication of data; 2.Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation); 3.Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods; 4.Distorted interpretation of conclusions; 5.Plagiarism; 6.Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results._"
And once again you are describing IPCC. Owngoal after owngoal. Hillarious!
Jon-ass,
Now you are defending Lomborg????? Hilarious. How desperate can you get? Lomborg's ancient history as far as I am concerned. I debated the sad sack here in 2002 and he's avoided me ever since because he knows I'll skewer him the next time around.
As for 'making things up', this coming from a guy (Jon-ass) who has never published in any scientific journal or who has never reviewed a paper for a scientific journal, who has never attended a scientific conference conference or worked on a scientific committee. This same guy is telling me how the peer-review system works, how conferences deal with papers submitted, and the level of prestige they carry. Priceless. Absolutely priceless. I have attended dozens of conferences, had three of my articles published as part of a conference, and I am the one making things up. Clearly Jon-ass is on some kind of drug.
Its also too bad Jon-ass didn't read my other 4 articles in Nature; what does he think about induced defenses in polyembryonic parasitoids and the switch from reproduction to defense in genetically identical but morphologically different castes, and the genetic fate of polygerm? Or the effect of warmer temperatures in the NH and how they affect soil and above-ground interactions between range-expanding plants and their antagonists?
IMO, Jon-ass, you are a complete psychopath, a wacko... why am I wasting my time with you when I have way, way bigger dish to fry?
Get a life, dingbat.
Jeff Harvey:
> IMO, Jon-ass, you are a complete psychopath, a wacko... why am I wasting my time with you when I have way, way bigger dish to fry?
Good question. Jonas is here to be mocked, not to be argued with.
Andy S
Knowingly missing (misrepresenting) the point has become your hallmark.
It is Jeff Harvey, who describes his despicable habit of fabricating 'facts' as:
'lying piece of scumbag idiot'
And I will remind him of it whenever he makes up his own 'facts'.
chek - I know that mud slinging and dirt flinging is the MO on your side. That is actually one of the major points. And it is perfectly well demonstrated by the crowd here.
> a bitter, unhealthy, pointless, obsession you have there
Yes, I thing that is a fair description of those many cultist hiding behind fences and hating the world for not agreeing or being impressed with them. I have seen few comments from you chek, which have not been unhealthy bitterness. And staying on (any relevant) topic is something you too seem to be afraid of. Not even your own ..
Stephen Budiansky, a left leaning and environmentally concerned (but competent) person I can respect [gives his take]8http://www.budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/09/political-science.html)on Jeff Harvey's hatred ...
Thanks for your support, Jonas! I'm learning from you.
Yes Jeff
I am telling you how real science works, and how peer review works. And you are still incapable of reading even short comments correctly. And you are still making up all those 'facts' to support your narrative. And must I remind you how you described that habit? You said:
>'lying piece of scumbag idiot'
about your behavior!
Do you think that any gown up person (outside the cult) will take any depiction of a person who doesn't share your views (inlcuding all your delusions) at face values? You say you'd skewer Lomborg? Well here you say you 'annihilated' me. Presumably with all these fantasy claims of yours, and by meticulously avoiding any topic.
(Closest you got was claiming Björck's paper was 'excellent' science .. I'll get back to that too)
PS I messed up the link above, here it is again:
[Stephen Budiansky... gives his take](http://www.budiansky.blogspot.com/2010/09/political-science.html)on Jeff Harvey's hatred ..
"When it comes to climate change, the environmental movement has gotten itself on the wrong side of doubt. It has become the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats. It proposes big economic and social interventions and denies that unintended consequences and new information could vitiate the power of its recommendations. It knows what is good for us, and its knowledge is backed up by the awesome power and majesty of the peer-review process. The political, cultural, business and scientific establishments stand firmly behind global warming today â just as they once stood firmly behind Robert Moses, urban renewal, and big dams.
They tell us itâs a sin to question the consensus, the sign of bad moral character to doubt.
Bambi, look in the mirror. You will see Godzilla looking back."
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/whos-establishment-now-0
Science á lá IPCC/Pachauri
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/11/19/rajendra-pachauri-the-little-…
Ah deniers - they have no science so they had to invent blogscience to give them the appearance of having 'references'. Along with their dishonest, pretend scientists like Lomborg.
Well, for all your huffing and puffing this is about regulating a global industry that had been polluting MY air and destroting MY climate for free so far. But no longer.
You deniers and dupes for that global industry are free to do whatever you like - but not to MY atmosphere and MY climate.
So get cracking on containing and cleaning up YOUR crap so that MY world is not affected. The status quo YOU'VE so far benefitted from is no longer for free.
You consider Budiansky's exercise in unevidenced rhetoric a defence? I suppose the desperate must take whatever's going.
When will you lying sacks of shit ever learn that in order to not be treated with the contempt deserved by lying sacks of shit that all you have to do is to cease being lying sacks of shit?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What they're not entitled to is making up their own Lomborg facts.
It's not that hard to comprehend.
Jonas Lomborg.
Heh, I like it.
From the DCSD's (The Danish Committees on
Scientific Dishonesty) annual report 2003 (p 27), about the Lomborg case:
> The DCSD made its decision in January
2003. In it, DCSD found that, by customary scientific standards, the defendant had acted at odds with good scientific
practice in his systematically one-sided
choice of data and in his arguments.
If the book was intended to be evaluated as science and not as a contribution to the general debate, then in addition
the scientific message had been so distorted that the objective criteria for establishing scientific dishonesty had
been met. DCSD did not find a sufficient basis, however, on which to establish that the defendant had misled his readers
with intent or gross negligence. DCSD noted, in this context, that in the preface to the book the defendant had himself drawn attention to the fact that he was no expert in environmental issues.
#2520
And yet you are surfing on a industrial manufactured computer wearing industrial manufactured clothes, eating industrial manufactured food, driving/riding with a industrial manufactured car/bus/boat/airplane and on top of that want's to rise a ridiculous amount of industrial manufactured wind turbines.
You mean that you haven't benefitted from the industry? The industry is the sole presumption for you to be able to even visit this blog, you stupid frac. But that is of course way over your head, foil hat.
#2520
Your reasoning is as stupid as this: http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image006.jpg
Yes, people,
Jonas let us know. We are blessed that someone without a single scientific qualification has deemed us worthy to let us know how science works.
And after defending Lomborg, the definition seems to be "agree with Jonas".
Jonas N,
You had better do something! It appears that The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty pretty much agrees with Jeffie (with the qualifier "if the book was intended to be evaluated as science"). Your position as *He Who Knows What Science Is* is being undermined, and trust me: Jeffie, Bernard, Stu, Chek and Wow are going to rub it in, and it is going to sting, and you'll be very frustrated and you'll start shouting abuse at people in the street and so on. Yes, you know perfectly well where this is leading to...
So what are you going to say, Jonas? That the people at The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty don't understand science? Maybe you should give them a lecture? Or maybe focus on the part "DCSD did not find a sufficient basis, however, on which to establish that the defendant had misled his readers with intent or gross negligence" and ignore the rest ("additional description")? Or maybe you'll point out that we shouldn't believe that the person who wrote that speaks for all persons in all the committees (there were several of them involved)? That they didn't read the book, but you did and you are going explain it to us? Or why not say that you disagreed with Jeffies review, but you haven't said that you agreed with Lomborg? Or are you going to do "look, squirrel"?
Buadiansky is a "left leaning" person? Jonas, you clearly don't know the guy. He's been smearing Paul Ehrlich, Edward O. Wilson and other scientists for years; read his appalling tome, "Nature's Keepers" and you'll get the picture. Both Ehrliuch and Wilson, tow of the world's leading ecologists, have both been recipients of the Craafoord Prize, given in lieu of the Nobel Prize to scientists working in ecology. Budiansky may have won the 'Gumball Prize', given to unpublished contrarians, but that would be about it.
Essentially, Budiansky is a part of the 'brownlash' movement, which attempts to downplay human threats to the environment. Paul and Anne Ehrlich detail many of the fallacies inherent in Budiansky's nonsense in their rebuttal, "Betrayal of Science and Reason" which, although published in 1997, is as relevant as every today in its take on the anti-environmental movement. In their chapter on the brownlash literature, the Ehrlich's take apart Budiansky's techno-optimist 1995 tome piece by piece. One should also note that, in commenting on a wide range of environmental threats, Budiansky downplays just about every one of them. This runs counter to the overwhelming empirical evidence and the views reflected by scientific bodies the world over, as I have pointed out earlier.
I actually take his attack on me and Stuart as a compliment. Budiansky attempts to defend the indefensible in terms of Lomborg's appalling book. That he is doing this some 9 years after Lomborg's crap was published, means that he must really be desperate for ideas to fill his useless column.
As fort 'making things up' Jonas shows his true psycopathic colors; he's telling me, a scientist who has attended conferences and published proceedings, how the peer-review system works when he's never done any science in his miserable life. I ask him for evidence for his absurd claims with respect to conference proceedings, and we are left to go for his word that he is speaking the truth with no evidence needed. I have published 3 articles based on conference proceedings, the last from the International Congress of Entomology held in Durban, South Africa in 2008. There was a session there, "Multitrophic Interactions in a Changing World" in which I gave a lecture on the effects of invasive plants on native non-co evolved interactions. Several of the articles were invited as Proceedings for a special issue of the journal, "biological Conservation", which is a strong journal with an impact factor of over 3. I submitted my article several months after the conference and it was sent out to three reviewers, and returned with more than 10 pages of comments and criticisms. I revised the paper according to these and it was sent out again, with more minor changes before it was accepted.
this is the way that conferences generally publish full length papers from talks contributed by invited (or submitted) speakers. Scientific committees, of which I have been on several, may invite speakers and search for referees but have NO part in the peer-review process of papers published in that session. I was part of a committee for a conference held in Holland in 2002 (Trophic interactions in a changing world) and we had arranged a special issue of an ecological journal. The editors of the journal informed us that they would only guarantee publication if the papers were positively peer-reviewed by reviewers they selected themselves; in the end, two were rejected.
So what I am saying in that as far as I am concerned Jonas is speaking cobblers. I therefore leave it up to the readers of this thread to decide "who is making things up". I think most of us have along ago come to the conclusion who that is. The reason he hates the Bjork paper is not so much based on the review process, but because the little creep hates the article's conclusions, which very much support the view of AGW. This is why he has to conjure up just about every excuse to belittle it; "it's not proper science, it was not properly peer-reviwed, etc". I have seen this tactic used time and time again to smear the studies the deniers hate. Mann's work, Hansen's work, papers in Nature, Science, PNAS and other prestigious journals are all dealt with the same way by people who usually have no scientific experience or pedigree. They write as if they are world-class experts and have something to say, but when challenged to write up their own views for publication they shy away and resort to the same childish rants that have become Jonas' trademark here: " they are all making this up! They are liars! Deceivers! Not 'real' scientists'!
Jonas, give up mate. You have been well and truly demolished. Even most of your puppet masters have abandoned you, or so it seems.
My comment 2524 apparently hit the main nerve. Nice!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-philip/8901985/Wind-farms…
Oh, look here who has got an artikle in the newspaper:
http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=…
In your faces, foilhats.
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content…
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3176
Something for Jeffie the "consensus scientist", from the link above. _"The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers."_
More for Jeffie to read about Peer Rewiev.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conten…
PentaxZ 2533, thanks for linking to a page where Fred Singer claims:
>But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over oceanâaccording to satellites and independent data from weather balloons.
How easily debunked is that?
You can do it yourself: [http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/)
Uh, Pentie, is this the extent of your efforts? Pasting links to secondary sources? One after another, you post links to appallingly bad, unscientific sources. It appears that surfing the internet for garbage is a hobby you have perfected.
Have you ever read a primary peer-reviewed paper in your life? Your posts, to be honest, are as embarrassingly gumbified as anything Jonas or sunspot posts, and that's saying a lot...
Um. People. Could we all just agree that, since GSW, Petrie & mike-the-Septic-troll have ceded defeat, we acknowledge a comprehensive victory for enlightenment (with heartfelt thanks to Jeff, Andy, Stu, Bernard and all the other paladins) and leave Jonas and his camera to fellate each other in their own time? I'm really, really sick of this thread being vomited up in the recent list.
Well, you foilhats just have to accept that the "consensus" is no more. A steadily increasing number of scientists and ordinary people are beginning to see through the climate scam. The alarmist era is coming to an end, thank goodness for that. Arm waving and foot stomping by the AGW sect are not going to change that. Just for you foilhats to face the fact.
The consensus is solid and the evidence still like rock.
Far far more solid than the deniers multifarious theories.
> That 0.7 degrees can provide extremely storms
Extremely storms? Is this like extreme ironing or something?
@rhwombat
I think that is just wishful thinking on your part rhwombat. CAGW 'alarmism' seems to be dead on its feet by all accounts.
A few die hards here will disagree I'm sure, but there is a word for that, its called 'denial'.
You guys were right about one thing though, 'science' is self correcting, at least in the long term. Took a while, but we got there in the end.
Can't understand why all you 'foil hats' were 'taken in' in the first place though? It never was particularly convincing, just a series of 'if's, 'could's and 'might's, no substance to any of it.
So remember, in the future, put some thought into it. You don't have to 'believe' in something just because others do, try some critical analysis of your own.
;)
#2540
Or as a tree rotten inside. You don't know it's rotten untill the day it breaks.
CAGW is buried, foil hats. Suck it up and face the fact!
(http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/roryculkin_joaquinphoenix_abiga…)
That's actually not an example of the Liar's Paradox (although it did inspire it), since it's quite possible that cretins (and Cretans) only sometimes lie.
However we do know, especially from the parade of stupid they hold up most recently for admiration (not a source amongst them), that they will always remain cretins and at the mercy of their delusions and idiots like Bjo ... I mean 'Jonas'.
> CAGW 'alarmism' seems to be dead on its feet by all accounts.
Yup, nobody is buying your CAGW gag any more.
Because humans are intelligent enough to know that the only difference between AGW and CAGW is where you're standing right now.
I love how GSW's (scare?) quotes in 2542 are completely self-defeating.
Sorry for not posting for some days (don't worry, I'll catch up). Just wanted to say:
A good day for science, (yet another) bad day for climate scientology ..
Later ...
;-)
I think what Joanarse means to say is a good day for all the speculators, liars and quote miners of his ilk, and another turgid period for the rational who are already aware the science is sound.
I don't understand what Jonarse is saying.
Is he proclaiming anything he doesn't understand an scientology-like cult? Or is he admitting that a day without his idiocy is a bad day for the promotion of his climastrology?
Wow, that's because your'e a stupid foil hat, your idiot.
Gosh.
That was rather eloquent for you.
That DID require quite a drop in the standard of "eloquent", mind.
So...
A promise to catch up and a vague "good day" from our resident paragon of honesty, the man who knows more that any of us, the man that knows science better than scientists, the man that is smarter than all of us, the man we should all take seriously even though he cannot spell and uses emoticons like a tween...
Oh, and more whining from the illiterate child.
I wonder why denialists aren't taken seriously?
Stu, you (allegedly) spent six years studying physics, to reach that (outright remarkable) level of understanding of your's ..
At this rate, patience just must be one of your main virtues ..
> outright remarkable) level of understanding of your's
Again another English fail from our resident maroon.
Tell me, did you spend an entire afternoon learning English?
Jeff (sorry for the late reply, but your comments are so poor that correcting your drivel is not highest priority)
Just a few small pointers:
Now you say:
> I have published 3 articles **based on** conference proceedings
Do you now even have a difficulty distinguishing between Conference Proceedings and a Scientific Journal (with a special Conference-issue?) Although I repeatedly have pointed out that difference?
As I said (#2450)
> And no, most conference proceedings are not formally peer review (as you describe it). Special journal issues are. As I described it, and as you seem to (very unwillingly again) accept. And yes, every conference has an organizing committee, and a scientific one, for the obvious purposes
You seem to lose it even when you agree with me? What is wrong with you Jeff?
What I said was that the journals selection of manuscripts for an issue is much narrower if there they make it a conference issue. That the ârejection rateâ is much lowe (if it is a good journal) for a conference issue. I donât even think youâd challenge that. Probably thatâs why you are shouting so much nonsense.
Re: Lomborg
The guy is on your side (in the climate discussion) and still you are so frightened of his perspective that you lose it completely, and start writing about Nazis and jews in that Nature âreviewâ. Which wasnât a review.
If Lomborg is that por, I would have expected you to actually take issues with everything that is wrong. But the only thing you could argue (between the playground level foul mouthing of yours) was that his perspective did not agree with the perspective he though was onesided.
Thatâs not even an argument Jeff: *âYou disagreed about the things he disagreed about â*
Thatâs an identity. And again your only challenge was that a âconsensus viewâ said something else.
The âreviewâ was just as poor as your many comments here. Wild flailing in your own mist and your unbalance emotional rantings thrown in.
Re Budiansky
He is level headed. I didnât expect you to agree with him. Thatâs the entire point. But immediately you start off with âbrownlash movementâ. Pathetic
And donât even get me started on the Ehrlichs and their Eco Science â¦
> Although I repeatedly have pointed out that difference?
What? Do you want to point out to use water is wet too?
However, you ALSO point out falsely that Conference Proceedings are not peer reviewed.
Oddly enough, you drop that part.
Because you know it's bunkum.
Or is there something wrong with you?
Jonas, Do us all here a favor. Bugger off. You are out of your depth and each posting you make you sink deeper into your own s@@@. As others here have noticed, you think very highly of yourself, with not a shred in the way of professional qualifications to back that up. Nix. You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper bag. Before you open your big gob again, methinks you ought to go to some institute of higher learning. Your own "Jonas School of Education" ain't worth a dime.
Furthermore, how would you know anything about Steve Budiansky? How much of his piffle have you read? Budiansky is 'level-headed'? What? The 'meat-eating', 'gun-toting' so-called liberal? Have you actually read any of 'Nature's Keepers'? And what do you know about population and conservation ecology, an area that Budiansky writes about at the level of a high school student about? The reason idiots like you admire people like Budiansky has nothing to do with the academic level of their narrative; its because they say what morons like you want to hear and believe. It doesn't matter one iota if the stuff they write is out and out garbage; its the fact that their garbage resonates with grade-school-thinking deniers like yourself. Budiansky downplays extinction rates, an area in which he has no formal training in any way shape or form. He is also an echo chamber for Lomborg's simple nonsense that once the developing world attains the same standards of wealth as the developed countries, then they will protect their natural environment as well. Trouble is, the political and corporate establishment in the 'quad' - the rich world, in other words - realizes that there are not enough resources to go around equitably so they promote this clap-trap whilst pursuing policies ensuring that the wealth and power remain concentrated. This policy of retaining wealth disparity has been entrenched in western policy agendas since the 1940s. Ever heard of George Kennan and the State Planning Department Document 223? Or Henry Kissinger's now notorious internal planning document 200? Or Zbigniuew Brezinski's "The Grand Chessboard"? Or "Project for a New American Century", authored by some of the most prominent neocons in the last Bush administration? Ever read any declassified State Department memos, or British foreign policy declassified documents pertaining to foreign policy in the Middle East? I have, and they make chilling reading. Trouble is, our corporate MSM don't spend much time challenging government lies, instead acting as veritable megaphones for aggressive (and ostensibly hidden) agendas that are based on outright expansionism, control of other countries assets and nullification of alternatives to the western free enterprise model. For that reason the global economy is more like a giant casino, characterized by nakedly predatory capitalism.
Lomborg (and, for that matter, Budiansky) write as if our governments in the west are honorable and seriously promote freedom and human rights in their foreign policy. Of course it utter nonsense (with piles of evidence to show that), but when this message is amplified non-stop by the corporate media, its no wonder that people like you suck it up. Try reading some of African economist Samir Amin's work, or Irish economist Patrick Bond's "Looting Africa: The Ecology of Rich and Poor" if you want to lerarn a little of the truth; Greg Grandin's quite excellent "Empire's Workshop" is also very informative, as is Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism". Pepe Escobar's columns for the Hong Kong Times, as well as his two most recent books. also expose western hypocrisy in graphic detail.
