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.
jeffie dear. Yet again you claim "The science is settled beyond a reasonable doubt." and once again, that's not even close being science. In fact, such a claim makes you a pseuduscientist. Physical laws has absolutely nada to do with that which you of course should know, being a "scientist". You are making an even bigger fool out of your self with such owngoals.
john, with sugar top. You don't get it, do you? "right-wing meme which, curiously, relies on evil, evil modelling" shows what type of illnes you suffer from. You clearly pay more attention to the colour of the box rather than what it contains, wich is so typical for you climate talibans when the facts contradicts with your CAGW church. Obviosly you didn't read the whole work. Because if you did you would see that the scientists actually based their conclusion on real, empirical facts, measured and registered data from 1912. And, they don't hide any of the data they used. Nor are they hiding any decline, or incline, for that matter. But that perhaps bothers you? Perhaps all scientist should get at it as the pseudoscientist Michael Mann? Stupid foilhat.
Man, I sure hate those inconviening facts.
And john. By constanly rambling about political colours you clearly show us climate realists that the AGW has nothing to do with science. The whole schlabadang is a political construct with which nutheads like you want to gain political control over the whole world, in the name of climate change. But guess what, that ain't gonna happend, your vegan tart.
By the way, Pentax? Is there a "pause" or isn't there? You just linked a paper that shows there isn't, moron.
Well stu-pid, here is another for you:
http://co2insanity.com/2011/12/18/antarctic-sea-ice-not-melting/
>. The whole schlabadang is a political construct with which nutheads like you want to gain political control over the whole world, in the name of climate change. But guess what, that ain't gonna happend, your vegan tart.
Pentaxz, all I have done is note your sources are right-wing political websites and not peer-reviewed scientific papers published in reputable journals.
I am attempting to discuss the science with you, but you are more interested in spamming links you haven't read, babbling weird political conspiracy theories and calling me asinine names.
>You clearly pay more attention to the colour of the box rather than what it contains
No, I actually read the words. You know, the boring bits that break up the pretty coloured pictures. The bits you have previously admitted you ignore when there are "interesting graphs" to gawk at.
>And, they don't hide any of the data they used.
Are you sure. You see, it's not their data. They had to get it from nasty climate scientists who surely cooked it in their great plot to control the world through climate change!
So back to my challenge. Lo, your questions have been answered! 'Tis a Christmas miracle that these allegedly unanswerable questions were answered so quickly. Do you have a rebuttal to the responses?
john, excuse me, but there was no "Climate scientists" back in the 1912. In fact, there is no such thing at all. It's a invented phrase that came along with the start of the climate scare. So, i'm sorry to say, but you're wrong. The hundred years or so of data on the sun spots and the temperatures at Svalbard are freely avalible for scientists.
And yes, I'm on a rebbutal to your answers, but since I for the moment only have my iPhone you'll have to wait a bit. Ok?
stu-pid. I do, do I? No, foilhat, I don't. It's quite sufficient to look at the temperatures the last 13 years. No statistics what so ever can dribble away the fact that the temperature hasn't risen a bit in 13 years. Despite continuing rise in the co2 level. That's a FACT you can't make go away with wishful thinking, your stinking pile of guano.
That's odd. I just found a really pretty graph in the paper you just linked to, moron that says otherwise. Figure 3, page 6.
Hey, it looks like temperature rise is accelerating over the past 13 years. How odd.
[http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=8865]
Ain't it fun when real science no longer isn't stopped by IPCC and its muppets? CAGW is going down with a bang!
Warning: My virus checker alerted me to a virus when I clicked on the link in pentaxZ's #2810
(First time I've bothered as he's clearly off his trolley)
Probably an ad, Richard. The entire post is a stolen picture, anyway.
Go look at #2803 though, it's hilarious that pentax decided to post that as supporting his position (such as it is).
I mean, it did make sense up to that point...
No warming for 15 years!
10 years!