Lomborg always appears to wring his hands and say, "If only we had a spare 50 billion dollars to spend on the developing world". But of course this money is there an much, much more, only the will is not. The U.S will end up spending up to 3 trillion dollars devastating Iraq, and almost as much occupying Afghanistan trying to ensure the Nabucco and Ceylan-Tblisi pipelines criss-cross Afghan Territory whilst bypassing Iran and Russia. Every hear of the Shanghai Co-operation Organization Jonas? Get used to the acronym; its going to be around awhile. Its a developing 'NATO-East' in which the great game - pipelineistan chess - is going to be played out in the Asian Energy Grid.
Its too bad that in Lomborg's and Budiansky's comic-book level interpretation of the world, none of this - nor Centcom, Africom, Southcom, as well as the rest of Brezinski's "Grand Chessboard" - is at all visible. The reason, in my view, is probably twofold: first, Lomborg's take on the world is childishly simple. However, a more likely scenario is that Lomborg can play the 'Once the developing world is as rich as the west' card forevermore, in full knowledge that this is never gonna happen. But he can keep a high profile pretending that it will one day, while the planet's ecological life support systems go to hell in a hand basket.
As for Paul Ehrlich;s contribution to science and to the public perception of growing threats to the environment, I can only say that it is immense. He was the first well-known scientist to venture into the policy-related arena, and he deserves a lot of credit for doing so. He has hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to his name, over two dozen books and is one of the world's leading ecologists. Budiansky and Lomborg's contributions don't even make it up to his shoelaces.
I don't know why I let clowns like you bait me. To be honest, I have met high junior school students who make better arguments than you do. Just because a neophyte like you says something does not mean it is so. Your arguments about peer-review are nonsense. Where is your proof? Evidence man! You seem to think that any assertion you make must be taken on good faith as the truth. The trouble for most of us here is that you have not told us what special gift - aside from your own self-rightous and arrogant self-belief - it is that should make us believe your views against experts with many years of training in specialized fields. You say Bjork's paper was not peer-reviewed externally - where is your proof? Why should we take your word for it? You disparage the reputations of esteemed scientists like Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich and others, but don't tell us why your views on these well-published Professors are somehow better. You claim that I am not a 'real scientist', when hundreds of my peers would certainly disagree. Why are you correct and they are not? Are you a super-duper mega Cum Laude Professor, or just an arrogant dickh@@@ who thinks that his view should suffice?
For the millionth time, what is it that you do for your day job? What is your professional background? No one knows who the hell you are, you are anonymous, so what would it hurt to try and tell us the truth? Or is it so embarrassing that you must evade it every time?
I am fed up to the teeth with you. You are an idiot in my humble opinion, and that is saying a lot for someone my age (53 years) because I have met a lot of idiots in my time, but you are challenging for top spot. Well done!
This is my final posting on this thread. I have had enough of the 'God-delusion'. If any of us here were debating Jonas face-to-face, it would be a stroll at the beach. He could not evade mine, or Stu's or Wow's or Bernard's et al. questions, something he can do here. We have repeatedly asked him relevant questions about science and methodology (as well as peer-review) which he routinely ignores. Jonas believes that when he says something that he, and he alone, possesses the intellectual authority and that the rest of us here should just accept that he is 'great' and 'wise' and that we do not need any proof. His word is the law. End of story.
Certainly he will write some more noxious crap and try to bait us, but we should not rise to it. This thread should die here and now, leaving Jonas stranded ion his own island of arrogant, self-righteous (but empirically empty) belief. I would ask Tim to block it from here on in, but that would deprive Jonas of the attention he craves. Note how the sunspot thread has virtually petered out. My belief is that this one should follow the same road.
Climategate 2.0
http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/Comments.pdf
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/02/07/climategate-2-0/
Loosers!
tampaxZ:
I know you've probably read dear Donna's post, but have you actually bothered to look at the comments? It's a big file, I know, but from a reading of the first 60 or so pages I really don't see where the big scandal is. The comments range from supportive to strongly supportive of the process itself, with some suggestions for improvement.
The biggest criticisms I saw were of communications under the Pachauri regime (to paraphrase, "weaker leadership after 2001") a couple of digs at his scientific chops in comparison to Bert Bolin and Bob Watson. The assessments of the writing process were generally favorable.
One comment in particular struck me. It referred to the ability of the LA group meetings to tamp down overly political views in the chapter drafts. In general the drafting process was praised. Others found the interaction of lots of top scientists in the meetings invigorating although demanding.
Lots of other good stuff in there, including more than a couple of complaints about "skeptics" flooding the review process with non substantive comments. Fun, fun, fun...
When in a sect you of course can´t see anything wrong with your church. Hypocrisy!
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/australia-picks-last-possible-moment-t…
@Foil hats,
I'd recommend all 'true believers' read this thread and work out which side the 'science' is on. Deltoids don't 'do' the empirical sciences, Jonas demonstrated that to be so - coaching you lot in elementary physics is almost as distressing as reading Phil Jones emails (what a pratt).
To quote a cinematic Chaucer and others, via Brian Helgeland.
Deltoids!
You have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been absolutely been found wanting....
Welcome to the New World!
Yes indeed ... there is a lot of real denial going on on the climate scare side ... now worse than ever!
Fellow Deltoids, some Christmas caroling coming your way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/some-thoughts-and-some-ques…
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/readme-of-foi2011/
Willis Eschenbach: âI think disbanding the IPCC is a bad idea. Instead, I think that we should take the IPCC to the crossroads at midnight and pound an aspen stake through its heart, stuff its head with garlic, and scatter the remains to be disinfected by sunlight so it can never, ever rise again.â
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/i-have-a-stake-in-the-outcome/
Sciense or bulling? No, it's science the IPCC way! Hurray!
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/11/26/climategate-2-a…
It's been a couple of days now, and the CAGW-hysteria has suffered even more blows from reality and from within too.
Even the promoters evidently aren't as certain of the validity of their claims as they pretended to be officially. And probably, that's also why they have fought so hard to keep all those crevices from showing in the ICCP assessments.
Particularly because those crevices are exactly those which the sceptics have pointed out for many years.
It is truly pathetic to watch what contorted activism has become of real science when left the eco-loon-activists.
(I had an answer prepared for Jeff Harvey, but it's hardly worth the effort of typing it. He is a good example of everything that went wrong when loony activism was allowed to pass as science by (probably) as activist peers. The guy doesn't even know when he is fantasizing ... and the same goes for much of the loudest 'climate science' unfortunately)
However, reality will eventually prevail and thereafter win over lunacy. But the costs will have been tremendous before politicians drop this particular strand of idiocy, of believing that they can curb the climate through 'agreements', taxes and mandated idiocy such as 'green jobs', windmill farms etc
It feels good to never have fallen for that ... allthough I have to payroll the lunacy .. and additionally have to listen to the hatred and complaining of all those incompetents who ferret of it ...
Ah yes, the patented "wait a few days and proclaim victory" tactic. Worked fine on the playground, why not here, eh Jonas?
You have no arguments. Even now. Go away.
It works in their shallow and unused minds, Stu.
And the funny thing is that the foilhats don't know when they have lost their case. Pathetic.
Watch and learn, stupids.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6c5LUq5jLQ&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jOENwyklg
Jonas N and pentaxZ.
If you are ever more convinced of your correctness, you should be ready to accept one of [my wager alternatives](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133). Why do you continue to baulk so tremblingly at the opportunity?
Come on brave boys, show the world how confident you are in your pronouncements. Select one of my alternatives, scrape together your cash for an escrow deposit, and let's move this thing forward.
Or are you just big, blustering, scientifically-illiterate sissies?
Stu (6 yrs of physics) & Wow (can't find any comments)
.. waffle about shallow minds in their playgrounds ...
Isn't that cute? And they go on about 'unused minds' and 'victory' ..
Maybe even believing that they actually were arguing any points!?
Confused Bernard J talking about "blustering, scientifically-illiterate sissies" at this site, with its regulars, is just as cute.
>If you are ever more convinced of your correctness, you should be ready to accept one of my wager alternatives
> show the world how confident you are in your pronouncements
Funny Bernard, I don't think you have a clue what I am correct about, nor what I am convinced about. Hardly even what I have argued. You most certainly have not been adressing any of that ...
as your little 'legally binding playground contracts' display so well ...
Hehe...the gollums of climatethreateria â cheek and wow â are still on top of things, I see. :-)
It can't be easy knowing that the end is very near thanks to CO2, and nobody believes you when you start crying about it.
I'm sure the Durban concilia envangelica will help you out though. ;-)
Like father Merrin would say: The power of climatearmageddonskepticism compels you.
Is this the right way to conduct science, Bernieboy?
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/25/behind-closed-doors-perpetuating-rub…
Still no arguments. Still no substance.
Could we order in some better trolls? This batch is getting stale.
>Still no arguments. Still no substance.
... says ('studied 6 years of hand-moving-box physics') Stu ... after trolling and entirely lacking any substance for months.
But hey, this is a site where climate scare cultists collectively deny all reality threatening their belief system. To the degree where they must invent their own wacko and surreal fictitious âtruthsâ to maintain their faith â¦
Donât believe me Stu?
How long did it take the lot (or just any single one) of you to realize that luminous bungled his (simplest) physics description and just made things worse when trying to wiggle out of his mess?
How long?
Ah, I forgot: Nobody managed that!
Instead, quite a few of you joined in to âsupportâ luminous ⦠(for the sake of âcamaraderieâ, I suppose).
And self proclaimed (but non-) âscientistâ Jeff Harvey even thought your ramblings were so valuable and biting â¦
The funny things is, there are only two alternatives:
1.Either (some of) you realized how awfully wrong he got it, and then some more, but still continued ⦠or
2.You really didnât get at all how awfully wrong he got it (and then some more) and continued
And I really donât which alternative is the least flattering.
As the saying goes: âItâs better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and ⦠â
;-)
This thread was improving a lot during the period Nov 30 to Dec 4, but then Jonas came back and ruined it all.
As the saying goes: âItâs better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and ⦠â
Andy
I was referring to all those here who collectively are patting each other's backs, feeling snug about one's faith in both the IPCC ARs and belief in what they contain, and cheering and echoing almost any warmist activism that can be construed on climate change, or lack thereof.
Those who are so entrenched in the cult that they easily let the most idiotic claims and nonsens pass as long as it's from the climate scare side, even support it, and taking every opportunity to ignore or dismiss any non-conforming points, and switch the subject and focus for the silliest reasons. Like feeble attempts of guilt by assiciation (or spelling/syntax/forum), or even worse stupidities like 'denialism' 'DK-afflicted' 'Exxon' 'tobacco lobby' etc.
But carefully avoiding the core matter.
Who seemling are so insecure in their faith, that they close out any non-conforming information whith almost all phsychological defense mechanisms kicking in simultaneously.
Your (early) comment, that 90% indeed is not 100%, was correct. I even explaind what that meant and how much it meant.
But since then, you have been barking here on the side with those who'd
>better .. remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open [their] mouth and â¦
And let me remind you: Although not coming close to any relevant issue again here, you have **not** remained altogether silent either ..
*And self proclaimed (but non-) âscientistâ Jeff Harvey*
Funny thing is, the only people who believe this are a few Scandinavian twits that inhabit this sad thread. Gee, its so funny how one semi-literate Swede with no scientific background can so boldly express his opinions as if they are facts when all of the evidence says au contraire... I am not not a self-proclaimed scientist, dingbat; my qualifications in science are based on my professional education, publications, conference invitations, journal editorial boards, peer-reviewing activities et. al., and, most importantly, from many hundreds of my peers. You do not qualify, because, as you have made clear with your silence, you do not possess any of the necessary university qualifications. My guess is that you are a high school dropout with a bad attitude. Get a life.
END OF STORY.
P.S. They say that 'no man is an island'; the sad fact is that, like sunspot, you are consigned to this sad little corner of the blogosphere with a few equally deluded buddies to bolster your ego. Your banning from all but your own thread has been a blessing. My advice to Stu, Andy and others: let Jonas stay shipwrecked here, whimpering and moaning about how great he is...
It's hilarious, innit?
Bjornarse still wandering around like some comedy cross between Marley's ghost and the Ancient Mariner, ghastly black holes where he's put out his own eyes with rolled up IPCC reports proclaiming "I sees no science", unfailingly followed up by his crack team of super intellectuals spouting whatever this weeks release from the GWPF happens to be. The Ultimate Non-Scientist for his fawning band of non-science groupies.
I suppose it might be perceived as flattering by the desperate that the Bjonarseguys club are so sick of their own echo chamber that providing the puss in the arse pimple of an extinct, self-monickered Deltoid thread is the equivalent of a night out for them. But Tampax7 really should appreciate that out in the grown up world, reading through a thread entails having a degree of respect for the poster and as such spamming links by known ignoramuses are by default ignored.
As indeed will this thread be from now on. Even with a new quad core ridiculously specced machine this thread took an age to load and reload and reload again. Sorry swedey morons, but ya'lls second spurt just ain't entertaining enough to be worf any mo time dis time around.
Jonas N, pentaxZ, and Olaus Petri.
You have all been very slippery about exactly how it is that several whole discplines of science (physics, chemistry, climatology and ecolgy predominant amongst them) are incorrect, so I have simply attempted to circumvent your inability to articulate the problems that you claim exist in professional science.
To do so I have, time and again, tried to offer you ten thousand euros worth of my hard-earned money if only you are prepared to stand by the implications of your claims about global warming. I have done this by graduating my risk of loss against the comensurate unlikelihood of warming, as claimed by yourselves.
None of you have the intestinal fortitude to stand by your pronouncements. In fact, no denialatus to whom I have put my wager been willing to accept my generous offer to pour money into their pockets.
I can therefore only conclude that you are secretly aware of the nonsensical nature of your vacuous claims, even as you persist in publicly speaking to the exact opposite.
I can't accept that your reluctance to enter into a wager is because you are all shrinking violets who are too principled to accept bets, because you are all showing yourselves quite willing to stake the safety and the future of human civilisation and culture, and indeed a big chunk of the planet's biodiversity, on the vanishingly small possibility that tens of thousands of the world's professional scientists - the best-qualified and -experienced experts - are wrong.
[Jonas says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6106085):
>Funny Bernard, I don't think you have a clue what I am correct about...
You know what, for once you might actually have constructed a technically-true statement... You are so egregiously wrong on so many scientific matters that it is difficult for me (and, I suspect, for most educated folk reading this lumbering saga of Scandinavian illogic) to detect anything that might resemble objective correctness in anything that you have said.
I have only one further question to ask, and it is not directed to any of the trolls who have crapped in this cave, pretending that they know more than the planet's best and brightest scientists... Is there any lurker at all (the trolls' hastily-summonsed mates excluded) who actually are convinced by what the trolls have said?! Please do tell, and most especially, tell us what of the trolls' claims is so pursuasive.
A new career for the clown Michael Mann perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfVwEBkuqts
Interresting graphs.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm0.HTM
Jonas N: "Your (early) comment, that 90% indeed is not 100%, was correct. I even explaind what that meant and how much it meant. [bla bla bla]"
Say what you like about Jonas, but he really sticks faithfully to his own lies.
There is another proverb: "Better let lying dogs sleep". Can we not let Jonas be?
Andy .. you realize that it is on that level you are pretending to keep up your faith ...
[Here is the link again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…) where you argue that because 90% is less than 100%, the error bars don't have to overlap
Pathetic! But probably the best you can do ...
Bernard J
>You are so egregiously wrong on so many scientific matters that it is difficult for me (and, I suspect, for most educated folk reading this lumbering saga of Scandinavian illogic) to detect anything that might resemble objective correctness in anything that you have said
Well, as I note all the time. You and so many other almost instantly want to get away from the topic and instead rehash all your 'denier fantasies' which seem to constitute most of your 'arguments'.
I have sometimes read your comments, Bernard, and they too are so full of non- or backwards (anti-) logic, and projections, strawmen, and misrepresentations .. it is mind numbing.
Your last paragraph, your 'question', is only the last attempt to construct 'information' from the absence of such. But it is a recurring habit of yours, I've noticed:
'Since we don't know .... there it no proof that it isn't/wasn't as we here speculate' ...
'Since you didn't answer ... you agreed to this legally binding contract'
etc ...
It's all 'science' Jeffie-style, and if such rubbish gets published, next time the same ilk of (non-) scientists, will refer to this as:
'As was shown in ref [], the evidence points to that ... it indeed was so'
Which is indeed untruthfull, if any of you were concerned with such .. which you aren't
[Jonas N says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6124525):
>You and so many other almost instantly want to get away from the topic...
Au contraire. I have long and consistently stuck to two main topics:
You're the one with the penchant for shuffling peas, and turning back other people's observations about your poor scientific understanding.
Come on little boy, tell us exactly where science has it wrong.
You don't, and you won't, because you can't.
Isn't there a little voice in the back of your own thick skull, whispering that perhaps your own abject inability to address this basic line of questioning might arise simply because you do not have any robust answers? Or are the fingers jammed so hard in your ears that your cries of "la la la I can't hear you" are actually amplified inside your cranium, drowning out that little tickle of cognitive dissonance?
So have you so much as challenged, let alone overturned a single paper of a single IPCC report yet? A silly question because I know you haven't Bjornarse. And you never will.
Your role is to keep your little band of GWPF fairies on-message by playing the semantic tosser on blogs. And you're not even good at that. You're far too dull.
Of course you'll find the chasm between being the Greatest Living Unrecognised Scientist and the Greatest Tosser on Deltoid to be a harder one to bridge than even you can imagine.
Pentaxz, thanks for the link. I should point out that you have actually published an article that debunks sceptical arguments, including all the graphs you think are indicative of the fr@ud.
From the article:
>Say what you will about Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. You may see an excess of hype and overdramatization on the global warming side. You do not see believers in global warming mass mailing specious documents designed to look like legitimate scientific journal articles. That ought to tell you something. It tells me something.
Serious question - do you suffer from an intellectual handicap or disability? Or do you regularly not read words when there are pretty pictures to look at?
John, do you suffer from reading disabilities? I wrote "Interresting graphs".
Jonas N,
I've lost count of the number of times you have claimed that I said that "90% is less than 100%", which I didn't say as is evident from the link you just gave. To keep repeating a lie endlessly even after it repeatedly has been pointed out that it is a lie is nothing short of pathological. (Or would have been if Jonas N had been an actual person and not some tedious troll act.)
That there are people that take you seriously and don't see through you ridiculous troll act is evidence of how bottomlessly gullible some denialists are.
Pentaxz, don't try and get smart with mealy-mouthed weasel words. We all knew what you meant and why you published that link.
Good grief, look who I am talking to:
>Wow, that's because your'e a stupid foil hat, your idiot.
Well John, if you didn't know, Deltoid is the place where foilhats gather. From all corners of the world. And the biggest ones is stu, wow, bernie and jeffie.
Don't you love it when a muppet's hubris is so overwhelming that they even try to be a smartarse in a language that's clearly not their own...
'Loosers' indeed!
Good grief.
Somewhere in Scandinavia there are several villages missing their idiots - if the elders of said villages did not, in fact, run said idiots out beyond the repective village boundaries.
PentaxZ. Please link to the post on this thread that you consider to be your most intelligent and evidentially-substantiated effort to deny a whole discipline of science.
Can you manage that simple task, little boy?
Or are you just going to repeat ad nauseum your prepubescent predilection for the purile term "foilhat"?
In fact, is it that you are indeed a little boy? Your level of discourse here would indicate someone with an intellectual capacity of a 10 or 11 year old pre-teen.
Hahahahahaha....your'e so funny, bernie. Hilarious. Your desperation really shines through.
Bernard, allow me to quote what I believe is Pentaxz's most prescient argument:
>Wow, that's because your'e a stupid foil hat, your idiot.
The IPCC should be shut down immediately in light of this startling information.
Ad hominem attacks (so ridiculous common in the alarmist community) suggests lack of argument. But that is quite normal for a bunch of foilhats involved in a sect. So please, go on, stupids.
It must be so frustrating that Dubai resultet in...nothing at all. Wonder why that is? I wonder, can it possibly be that even politicians finally are starting to see through the climate scam? Your cause is lost, just swallow the bitter pill, foilhats.
>Ad hominem attacks (so ridiculous common in the alarmist community) suggests lack of argument. But that is quite normal for a bunch of foilhats involved in a sect. So please, go on, stupids.
I don't feel I need to add anything to that.
Except maybe "Dubai"
Who can fail to be impressed (for a variety of reasons) by TampaxZ's demonstrated grasp of everything from science, to logic, to geography to geopolitics. I know I for one am still waiting for my eyebrows to detach themselves from my hairline. If only Lord Monckleton's pilot had had the benefit of a similar level of understanding and parachuted his Monckleship out over Darfur.
At least with the climate numpties being yet again the victims of their own ignorance, it appears only one ineffective dirty tricks brigade made it to the right airport and consequently, despite the disinformation in the comments above from Tampax (it may have come about after his bedtime) [a deal was in fact reached](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/10/un-climate-change-sum…).
You forgot English.
Stu, and you **forgot** physics ...
If that claim of yours had any grain of remote truth to it (which I seriously doubt)
In response to
the cretin answers in the affirmative:
Actually, I think the cretin did read words -- the words in the title, "A Global Warming Counterfeit" -- and then read no more, failing to grasp the inversion.
Andy S, your argument was that the error bars did not represent 100%, and that therefore any lack of overlap among them (in it self) didn't **prove** them wrong.
That's the most intelligent interpretation I can make of your comment, in short that '90% is less than 100%' (and I never said nor indicated it was a verbatim quote)
And if that was indeed your point, you were correct, and I subsequently detailed for you how much that 'correct observation' was worth wrt to assessing the probability of (any of) those being a valid representation. You never came back ..
So no lie or even misrepresenting on my part here. None at all! And you never indicated that I had misunderstood what you said, or that you wanted to say something entirely different, either (probably because I/we agreed on that fact).
So your claim that I am lying, or misquoting you is a dishonest in it self. As you very well know ...
And as I already stated: I don't believe one second that you (nor any of the others commenting me here) is the least bit worried about lying, misrepresenting, inventing 'facts', untruthful statements about others or what they have said etc .. Because if you were, you would be 'outraged' at almost every comment here directed at me.
But you aren't of course, because your motive is activism. Or rather defending the faith, together with whom ever else, from within the trenches ..
I guess that's just who you are, Andy S. Someone whose best argument now for a while has been *'I never used those exact words'*
Which is true. You didn't. And I never said you did! Only that that was the core of your (earlier, best) argument ..
Maybe I should add that to your list of arguments:
1. 90% is less that 100% (*), and
2. 'But I never used those exact words' (*)
(*) Which is, nota bene, paraphrasing the actual substance of your earlier most valid point, not your exact words!
Jeff H
I am talking about you, who in essentially every posting needs to make up your on 'facts' or 'truths' to support your narrative.
After more than three months of your compulsive lying about things (you don't know shit about), I cannot even imagine you being a completely different personality when you go about your profession. Let me rub this in:
Your position/affiliation does not make you a real scientist! Doing real science, and adhering to the scientific method would ...
And that's something you are patently incapable of doing! You appearantly don't even know what that entails.
Your 'review' of Lomborg once more confirmed you pathological delusions bringing up first substandard students, failing all of them (you really would want that, wouldn't you: Fail anyone who does not share your faith!?), and then even Nazi-references .. but where you once more ignored to detail any criticism of what was actually presented (probably you again didn't even read what you attacked), and instead went off on your typical emotional hate speech which seems to be your preferred 'method' ..
Here is Lomborg's [very polite and measured reply](http://www.landbrug-ph.dk/nature.pdf) to the rantings of that loon ...
Bernard J
No, not really. For a considerable time your main occupation was 'being stuck' with 'brown sticky stuff' and similar obsessions ..
But still:
>at what point in the climatological narrative do you believe that the professionals have it wrong
>Come on little boy, tell us exactly where science has it wrong
Have you already forgotten? Almost the first thing I brought up was that the most prominent and circulated claim in the AR4 was not based on any real science at all. That the numbers essentially were made up.
You spent an awful lot of time with backward logic, countering, supposedly arguing that it still indeed should be considered as a result of real science. Albeit never having seen it, or ever finding it. You, together with all other CAGW-followers, 4½ years after the fact ... You even claimed (untruthfully?) that you would go through more references in search for your (backwards) position.
Which was, exactly as I said above: That you take 'non existence' as a core argument. 'If nobody has seen the 'evidence' we should continue to believe in the claim .. '
Well, sorry lad, but that's not how real science works. In humanities, arts and other soft versions of academia, such may prevail, even abund .. But no, real science it isn't!
Of course I understand that you don't feel to add anything, john. You can't argue with facts. A foilhat is a foilhat, end of story.
'Dubai'! Priceless!
It must be so frustrating that Durban resultet in...nothing at all. Wonder why that is? I wonder, can it possibly be that even politicians finally are starting to see through the climate scam? Your cause is lost, just swallow the bitter pill, foilhats.
Better now, foilhats? Of course you attack a minor misswriting. You don't have anything else to attack. Priceless.
http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/4532-philip-stott-the-basic-…
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/science/earth/climate-change-expands-…
The mindset of many of the CAGW-groupies is quite well displayed by [Greenpeace in Durban](http://www.livestream.com/avaazglobaloccupations)
I particularly liked how they all, in unison, and **on command** chant:
"Nobody tells us what to do!"
Good show. I especially liked the scientific arguments put forward by the main tent shaker. By the way, didn't he bear an uncanny resemblance with Jeff Harvey. A coincidence?
Something for the foilhats to read.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/10/the-true-failure-of-durban/#comme…
Tee hee.
Pentaxz, your position is inconsistent. I thought it was the political class that was forcing the AGW scam onto the world to enact the one world government. But you now say they are seeing *through* the scam? I thought they concocted the scam?
Jonas N:
> That's the most intelligent interpretation I can make of your comment, in short that '90% is less than 100%' (and I never said nor indicated it was a verbatim quote)
Observe that Jonas N is now arguing that he is not a liar, he is only stupid.
That is the best argument he has.
You're dumber than a box of rocks. They aren't chanting, they are acting as a human microphone, which wouldn't work very well if they didn't repeat in unison.
Nope, not the least stupid, Andy S (*)
[Here is what I replied](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…). Everything I say there is formally correct, and addresses your (most valid) point so far, the on that '90% < 100%'.
[Here is another post explaining what you seem unaware of](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…)
But after that you never came back. Instead you have been rambling about all kind of stupidities. And whined about having been misquoted (although you weren't)
If you would have had anything more intelligible to say, you've had all the time (and space) to say it. If you for instance thought you could put more substance behind your (quite correct) observations that 90% < 100%, and what that means.
But there is none, Andy! Only childish wordplay ...
(*) The stupidity here is abundant, but found on the other side. For example: By your own previous definition you are now a liar. I know you were disingenuous before, and you knowingly wrote a lot of nonsense under the disguise of sarcasm. But all those are just more owngoals ... Although you all vastly outnumber me and I don't even need to play foul or cheat ...
You are incapable of telling the truth.
Ahhh ianam ..
They were trying to communicate without the use of polluting coal fired electricity ...
I see, I am sure you have more insight in and experience with the brain functions of that ilk ..
I take it that you condoned their arguments actions then, is that correct?
But still, i really liked *how they all, in unison, and **on command** chant* acted as a human microphone, screaming:
"Nobody tells us what to do!"
PS There is some fine irony in much of the 'microphone' chanting, but I'm sure not everybody will notice it
Jonas N,
You clearly wrote that you were stupid, i.e. lacking of intelligence. I was just paraphrasing the actual substance of your most valid point, not your exact words!
But now you claim that you lied when you said you were stupid!
Well, I guess you are using the best arguments you have (left).
Andy S (And Jeff H, Bernard, chek, Wow, Stu and many others)
I just looked at the Perry-thread again (to find what Andy is denying now), and it just amazing to watch the cringing backwards arguments for why that posterchild AR4 claim still should be considered as 'based on proper science' ..
Every on of you is claiming your own ignorance as an 'argument' for why i just must be wrong ...
CAGW cultists at their finest ...
Andy S, once again you use the best 'arguments' you have (left). And it clearly shows!
As I said: If you'd had anything of substance to add, you would have .. or at least had the chance for three months!
So I repeat: You most valid point was when you (quite correctly) pointed out that 90% < 100% (and that error bars therefore mustn't necessarily overlap).
After that, you second most valid point has been for a month now that 'those weren't your exact words'
Again true, but with no substance at all this time.
My best arguments (that I have left)? Well, those that haven't been countered, or (in your case not even objected to) still stand. Pointing out your ridiculous wordplay aren't arguments for anything. Merely observations of the most obvious kind.
And aren't you aware of that the 3000+ comments in 'my threads' are almost only so long because you and your fellow faithers felt the need to mout off?
I can respect if somebody doesn't grasp everything the first time (s)he is presented with new information, that it might take some comments back and forth of explanation (and some time too).
But that's not what has been playing out here. Rather that when the simple talking points actually are addressed, and put in perspective, that the believers (like yourself) derail, and try almost anything else.
Can you remember any relevant substance ever presented by Jeff H, or Stu? And I mean wrt to any relevant topic, not the stupidest of posturing?
As I said, you actually rank among the top among them, having a relevant point ('90%<100%') more than three months ago. (Somebody else pointed out that 'gacial melt is not identical to glacier melt', as true and about as relevant as 90%<100%)
Can you remember anything else? Or would you like to challenge what I said about those not necessarily overlapping error bars?
Because so far you haven't ... only wordplay rapidly approaching Stu or Wow levels. And disingenuous at that ...
You are ignorant about this as you are ignorant about all things. The Wall Street occupiers were banned from having amplified sound in Zucotti Park, which they got around by forming a "human microphone", and the technique has caught on.
Of course you do, because you're a shit stain on humanity.
They are all acting voluntarily, not on command, shit stain.
Dishonest shit stains like you also find irony in translators repeating the words of people at the U.N.
ianam .. thank you so much for so eloquently expressing where you come from ... OWS .. it all makes sense now, 'representing' those 99%
But seriously, I am pretty (=very) confident about that you got the part who is the 'shit stain on humanity' very wrong. Too!
BTW also Bernard J has been very very occupied with that 'brown sticky stuff' .. probably for the same reasons.
I said nothing about coming from OWS, I merely explained the origin of the "human microphone". Rather, it is you who are clearly driven by political ideology, shit stain.
>I said nothing about coming from OWS
No you didn't, you just brought up 'shit stains' and them too. And argued their case, too ...
I don't mind ianam. I even thanked you for you insight ... into those people's mindsets. I am sure you know more than I about such. I merely observed their actions and noted what it is was worth ...
And even if you believe something else: You just have to trust me, I really found their changing quite entertaining .. as I find yours, particularly the "driven by political ideology, shit stain" phrase.
As I said: Thank you "for so eloquently expressing where you come from "
You're blatantly lying scum.
ianam .. again: Thank for telling us where you are coming from.
And for no second do I think that you are the least bit concerned with any "lying scum" here ..
One of the 'smartest' among you, the one who pointed out that 90% is less than 100%, repeatedly used the term 'lying' even when I was agreeing with him.
The most here 'lie' about essentially everything, and seemingly habitually .... None of you has ever objected the slightest.
That includes you. And the reason i obvious, when your faith falters, 'human microphones' or 'I didn't use those exact words' becomes the argument ...
Have you ever had a valid argument? One that pertains to the topic?
Sure we do Jonas, we're just still waiting for yours.
Of course the simple explanation Bjonarse is that comprehending attribution is beyond your limited capabilities.
You know after 3+ months which papers deal with detection and attribution to a standard acceptable to every National Academy of Science and the vast majority of working climate scientists, all you have to do is refute them. Simple!
We know you have difficulties with comprehension by your continued inability to use the correct term (preferring instead the knuckle-dragging 'poster child' in the absence of a poster), and your monomaniacal view that Lomborg was hounded by Harvey and ignoring that Lomborg's 'work' was condemned by the DCSD on one occasion, and which would have been two occasions except they saw no reason (even after objections were received from the pro-Lomborg lobby) for a second inquiry which would have been a re-run of the first inquiry. And just exactly like you, Lomborg is not a scientist although it suits him to give the impression that he knows what he's talking about when he doesn't. But of course that only works on blogs and the media. Just like you, interaction with real scientists results in being cut off within a hundred words.
Additionally it is also strongly alluded to by the calibre of intellectual garbage you associate with and who trail round in your wake. God help the 'reputation' of anyone relying on your imports for 'support'.
Your other overarching conceit - that you can adequately comprehend and communicate clearly in English is another of your errors that you will also refuse to correct. You will continue to kid yourself that stringing bundles of words together is much the same thing. After all, when you get right down to it like, that's all that Shakespeare did, wannit? Eh?
All of which has been previously explained to you, and why you remain as imcomprehensible and isolated as ever in your own thread here.
And the really sad thing is you can't keep away. Even this minor tenure of your inadequacy is better than what's out there for you at climatescam with pentax and the gang you've assembled. And so you attempt to restart the whole cycle again. Stick to handing out leaflets that nobody wants for despised has-been right-wing political liars like Lawson and his GWPF.
I concerned myself with you, asshole, and Pentax too, and your tu quoque bullshit makes you no less a lying sack of scum.
It's fact, not faith, you ignorant pathologically lying shit stain.
Stu ... Have you yet found where the IPCC has hidden the real basis for its most prominent claim? Or is stupid blustering all you can come up with? Or claiming that you've studied six years of physics?
Do you even know why you kept going on about different hand/box speeds all by your own? Mabye you really still think you had a valid point there ...
I have never seen anybody wallowing with such grunting pleasure in his own lies as Jonas N. He just can't help himself - on the contrary he seems to take infinite pride in repeating the same lies over and over again no matter how many times he is exposed.
And the really tragic thing is that this is probably the greatest intellectual achievement of his life.
Andy S
You are the one feeling the need to be disingenuous /after your most valid popint: 90%<100%).
And you're starting to sound as stupid as Jeff H in your feeble fantasies ...
Tragic!
Chek
Long ago, you said you would 'keep away', but obviously you can't. And most of the time I have just ignored your ranting which is devoid of any substance, but filled with the kind of garbage that delves on cultist blogs with 'intellectual giants' like yourself (Wow, Stu, Jeff, Andy, ianam etc) who start crying the second someone reminds you of reality ..
Here, you once more spell out your beliefs (about others, you are not capable of communicating with) just like Jeffie. And you never have a point. Only rehash sd 'Lomborg condemned' etc (which was as empty as Jeff's 'review'. Activist smear, and nothing more. If there would have been things seriously wrong with Lomborg, I reckon that someone with some intellectual integrity and honor would have responded to his actual points, instead of just stamping your feet screaming and calling names ...
Do you even know why Lomborg's book did threaten you and the cultists so badly that you lost it (once again)?
What is that makes you so afraid of somebody not agreeing with your position? What is it that makes those 'climate scientists' so afraid of showing their data and calculations? Or debating with their critics?
Just look at the 'arguments' you lot tried when I pointed out some pretty simple facts of the IPCC AR4 ...
You seem to long back to the denial of facts ... Why is that? Why are you so scared?
You obviously are politically motivated and don't give a shit about how things are in reality. Most of you don't hesitate to just contort or invent 'facts' where reality doesn't fit or real facts are missing. Andy started of on blatant lying (about his own best argument) when that didn't suffice ..
My question still is: What is it you are so afraid of?
(I have a clue, but you very likely are and will remain in denial about your own motives too ... poor activist hacks)
ianam
I said:
>And the reason i obvious, when your faith falters, **'human microphones'** or 'I didn't use those exact words' **becomes the argument**
Was that too long a sentence for you to comprehend, or do you too (like Wow, Stu, Andy etc) need to chop of sentences in the middle to construe that you have anything to object to?
It is all emotional anger with you, isn't it? Pathetic!
Jonas,
The description of 'shit stain' suits you admirably. Kudos to ianam for this apt metaphor. You like taking pot shots at me but on an intellectual level you barely measure up to my knee-caps. You should be flattered that I waste so much of my important time as a 'real scientist' (you can read my CV again if you like, Mr. shit-stain) on your pedantics. When you have actually done one scintilla of science, then you can judge my qualifications in the field. Until then, a shit-stain you shall remain.
Now the gloves come off.
As far as Lomborg is concerned, Jonarse, you conveniently are ignorant of our debate in Holland where I skewered him on his own facts'. I showed the audience, while Lomborg cringed, how he did not understand what the term 'ecosystem services' means - Lomborg had never heard of the term 'supporting services' (ouch!) and his take was that ecological services only pertain to consumptive value. On this point he was a sitting duck. Then he estimates global faunal extinction rates on the basis of a single model from Stork et al. (1994) that was used to estimate the extinction rates of British insects. The Stork paper produced 11 models, and Lomborg chooses the one with the lowest estimates. Again, it was easy to pull the rug out from under him; more cringing during our debate. I used area-extinction models of exponential decay to produce much more accurate estimations of extinction rates. They have been tested in a number of cases and actually underestimate extinction rates because they are only based on direct habitat loss and expunge other factors that drive extinctions, such as pollution, over-harvesting and species invasions. Lomborg had mis-cited a few studies in the field by using a chapter in a book by a couple of right wing business economists as his sole source of information. I instead used papers published Nature, PNAS and other rigid ecological and scientific journals. These were published several years before Lomborg's book was published, but he doesn't cite any of them. More cringing and twitching from Lomborg, who, by the way, had published one paper in a peer-reviewed journal by the time we debated. I had over 40. Debating such a nincompoop was like picking cherries.
Then I showed how Lomborg intentionally misquotes scientists to distort the meaning of their words. In his 7 page abominable chapter on extinction rates he actually had the audacity to write this: *Even [Paul] Colinvaux admits that the rate of extinction is incalculable*. This misquote was in reference to an article in Scientific American (1989) in which ecologist Paul Colinvaux had written about the alarming loss of biodiversity. If one reads Lomborgs partial quotation of Colinvaux's remark, then one gets the impression that he is throwing his hands in the air and making an admission that we don't know what the true rate of extinction is. But the ENTIRE quote in the article was this: *As human beings lay waste to massive tracts of vegetation an increasing and incalculable number of species are rapidly becoming extinct*. Read Lomborg's partial quote again and then juxtapose it with the actual quote by Colinvaux. What Colinvaux is REALLY saying is that the extinction rate is already very large and growing; further, he is not admitting anything.
This was the nail in Lomborg's dishonest coffin during our debate. The squirming was worse than ever. But I was not finished. I also brought up his description of the 'Wildlands Project', in which his sole intention was to smear the likes of esteemed ecologists Edward O. Wilson and Paul Ehrlich, along with scientists Jared Diamond. In his book, Lomborg wrote that Wilson and Ehrlich are enthusiastic supporters of a plan, the Wildlands Project, which aims to relocate people from cities to urban islands in order to create large areas for wildlife conservation. Of course, the aim in writing this nonsense was simple: any person with half a brain would find such a proposition absurd, and thus with it the reputations of Wilson and Ehrlich would be flushed down the toilet, elevating Lomborg's status from a nothing to authority with the simple sweep of a pen. This trick is called the 'paradigm shift', in which one gains credibility by making his opponents look like idiots. Presenting this was the nail in Lomborg's debating coffin. No wonder the guy won't debate me in a million years now. I went easy on him then - next time he won't be so lucky.
As it turns out the Wildland project does exist, and I am also one of its ardent supporters. It was originally set up by leading ecologists Michael Soule and John Terborgh in the 1980s; nowhere in the project is there the absurd notion that people will be moved from cities to create wilderness areas. Instead, the project focuses on establishing co-operation between federal agencies and private landowners in an attempt to establish green corridors in which top-level predators and forest dependent species can disperse. Soule, Terborgh and others wrote a book on the subject: "Continental Conservation", and its well worth a read. So where did Lomborg get his information? From a non-peer reviewed commentary in Science, authored by Mann and Plummer, two anti-environmental scribes who have attended Wise Use meetings and other far right shindigs in the United States. Later, well after TSE was published, I found out that Lomborg had written to Wilson and Ehrlich asking if they did support the Wildlands Project. What gall! Ehlrich was rightfully indignant, as was Soule, who wanted to take the matter further, but Wilson, as belies the man's integrity, was polite all the way through, despite Lomborg's wretched smear. A year later Professor Wilson wrote to me personally and said, "I thank you, and the planet thanks you, for all of your efforts in advocacy". I have never before or since felt such gratitude for being a scientist. Wilson is a legend and I was later told by some who know him well that he does not deliver such praise unless it is straight from his heart. This will forever motivate me, and also explains why I waste time on empty blowhards like Jonas.