*Looking up when that outlier year is that allows for a graph with a slight decline... okay, we have to start at 1998, or none of this works at all...*
13 years! Yeah! That's what I meant, stupid! No warming in 13 years!
But to then link to a paper that directly contradicts what you're saying? Yikes.
Jonarseliar does not need to lie, but Jonarseliar 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 anomalous 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 from comment #2786 where Jonarseliar assured us that Thompson did not even address the 'A' in AGW.
Even more staggeringly, Jonarseliar 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 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 (if two-bit deniers can be said to be 'interesting') is how the moron disproves AGW to his own total satisfaction, without a single citation or counter argument required!
Of subsidiary interest that Jonarseliar's retreat has now begun, as he has now adopted the fall back position that there is indeed global warming - but it's not human caused.
Normally you'd refer someone as needy as Jonarseliar to the relevant papers referenced at skeptical science,
but we know that the deniers have rationalised such direct evidence away by calling it a 'cartoonist's propaganda site'.
So Jonarse lies despite his weak assurances that he doesn't 'need to', TampaxZ lies in support of his whacko beliefs - it seems that the climatescam crew can only survive by lying, probably to each other as much as whatever small portion of the outside world that takes any notice of them. What they don't realise yet is that devastating ignorance is a fatal weakness, not a strength.
(p.s. I note that Jeff has already picked up on the Thompson and Foster & Ramstorf papers already, but the ten or so links in the first version of this post I tried to post previously must have frazzled the spam filter
Ain't it fun when real science no longer isn't stopped by IPCC and its muppets? CAGW is going down with a bang!
http:// m.climate realists. com/?id=8865
So a letter between arch denialist Roy Spencer and an engineer is "proof" that the IPCC consensus doesn't exist?
Sad.
So very sad.
PS it's the engineer who believes Roy has it wrong and that the greenhouse effect is false. Evidently this engineer doesn't lag his hot water pipes, only the cold water ones...
Pentax, before you resume your compulsive copying and pasting, would you care to address why you said there is a 13 year pause in warming and then linked to a paper that refutes that?
There are two options: you are A) dense as a post and did not realize that you were linking to something that directly refutes something you just said or B) you hoped nobody would notice.
A or B, Pentax?
stu-pid, you are truly stupid if you for every question in life need a reference to a peer reviewed paper. What your model says is utterly uninteresting. Now, use your two brain cells. If the temperature this year don't differ from last years, and last years temperature don't differ from the year before, and so on 13 years back in time, you would really have to be a moron to not understand that the temperature the last 13 years hasn't risen. Aka, there is a pause. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that, stupid foilhat?
Hey, stupid wow. So you think that violating the law of thermodynamics, just to get the climate models to work is ok? So sad, so very sad.
And the answer is A, dense as a post.
Pentax, do you have a graph that shows "the temperature this year don't differ from last years, and last years temperature don't differ from the year before, and so on 13 years back in time"? What I have is a graph that this really helpful guy linked to back in #2803 that shows rising temperatures.
Who is right, dude? You or you? Can you grasp that you just contradicted yourself?
Can you show us this magical graph that shows "the temperature this year don't differ from last years, and last years temperature don't differ from the year before, and so on 13 years back in time"?
I double-dog dare you. You love to paste links, it shouldn't be hard.
Well, stu-pid dude, real scientists know, by empirical data, that the temperature has paused. If you deny that it's your problem. And please go on ranting about...what ever you want...dude. As said before, empty bins rattle the most.
But, just for you, stu-pid, here is a animated gif just for you. And now use your two buddies and put the "unpresedented global warming" in some perspective, will you, dear?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_a…
Hi I'd just like to take a moment here to remind any passing vistors that Jonas N aka Jonarse aka Jonarseliar and PentaxZ aka TampaxZ are the amusing visitors from the Swedish denier blog 'climatescam'.