My parting short to Jonas is this: if you want to debate science, then debate science based on empirical facts. If you want to challenge any of the things I have said above, go ahead and try. Budiansky wouldn't that's for sure, because his knowledge of ecology is about as deep as yours. Meaning a puddle. What drives him IMO, as you, are socio-political agendas. Budiansky is a cornucopian who appears to hate environmentalism. Its too bad that most of the people like him have no pedigree in any relevant scientific field.
Jonas N:
>After that, you second most valid point has been for a month now that 'those weren't your exact words'
Ah, another lie from the machine gun liar Jonas N!
Jeff H
>The description of 'shit stain' suits you admirably. Kudos to ianam for this apt metaphor
You started low (and without substance) but managed to sink even lower, and now drawing support from the absolute gutter scrapings here ...
As I've said before: I have a really hard time imagining that your work 'in the real world' possibly can keep completely different (and higher) standards
Re Lomborg:
I am perfectly aware of you not agreeing with Lomborg, thatâs the entire point. He wrote a book presenting different views than what is (normally) shouted in the media. And about far more things than just extinction rates.
Itâs amazing that you believe that when Lomborgâs makes clear that there are other views too, you not agreeing with Lomborgâ should be an argument in itself.
Wrt to the accurace of any of your claims, factual or others, I wouldnât trust one syllable of yours. You have spent three months inventing your own stupid âfactsâ to fit your distorted views, with the worst possible track record. And on top of that avoided every relevant aspect of the discussion. Clinging to your CV instead as if that bolsters the validity of your emotional views somehow!?
And you believe (again on pure emotion and mental instability) that others here have given me a beating on things, when the hardly do more than you: Hurl stupid insults with no substance at all ..
And d now you are even plunging to their vocabulary!
Pathetic Jeff!
Andy S, if you'd had any better points, I'm sure you would have made them by now!
Andy S, if you'd had any better points, I'm sure you would have made them by now!
Sorry JonasN, you lose,
Lomborg wrote a book purporting to 'look for the truth'; he actually says in his book that he has 'tried to present all of the facts'. He calls his book, "The real state of the world'. This is patently absurd. He ignores huge number of studies that do not support his views. The scientific community would not have been so appalled by Lomborg's book had he admitted that he had a bias in a particular direction. Moreover, his book was published by an academic publisher. This lent him credibility to fields in which Lomborg, as other experts in the field have pointed out, had no credibility whatsoever. Experts in their respective fields have spent decades exploring complex fields which Lomborg superficially wrote about in 15 months. And in every chapter of his book - from acid rain to pesticide effects on the environment to climate change to forest loss to human welfare to biodiversity etc. - he ends up downplaying what is known about the severity of these problems, based on a superficial analysis. Most damming was the fact that, after the Danish edition of his book was published in 1998, a number of experts in different fields in his home country corrected some of the more egregious mistakes. For example, in the biodiversity chapter, which was given prominent attention in the mainstream corporate media because it downplayed extinction rates - Danish scientists pointed to studies in Nature (Brooks, Balmford, 1997) PNAS (Pimm, Atkins, 1995) and elsewhere in which the area-extinction models Lomborg disparages were empirically supported. Lomborg had admitted that this arguments on extinction rates were taken from a chapter in a right wing book by business economists, Julian Simon and Aaron Waldavsky, both of whom had zero background in ecology. For years Simon had been writing nonsense on the environment, and Lomborg even admitted that he set out on writing his book to prove that Simon was wrong, then uses material from the guys book to show he's right! Come on. How ridiculous can it get? And when Lomborg published the English edition of TSE in 2001, he still does not cite any of the important studies in top journals that counter Simon and Waldavsky's garbage. This is dishonest. Its an open and shut case, or should have been, had the media bothered to ask scientists in their respective fields about the conclusions Lomborg derived by cherry-picking studies he liked and omitting many others he didn't.
But again, why would he say in his book that he has 'tried to present all the facts'? This is a patent untruth. He doesn't even come close. When the truth was presented to him, he ignored it and stuck to his guns. He knew that, had he incorporated the criticisms from all of the Danish scientists alone, then he would have had to change the conclusions he made, and that would have made his book less appealing to the huge denial lobby and to those who are anxious to believe that everything is getting better, which is the core message of TSE. And his refusal to accept criticism accounts for the justifiably angry response from scientists, including myself, as well as experts in every field covered superficially in the book.
When one writes about topics that have profound societal implications, one should write with caution. Lomborg's book was anything but cautious, and it did untold damage to the public's perception of contemporary environmental problems. It is one of the most monumentally incompetent books I have ever read in any scientific field. What an achievement.
As for you, why should I waste my breath, because you have not even a basic understanding of environmental science. If you want to debate me on anything in TSE, go ahead and try. I did not hurl empty insults at Lomborg's book: read my last post. I have arguments debunking arguments he makes in every chapter. Kaare Fog lists many of the more egregious ones on the website Lomborg errors. I just don't have time to waste on minions like you who have pre-determined views on environmental science. Have you even read TSE? Have you read the huge number of scientific rebuttals? Stuart and I went for the jugular in Nature because we had a word limit. Certainly, I could write a book debunking TSE, but the problem is that Lomborg is just a symptom of a greater malaise. I don't give him the time of day now, especially since the new Danish government more-or-less shut down his group there. When we debated, he struck me as being like a wind up doll; a mannequin. I have better things to do these days than to perpetually rebut wannabes.
My biggest regret is wasting my valuable time on losers like you. But I cannot resist it when self-righteous experts with no formal training write into blog sites and act all holier than thou when in reality they are mere neophytes. You qualify, big time. You think its fine to belittle my background as a scientist, but when I respond with concrete evidence that I am, you then accuse me of 'clinging to my CV'. I don't have to cling to anything dumb boy; my CV speaks for itself. Yours doesn't - where's your qualifications? Oh, I forgot - you don't have any.
And so the tactical retreats beginns.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/12/renowed-warmist-scientist-mojib-lati…°c-in-100-years/
Jeff
I allready know that you don't agree (with everything), that was Lomborgs point.
My point bringing this upp was showing that also when you do your 'professional work' (it that term would apply) you lose it, and start bringing up Nazis and schoolclasses from hell.
You never read the whole book (I'm darn certain) and only present that those Lomborg disagrees with, indeed also disagree with him.
And again you make the logical fallacy, thinking that the 'consensus view' is the only admissable.
Nowhere does Lomborg claim that such doesn't exist.
Your argument is as stuoid as all those (incompetents) ranting, that nowone should be allowed to criticize the consensus view wrt climate change and, CO2 and AGW.
Such a claim would be as ludicrous, and some of the loons indeed try to shut down debate in that field too.
Noticable often the same people ...
And I don't think that's mere coincidence.
"And just exactly like chek, Lomborg is not a scientist although it suits him to give the impression that he knows what he's talking about when he doesn't. But of course that only works on blogs and the media. Just like chek, interaction with real scientists results in being cut off within a hundred words."
There, chek, corrected.
"It's faith, not fact, you ignorant pathologically lying shit stain."
Corrected, And you're very welcome, woof woof.
"I have never seen anybody wallowing with such grunting pleasure in his own lies as the CAGW sect.
You too needed some correction, andy.
"You like taking pot shots at me but on an intellectual level you barely measure up to my knee-caps."
Oh dear god what a delusional self view. I almost fell of my chair laughing my guts out. Priceless and hilarious, jeffie. By the way, a news flash for you. Being a biologist does not in any possible way make you a "climate scientist". Time for you to climbe down from the pedestal, foilhat.
And by the way, I wonder, why don't you follow your own advice?" if you want to debate science, then debate science based on empirical facts".
Jonas,
Oh yeah, I read the whole book right through. More than once, in fact. And every chapter is replete with the same errors, cherry-picked studies, large empirical omissions etc. Its a dishonest tome.
But its ancient history; I ma just happy that Kaare Fog detailed the massive number of errors on his web site.
And don't lecture to me about shutting down debate, until you learn about SLAPPs and how big business has done everything to influence public policy. It goes way beyond anything any environmental NGO has ever done.
> 2655 And so the tactical retreats beginns.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/12/renowed-warmist-scientist-mojib-lati…°c-in-100-years/
Congratulations PentaxZ! Latif is basically just quoting IPCC AR4, chapter 9. Quite some retreat, I say!
Gosselin is not the brightest of the bunch, to say the least.
And continues...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310
Yes, well, having trillions of dollars of expensive and messy tar sands oil to sell is a huge reason to deny AGW.
All you've done is proven that money drives denial of AGW.
So Jeff, you:
>went for the jugular in Nature because [you] had a word limit
Well, I say that you wasted an awful lot of words on infantile hate speech and bluster, and your strongest objection was that many didnât agree. Just as you do here, and that you have a really hard time at all keeping your eye on the actual ball (and not letting your fantasies fly off with you). If what you actually presented was the most damning you could come up with, that speaks quite well of the book.
(Anyway, annoying you to the point where you lose it, is a good indicator of how threatened you must feel)
> If you want to debate me on anything in TSE, go ahead and try
Well, I have more than once asked you about statements youâve made here, and what they actually mean. And you never get back about anything relevant. You are simply incapable of debating and arguing your position. You lose it almost immedeately.
From the beginning I have asked you why you have that compulsive habit of inventing your own âfactsâ about others. Do you even know? Are you really not even aware of when you hallucinate? Are you really totally incapable of distinguishing observable facts from your fantasies and wishful thinking? Donât you know when you confuse your instable emotions with objective reality?
From all youâve shown here, you really seem incapable of keeping almost anything inside your head apart from everything else in there ⦠and I can assure you, there is a lot of garbage. And yet unscored owngoals, such as:
> you then accuse me of 'clinging to my CV'. I don't have to cling to anything dumb boy;
Just to prove yourself wrong again in the very next words:
>my CV speaks for itself. Yours doesn't - where's your qualifications?
Right Jeff. My CV is not an argument, thatâs why I donât wave it. Yours isnât either. Regardless of how many times you bring it up. And that you still do (believe so?) speaks loads!
And how many times do I need to repeat to you, that to be a **real** scientist, you need to stick to the scientific method, and do it consistently. You seem completely unaware of what that even is (together with quite a few more here: Thinking that a PhD and a position automatically makes you real scientist. It doesnât!)
What I belittle is your absolute abominable incapability of even making any somewhat coherent argument on any stance, and only understanding what another party is actually saying. And I belittle your pathological need to invent your own âfactsâ. No scientist ever does that â¦
You claim you have read that book. But I know that you cannot read (**and** comprehend) even shorter and simpler comments on a blog.
Finally:
> When one writes about topics that have profound societal implications, one should write with caution
Are you for real? Have you forgotten that we are at a (C)AGW-cultist site? That almost anything wrt to climate is vastly exaggerated? And that essentially every proposed policy based on/justified by climate is nothing but a massive waste of resources. No Jeff, Iâll tell you that the climate scare cult and the byrocracies built on that are far more damaging to the environment than a book whose perspecive you donât like.
And that is also Lomborgs point: There are real problems that could be addressed (instead), addressable problems. And that spending an awful lot on posturing with ritual sacrifices wonât do any good. Neither for the alleged purpose, nor for other an more relevant ones.
This is Jonas:
Blah blah blah blah blah.
Lomborg got it wrong.
Get over it.
Wow - And you have of course 'learnt' that from the likes as Jeff and others who invent their own 'reality'
Especially since you haven't read the book either
Jonas invents his own reality (again) in 2656:
> You never read the whole book (I'm darn certain) and only present that those Lomborg disagrees with, indeed also disagree with him.
Oh Jonas, Jonas, Jonas.
What the hell are you talking about? Nobody is talking about this except you, you sad little boy.
Do tell Jonas, my mentally challenged Riddler. What claim? What basis? What hiding? Are you back to pretending the AR4 has no references, precious?
What else should I come up with? DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT? ENGLISH, DO YOU SPEAK IT?
Holy crap, you're an insecure little douche nozzle. Why are you still on this? Do you think it is pertinent? Do you think it is funny? Everyone else sees it for the pathetic overcompensating posturing that it is, Jonas. Who do you surround yourself with that you have come to believe that people cannot see through this sad charade?
I was not the one to bring it up, sweetheart. And you know this. Again, why do you think you can get away with this tripe? Do you just assume people's grasp of English is as poor as your own?
I did not have a point, I was trying to figure out why GSW brought it up. Which you know.
My precious little clownshoe, DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT? Is there anything substantive you would like to address? Is there anything in the IPCC reports you would like to address beyond your "herp, derp, REAL science" level?
Hey, that reminds me, cuddles: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Oh Yes Stu, you kept going on about different hand/box speeds all by your own
>I was not the one to bring it up, sweetheart
More denial Stu? You were the **only one** bringing that up. All by your own. And even after GSW set you straight, you kept lamenting about it for weeks. All by your self.
And you still **hope** that that IPCC AR4 claim is hidden in one/some of the references!?
As I said, it is all blind faith here among the crowd.
And no, I have no idea what gave you the 'bright' idea of claiming that you studied physics for six years. But yes, it has very much to do with this topic. If you don't understand basics physics, you have absolutely no possibility to understand what may be relevant to climate and what governs it. And you won't understand any of the arguments. Same thing goes for all those who don't understand what 'the scientific method' is. They are just blindly rehashing 'arguments' they think they've heard. As you can see here.
>DO YOU HAVE AN ARGUMENT?
Once more, your question is ill-posed (from your perspective). Since you have no method of distinguishing between an argument, a presented description of fact och physical explanation .. from wishful thinking and heartfelt hoping, from emotional movement and blind faith ..
.. you cannot distinguish any answer either.
You seem to have some (quite desperate, and insecure) faith in various things. And most of your postings merely try to reassure you in your beliefs. There is rarely any other substance in them than repetition of old talking points. And you don't even understand the topic. Meaning: your 'talkbacks' are mostly incoherent ramblings. (hand/box, or 'but there are many references'-stuff)
But there aren't any arguments against someone's faith. By definition.
And the funny thing is that almost all here too are faith-driven. Jeff Harvey for instance really seems to believe that the existence of his CV should by him some brownie points. In a debate which he has avoided almost completely.
He demands that his beliefs should be believed too by others because he has no other method than believing.
Can't you hear how utterly stupid that sounds?
It's almost on your level: You want me to believe that you have a point when you can't even make one. And that your incomprehension of what is being discussed somehow should be seen as somebody else's weakness.
Very very few here have made reasonable comments, arguing why what I say should be criticized or modified. And I am pretty sure that the smarter ones stayed away once they realized that continuing to debate would reveal weeknesses in the hypothesis.
Instead, almost everybody demands that I bow to what they believe should be accepted as authority, and additionally, what they believe (again mostly in pure faith) that those authorities claim.
But those are expressions of faith, and when peoples faith is threatened ... they become very emotional.
Just as you did once again just now ...
*My CV is not an argument*
That's because you don't have much of one.
But seriously, Jonas almost psychopathically craves attention. Feasts off it. He has been demolished so many times on here, then he comes back with his 'real scientists' nonsense. So we will ask him again:
In your opinion, what percentage of climate scientists are real scientists? A ballpark figure will do. Afraid to guess? But of course you are! Because its a no-win situation for you! Claim that most climate scientists aren't real scientists and you'll look like the arrogant prick you are. Claim that most are, and then your whole anti-AGW position comes crashing down like a house of cards. So the only strategy: ignore the question!!!!
To be honest, Jonarse, the denial lobby has nix to worry about. So why get all worked up? Public policy is being driven, controlled, call, it what you like, by a tiny proportion of the civilian population. The richest 1% effectively control government policy and regulatory bodies, and it does not matter how much the evidence accrues in support of AGW or any environmental threats for that matter; so long as the privileged few see no reason to do anything about these processes, then nothing will be done. They must really cheer from the rafters when useful idiots like you and the masses down the pecking order support their agendas.
Here we have an example of projection in purest form by Jonarse. The same Jonarse who throughout the previous three months has not been capable of a single citation in support of any single one of his statements. Denialists are never so eloquent as when they unconsciously don't realise they're talking about themselves.
Nor are they so narcissistic as when they consciously are.
Don't kid yourself, Jonarse. If anything, what most can see is the sense in avoiding your slow-motion intellectaul train-wreck in action. Occam's razor places you closest to the world's most stupid person, not a colossus to be feared as your mundane, not-even-entertaining masturbatory fantasies would have you believe.
Well Jeff ...
So then you indeed do think your CV is an argument for a lot of things you believe in, but cannot argue or even address when discussed.
But that is what I already said!
You have told us many times about 'demolishing' or 'crushing' opposition. But that is true only when you equate infantile CV-waving to 'demolishing'.
Wrt Stu's infantile question: I have given you (and Stu) a fully adequate answer to the part of it that has some relevance. I am pretty certain that neither of you noticed what I said, although I have said it repeatedly.
Your backwards logic about me (not) guessing a ballpark figure is your usual unscientific method at arriving at a preconceived and desired 'conclusion'.
But guessing is just not a method I apply for gathering information. I leave that to the incompetents and activist zealots ..
And you, Jeff, who rolled in here and presented yourself as a 'senior scientist' .. your draw support from the gutter scrapings here like Michael, Stu, Wow, ianam and others. I mean really the lowest intellectual level on this bog. While not being able to argue anything at all.
I asked you before, when you were upset about changing hydrological cycles around receding glaciers, and argued to 'do something about it' how, and by what means, you imagined chasing that molten water back up there again and scare it sufficiently to stay there too ...
It was a rhetorical question, pointing out how futile your 'do something about **it**' actually is. And that if you really were concerned with that or other parts of the environment, you certainly wouldn't argue the climate scare hysteria from no knowledge at all ...
Even before that, I pointed out that if you really wanted to do something about mankind effecting environment less, your strategy would be completely different (from arguing more government spending, control, and idiotic posturing).
But there we are again, me explaining simple things far too complicated to understand for ideological activist one-track minds like yours ..
You even argued that cardboard box factory workers (which you declared you despised, even the laid off ones) would be better off if the government ruled things. In stark opposition to every empirical observation in civilization.
I wouldn't be the least surprised if you sympathized with MoveOn and the OWS-movement as well.
The funny thing is that you are the one arguing that murky ideological motives are at the core here. The 'evil rich' ..
The customary projection, I reckon ...
When everyone thinks alike, nobody thinks very much. So darn obvious with the (C)AGW sect.
jeffieboy, if "My CV is not an argument", why in hell do you always waving with it? You use it as an argument and nothing else. Pathetic, you stupid biologist. Again, why don't you follow your own advice?" if you want to debate science, then debate science based on empirical facts"
Spot on:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mIEzoGrDKD4/TuUXOo4lrqI/AAAAAAAAFoc/sx-09dwRw…
Inconvinient facts, foilhats:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/canadian-government-finds…
How can a specie be on the verge to extinction and at the same time grow in numbers? Common CAGW logic. I wonder when you stupids are gonna start looking at real, empirical facts instead of computer models, like the rest of us realists living in the real world.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a4…
IPCCs science is rock steady. Yeah Right.
http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php
Yes, because I wanted to know why GSW brought it up. Which you know.
Why do you think you can get away with this?
Obvious and stupid lie. GSW brought it up, and I asked why. Who do you hang out with that you think you can get away with obvious, trifling crap like this?
If by "setting straight" you mean "failed to answer why he brought it up", then sure. I'm never quite sure with you whether you are just playing dumb or are dumb.
Why do you assume people's grasp of the English language is as poor as your own?
What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About.
The relevant references have been pointed out to you. You don't like them. Fine. That does not mean they are not there, or that they are not valid, or that they are not what every sentient being on the planet considers valid science.
Why do you think you can get away with this crap? Who do you think you are fooling with your "real" science tripe? Does this work on anyone?
Vapid. Pointless. Asinine. Projection.
Gee, whiz. You caught me! It came to me because, well, I studied physics for six years. Clown.
I'm sure that this whining satisfies some deep-rooted need to project in order to keep your raging insecurity at bay on a day-to-day basis, but again, who do you think you are fooling? It is so transparent and sad.
This has nothing to do with my understanding of physics, and everything with your chronic and pathological failures of reading comprehension. Until you understand who brought up what, "basics [sic] physics" don't even enter the picture.
This is obvious to everyone but you. Why do you think it is not?
Sweetheart, we do. Just because you have a different definition of that method, one that you cannot even properly articulate beyond "real", and whatever agrees with you... that's a you-problem, Jonas. You're sitting there trying to tell scientists what the scientific method (according to Jonas) is and expect to be taken seriously?
Does this work for you elsewhere? Have you actually found anyone that falls for this vapid posturing?
Totally. I see the pentax clown still under the impression that cutting and pasting press releases, YouTube videos and denialist zombie arguments does anything other than making him look like a complete moron. You might want to talk to him about that, he's getting really boring.
More bluster. More poor English. What a font of hot air you are.
Well, in that case, could you deign your superior intellect to point a single argument you made that does not depend on redefinitions of well-established terms?
Just one, Jonas. I double-dog dare you.
Right. That's all we have. That's why you've taken Bernard up on his bet, right? If that's all there is to it, you could score easy money. Enough to keep you in Cheesy Poofs for the rest of your life.
You HAVE taken Bernard up on his bet, haven't you? You're so intelligent and knowledgeable, there's absolutely no problem taking on such a bet, is there?
You are so pathetic that you actually not only steal people's arguments and descriptions, you use them on those that used them in the first place. Is it impossible for you to realize that we are not as dense as you? Why do you think you can get away with this?
Vapid. Asinine. Projection.
Vapid. Asinine. Projection.
Vapid. Asinine. Projection.
Talkbacks? You're drunk again, aren't you?
"Stuff"? Yep, drunk. Gotta be.
We can tell, precious.
Not at all. It does BUY him credibility, for instance when talking about the scientific method. As supposed to some Internet clownshoe who came up with a loopy definition of his own and is congenitally unable to understand why others fail to bow down to his imaginary brilliance.
Obvious and stupid lie. Jonas, this is not a fresh thread where you can pretend things were not said. The entire discussion is up there for all to see. What wretched souls have you found that fall for your lies? Where are these poor deluded creatures?
Vapid. Asinine. Content-free. Citation needed. Projection.
What, that thing that you just made up? That transparent strawman? Why yes, Jonas, it does. Stupid as hell.
My point is that you have no argument. Go ahead, whine some more about how I wouldn't understand. Embarrass yourself further. Every time you pull that tired old evasion you cede again that you have no argument, that you have no substance, that you cannot deal with us not accepting your fantasy definitions, and show how angry you are that we know more about the subject than you, the almighty Jonas, the legend in his own mind who is more intelligent and knowledgeable than all present. You cede that you have nothing more than vapid whining, JAQing off and other sophomoric trifles that work so well in the corner pub but wither sadly when subjected to any type of scrutiny.
Oh, do share. What is being discussed? 90%? Asked and answered. Hand velocity being a dependent variable? Asked and answered. These topics are dead as a dodo but are all you are whining about. Do you have an argument? Will you make it? Either do or admit you have nothing left.
Take your pick, Jonas.
You don't get to redefine "reasonable" to mean "what I agree with", Jonas. Why do you think you can get away with this?
Well it should be trivial to point out such a weakness without redefining science, statistics, the scientific method or anything of the kind then, right, Jonas? Why don't you go ahead and do so, or concede that all your arguments are built on the assumption that you can redefine any and all terms at will.
Again, make an argument or admit you don't have one.
If by "authority" you mean that in civilized discourse, it is impolite, counterproductive and stupid for one party to repeatedly redefine terms to suit his whim. It's also dishonest, transparent and lame. Why did you think you could get away with it?
A demented monkey could realize that I have yet to become emotional. Is this projection or wishful thinking?
Are you talking about "what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists"? There are no parts to that question, idiot. It requires a 1 to 3 digit answer. There you go again, redefining, waffling, avoiding because you're afraid to actually discuss substance. Do you think this escapes anyone's attention? Can you sincerely tell me that you think you can get away with this? Do you sincerely think that waving your hands frantically while whining about "parts" and "relevance" distracts anyone from the simple fact that you will not answer that simple question out of fear?
I hope you're fooling yourself and that it helps you get through the day. You're the only one, though.
You've said you didn't want to answer the question because you didn't like it. That's not answering the question, you sad little coward.
*if you want to debate science, then debate science based on empirical facts*
This coming from PentaxZ, who does nothing here but paste links to right wing tosh, and has not discussed one iota of science in any post he's ever made. Pot. Kettle. Black. The clown is not worth any more of a response.
Jonarese: certainly I support the OWS movement. One hundred per cent. If you knew even one little thing about it, you'd see that its aim is to challenge the so-called democratic systems in which a very small portion of society ensure that most of the wealth is and remains concentrated, and that power remains the purview of the privileged few. But why debate this with a vapid right wing nincompoop whose understanding of the planet's social and economic divisions is non existent? I would dearly like to know where your libertarian clap-trap worldview comes from. My guess is from the corporate MSM for starters, and from gleaning a few right wing web sites on the internet. Have you ever heard of George Kennan? Smedley Butler? Paul Nitze? Zbignieuw Brezinski? Henry Cabot Lodge? The Dulles brothers? The Council of Foreign Relations? Halford John MaKinder? The SCO? Project for a New American Century? How many declassified planning documents have you ever read? Have you read any state department memos from the 1940s and 1950s? What do you know about the history of Latin America? Colombia? Venezuela? Uruguay? Argentina? About the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan and Nabucco pipelines? About Mohammed Mossadegh and Jacobo Arbenz? Perhaps you could tell me about FRAPH and Haiti? Prosper Avril? Emmanuel Constant? Sukarno? Suharto? Opeartion Just Cause, 1989? Ever heard of them? What about Camp Bonsteel? Let's go a bit further back in history. Do you know anything about the Korean War? Viet Nam? Or even further back... the Philippines 1899-1902? The 'heathens war', Korea, 1870? Wilsonian idealism and US policy in Cuba, 1915, Haiti, 1918?
Need I go on? I've read so many volumes about US and European foreign policy in the last 20 years because it is closely linked with environmental destruction and the maintenance of poverty in countries whose resources we - meaning our corporate elites - covet. And before you try and veil your profound ignorance by dismissing what I write as 'conspiracy theory stuff', then read Henry Kissinger et als. National Security memo 200, 1974. Or any of Butler's later speeches in the latter 1930s before he was quietly dismissed by the Republican Party. Or virtually ANYTHING from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Unlike dimwits like Lomborg, who appear to believe in the tooth fairy and suggest that everyone lives in a world where the rich countries are wringing their hearts to help the poor, the reality on the ground is quite different. Spending 3 trillion dollars ensuring that Iraq becomes a client state - or should I say, forcing US taxpayers to pay three trillion dollars to support an illegal war that left almost a million dead, 5 million internally displaced refugees and a country in ruins - was never a problem for the corporate-political establishment in the US. Spending a fraction of that money on eradicating poverty in the south - unthinkable. Most economists known that there are not enough resources to support the bloated over-consumptive whims of those and especially the rich) in the north. This has been known by the privileged groups that dominate domestic society and the state for years - read 'moderate' Kennan's chilling 1948 internal memo or Kissinger et als 1974 memo - and this becomes clear.
The bottom line is that capital repatriation from the poor south to the rich north (at a current ratio of 8:1, up from an already appalling 3:1 in 1970), and the continued plundering of resources to enrich the already rich corporate beaurocracies in the north. Thanks to a fraudulent economic system, characterized by financial criminals from the banking sector and a political system owned and operated by powerful borderless corporations who now occupy just about every regulatory body in the US, we are seeing the division between the have's (mostly the top 1%) and have nots (the rest) growing inexorably wider. The poverty level in the US is at its highest point since the great depression, at a time when banking bonuses are also higher than at any time in history. Its government by the rich for the rich. Period. The current OWS protests in the US will not go away. This is a moment in history when governments owned and operated by a small elite are finally challenged, and brings back ideals I last saw during the Viet nam war and the civil rights movements in the US.
Before you parade any more of your kindergarten-level thinking here, read some environmental economics and learn more than you glean from whatever libertarian crap websites you subscribe to. The truth is not at all complex, but when you've been drip fed b* your entire life, then you see any challenge to the status quo as some left wing conspiracy. Every post you make on here sheds more light on your political thinking.
BTW, you still have evaded the question: what percentage of climate scientists do you think are real scientists?
Twit.
Again, this reference well describes Jonas, PentaxZ and their acolytes. And that's why they loathe it with such gusto...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
"Jonas, PentaxZ and their acolytes": Shit stains on humanity.
Well said, Jeff.
Jonas, would you like to defend the Austrian School here? Are you really up for that, cupcake?
[PentaxZ says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6173751):
>How can a specie be on the verge to extinction and at the same time grow in numbers?
If you cannot answer this question yourself then you have not achieved even an early high school level of understanding/logic.
Oh, and you really need to work on your vocabulary. The term "specie", beloved of denialists who want to strut and prance and pretend to sophisticted scientific usage when speaking of biological matters, is not the singular form of "species". "Species", as it pertains to a taxon of living organisms, is both singular and plural. The term you used - "specie" - is a type of coin, or an archaic/obtuse form for "in kind", or "of like form". It is not used by science to describe living organisms.
And for the pendantic, the vast majority of professional biologists pronounce it "spe-sees", not "spe-shees" or (shudder) "shpe-shees". As in "spe-siation", and "spe-sific". It seems to be a reporter penchant to throw in the "shh" silibant, as if it makes it sound more 'professional'.
It's enough to push my Asperger colleagues through to deep autism...
Hahahaha....really hilarious to watch all the foot stomping and arm waving from you foilhats.
Bernieboy, so, a spelling remark is all that you got (you obviously understand what I mean despite my misspelling)? What about the fact that the polar bear population is larger than ever in 30 years? A inconvinient thruth for you foilhats?
Goodness pentaxZ and Jonas N....I'm new here over the last week. You guys have to be friends with David Duff. LOL I saw where a bet was offered and had to check this thread. You guys have to take it. Reading your comments, it's totally apparent how super intelligent you guys are. I mean you are just as smart as my mother. She has no concept of chemistry, biology, physics, and can do basic math (don't try to talk algebra with her). She has all the answers in the world. Yep, you guys are geniuses. TAKE THE BET! :)
PentaxZ. Bernard is correct. I know this may not permeate your massively thick skull, but under a sudden shift in biotic or abiotic conditions, a species can exhibit a *transient* shift in its population demographics - in other words its numbers can increase - whilst once a threshold is exceeded, its numbers drop precipitously thereafter.
In the case of polar bears, there is an optimum amount of ice that can support a healthy population. As it turns out, a slight decrease in ice pack probably means that the bears have a greater access to the primary food source - seals - which must surface periodically to breathe through holes in the ice. However, given the rate at which the seasonal amounts of ice are decreasing, there is no doubt whatsoever that the optimum threshold is being fast approached or already has been exceeded, and that the lag effects of this have yet to be manifested on the population of bears. This is because the animals are highly K-selected, like other species at the terminal end of food chains. They thus have low rates of reproduction and relatively long lifespans, typical of iteroparous breeders.
Therefore, it is totally useless in species with K-selected characteristics to try and extrapolate long term predictions when their primary habitat is undergoing such a short term (and dramatic) shift. As I said, there will be demographic lags, and the rapid loss of ice in the Arctic will certainly decimate their numbers, once the lag has elapsed and the reality of sub-optimal conditions becomes manifested fully.
There's your high school lesson on ecology for today, PentaxZ. I fully understand why Bernard did not want to respond to your childish posturing, but foir the sake of those interested in understanding how things really play out in nature I decided to oblige.
pentaxZ and Jonas N...sorry if I offended, I'm sure you guys are as smart as my mom when it comes to math...if you guys have advanced math like Algebra you should be good to go. No need for Calc or Stats....TAKE THE BET.
Well jeffie, do you know what the climate hysteria of today and all previous historic armageddon hypes has in common? They didn't happend. As this one also will not. The temperature has paused for almost 15 years, despite an "alarming" rise in co2. The polarbears are thriving, despite less arctic sea ice, allthough the antarctic ice is growing. The sea level is steady, and perhaps even decsenting a bit. The climate refugees has never existed. Severe storms are decreasing, both in frequency and force. Africas Horn has drought, when IPCCs models predicted wast rains and storms. And it goes on and on and on...
No arm waving and foot stomping from foilhats like you and your fellows are able to change the EMPIRICAL facts, allthough some guys, like Mann, sertanely are trying. Armageddon isn't going to happend. Simple as that.
http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=…
Tampax, what you unwittingly serve to illustrate brilliantly is that if you live with your head in shitferbrains blogs you end up, or continue to have, shitferbrains. Just like tabloid readers are conditioned to expect that neanderthal rightwing politics are 'normal', and all women should have distended mammaries.
Nobody expects an intellect like yours to comprehend the threat to polar bears caused by declining arctic ice, or what that the wider collapse of that ecosystem is a warning of. Nor does anyone expect you to comprehend the difference between sea ice and ice shelves in the Antarctic. And let's face it, even trying to explain such points would be a waste of time. You just aren't equipped.
Suffice to say that ignoring [primary sources](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports…) and continuing to be spoonfed selected information from all the known disinformers you love so well can only lead you further into your blind alley fantasy world than you already spectacularly are.
Ahem. [Citation needed]
Chek,
I could not have said it better. PentaxZ gets his information entirely from anti-environmental blogs. Its clear the guy has never read a primary peer-reviewed article in his life.
It's pathetic, really.
Well, who is the most believable prime source about polar bears? A bunch of NGO "scientists" or the Nunavut people living in the same habitat as the bears? I rest my case, foilhats.
Citation for "the temperature has paused for almost 15 years", or admit that you were lying.
Pick.
Well, who is the most believable prime source about polar bears? A bunch of NGO Government and University scientists carrying out population studies or the Nunavut people living in one partial geographical area of the same habitat as the bears?
I rest my case, foilhats knucklehead.
Corrected that for you, moron. And at least learn to use an atlas - even school children can manage that.
Dear cheek, I assume you are referring to Times Atlas?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/20/times-atlas-apologizes-for-mi…
:-)
A species that is threatened IRL is the deltoid parrot. If the hiatus doesn't cease to exist anytime soon, the ill-smelling and noisy little bird is threatened big time. I'm sure it will put a fight, but in the end it will have to adapt or...
Congratulations Olaus! You have just won the award for most useless, irrelevant and non sequitur comment of the day!
I mean, really! The Times Atlas did the ice on Greenland wrong. Therefore, no AGW, amirite?
Christ on a crutch you're a moron.
As ever, your assumption would be wrong Oluas/Olaus, as any regional map would do - though Tampax would likely become confused by so many lines and placenames or distracted by all the pretty colours.
As for your dig at the Harper-Collins-Murdoch map error, that gaffe was of course [corrected by real scientists.](http://lists.cryolist.org/pipermail/cryolist-cryolist.org/2011-Septembe…)
While on the subject of real and fake scientists, shouldn't you climatescam global conspiracy idiots be off wiping your hard drives before the Illuminati Police or whatever come knocking at your door later? I hear they're out hunting.
Hahaha...nice to have a real laugh in the morning.
2010 is tied for the warmest year on record
Jeff H
Thank you for promptly confirming my suspicions, even exceeding them ...
I am sure you read a lot of conspiracy books and stuff. I even believe that you do a better job 'reading' things that appeal to your fantasies, prejudice, wishful thinking, and which 'confirm' to you how evil everybody else is.
Far better a job than that reading real science, or just short comments on a blog.
But on the other hand, that's not really saying anything at all.
But I found it funny: You are the one harping on about ideological motivations, about political agendas, about how evil, dishonest and ruthless the âother sideâ must be etc.
And all I need to say is âOWSâ and it all comes out at once â¦
Stu, I see give Jeff support again, although not being able to make any arguments of your own (other that brainless ramblings). Have you managed to âdefendâ anything, is there anything you are up for?
Pssst: You donât have to answer that. It was a rhetorical question.
Stu,
sorry I missd your hilarious and emotional #2676. It's absolutely wonderful. You are now in denial-spin.
And you maintain that you âstudied physics for six yearsâ and couldnât see anything wrong with what luminous wrote ..
Hilarious and wonderful again!
Priceless actually. Sorry I had missed it before.
You are a perfect example of what can be found among the CAGW-cultists. Jeffie is extreme even among that lot, but no less entertaining.
And you say that he has a clue about âthe scientific methodâ even disussed it!?
As Alice would say:
Delusionaler and deliusionaler ⦠Stu! Please!
Keep it up and keep it coming.
So in Jonarseland, books and documents by the authors of multi-generational, supra-administrational national policies are "conspiracy books and stuff". Brzezinski and Kissinger, in Jonarseland, the equivalent of David Icke and Alan Watt. What a gonad.
This strikes me as being the same level of right-wing kookery that bundled together sub-prime loans into Collateralized Debt Obligations, gave them a triple-A rating and pretended they had the same solidity as triple-A rated government bonds. And now try to hold countries to ransom by declaring their credit-worthiness is less than their preferred financial junk bonds. Utter self-serving, greed driven madness.
The right-wing everywhere have lost all touch with reality in pursuit of their ideology, especially the 'must try harder' ones from socialist Sweden who like to hallucinate that they're the finest brains on the planet.
pentax:
Thank you for ceding that you have no point, no argument and were lying about your "15 year pause". Of course, we all knew you were lying already, but it is nice of you to not even pretend anymore that you're a serious person -- it saves quite a bit of time.
Jonas:
Do you have a single argument against the points Jeff brought up? Just one? These would take the form of "Jeff is wrong about [one of the facts he stated] because of [actual relevant counter-factual information]".
Cupcake, I'd love for you to defend economic libertarianism.
Especially now that you have again admitted you have no argument on climate change. None whatsoever. #2700 has nothing of substance. Congratulations, it is your most vapid yet -- but please, stop whining about my physics education. You're flaunting your insecurity about that so much it is becoming painful to watch.
Stu to Jonas N:
> Especially now that you have again admitted you have no argument on climate change. None whatsoever.
To be fair, Jonas's best argument is that he is not a liar, but only stupid. Strictly speaking, that is not an argument against climate change, but it is the best he can do. At least, it is the most intelligent statement he has made in this 2700+ thread bearing his own name - his greatest achievement ever.
Note: I am just paraphrasing the actual substance of his most valid point.
Stu-pid
"... and were lying about your "15 year pause."
Yeah right. What was the temperature las year? And the year before? And the year before that? And so on for the past 15 years. You really are a stupid foilhat. Moron.
There really is [no lower limit to stupidity](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:2011/trend/plot/h…).
Especially when it comes to someone's goonsquad.
You obviously have no idea of the answer.
So after #2704-5, the question now remains: is pentax just dumb as a post, a pathological liar, or both?
Andy S
Once more you get it wrong (need to be disingenuous):
Me pointing out what **your best argument** was, is **not** an argument of mine.
As you may remember (and desperately try to suppress and deny) I had quite some things to say about 'your best argument', and nowhere have I seen you even attempting to add something. Instead there has been a lot of empty wordplay (and worse). But hey, that's all most of here are capable of, and definitely what they prefer ...
I understand you feel more comfy and warm among them.
As you (probably+) realize, there is nothing to win for the AGW-groupies in a civil debate ...
Still no argument from Jonas. Still no substance. Still nothing but sad, insecure, vapid blustering.
Jonas, can you stop whining long enough to make an argument? Anything?
No Jonas, **you** were not pointing out anything. **I** was pointing out that **you** were lying, and **you** said in your defense that you are handicapped due to a lack of intelligence.
And I cannot see a better argument about anything from you anywhere else in this thread. You were really peaking intellectually there (although it passed quickly).
*I am sure you read a lot of conspiracy books and stuff*
Jonas, your ignoramus posturing gets worse by the day. All your posts do is admit that you don't have a clue about much of anything, so your only strategy is to accuse me of reading 'conspiracy books and stuff'. That's the extent of your 'rebuttal'? That's it? And you think this vacuous response would gain you the support of any open-minded people who might be sitting on the fence? It is so easy to demolish everything you say, because you are unable to respond with even a scintilla of knowledge. Instead, you cling to your intellectually empty room by accusing me of 'reading a lot of conspiracy books and stuff'.
Essentially, and in line with their profound ignorance and far right political ideologies, the climate change deniers here don't have the ability to discuss facts; they are left with lame insults and put-downs. Gee, Jonas you make it easy for us! You know nothing about a lot of things. What an achievement. And each time your wafer-thin points are demolished, you are forced to reply because of your bloated ego but the end result is that you only further embarrass yourself. No wonder I, Stu, Chek, Andy and Bernard have such fun with you. You are a piece of cake.