Whether you prefer your brand of stupid to come in the ranting, carpet chewing form outstandingly espoused by PentaxZ, or the opaque, chewed up English style favoured by Jonas N, you can be sure that when it comes to first-class non-sequiturial entertainment, these special boys (and I choose my word carefully) from Sweden are hard to beat.
Climatescam - making sense of it all for the senseless.
>john, excuse me, but there was no "Climate scientists" back in the 1912.
Oh no!
>The hundred years or so of data on the sun spots and the temperatures at Svalbard are freely avalible for scientists.
All the data is available if you know where to look, unless you believe governments are hiding the *secret* data that *disproves the scam*!
>And yes, I'm on a rebbutal to your answers, but since I for the moment only have my iPhone you'll have to wait a bit. Ok?
That's funny. It hasn't stopped you spamming the rest of the thread with broken links and the usual crap.
>you are truly stupid if you for every question in life need a reference to a peer reviewed paper.
Actually, we do.
>. As said before, empty bins rattle the most.
*Touche*!
Show. Me. Any. Reference. Whatsoever. You. Complete. And. Utter. Moron.
Aww, how cute. This must be the graph I was asking for, right?
Oh.
Wait.
No, this shows that the planet has been hot before. Thousands and millions of years ago.
How precious.
First, pentax, show me where anyone has denied that.
Second, are you really telling me that it is beyond your grasp that conditions back then, ideal conditions for ferns, gerbils and lizards, might not be ideal for 7,000,000,000 human beings?
Can you grasp the difference, you clown-side-car?
Or do you grasp it and simply not care? Are you with your compatriots in feeling that you'll be just fine where you are? I hope you're ready to camp out on the roof of your mom's house to ward off the refugees then, you misanthropic sack of crap.
A bit more serious people than the clown Mann.
http://lustiag.pp.fi/data/pdf/MensaMidnightSun.pdf
Hi I'd just like to take a moment here to remind any passing vistors that stu, chek, jeff, andy, john and other foilhats are the amusing habitants from the australian alarmist and pseudoscientific blog 'deltoid'.
So that would be a "no" on the promised rebuttal of Rattus' answers to your loaded questions.
I am shocked, Pentaxz, *shocked*.
Pentax.
Where is your reference for the "13 year pause"?
Provide one or admit that you were lying.
1. inhabitants*
2. Australian* -- which I am not, and this blog is not
3. alarmist? [Citation needed]
4. pseudoscientific? [Citation needed]
5. I think people can figure out that that's where we sometimes dwell, because it's the very blog you're posting this on.
Were you dropped on the head as a child? If so, I apologize.
Oh, and for those who gave up on checking your laughable links, here's a gem from your latest one:
For added hilarity, note that there are exactly 0 references for this.
Still waiting for any, ANY reference for your "pause", Pentax.
Nice:
http://drtimball.com/2011/the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change…
Coward
http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.p…
Hahahahaha.....
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/211/
Jeff H #2790/91
You are such an utter and pathetic joke, it is hard to even begin describing how much and in how many ways your eternal incoherent ramblings are totally irrelevant to what is being discussed.
Nota bene: Your strong (blind and religious) belief in the A of AGW is not under discussion, not even challenged. Nor is your (equally blind) belief in that others are convinced in it.
Got it? The existence of the A-hypothesis in GW is real!
What is being discussed, and has been discussed (here, by me) since august, are the strengths and weaknesses, the magnitude (or lack thereof), the observations anda empirical support (or lack thereof), the valid and invalid claims, validity of arguments and the (non-scientific) speculations, the alarmism the hysteria and hyperbole etc surrounding what people like you (ignorantly) refer to as climate science.
To all this youâve had absolutely nothing of value to say or contribute. Instead, you have repeatedly, and in almost every post, proven that you have absolutely no clue about what are the core issues surrounding climate science and its related controversies are. Moreover, you have (in almost every post) shown, that you are incapable of arguing any position or issue at all in a manner ever remotely resembling a reasoned (not to say civil) argument. All you apparently are capable are long incoherent emotional rants about your beliefs, fantasies, and projected beliefs about otherâs beliefs. And incessant repetition of the existence of your CV!? It is just mind numbing how much nonsense you spew, and seemingly totally unaware of how you laughable and abundant your many own goals are.
Just take for instance your:
>If having a few mindless idiots supporting you on Deltoid turns you on, then go for it.
The description fits **you** perfectly, especially since what you are drawing (and getting) your âsupportâ for is not even addressing any relevant issues, only your emotional and religious incoherent rants. And mind you, those whose âsupportâ you actively lean on are exactly those anonymous blog signatures. And Iâd say that they far better fit your description and list of invectives too ⦠But you are just patently incapable of seeing how utterly ridiculous you many owngoal-arguments actually are.
For instance, you note that Thomson says:
>recent decrease in summer Arctic sea ice is consistent with anthropogenically forced warming
as support of him âaddressing the A in AGWâ!? You even fill in:
>The authors are saying quite clearly that the loss of ice is linked with AGW.
So not only do you now thing that vague non-disagreement (âconsistent withâ) somehow constitute scientifically addressing the possible A of AGW, but you even believe that this somehow links it to AGW!?
This again proves that you are completely lost when it comes to science, to real science that is (not the green social science variety enclosure you are confined to). You donât even know what a scientific argument is, or a hypothesis for that matter. You seriously seem to think that words appeared in press in a journal are the actual science. No wonder you are so deluded â¦
You go on to re confirm that (yet) once more in the same post. You say (I have lost count for which time) that the:
>authors .. do not at all dispute the 'A' in GW
or
>the thousands of studies I mentioned examining the effects of warming on biodiversity, virtually none dispute the 'A' in GW either
So again you make the belief, the non-challenging, the lack of knowledge etc the argument. Thatâs what I expect from kids in the playground, or gossiping trash-talk.
And still Jeff (since august) peoples ignorant beliefs are not and have never been the issue here.
I really wonder why you so desperately are determined to make a complete fool out of yourself here, Jeff? (I donât mind at all, I actually support it and hope you will continue).
You have attempted to depict my as a rambling unskilled loon (âidiotâ âassâ where your latest epithets) and youâve gone out of your way to invent endless âfactsâ about me, of which you have absolutely no clue at all. Youâve spent three months fantasizing about what/who you want me to be, and thereby only revealing your helplessly poor and insecure non-method for navigating in a word (and around topics) of which you donât understand the first thing ..
And despite all your wishful projections, you have never even dared to engage in any of the topics that were discussed. Your:
>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
is just so pathetic and once more confirms that you are just desperately making things up. Because you cannot do better, because you are so lost in this world, and so scared to admit, even to yourself, that blind belief is all you have to navigate â¦
But I do appreciate both those here âsupportingâ your views (=fantasies) and that you believe that their support carries any value â¦
PS BTW, have you thought some more about how to scare all that water up in the Himalayan glaciers, and make it stay there too, after you lamented about âdoing something about itâ earlier? Or was that also only a snap shot of whatâs going on in there, in your alternate fantasy world?
Shorter Jonas: How can Jeff Harvey possibly be right about me having no skill or credentials? How could anybody possibly tell what a clueless crumple I really am, solely on the basis of the absolute unmitigated bilge I've spouted here for over three months?
And if it wasn't for Jeff Harvey, surely dear, sweet, handsome Bjorn Lomborg would be President of Scandinavia by now, if not the World. All the boys at climatescam think so. We all went to dee his failed movie many, many times. Although in retrospect it might have been more cost effective to have sent him a cheque for the $60 grand it made and saved a fortune on parking and popcorn.
It's all so unfair, whinge, self-pitying whine etc. etc.
chek ...
Wishful thinking ... that's all you (and Jeff) have.
I appreciate that you display this so blatantly over and over again.