Bla, bla, bla. A dishonest scientist doesn't deserve to be called a scientist att all.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-…
Jeffie, your hilarious but misplaced excesses in self idolatry reminds me of what comes out of Beaker's mouth in the Muppet lab:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mggl7cC8iys&feature=related
You are that good Jeffie!
Olaus, PentaxZ ad nauseum,
If you two twits and Jonas were even capable of making a single, authoritative argumnet, I would be shocked into silence... but look at the latest nada nada nada from you three: Jonas, who clearly hasn't read a thing on public policy or economics in his life, is reduced to accusing me of reading 'a lot of conspiracy books and stuff'...
PentaxZ, as in keeping with his IQ of 50 or less, pastes some right wing bilge up from Fox News, which is probably his main source of 'informed discussion'...
And you Olaus, you old fart, are reduced to pasting up tosh from the Muppets...
The three idiots. What a team of intellectual heavyweights you all make. I don't need to exhibit 'self-idolatry' - the three of you make anything written by a kindergarten child look like it comes from intelligent discourse.
Moreover, Olaus, your barbs are complete hypocrisy, given how much Jonas thinks of himself. "I know what I am talking about" he has famously exclaimed on more than one occasion on this thread. Were that to be true, I would certainly defer to his wisdom. But, like you and 'Mr. IQ 50' Pentax, Jonas has had absolutely nothing of value to add to this or any other discussion. He's clearly never read up on anything I wrote in my last lengthy post, so, like you and IQ 50 man he's reduced to a few sniveling comments. Frankly I did not expect any more from him, so i wasn't disappointed.
My advice Olaus? Get lost, along with your two vacuous Swedish brethren.
Hey, Tim!
May I make a suggestion? You could start up a new "3 dumb Swedes" thread in which only Olaus, Jonas and PentaxZ can contribute. At least that way they wouldn't continue here or (e.g. Olaus) contaminate other threads. These clowns are becoming very tiresome, yet its hard to resist their constant baiting.
Dear Jeffie Beaker, in contrast to Jonas you only barf and drools about your CV and fantasize about right wing conspiracies and what not. That put you guys in different leagues, and its not to your advantage, to put it mildly. You just have to digest and face the fact that Jonas make valid arguments (and stick to them) while you and your little cheek minions just whine and seek diversions (and comfort) through name-calling. That's about all you can muster professor Beaker.
And please spare us, and yourself, the rest of the titles you have in your sacristy library.
Olaus Petri 2716:
> ...Jonas make valid arguments...
Such as when Jonas admitted his own lack of intelligence? It might very well be valid, but it is not much of an argument. Yet it's the closest thing to an argument he has.
Oh dear, jeffieboy. You really are completely out of arguments. And consequently like all foilhats you want to close down the debate. But you probably have learnt that from your high priest Rajendra Pachauri:
http://www.grist.org/climate-skeptics/2011-12-16-new-approach-to-climat…
"PentaxZ, as in keeping with his IQ of 50 or less, pastes some right wing bilge up from Fox News, which is probably his main source of 'informed discussion'..."
And you think that kind of comments is ok for a "scientist" with your impressive CV? You really think that this kind of immature behavior is helping your (lost) "cause"? Hillarious humor, foilhat.
For your information I never watch american TV.
Thats the entire point. You in the Jonarse entourage don't have any 'debate'.
Nor did anyone say you do, moron, but you did offer up "some right wing bilge up from Fox News", namely http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/16/complicit-in-climategate-doe-… ... apparently you are too stupid to even know what links you yourself post.
*That put you guys in different leagues, and its not to your advantage, to put it mildly*
Olaus, Olaus, you are one funny dude. Right wing conspiracies? Puh-lease. Don't make me laugh. If you can challenge one thing I said above, go ahead and try. But just because you are plainly ignorant is no reason to parrot the musings of your hero.
Barfing my CV? Yeh. Right. If you say so. What's so amusing is how transparent you three dorks are. Early in this thread Jonas accused me several times of not being a 'real scientist'. So I gave him proof of the fact that I am very much a bonafide and real scientist by presenting my credentials. Clearly this rattled him, so what could he do? Predictably, in line with his utter stupidity, he then accuses me of boasting! Essentially, in the infantile world of Jonas, this is how one 'wins' a debate with his opponents. In a nutshell:
1. Accuse them of having no professional qualifications.
2. When they present their qualifications, accuse them of being arrogrant.
3. Return to this mantra every time the opponent shoots down one of your arguments.
Thee three of you Swedish clowns really are a weird tag team. First we have Jonas, a legend in his own mind who claims to "know what he is talking about" when it is clear that he doesn't have any empirical support for anything he says (a candidate for the Dunning-Kruger Hall of Shame); then we have goofy-boy PentaxZ 'IQ 50' who forever pastes links to right wing-nut websites and clearly hasn't read a primary scientific article in his life; then we have Olaus the 'wise old fart' who is Jonas' defensive guard but doesn't even pretend to know any more about science than IQ-50 boy.
What a pathetic lot these three dudes are. Lost in their pit of ignorance is the fact that my views on climate are in line with 95% or more of the scientific community. You'd be hard pressed to find any academic departments in any universities in the world that would support the rantings of the 'Swedish three'. That's why they pollute web sites like Deltoid and huddle under the umbrella of CA and WUWT 9and Fox News, for heaven's sake). Because in any broader community they'd be laughed into oblivion.
Jeffieboy, 75 "scientists" of 79 isn't in any way "... in line with 95% or more of the scientific community." Why are you lying, mr CV? And no, you aren't a real scientist, since you clame that concensus is science. No real scientist "hides the decline" or won't release raw data and algorithms used on the raw data. No real scientist behave like a juvenal on blogs. No real scientist want to shut up opponents.
And you know, imananam, I actuallu didn't see the "Fox News" in the upper left corner. I usually concentrate on the content of what I read. It actually doesn't matter where the info is posted, if it is plausible. But I know you alarmist pay more attention to who writes something instead of what is actually written. Foilhat style.
TampaxZ is obviously unawate of the [Law of Diminishing Idiocy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diminishing_returns) which unlike it's more famous cousin on 'Returns' is logarithmic. And like most right-wing whack-offs, they imagine the world is as stupid as they themselves are.
In practice this means that one outpouting of verbal diarrhoea from TampaxZ et al would take 100 sensible statements from the Jonarse brigade to balance out. Given their collective preferences for evasions on a level that would embarrass a 5 year old, that ain't never going to happen.
I expect this thread will continue as such ad infintum. Or until the Swedish Consulate becomes so ashamed a Special Unit will be ordered to take action for the honour of a once proud nation.
Hey alarmistas, here is a book you must stop from publishing, in the name of your cause.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/12/17/german-climate-and-energy-experts-to…
And cheekychek, obviously your'e completely out of arguments, hence your diarrhoea without any relevant topics at all. Por little boy, are you going to your mother now and cry a bit because the wold no longer believe in your climate hysteria? Perhaps mommy will give you a treat for comfort.
When you are at it, explain to me why a so called scientist wont release raw data and the algoritms used on that data to other scientists. Or don't you think falsification is part of the scientific procedure, foilhat?
The floor's all yours, tinfoil man.
Explain to us why that should be.
Be as convincing and as careful as you can not to leave out a single aspect of this vast Fox reported conspiracy you know in your bones exists to keep you and yours down.
Yes, I do know that you are so incredibly stupid that you didn't see the "foxnews.com" in the URL you posted, and that this is the second time that you have moronically responded to a different point than the one made.
Ah, yes, plausibility ... I can see how that filter works for a moron like you a priori committed to a view.
Hi. This is Stu. Yes, the Stu.
I have a confession to make.
I was really uncomfortable with Jeff Harvey laughing at people and then mentioning he knows more about science than they do. It really seemed a forceful assertion. It seemed like blustering. It seemed like someone trying to win by force of authority.
I searched my conscience.
Then I searched google.
I have ascertained that this is the Jeff Harvey any simpleton could find through google. I have ascertained what Jeff Harvey has done. I have ascertained that Jeff Harvey, when it comes to ecology and what is accepted by all but Jonas and his cheerleaders is the scientific method, knows what he is talking about.
It put Jeff's comments in a bit of a different light.
As where I approached the Swedish clown car with a "you are a priori wrong because of motive and method of reasoning [such as it is]", Jeff short-circuited it with a "if you knew all of this I would have heard of you". Sounds asinine, and in a way it is. It is also dangerous, as it opens you up to a month or two of (veiled or not) Galileo gambits. Just scroll up to see what I mean.
I would just like to state here that, while I don't agree with the methods Jeff uses to communicate a good proportion of the time, I finally took the time to look into his CV. His arguments stand on his own, I just needed to verify a few things.
I've just stopped laughing. I will put up good money right now that says that at least one of our Swedish clown car contingent has taken the time to do the same research I have. I think that there is a good reason Jonas has been whining about my six years of physics education (such as it is) rather than anyone else's.
TL;DR: Google Jeff Harvey. Google Jonas N. Think for yourself who should and who should not be talking about "the scientific method".
Indeed a naive and uninformed person could read this thread and think that Jonas might be right about some things and have the better arguments, but they would never reach that conclusion about PentaxZ.
I've just been reading that you're a child molester. (Like yours, it was a reliable, objective source.)
@2730
Sorry, ianam, but that little ploy is rhwomat's speciality. And let's be real, ianam, tactical scheming is for the big-boys, not a water-boy, wannabe tag-along like you. Stick with your bucket and towels--it's your natural station in life. It's what you do well. And, oh by the way, ianam, you, like Jeff Harvey, are a steaming pile of zit-pus. But you (and we) already knew that. Right, ianam?
But while I'm here, there's one of Jeff Harvey's comments I'd like to explore. In particular, in his comment #2715, Jeff proposes to the blog-master a new thread (I believe he wittily calls it the "3dumbSwedes") to which Olaus, Jonas, and PentaxZ would be confined. Now, Jeff's proposal is, pretty much, just another of his typically stupid, dumb-butt ideas. However, just this once, when you clear away the doofus, dork-bait, screw-loose dross that is an inevitable part of anything that emanates from Jeff's squirrely brain, you surprisingly find something worthwhile.
So here's the recommended action I've managed to salvage from Jeff's original, defective proposal: It is requested that the blog-master open a thread--let's tentatively call it "The Zitoids"--to which all the Deltoids, except Olaus, Jonas, PentaxZ, and myself would be confined. That would allot the rest of the blog to the four of us for intelligent discussions while leaving the Deltoid-land regulars, in peace, on their own special thread to eat their boogers, pop one another's zits, play hide-the-watermelon, indulge their passion for vegan fart-humor and generally get off on their heavy-petting group-think.
Seems like a win-win deal to me.
Comment 2730 is, of course, directed, initially, at ianam's comment #2729--sorry for any confusion there.
Oh no chek, your stupid foilhat, you don't get away so easy. In the whole scientific community the rule of falsification or reproduction is a very improtant cornerstone. But not in the world of IPCC science, hence you alarmistic foilhats must explain why it is ok to skip the most important feature of real science. Eyes on the ball, stupid.
Well stu-pid, I'm still not impressed with jeffies CV. It doesn't matter if he has a CV a mile long. If he continues to claim that consensus (arm waving) is science and that falsification isn't neccesary in the "climate science" community, he isn't a real scientist.
And yes, all you alarmistic stupids, the mean temperature hasn't risen at all the last decade or so. That fact you can't dribble away with statistics. The "alarming" rise has taken a pause. End of story.
*Jeffieboy, 75 "scientists" of 79 isn't in any way "... in line with 95% or more of the scientific community."*
More obfuscation. What you conveniently ignore, dumbass, is the fact that every National Academy of Science in every country on Earth supports the link between the human combustion of fossil fuels and GW. Second, as a scientist who has been working in research for over 20 years, I have met thousands of colleagues and peers at my places of work, conferences, workshops and in other discussions. I've met less than 5 in that time whom I would call climate change skeptics. As I said, and I strongly reiterate, the scientific community accepts AGW as 'given'. The only doubts that remain are how severe it is likely to be and what the repercussions are for natural and managed ecosystems.
PentaxZ, you've almost certainly never met a scientist in your life. I find it in keeping with your puny mind that your reply would be so vacuous.
Mike: some advice. Go to hell. You couldn't debate your way out of a sodden paper bag. You've clearly been spending too much time with the idiot brigade, and its clearly rubbed off.
Tim: given Mike's propensity for profound ignorance, perhaps in the new thread I suggested you can also toss him... and sunspot for good measure. And then you could rename it the Cambrian Shield brigade, given that these numbskulls appear to have not evolved since the Burgess Shale. Effectively, they should be restricted to the anti-science sites like WUWT, CA, Bishop's Hill and others from which they emerged from the primordial ooze. These people are not interested in science but in promoting their warped political ideologies.
*That would allot the rest of the blog to the four of us for intelligent discussions*
Proof that Mike is a bonafide idiot. Since when has anything on this thread written by Jonas, Olaus or especially PentaxZ been "intelligent"? You must be equating intelligence with the discourse that occurs between amoeboids. All PentaxZ does is endlessly paste up drivel from anti-environmental blogs, but for some reason he's never heard of primary literature.
Mike you aren't anything other than a sad, pitiful little man. And a hoot, for good measure.
My little Jeffie, I'm sure you lost it even before you understood that the 90 % figure you held so dear was nothing but an opinionated number. Anyways, that was a claim made by Jonas and the lot of you failed miserably to correct him. You Jeffie even scurried away in an attempt to read the "science" but came up with zero. And from there on the lack of scientific arguments (from your side of the fence) were minuscule regardless if the topic circled around the 90 % something figure, the half billion losing their freshwater and simple physics.
You try to compensate your lack of arguments by waiving your CV, name-calling, cursing, and whining about right wing conspiracies. The resemblance with a reverend speaking on tongues is striking. Faith is all you got Jeffie. And It ain't pretty.
is valid, whoever else has used it. That's you've read something has no bearing on whether it's true ... that simple fact isn't changed by any of your ineffective blabbering about zit-pus and the like. You could be replaced by an automated insult generator and it would make no difference, as your next post, which I will not bother responding to, will further demonstrate.
Jeff, these shit stains on humanity aren't worth your time ... do something productive instead (and I will endeavor to do the same).
Ianam, you are a true altar boy, always ready to join the Whiner sänger knäben. :-)
Of course, Olaus Petri has been given relevant pointers to "the 90 % something figure", but refused to read them. That pretty well sums up his contribution to this thread and is a reliable indicator of this overall intellectual capacity.
Dear Andy, I read them but since I'm not a religious man the scientific truth behind the 90% didn't materialize. :-)
Opinionated figures are of course figures, but not scientific ones. Keep that in mind Andy and you will be enlightened.
Jeff Harvey:
> And then you could rename it the Cambrian Shield brigade, given that these numbskulls appear to have not evolved since the Burgess Shale.
We trilobites and other primitive arthropods, as well as bristelworms, lobopods and even some chordates (some of whom are lawyers) find that statement offensive, and will take legal action unless their name is changed to "the Ediacaran frond brigade"!
"The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems."
http://noconsensus.org/scientists/freeman-dyson.php
Dear Olaus Petri, so you read them but understood nothing.
Very interresting and spot on from Donna Laframboise:
âTo be a climate skeptic in 2011 is to be a member of a minority. Those in power â the establishment â all insist that the debate is over and that the science is settled. Politicians, media conglomerates, business leaders, and international organizations have been banging that drum for years (see note in italics at the bottom of this post).
But science is never settled. As new information becomes available, our ideas evolve. For those who think science is something that gets decided, once and for all, I have one word for you: Pluto.
When I was a child the establishment view was that it was a planet. In grade school and high school I was taught that this was the case. Had I taken science courses in university, during the 1980s, Iâd have heard the same thing.
But in 2006, when I was in my early forties, the experts announced that theyâd made a mistake. Revoking Plutoâs official planet status, they said it didnât meet all the necessary criteria.
Compared to the climate debate whether or not a heavenly orb qualifies as a planet is a straightforward matter. And yet the answer was not written in stone. Over time, the view of the experts changed.
Therefore just because a perspective happens to be embraced, at this moment in time, by a majority of scientists means nothing. As eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has observed:
In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.
Minority views have a long track record of challenging established authority well beyond the scientific realm. The anti-slavery campaign began as a minority position. A hundred years ago the belief that women should be able to vote was still a minority view.
These days, when we think of minorities, groups such as gays and lesbians, Muslims, and the disabled spring to mind.
Which brings me to Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This gentleman is the head of a UN body. The UN is supposed to be a champion of diversity. It is supposed to defend the rights of minorities to participate as equal members in society.
And yet this past week, at a conference in California, Pachauri âjokedâ that the world would be better off without climate skeptics. In his view we should be assigned seats on Richard Bransonâs private spaceship. According to a published account:
âPerhaps it could be a one-way ticket,â Pachauri said, smiling, âthough Iâm not sure space deserves them.â
No one appears to have distanced themselves from these remarks. Apparently everyone else in attendance thought this was funny.
So I have a question for California governor Jerry Brown, Richard Branson, and the 200 or so others who participated in that event:
Which other minorities should also be disposed of?
How funny would it have been had Pachauri said that gays should be given a one-way ticket to outer space? Or Muslims?
Really, I want to know.
â
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/12/17/which-other-minorities-should…
Andy, Dan-Brownian understanding counts in your world, but the real world demands better proofs, preferable scientific ones.
Its nice though, that you write in a civil manner.
Pentaxz, your links always give food for thought, even when you stuff up and accidentally post something that disproves your views.
In response I would like to quote the smartest person ever to comment on this website - yourself:
>Wow, that's because your'e a stupid foil hat, your idiot.
:-)
Thanks pentaxZ for that hilarious quote from Laframboise. Pluto's reclassification had little to do with any new knowledge about Pluto itself (although the debate was triggered by the discovery of Eris). It was just a matter of making a definition. The most important recent discovery regarding Pluto was rather in 1978, when its mass was properly calculated.
Donna is not exactly the brightest candle in the Christmas tree.
Olaus #2735
I must correct you there: It was Bernard J who claimed he would read up a lot on that 90% claim, to prove how wrong I was. But never came back. Jeffie has not read, or alleged to have read any relevant science discussed by me. Heck, he can't even read short blog-comments correctly. Indeed he has blustered quite a lot about me 'never having read a scientific paper' or 'not having any formal training or skill at all'
But inventing his own facts neither constitutes reading, or knowing or arguing any stance at all ...
But hey, that's our Jeffie. He (too) has a CV, talks with others during lunch, and sometimes gets to mingle with 'the big boys' ...
Therefore, the latter must be right (about whatever Jeffie doesn't even know they claim) and everybody else, not quite so convinced (by their actual work) must be a moron or idiot.
That's essentially Jeffie's argument and has been since august.
No, there is one more: Since the crowd here desperately wants Jeffie to be correct, quite a few here have sided with him, on his blind uninformed opinions (about him self, about me, about the opposing side) and regarding his refusal/ignorance to address any substance or the topic at hand. To instead resort to shouting, name calling, demanding banning and other utter drivel.
And Jeffie (the self professed 'real' scientist), has argued that the 'sensible and well informed' comments by the likes of Bernard, chek, Wow, Stu, Michael, ianamn etc somehow reinforce those initial and blind, uninformed guesses and fantasies of his ..
In short, his arguments constitue:
His ignorance on the matter, his CV, and the ignorance and the comments of those echoing his beliefs.
PS And, I almost forgot: OWS indeed has the key answers, the solutions and the capacity to the solve the current turmoil in the world. I think the 'solution' was soemthing like: More OSW and more Jeffies ... and more handouts ;-)
Sorry Jonas, all the Bernies and Jeffies sound and look alike to me. Its hard to tell them apart. ;-)
Andy S
You have repeatedly (here in #3) pointed to that there is a Figure 9.9 in which that 90% claim is illustrated graphically.
But the question, as you well know, has been the entire time whether or not there is any actual and proper (rigorous, real) science behind that claim.
Now you again say (like Stu, Bernard, chek, Jeffie (although he may have actually abandoned that particular belief)), that that science can be found in the references.
But that's the entire point: None of you, not one single one of you has read or even seen such 'science', you have taken the claim on pure faith.
luminous and Martin Vermeer are the only one to have dared to point to an actual reference. Which however did not contain what is missing.