The funny thing is, that essentially all the climate scare groupies seem to suffer from the sam affliction ...
chek, seriously, you have written many comments here, none of which has had any tangible substance on any relevant matter. Just that 'spewing of absolute unmitigated bilge' you mention. The most substantial point (I remember) was that glaciers have been receeding since ~1700 ..
The only reason I mentioned Lomborg was to show that Jeffie is incapable of arguing without making things up even in his 'professional' conduct. The guy is a lefty loon joke, and I'd say not one single stated fact he ever proffers should be taken at face value.
And yes, my skills and knowledge vastly exceed his in every area I have adressed and where he contradicts me. And my CV isn't even necessary to show that ...
Just look at the clown. He finally conceeds (after me telling him multiple times) that opinion polls aren't science. Whereafter he goes on about polls I have never mentioned and derides them. After having spent months refering to various academies board's statements about 'supporting AGW' after not even having polled its own constituency. The fellow is clown, who can't even make his own arguments coherently. After having spent every comment here for three months proclaiming that his sole basis for the threatening AGW climate scare is his religious belief in that 'mankind must be bad and dangerous' and thus also for the climate.
The fellow is clown, who can't even make his own arguments coherently ...
[Jonas says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6202788), more than a little ironically:
>You are such an utter and pathetic joke, it is hard to even begin describing how much and in how many ways your eternal incoherent ramblings are totally irrelevant to what is being discussed.
>[Snip, snip, snip]
>To all this youâve had absolutely nothing of value to say or contribute.
>[Snip,snip, snip]
>The existence of the A-hypothesis in GW is real!
>What is being discussed, and has been discussed (here, by me) since august [sic], are the strengths and weaknesses, the magnitude (or lack thereof)...
>[Snip, snip, snip]
Fine. What you're arguing now is a matter of climate sensitivity.
So stop you own lengthy expositions, and tell us in précis what you believe the sensitivity to be, and with what referenced evidence you arrive at your conclusion.
That should be simple to do. So, numbers and sources please.
Oh, and for the record, it's completely oxymoronic to agree that there is an 'A' in 'AGW', and then to posit that there is a lack in magnitude "thereof".
You are still trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Bernie, you really don't understand what Jonas writes in #2843, do you? Pathetic.
Dear Deltoids.
I have been subjected to the incoherent rantings and ramblings of pseudoscience demagogue JN on Swedish websites for a couple of years. It didn't take long to realize that he was completely void of substance, and before soon, I quit reading his egregious spouts of cluelessness.
As a backdrop for Jeff, I will add that it was even more obvious back then, that JN was completely clueless about the scientific method and philosophy.
To the best of my knowledge, he has yet to write something that can be substantiated. Even worse, I have yet to see him write something that actually holds value at all, at least in the context of AGW (psychology, medicine or social sciences may disagree). It seems as if you came to the same conclusion a few thousands posts back.
What you have stumbled upon is a real gem in regards to D&K and self delusion. To be honest, for quite some time I have been thinking that he may suffer from a mental disorder. IF that's the case, for the sake of civility, this expose of madness needs to end.
Finally, a few words of advise. You will not win this one by conventional means of rational discourse or logic. His only known talent is simultaneous evasiveness and online war of attrition, of which he is an undisputed champion.
So please, let this thread die. Enclose it in a virtual mausoleum for future readers to behold.
Hi Pentaxz.
Still waiting.
It's the height of bad manners to demand others answer questions but refuse to answer arguments put to you.
If you are afraid that we'll realise you know nothing about the subject, fear not - we knew that already.
>What you have stumbled upon is a real gem in regards to D&K and self delusion.
Now wait a second, you have gone too far.
Oh wait:
>"And yes, my skills and knowledge vastly exceed his in every area I have adressed (sic)" - Jonas, 2011
Carry on.
[Pentaxz](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6203333).
>Bernie, you really don't understand what Jonas writes in #2843, do you?
In typical Jonas N style, he said nothing at all "in #2843".
Therefore, there is nothing from him to be 'understood'.
Quite comically, there is nothing there by you that can be understood either, except that you are apparently completely clueless... and, what's that word - "pathetic"?
But then, that's old news...
principia
" I quit reading his egregious spouts of cluelessness."
"...he has yet to write something that can be substantiated."
Well, how do you know that he hasn't if you stopped reading him years ago?
No need, john, since you allready know my answers to your rebuttal.
And by #2847 you prove that you really don't have any clue at all. And you blame me to have an IQ of 50. Owngoal after owngoal. Really pathetic.
[Pentaxz](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6203485):
>And you blame [sic me to have [sic an IQ of 50. Owngoal [sic after owngoal [sic. Really pathetic.
I don't "blame" you for having any particular numerical value for an IQ, although I suspect that it doesn't require a third digit for documentation. I do however suggest that you engage in "[o]wn goal after own goal".
And yes, that self-immolation really is pathetic.
Pentaxz, 'phone home. Otherwise your village will engage for itself a new idiot.
Good grief, I am away a week and when I return I read this utter bilge from our legend in his own mind Jonas:
*my skills and knowledge vastly exceed his in every area I have adressed and where he contradicts me*
Let's see... Not only have I contradicted Jonas with respect to his opinions on climate change, I am joined by about 95% or more of the scientific community in doing so. Certainly most of my peers in climate science research... meaning Jonas thinks his skills and knowledge must exceed those of most of the scientific community by and large. What a loon. Essentially, this dork thinks that anyone who challenges him in any scientific field is way beneath him on an intellectual level.
I challenged Jonas on Lomborg's biodiversity arguments, and I was greeted (as expected) with resounding silence by our resident home-trained phenom. All he could dredge up was a pathetic smear by Budiansky. Some challenge.
Principia is clearly aware of the almost sociopathic self adulation exhibited by Jonas. All he's left with on his own pathetic little thread is throwing out *ad homs* at me and others whilst claiming to be of supreme intellect. Truth is, he's a nobody, a nothing, who is totally anonymous in the world of science. And that must hurt the twit's massive ego.
Bernard J
Not 'now', but yes: The (simplified concept of a) 'climate sensitivity' has been addressed and discussed, from early on. (However not by you).
My point above was that Jeffie doesn't even seem to be aware of even that, inspite of his (as you correctly say) "lengthy expositions" about mostly his own deluded fantasies
Oh Christ, now we're scare-quoting "climate sensitivity".
I also note that Jonas continues to take barbs flung towards him, chew on them for a week or two and attempt to throw them back -- right at the people who first used them. Still wondering if he thinks people are too stupid to notice or if this is an unconscious byproduct of his pathology.
[Jonas N](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6203575).
Humour me.
What do you believe planetary climate sensitivity to be to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and on what scientific work do you base your belief?
It's a simple question, so your answer should be just as straightforward.
Or are you instead going to spend months avoiding this question, as you have done with so many others?
Note once has any signature 'Principia' ever addressed or commented me on any Swedish forum. And there are almost no individuals who dare debating issues around climate science and policy (from the alarmistic side) openly or just with anything resembling âconventional means of rational discourse or logicâ. Instead there are many people who sound exactly like him . Noticeably, the common buzz-words appear as a substitution for any substance. I would surmise that this individual is an outright liar (even in this short comment).
And funnily enough, Jeff immediately jumps at this comment and so badly wants it to be so true ⦠once mor conjuring up âfactsâ where there was none whatsoever.
Bernard ...
You were right there, when I expressed my position about that. But you seemed preoccupied with writing comments about very different matter at the time. And once more (as to Jeff, so many times), âbelievingâ (and wishful thinking, desperately hoping) are not methods to address scientific questions.
My opinion, however, I have already stated. And why I hold it. The question is rather the other way around: Does the support for the IPCC-stated âbest estimateâ of climate sensitivity hold water? Are the methods used assessing that value viable or even useful. How are all those large uncertainties incorporated and handled?