Your;
>"Olaus Petri has been given relevant pointers to "the 90 % something figure", but refused to read them. That pretty well sums up his contribution to this thread and is a reliable indicator of this overall intellectual capacity"
Is the typical backward non-logic of Jeffie and his likes. You argue from your own ignorance, and this case it is patently untrue too. Nobody among you has given any 'relevant pointers'.
None of you has even seen any relevant references. And for one times sake, you have even refrained from lying about it: None of you has gotten close to even claiming having seen that missing science. All you have managed is arm waiving, blustering and demanding:
Go and find it your self, it is (we believe) to be found somewhere in there. If you haven't read them, or if you can't find that claim, it proves that you are stupid ...
Whereas that last little piece, once again was a gigantic own goal. Bernard J (I think) said, that only and idiot couldn't find it.
Well fellows, that's quite finger he is pointing at himself and all of you who haven't been able to find it either ...
Jonas N,
Maybe you should try to read the text that comes with Fig 9.
Obvious and stupid lie. You've been pointed to it repeatedly. That you don't like it does not make one whit of difference.
Oh, and Pentax, is it 10 or 15 years now for your "pause"? You keep changing your story. After you've settled on a number, please go read up on the difference between climate and weather.
Andy S, you mean Figure 9.9, don't you?
I did, and I even explained what that text meant and implied. You are the one running away when it comes to understanding what various statistical claims and statements mean and are worth, remember?
Stu
Not one single one has showed me a reference where the proper science for that particular claim is presented and in which he has found and read that science. Further: None of you here would be capable of arguing the contents of such a paper had you actually read it. Read! (Not only opened in your browser, and typed Crtl-F, 90%, and hit enter!)
But since you haven't even done that, there is no contest from you. Only stu-pid blustering.
Martin V and luminous, are the only ones to have given a reference they (presumably) had read, and hoping there was some support for that AR4 claim.
Well, I read them, there where things mentioned, at least partly relevant to 'attribution' but no science making the AR4 claim which all of you have heard so many times, all of you have heavily invested faith in, while desperately hoping that somebody else has done his homework better than you.
Stu, let me echo Andy's (misdirected) advice. Maybe you should read what you comment before you spill it. I said:
>None of you has gotten close to even claiming having seen that missing science.
I repeat: None of you has seen it! That's what i claim. And none of you has claimed to have seen it either. Your 'pointed to' is nothing but blathering. Lots of groupies here have 'pointed to' the list of references, several hundreds of them, demanding 'Find it your self!'.
But that wasn't the issue. The thing is that all of you who so desperately hope it is hidden in there, somewhere, have not seen it, don't even know what/where it is supposed to be. Not even now, 4½ years after it was presented.
Instead you all sound like you Stu ... making ignorance a virtue ...
Can you foilhats answer these questions without twist like a worm on a hook?
1. Why canât warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
2.Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
3.Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
4.Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
5.Why did many of Earthâs major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and manâs CO2 emissions?
6.Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earthâs CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
7.Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
8.Why are correlations of Earthâs temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earthâs temperature with CO2 levels?
Stu-pid. 13 years. Happy now, foilhat?
Jonas N,
Your "explanation" did in no way indicate that you had read and understood what it was about. It just looked like some generic copy-and-paste rant against models.
If people don't want to waste time on your ramblings, it doesn't mean they are "running away".
Andy S
Well, if you seriously believe that I haven't read, can't even read a figure caption in the AR4, then you indeed have a problem with which I cannot help you.
The other (actual) references which came up, I would surmise. you haven't even read. And I don't remember you even trying to make any informed comments. Meaning: your criticism of mine are vapid blathering.
Wrt to statistics: Yes, I have made quite a few statements, together with explanations and examples. And no, none of you have been criticizing or challenging them with any real substance or validity. (Your 90%<100%-comment was the most relevant one)
Clippo UK tried mouthing of initially, but the points he had, I had already made and agreed with. But he was missing the relevant parts (prediction w/ curve fits). He just (like so many) was hoping that I had no clue what I was talking about.
Further, luminous was actually the only one trying to stand his ground, not running away. Hopelessly getting entangled in his own bungled first statistics, and then physics and feedbacks.
It is really quite fascinating how many of you so desperately and still want to believe that I have no skill or education at all, that I can't read even simpler scientific texts .. and this even when many of you fail miserably reading even short blog comments.
But Andy S, with running away, I mostly referred to you. And yes, talk backs like
>'just looked like some generic copy-and-paste rant against models'
is what I'd call running away (puffing some smoke while doing so ..)
No answers to the eight questions, warmistas?
Andypanty, "... it doesn't mean they are "running away"." Who are you trying to fool? Of course it do, you lying foilhat.
Jonas N:
>Your 90%<100%-comment was the most relevant one
Here we go again. Jonas consistently fails to live up to even the most rudimentary intellectual standards. This is really all we need to know. Jonas is a troll, and I'm not so stupid that I'll let him waste my time on engaging with his ramblings. No, he is only good for poking with a stick.
What you require is an education, which you won't get from blogs, and neither can I imagine anybody taking the time or trouble to provide detailed answers for an airhead like you. Like your mentor Jonarse, you're just not equipped.
In other words, cheekychek, the questions are inconvenient truth for you foilhats, to which you don't have fitting answers. Worms on a hook. Nice indeed.
There you go again, Andy S
Running away, for the pettiest of reasons. You know which comment I refer to, I have linked it multiple times. It was the core of your argument/objection, it was a valid observation. And I politely responded to it and explained it. And you 'ran away' ...
You instead bluster about:
>fails to live up to even the most rudimentary intellectual standards.
Fully well aware of that neither you, nor any of the others on your side, are even close to debating as honestly as I do. Or addressing the topic for that matter ..
Look, I can't really blame the lot of you for being miserably poor at understanding, interpreting and correctly using statistics. You guys just aren't the type ..
But I find it notable that so many try to still maintain that they are justified in mouthing off on that topic here ...
Dishonesty, or delusion (or both), I can't really tell.
Jonas N,
Your obsessive lying about what I said is not a petty reason.
It is obvious that you are lying, and I have since long lost count of how many times it has happened. If you want a serious discussion, you should refrain from obsessive repetivite lying. It is as simple as that, Jonas-troll!
Ianam,
Given the gumbified arguments of the Swedish three, I will heed your advice. But before I do that...
I would like to address the holier-than-thou arguments expressed here by our poor little climate change denial boy, Jonas.
First, in rechecking this thread, I have yet to see him once - ONCE - site primary literature on climate change and to discuss in detail each of the subtle and not so subtle nuances in this literature. Chris listed a series of articles at # 144, Bernard at # 261, and luminous beauty at # 392. In no case did our claimed 'honest seeker of the truth' read a single one of the pasted articles and respond to their content. When the subject switched to glacial retreat in the Himalayas, I cited several articles showing that the loss of glaciers in the region is significant. And how did Jonas respond? As he did with the climate change literature. he ignored it. Why? Because he hadn't read any of it and, desperately anting to retain the intellectual high ground, he stuck to his 'bait and switch' strategy. Listen Jonas, if you want to debate climate science, then you have to read the literature. Aside from a bit of IPCC 2007, its clear that you've passed over the primary literature embedded in the document. And you are forced to bluff around this sticky issue, which you do with the support of your frankly ignorant but remarkably small fan club here.
When PentaxZ, along with his single figure IQ, waded in here with links to Fox News, Donna LaFramboise, Jennifer Maharosey, James Delingpole, Bishop's Hill, CA, WUWY and a slew of other blogs run by non scientific right wing libertarians, and spewed forth further nonsense written at the level of an imbecile, its interesting that our self-appointed seeker of the truth never once countered any of the garbage he posted. When PentaxZ ignorantly claimed the Polar Bear populations are not under threat, I countered this with science in which I described the concept of habitat equilibria, the extinction debt and longer term demographics on a species at the terminal end of the food chain. Like a hit-and-run driver, PentaxZ never once attempted to challenge my argument, like Jonas and Olaus he simply moved on to his next Fox-News type link.
When it comes to evaluating the broader views of the scientific community on climate change, Jonas and PentaxZ have used the tried and trusted method that, without some official survey being published in which everyone with a PhD is questioned, then there is no strong support for the view that humans are forcing climate. Forget the fact that every National Academy of Science on Earth, along with the Geophysical Research Union and just about every other scientific body considers the science settled, at least enough for mitigating policies to be implemented. No, the strategy of the deniers, in keeping with other anthropogenic threats to the environment, is that without 100% concrete proof there is no consensus - or problem. Earlier in this thread I showed that if one types in the the key words 'climate change' and 'biodiversity' into the Web of Science search engine, in which these key words appear in all of the current up-to-date peer reviewed literature, then one gets literally thousands of hits. And in virtually every article, the human component in climate warming is taken as given. One could also type in 'climate change' and 'anthropogenic' and would get thousands of hits, again with virtually all of the studies supporting the link between human actions and warming. This is clearly an exercise that Jonas, PentaxZ and Olaus have not undertaken, and part of the reason is clearly that were they to do so then the broad scientific consensus would be evident. But its clear that these three rarely read the primary literature. Certainly PentaxZ doesn't as evidenced by his complete dependence on right wing blogs to support his political and scientific worldview.
Essentially, web logs like this are vital for deniers like the Swedish three, because they suggest that the views in favor of or against the hypothesis of AGW are fairly even, not only amongst the public but amongst the scientific community. The aim of the deniers has always been to sow doubt, and since the three here have no scientific background whatsoever they also feel relatively safe on blogs, as opposed to venturing in to the scientific arena where their ideas would be shot to pieces. Heck, as I said above, they have yet to discuss the results of a single peer-reviewed study, and this would be required were they to venture into the real scientific world of conferences, workshops and the scientific literature. I have repeatedly challenged Jonas to write up his 'Earth-shattering' ideas for a rigid scientific journal, or else to attend a conference and present a lecture where his ideas would be scrutinized by scientists with years of expertise in relevant fields. At this suggestion, Jonas retreats back into his shell, with the usual bluster and verbiage that is essentially empty. As I have said many times, I am not a climate scientist and thus I defer to the expertise of those doing the actual research. When simpletons like PentaxZ venture into my area of study, ecology, with nonsense about polar bear demographics, then this is easy for me to counter (and note with no response from him). But who ais the really arrogant one here? Jonas, who, despite possessing no formal qualifications in any scientific field has said several times that he 'knows what he is talking about', or me, who says that I trust the opinions of my colleagues in climate science? If Jonas indeed 'knows what he is talking about' then he will write up his ideas and send it to a journal and subscribe to attend a major conference on climate. But don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. Instead, he will continue to pollute the blogosphere where he feels safe.
As I said earlier, a scientist in the United States wrote to me a few months ago and said that I was wasting my time here because the deniers, above all, hate it when bonafide scientists 'on the inside', such as myself, argue that the vast majority of our peers do not question the findings of the IPCC. This is because there is broad agreement amongst professional scientists covering a huge range of disciplines on the causes of the recent warming. Our doubts lay in predicting and better understanding the potential consequences of the stability and functioning of natural and managed ecosystems. But with respect to causation, very few scientists are in disagreement.
Finally, as is keeping when people are confronted with new information or fields that they do not know anything about, it did not surprise me that Jonas dismissed my posting on the social, political and economic consequences of wealth concentration, deregulation and corporate expansionism as 'conspiracy theories and stuff'. This again is the standard tactic employed by those who don't know much of anything about a field: counter your opponent by dismissing their arguments in the most dismissive way possible. So, Jonas, thank you for showing us all here that you've got no idea how the world works, aside from whatever right wing media you read in Sweden. I find it amusing that the huge amount of literature that I have read - hundreds of books over the past decade - is dismissed with a wave of the hand as 'conspiracy theories and stuff'. I am sure that Africa's leading economist, Samir Amin, as well as other leading economists like Patrick Bond, Geoffrey Heal, John Gowdy, and Jeffrey Sachs would be amused to find their work described as 'conspiracy theories and stuff'. As would Boston Globe senior writer James Carroll, or Andrew Bacevich, a West Point Graduate and now Professor of History who lost his son in Iraq. Ditto other esteemed scholars like Anatol Lieven, Pepe Escobar, Forrest Hylton, Greg Grandin, Joseph Stiglitz andeven Zbigniueuw Brezinski. Halford John MacKinder was one of the world's most revered historians at the dawn of the 20th century for developing the 'Heartland Theory'. And to suggest that the Council on Foreign Relations, an influential elite academic organization created in 1919 that publishes the journal 'Foreign Affairs' peddles 'conspiracy theories and stuff' shows me exactly why Jonas is wallowing in his own pit of ignorance.
Two excellent recent papers further supporting AGW are of interest:
1. Thompson et al. *Nature* 2011 - 479: 509-512. Here, it is reported that the extent of Arctic ice loss is unprecedented in at least 1,450 years. As I wrote earlier, the consequences of this loss, which shows no signs of stabilizing or reaching and staying above a critical equilibrium, on Arctic wildlife will be staggering. A similar analogy can be used to describe the effects of the loss of tropical forests on biodiversity. As brooks and Balmford (1997) showed in *Nature*, the loss of forests is gradual but inexorable. Certainly a number of species do quite well when there is a small amount of forest loss, but over much of the world the destruction of tropical forests has continued unabated, meaning that critical thresholds were reached and passed. This explains why many species found in areas like the coastal Mata Atlantica forests of Brazil are doomed: the forests continue to dwindle, meaning that many of the surviving species are exhibiting temporal lags, whereby their populations are now decreasing towards a new, lower equilibrium that will probably be below minimum viability or decrease towards extinction. This is the fate that awaits Polar Bears if the ice continues to decrease in the Arctic. The surviving animals now constitute the 'living dead': extant but doomed unless Arctic ice levels stabilize.
2. Foster and Ramsdorff, Environmental Research Letters 2011 - 6, 04022.
This article examines temperatures over the past 30 years and concludes that the two warmest years in terms of global surface temperatures were 2009 and 2010. Certainly 2010 was an exceptionally warm year - the warmest according to NASA-Cru and second warmest according to Hadley.
Jeffie, and yet again you are rambling about the package instead of the content. Out of arguments?
Well, when your'e at it, why don't answer these questions:
1.Why canât warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
2.Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
3.Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300-year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
4.Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
5.Why did many of Earthâs major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and manâs CO2 emissions?
6.Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earthâs CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
7.Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
8.Why are correlations of Earthâs temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earthâs temperature with CO2 levels?
I'm eager to hear the answers from you, the real "scientist".
You're being ridiculous, Andy S
I have not been lying about what you said: the core of your best argument was that the error bars did not represent 100%. Which is true. And that they therefor not necessarily must overlap. Which is also true. I then explained what that observation is worth.
You're just being ridiculous!
I never claimed that my description was a quote.
You're being ridiculous!
I don't need to lie about anything.
Your needs are ridiculous!
And you have been whining about a total non-issue.
Your whining is ridiculous!
And you have not adressed anything of substance. Neither about your 90%<100% issue, nor anything else.
Your running away is ridiculous!
You have since made lots of (knowingly) untruthful statements. Lying in your own words.
Your lying is idiculous!
And you are nowhere the least bothered about lying people or misrepresentation or wasting peoples time or just trolling in general.
Your hypocrisy is ridiculous!
You (like so many others) seem to dsperately look for a reason to get away from the substance.
Blaming your running away on others is just ridiculous!
In short Andy! Your being rediculous, and now for quite a few months.
(But deceiving yourselves seems endemic here)
PentaxZ,
I would like to ask you to cite several peer-reviewed studies in support of each of your points. There are many with different conclusions: please tell me why your sources are correct.
Not your own opinions: actual bonafide studies. But of course you don't have any: just links to right wing weblogs.
You lose.
Jonas N,
"90% < 100%" is not a description of what I wrote. It is a gross misrepresentation, a blatant lie. And you keep repeating it over and over again for many months. That is simply pathological. If you truly had a point, you wouldn't need to behave like that. And yes, I have been ridiculing you a bit by imitating your own behavior. You deserve that, because of all your lying.
Jeffie.
And yet again you are dodging the questions. Is it so utterly hard for you to answer them? Even a few of them? Since you are a "real scientist" one think you would be able to deliver answers from the top of your head. But obviously you can't. Pathetic.
I suppose that you deep inside that head of yours know that the answers to the questions will shatter your religious beliefs in the CAGW hypothesis. Sorry, but it's you who loose.
yeah jonas, listen to Jeff, he's the man and he knows what science says about global warming.
and see what global warming is doing to
more than 100 Beluga whales, they are trapped in water between ice floes in Russia's Far East, because the water is freeezing so fast.
yep, coz of global warming
BS Andy!
The core of your argument then was that the error bars weren't covering 100%
You are being pathetic!
Together with all the others here who truly need to use 'gross misrepresentations and blatant lies'
>If you truly had a point ..
I made that point right after you pointed out the error bars didn't cover 100%. You never came back!
My point thereafter has been that that indeed was your best argument. And it still is! (Both my point and your hitherto best argument). Regardless of you being unhappy about my description. You are just whining.
>If you truly had a point ..
.. you would have made it by now!
And your hypocritical âconcernâ about misrepresenting and lying still is utterly pathetic.
Pentaxz's bizarre questions that wrongly assume Co2 is the only driver of climate (oh boy) aren't even his own.
They are copied and pasted from World Net Daily, a extremist right-wing Christian website that actively reports Obama is a Kenyan Socialist Muslim.
This is the source he considers more valid than the IPCC and the primary scientific papers.
> 90% < 100%
And 95% is greater than 90% too, Jonarse.
And 0% is less than 90%.
Your point?
Here's a little challenge for you Pentaxz - seeing as you are pretending these questions (which only popped up on the internet a little over a week ago) are the basis of your lifelong skepticism and not merely the latest in a long list of right-wing memes you will forget when the next one comes along, would you be willing to concede that you are incorrect on the subject of AGW if they are answered?
No changing topics.
No goalpost shifting.
No lying.
If you believe the answers to be incorrect, you have to demonstrate that they are *using the primary peer reviewed scientific literature*, not your own personal opinion.
Are you game?
PentaxZ,
I think you're sweating, boy. I simply asked you to cite the published peer-reviewed studies to support your positions. That should be easy for a smart fella like you.
You see, there are many published studies with quite opposite conclusions to the ones you listed. So on what scientific basis are yours correct?
> No changing topics. No goalpost shifting. No lying.
You've just told him to shut up.
Of course, he'll ignore those impositions while claiming he's right.
Some empirical evidence from recent studies: temperature proxies. Where is your primary literature, PentaxZ? And please perchance inform the audience here where the flaws are in these published studies. I wait with baited breath.
1. Tierney et al. Late-twentieth-century warming in Lake Tanganyika unprecedented since AD 500. Nature Geoscience 3, 422-425 (2010)
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo865.html
2. Kaufman et al. Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling. Science 325, 1236-1239 (2009)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.abstract
3. Kellerhals et al. Ammonium concentration in ice cores: A new proxy for regional temperature reconstruction? J. Geophysical Res. 115 (2010)
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf
4. Thibodeau et al. Twentieth century warming in deep waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: A unique feature of the last millennium. Geoph. Res. Lett. 37 (2010)
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml
5. Spiehagen et al. Enhanced Modern Heat Transfer to the Arctic by Warm Atlantic Water. Science 331 450-453.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/450.abstract
6. Kinnard et al. Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years. Nature 479, 509â512.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html
John, another stupid.
Sorry to dissapoint you but actually I copyed the questions fro´m another site. Namely this:
http://co2insanity.com/2011/12/15/eight-questions-to-kill-the-kyoto-cli…
And by the way, where do I claim that I have wrote the questions my self, you lying prick?
tampax, you stuck up cunt, John said:
> seeing as you are pretending these questions (which only popped up on the internet a little over a week ago) are the basis of your lifelong skepticism and not merely the latest in a long list of right-wing memes you will forget when the next one comes along
Your link TO DECEMBER 15TH THIS YEAR prove his point.
Hey, stupid John. You foilhats is claming all sorts of weird and stupid things, hence you have to proof the empirical data, that the eight questions represent, wrong. Go ahead, be my guest. Get on it. If you, la creme de la creme of Deltoid intelligence can't prove them wrong, your CAGW church is in a deep shit. You know it. So, go fetch the proof, foilhats. Rambling and evading won't help you this time.