Well, you did not participate then, and I donât think you are interested or knowledgeable in the field either. There was some (more detailed) discussion about a simpler statement, that of the AR4 claim about how much was very likely due to humans. But luminous (who actually provided a reference) couldnât argue its contents either. But tried anyway by rambling various (to him) sciency-sounding terms ⦠(and who later in detail showed how shallow his understanding of even the simplest physics was)
Jeff
Once more, you only have your strawmen.
I didnât state any opinion about whom among you or Lomborg was closer to the correct description regarding . I pointed out that even when acting in your âprofessional capacityâ you were patently incapable of acting professionally. âSmearingâ is what you would like to accomplish in almost everything you do, it seems. And probably you (deludedly) believe you are the only who should one allowed to do so ..
But Budiansky didnât smear anybody, he expressed his opinion, and far better than you are capable of. And I donât need to throw any ad homs at all at you. Usually, it suffices to point out that you are patently incapable of sticking to truth and reality â¦
It is indeed quite a show â¦
Jonas,
Of course you all want us to bow down to your utter genius. No education necessary - like most sociopaths IMO, you are driven by your massive ego. You couldn't stand in a room with most of my Master's students, let alone a conference attended by what you refer to as 'real scientists'. And of course, your ego requires you to haunt the blogosphere, where you can shield yourself from the kind of scrutiny your bullshit would get if you went into the academic arena. I find your personal insults amusing, particularly since only you and few assorted nitwits here appear to share in the humor. Since I know hundreds of scientists, and since I (unlike you) have attained quite some standing in the scientific community, I am certainly not offended by your jibes. And how my standing amongst my peers must grate on your nerves! You, the self-educated master of the universe, yet adored by very few, and of those who do soak up your nonsense, these people are also minions who think that there is some huge communist conspiracy aimed at using AGW to create a global dictatorship (as PentaxZ actually suggested some time back).
But I digress. Many of us here have challenged you to prove that the climate science community has it wrong with respect to the link between C02 emissions and climate warming. We've linked to studies in the most rigid journals, and what has been your response? You haven't addressed the finding of a single study. Not one. Nil. Instead, we've been constantly bombarded with dismissive remarks, accompanied by demands for us to justify the 90% figure in the latest IPCC report. When we've suggested you take this to the scientific community, you've bluffed, obfuscated, weaved, and avoided any mention of doing so.
But what takes the cake for me, as far as your looniness is concerned (and trust me Jonas, you are a super-loon) is your dismissal of the conclusions of every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth with respect to AGW because they might be based on the opinions of just a few members of said academies. Now really! I've seen you make a lot of hilarious gaffes, and making a complete arse of yourself is second nature for you. But when you wrote that little beaut, well I have to admit from that point on everything you wrote thereafter became complete bilge. This what is known as clutching at straws - when someone knows the weight of academia is against their own views (and especially an intellectual minnow like you Jonas), then they are forced to desperation. You have no riposte to the views of the vast majority of the scientific community (of which I , BTW, and most certainly not you are a part). So what thin straw do you grasp? The 'we don't know how the opinion was reached' straw! Well done, Mr. genius! Well done!
When I challenge you to write up your Earth shattering views for a peer-reviewed journal, again, silence. Silencio. Stilte. When I ask you to attend a conference on climate change and to present a seminar there, again, silence. Silencio. Stilte. Shhh! Wrong questions! Wrong questions! I can't answer them! I won't answer them! Because here on Deltoid I am a big fish in a small pond, whereas in the academic world I am am amoeba-sized flagellate in an endless sea. So I will ignore these challenges and stay here!
Principia had it right, Jonas. You are a wack job.
Trust you, Jeff?
Are you kidding? You, who can't get one single detail of this (non) conversation right? A fabulist who cannot help himself from incessantly projecting utter nonsense you so desperately want to be true (although it isn't and although your endless guessing is the worst conceivable method for learning something about reality).