Wow-stupid. Of course you pick on a minor misunderstanding on my part. But that's ok, since I know that you don't have much else to ramble about. Or should we say that you are completely out of arguments. Empty bins rattles the most.
Have you been embraced at your moms bosom yet and got your treat?
Yes Jonas Liar, I mentioned in passing that the error bars were not covering 100%. The implication is that it is not sufficient merely to say that they don't always overlap: one needs to quantify how often that happens (it could be very rarely).
But that is besides the point. You didn't quote what I wrote, but you made it up that I wrote something different: 90%<100%. That is not paraphrasing, that is outright lying. And you obviously thought that was one of your brightest ideas in this thread, because you kept repeating it over and over again. Admitted, to misrepresent what somebody else has written is one of you most frequently used forms of argumentation, but in this case you became really obsessed. You fully embraced your petty little lie, reciting it like a mantra at each opportunity. And while your probably were admiring your own perceived cleverness each time you repeated the lie, you were instead digging you own hole deeper and deeper. And here we are now: the most important fact to come out of this thread is that Jonas N is an obsessive liar. Henceforth, you will be called Jonas Liar.
This is what you have managed to achieve in this thread, Jonas Liar: to earn the name "Jonas Liar."
And no doubt you will continue earning it.
> Of course you pick on a minor misunderstanding on my part.
You seem to misunderstand a lot. For example, you misunderstood EVERYTHING John said in your reply to him.
Of course, if YOU make a mistake, it's minor.
If the IPCC make a mistake (typo for 2035 instead of 2350), that's a catastrophic failure, isn't it.
Ecstatic. It took you a while to properly cherry-pick, but you got there.
Now, pentax, why 13 and not 14 or 12?
(By the way, no longer respondig to Jonas. He's recycling zombie arguments again, and it's just too pathetic and boring now).
No Andy, I donât need to lie or misrepresent anything!
Yes, that was indeed your argument. Your most valid argument so far (the refs to Fig 9.9 contained no additional info).
And I responded to it. I detailed for you how those different curves essentially (with very high confidence) falsified each other, and (almost definitely) falsified that they could all be correct reconstructions (incl their error bars) simultaneously. You never came back, still havenât.
And yes, I referred to that argument as 90%<100% since that was correct, and the main reason you objected or commented. And I maintain: That is the most substantial comment/criticism you have delivered here. My âshorthandâ for your objection is neither clever nor bright, it is no argument at all. Just a short (and correct) reference to your best argument.
And I donât think I have brought it up at all. I didnât address you or that episode. Only in response to when you have interjected (quite silly) little nonsense comments, wordplay and insults, I reminded you that you (previously, once) managed a little better.
And this is oh so typical for the climatescare crowd: The extreme double standard of how you behave and demand to be treated.
Same thing with Jeffie, he has been lying (about me) in essentially every comment. But when I wrote that âI was glad Nature sacked him as an editorâ he threw a tantrum for being wrongfully depicted, and (in yet another famous owngoal) declared how this proved what a rotten character I must be. The very same idiotic logic you now try, fully aware of that you knowingly have been âlyingâ about me many times.
You just canât help yourself, can you? Behaving like spoilt rotten trash kids, and whining complaining when responded to ...
Wow - so you claim that the 2035-figure was just a typo?
Jeff
Again a long post which completely misses any relevant point. You are definitely not addressing any arguments.
1. You start out with your umpteenth attempt at childish labeling
2. Then you claim I have not read or discussed primary literature.
3. You said that glaciers were retreating (plus ref:s)
4. Thereafter follows a long rant about various other individuals, Fox-News etc
5. Follows the standard list of âsupporting academiesâ
6. Search results for keywords in databases
7. The usual guessing and making up stuff you just want to be true
8. Thereafter the same about motives
9. Repetition of âtrust in authoritiesâ
10. Support from an unnamed scientist (Jeffâs description, of somebody sympathetic to him)
11. Lefty rant about wealth and âhow the world really worksâ
12. Paper by Thompson (warmer arctic)
13. Paper by Tamino and Rahmstorf (interpreting trends)
⦠well, and of course in between all the usual hallmarks of Jeffieâs long ramblings.
So. Is there anything to reply to, or address wrt the topics or what I have brought up here? Hardly anything, Iâd say. At least nothing not already covered.
Firstly, you need to remember what the topic is: It is essentially the A in AGW, and how much of it, and thereafter if one possibly can do something meaningful about it. Note Jeffie: the existence of an A (in AGW) is not really an issue. Only its size.
Wrt to the real issues:
You repeat your belief in what you believe that various (by you perceived) authorities say about the matter. And that is your core (and from what I see only) argument. But nobody has ever argued against you there, that this is indeed your (religious) belief. I only point out that faith, blind or in authorities, is not an argument. And definitely not a scientific one. And I accept that you canât understand real physical sciences, arenât capable of using math, logic, statistics, adhering to the scientific method. (I donât accept your compulsive lying and making up your own âfactsâ though)
One more point of yours seem to be that many share your AGW-opinion, and I think thatâs correct too. But opinions are neither arguments nor science.
So lets go through your points:
1.Immature
2.Wrong
3.Many glaciers have been retreating, yes. But no one claimed anything else
4.Irrelevant
5.Without knowing the basis for those bodiesâ claims, no one can assess how much this is worth. Polls and opinions arenât science.
6.Searches give you hits on âkeywordsâ, many hits show that these keywords are frequent. There is no argument here either.
7.Immature (possibly pathologic)
8.See 7.
9.Your personal faith is still not the issue
10.Youâre not the only one. Who cares?
11.You brought this up somehow justifying OWSâs actions. (And no, youâd be among the last knowing how the world really works, you canât even read short comments properly)
12.Discusses GW (does not even address the âAâ)
13.Discusses trends of recent GW (does not even address the âAâ)
And your comment about 12 and 13 (plus 3&6) are revealing once more: The belief that observations of GW mean affirmation of AGW. This logical fallacy is so elementary in that no (real) scientist can even be unaware of the distinction.
Stu-pid. Now, aren't you clever enough to figure that out by your self? How come, have your two buddies behind that thick skull of yours taking a pause?
Jonarse,
I was more than a typo, see our host's description of it here. It appears that the chapter editor was lazy and rather than depending on the primary literature -- which was commented on in the FOD -- he used a secondary source. This source, a WWF report on Himalayan glaciology, depended on a news report in "New Scientist" from the always undependable Fred Pearce about the results of a recent report by the ICSI WGHG, which he hadn't read himself. WWF corrected the report as soon as the error was pointed out to them, shortly after the IPCC retracted the claim.
Jonas,
You've made so many ridiculous assertions here and, to be honest, you're such an ass**** that I don't know why I waste my valuable time on you. I've asked you repeatedly why, if you claim to know what you are talking about, that nobody in the relevant fields has ever heard of you. Aside from showing yourself up to be a laughingstock, I would have expected that all of the bull**** you've posted on your own site would have been better spent writing up that seminal paper for Nature and Science that would have made you a household name. Instead, you've collected assorted rabble, such as Olaus, PentaxZ and Mike, who, like you, are totally and utterly anonymous. Judging by the opinions of most of those venturing into this sad thread, there seems to be quite a strong view that you, are indeed, exactly what I think of you: a grade A idiot. In spite of your complete and utter anonymity in the scientific world, for some reason you think - and for the life of me I cannot understand why -that you are on top of a subject in which you clearly have no scientific pedigree. And you seem to think that you've made some kind of intellectual impact. Earth to Jonas: WRONG. Trust me you fool: nobody who matters knows who you are. You are invisible. Next year I will attend 3 scientific conferences (i was at one just last Friday) where the ecological impacts of AGW will be discussed. A lot of well known researchers will be there - and the sad news for you, fella, is that the name JonasN will not ring any bells.
If having a few mindless idiots supporting you on Deltoid turns you on, then go for it. Its nice to know that, from the 'other side' (e.g. where I am sitting) most scientists would not give your brand of stupidity the time of day. How do I know that? Because I interact with hundreds of scientists every year, whilst you don't. So, again, that leaves you a sad and lonely figure on a few weblogs promulgating your tosh.
You certainly make it easy for me to dismiss your nonsense. As predicted, you claimed that my discussion of social, economic and political processes was a 'lefty rant'. Yup, just like you called it 'conspiracy theories and stuff'. No reasonable discourse required from you, Jonas. Just dismiss something you clearly do not understand with a simple smear. Call it 'lefty nonsense' and leave it at that. You really are an ass***. But then again, most of us here already knew that quite awhile ago.
Then you say polls and opinions aren't science. They certainly aren't. But try telling that to the denial brigade who write petitions all the time. Heck, the latest one was posted on a libertarian web site just a few weeks ago. And the same people are always appearing on them - old Emeritus Professors in unrelated fields who seem to think that they are making some impact by appearing on these stupid petitions. The main point is that the vast majority of scientists do not dispute AGW. I certainly know a helluva lot more about this than you because I am one. The science is and has been settled for a decade or even more. What isn't settled is the potential consequences of AGW. And even here, we are beginning to get a clearer picture.
Both articles I cited are by authors who do not at all dispute the 'A' in GW. You are dabbling in pedantics here. You know it and I know it. You are using the same strategy that Monckton uses to twist the conclusions of peer-reviewed studies. Furthermore, of the thousands of studies I mentioned examining the effects of warming on biodiversity, virtually none dispute the 'A' in GW either. How m any of these have you read? I challenged you to dispute the science in any of the papers listed by Bernard, Luminous Beauty and Chris, and of course you won't even try. Why? Because you haven't read any of them and you wouldn't understand the science anyway because you have no formal training in the field.
Lastly, I don't need to be concerned about colleagues who are 'sympathetic with me'. That's because my views are shared by most of my colleagues in the relevant fields. I know that because I have spoken with a lot more scientists than you ever will. Again, its in my job description.
Jonas writes, with respect to the recent Lonnie Thompson paper in Nature showing that Arctic ice is at its lowest level in 1450 years, that it "Discusses GW (does not even address the âAâ)"
From the abstract of the paper:
These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice *is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming* [emphasis mine]
Yup. This shows how much of the paper Jonas read. He didn't even make it past the abstract. The authors are saying quite clearly that the loss of ice is linked with AGW.
Jonarse-liar does not need to lie, but Jonarse-liar does lie, repeatedly, without even blinking.
From the abstract of the Thompson paper:
"Until now, the question of whether or not current trends are potentially anomalous5 has therefore remained unanswerable. Here we use a network of high-resolution terrestrial proxies from the circum-Arctic region to reconstruct past extents of summer sea ice, and show thatâalthough extensive uncertainties remain, especially before the sixteenth centuryâboth the duration and magnitude of the current decline in sea ice seem to be unprecedented for the past 1,450 years. Enhanced advection of warm Atlantic water to the Arctic6 seems to be the main factor driving the decline of sea ice extent on multidecadal timescales, and may result from nonlinear feedbacks between sea ice and the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. These results reinforce the assertion that sea ice is an active component of Arctic climate variability and that the recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice [is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming.](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html) This remember, is where Jonarse-liar assured us that Thompson [did not even address the 'A' in AGW.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6198065)
Even more staggeringly cretinous, Jonarse-liar then lies that the [Foster and Rahmstorf](http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022) paper ["Discusses trends of recent GW (does not even address the âAâ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6198065) when the entire bastarding, trousering point of the paper is to separate known natural variation from anthropgenic forcing. "When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the (anthropgenic) global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.
But what's interesting about [that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6198065) folks (if two-bit deniers can be said to be 'interesting') is how a moron disproves AGW to his own total satisfaction. Without a single citation needed!
Of subsidiary interest that Jonarse-liar's retreat has now begun, as he has now adopted the fall back position that there is global warming - but it's not human caused.
Normally you'd refer someone as needy as Jonarse-liar to a paper like [this](http://www.ufa.cas.cz/html/climaero/topics/global_change_science.pdf) or [this](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98JA01629.shtml) or [this](http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gerber/pages/documents/santer_etal-science-200…) or even to the page at [skeptikal science.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-basic.htm)
But we know that would be much like asking TampaxZ for his opinion on the impact of quantum physics on everyday life and just as rewarding.
From the Foster (NOT Tamino, as again, Jonas has clearly not read the paper) and Rahmsdorf paper in Environmental Research letters; Jonas says the article does not address the 'A' in 'GW'. How would he know, having not read it? Is he pyschic? The mind boggles.
From the summarizing paragraphs:
Its unabated increase is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, *emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on climate*. [emphasis mine]. The paper shows that, excluding other forcings - aerosols, volcanic eruptions - and solar - the warmest two years on record would be 2009 and 2010.
PentaxZ of course has not read either paper.
Behold how desperately **Jonas Liar** still clings to his cherished little lie in 2784:
> And yes, I referred to that argument as 90%<100% since that was correct, and the main reason you objected or commented.
Absolutely pathological!
Obviously not, since they have been repeatedly given but you are unaware of any of them or pretend they do not exist. See skepticalscience.com for the answers.
This is what I now point people to when I want to impress upon them the intellect and maturity of the typical GW denier.
Andy S
And that argument (whose description you so abhor) is still the best point you've made, and this is now three months ago ..
Ever since, there has been pathetic and ridiculous whining, interjected with various insults, untruths, childish wordplay, and an occasional repeat reference to some Figure 9.9
That's all!
And that last argument of yours (whose description you so abhor), received a polite and informative answer, on topic.
>Sorry to dissapoint (sic) you but actually I copyed (sic) the questions fro´m (sic) another site.
And they got the questions from World Net Daily. Since WND are claiming an exclusive on the article, it's a safe bet the questions originated there. This should be a harsh lesson in checking your sources, Pentaxz. Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.
>Hey, stupid John. You foilhats is (sic) claming (sic) all sorts of weird and stupid things, hence you have to proof (sic) the empirical data, (sic) that the eight questions represent, wrong.
Actually, I don't have to "proof" the data wrong. What if the data is right but the interpretation misleading?
Since you never bothered to check the source of the questions I'll take a safe bet you don't know whether they are correct or not, just that they confirm your biases.
>Go ahead, be my guest. Get on it. If you, la creme de la creme of Deltoid intelligence can't prove them wrong, your CAGW church is in a deep shit. You know it. So, go fetch the proof, foilhats. Rambling and evading won't help you this time.
That is not the deal. The deal is if the questions are answered and you can't rebut them using the primary scientific literature, you have to concede that you are wrong on AGW. No goalpost shifting. No lying. No distracting. No "new" evidence that contradicts the "evidence" in the questions you have already provided.
Game?
John,
I figured it was about time to challenge Tampax on his list of silly questions. Here goes...
OK Tampax, just because I think you should shut your stupid trap, here are my answers to you dumb ass questions.
Some of these I don't know the answer to, so perhaps others can chime in and help out, but to get the discussion
going...
1) How many lines of empirical evidence do you want?
a) Fourier and the 1820's described the (experimentally found) greenhouse effect.
b) Tyndall in 1859 found that CO2 absorbed IR and that in doing so it increases the temperature of the earth.
c) In the 1950's researchers for the US Government accurately characterized the absorption properties of CO2. This was work done in the development of heat seeking missiles.
d) Starting in 1958 the Mauna Loa observatory (and others as time went by) began documenting the increase in CO2.
e) Around this time isotope analysis also confirmed this increase was from anthropogenic sources.
f) Multiple reconstructions of the temperature record confirm that, as theory predicts, temperature has been increasing.
Is this enough empirical evidence for you? Or do you need more, because there is lots more which indicates that the temperature reconstructions are correct. Fool.
2) Nobody has ruled out natural factors, in fact, natural factors play a big role here.
First of all there appears to have been an increase in volcanic activity during the
latter part of this period. Second, old Sol emerged from this thing you may have heard
of called the Maunder Minimum. Look at the CRU and GISS records, from the mid 19th
century GTA was relatively flat. From ~1910 to ~1940 the temperature climbed relatively
quickly, but this has been well attributed to increases in TSI. After about 1950 average
TsI stopped climbing and the temperature fell slightly. This is thought to be due to
conventional air pollution. After about 1975 anthropogenic CO2 forcing began to outstrip
anthropogenic aerosol forcing and temperature began to rise again, but as is shown in
AR4 chapter 9, this is predominately due to anthropogenic forcing.
3) In the last 1000 years (except for the last 30 or 40) changes in CO2 level have not been
the dominant forcing. Rather volcanic and solar have been the forces driving climate
change. Once again see AR4 Ch. 9.
4) For about the zillionth time, the MWP was NOT warmer than today. In some parts of the
globe the MCA was about as warm as the mid 20th century levels. In others it was cooler.
The MWP was not a global phenomenon. See Mann, et. al. 2009.
5) Let me just take a guess at this... Could it be because of the general increase in TSI
as the sun emerged from the Maunder minimum? You might want to take a look at the data
which shows that globally glacier loss has vastly accellerated over the last half century
or so. This constitutes another line of empirical evidence which could have been used
to answer question 1.
6) I am not aware of the data backing this claim, Tampax, can you point me to supporting
studies? Probably not.
7) See answer to 6.
8) The only data to support this is basically imaginary. Some call it climastrology. See
especially the work of Scafetta or Svensmark. In the past, GTA correlated quite well with
sunspot count or TSI, but after about 1975 has become decoupled. So while some of this
factors may have been dominating in the past, more recently this is not true.
@ Jeff Harvey's 2764, 2789 et al.
You know, Jeff, I feel really sorry for you. I read over your last few comments directed at me and it saddens me that you should stoop to childish name-calling instead of joining with me in intelligent discussions of climate science, bio-diversity, vegan flatulence cures, and other lefty, desperately-failing, creep-out, pot-belly-hairpiece-and-a-face-lift-come-back-tour-attempt hustles.
But most of all, I am disappointed in your color-conscious attitudes towards the legitimate rights and aspirations of brown-bears--bears who have suffered such terrible, historical wrongs. Of course, Jeff, you know that polar bears are late-comer evolutionary bear-freaks that stole the sacred, ancestral lands of the brown bear aborigines. But now, when the brown bears finally have a chance to re-claim their ancient patrimony, you want to step in and preserve the unjust gains of the polar bears! And why? Why, Jeff? Well, maybe, just maybe, it's because polar bears are "white", and you, a privileged-"white"-dork, are prejudiced in favor of "white" polar bears and their repugnant sense of "white"-bear-privilege. Maybe, that's it--right Jeff? You know, Jeff, I had hoped your sort of mentality had no place in Deltoid-land. But, I can see, my hopes have been deceived. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Incidentally, you won't see this in any flim-flam, BBC "nature" documentary, but--and I'm sure you know this, Jeff, however much you might pretend otherwise--polar bears kill and eat adorable, baby harp-seals--you know, the ones with the irresistibly cute, big, round eyes. Yep, those baby harp-seals! I mean, like, if anyone ever photo-shopped a picture of one of those big-brute polar bears, adrift at sea on an a shrinking ice-floe, chowing down on some poor, formerly cuddly, baby seal it'd de-rail the whole environmental gravy-train. Right, Jeff? And that's why the climate-gate e-mails so emphasize the need to control peer review and manipulate the press. Right, Jeff.
jeffie, jeffie, your sad tad. With "The science is and has been settled for a decade or even more." you just blew away the last, microscopic credibility you had left. If you were a scientist, a real scientist that is, you would know that a scientist never, NEVER claims that science i settled. It's one of the ground bolts of science. Didn't you know that, master foilhat?
Two points:
Mike - you're clearly a raving lunatic. Seek medical help asap.
PentaxZ: The science is settled beyond a reasonable doubt. If it wasn't in other areas, we'd still see CFCs in mass production and many laws protecting endangered species would never have been enacted. BTW, care to comment on the science I presented in the two citations I posted above? A: Of course not!!! You don't read the primary literature! How could I forget?
PentaxZ:
So the science isn't settled with respect to the Earth not being flat, or the sun being the center of our solar system eh? What about gravity? The laws of thermodynamics?
You are a real dingbat.
More CAGW inconviening facts:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3256.pdf
As expected, Pentaxz is too afraid to take my generous challenge and has moved on to the next right-wing meme which, curiously, relies on evil, evil modelling.
> 2785 so you claim that the 2035-figure was just a typo?
I claim it was a typo.
When it should have been 2350 and was fixed NOT by the Auditors but by the team of climate scientists who are hounded by them, it's a typo.