You even grasp at anonymous idi0t-commenters with absolutely no substance (and who are obviously lying) for support. And you've clung to other equally stupid commenters for support before.
And still, you are writing long essays about who I am (and particularly what I am not) and you still don't have the slightest clue about anything you are fantasizing about ...
Like a spoilt obnoxious child .. in fierce denial of reality.
I don't know how many times you have told me that I have no education at all!
Seriously, how frikking stupid can you make yourself?
Those few here who actually engaged in an discussion of any relevant substance, quite quickly revealed how shallow (sometimes void) their understanding of even the simplest physics where, or statistics (and of course real science, and what the scientific method entails).
They showed that they completely bungled freshmen level understanding of natural sciences. And did so boneheadedly, hoping to BS themselves out of their own mess. Notably luminous and 'studied six years of physics'-Stu. And you Jeff sided with them! Unchallenged you jumped down to join them in their own-dug hole ..
What a complete joke!
And that's your problem. And I mean real problem! You have no method of navigating in the real physical world. Not even at elementary class level. You just blindly hope and wish so desperately that your emotions and wild guesses just happen to guide you ..
Well, they do. But only down into those holes dug by them like minded know nothings ...
And that has been your method for over three months.
I have asked you (several times) what you even mean, my 'earth shattering views' would be, but not even that you seem to know. It's just blind (and misguided) gut feeling with your Jeff. And you can't even phrase your views as a coherent argument or only stance (I'm not talking about your beliefs, those I am aware of, and know and acknowledge their existence)
And still, although being mocked for your feeble attempts to waive your CV as strengthening your beliefs, you still repeat that you go to conferences and talk to scientists?
I mean really!? What kind of insecure person must bring up that his peers go to the same conferences? Or that he is allowed there? And how insecure must one be to repeat that over and over and over again for months?
Jeffie, you poor sod, you got your little head in a rear neck choke from day one in this thread and from the same date your incompetence made you turn blue of frustration (despite your red-brown personality). Your asphyxiated but self abcessed (sic) whinings are so pathetic that they are beyond description.
So far the only thing you have brought to the scientific tabel is a smorgasbord for psychiatrists to feast on. They love "little Napoleons", and soon the climate scare ones will be their favorite objects of study.
;-)
So Jeff .. you say you've challenged me.
I certainly can see that you have made all kinds of incoherent statements and demands. But I have not seen anything you've brought to the table here that is the least challenging.
You've claimed that you represent and speak for 95% (or so) of 'the scientific community'. And that they share your views ..
Well, such a claim in it self reveals that one more likely is facing a mythomaniac
But the claim is of course completely untrue, and your glaring incapability to have any meaningful interaction with people smarter than you and not sharing your twisted beliefs (in so much you haven't got the slightest clue about) ..
.. further reinforces how devoid of substance your perceived agreement among that limited crowd among which you are tolerated (or think you are) really is.
Especially since you are completely incapable of even identifying what is being discussed!
Jeff, I forgot my conclusion:
I don't care much about your 'challenges' of which you would be no part at all. But I have challenged you here to make but one coherent comment on something of substance and relevance to what has been discussed, and without interjecting any of your pathological fantasies about things you don't know sh*t about ...
Just one measured comment that can be read and understood and accepted for what it says even by those not sharing your 'convictions'.
So far, this seems to have posed a real challenge for your capabilities!
>No need, john (sic), since you allready (sic) know my answers to your rebuttal.
I'm afraid I don't. You see, unlike you I believe in quaint things like "supporting evidence". Your personal opinion alone is not enough to satisfy me.
http://www.simonpreacher.com/blog/success_journal/if-you-argue-with-a-f…
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091208203959AAsbWDd
Sad story, eh?
[Jonas N says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6203636):
>Bernard ...
>You were right there, when I expressed my position about that. But you seemed preoccupied with writing comments about very different matter at the time. And once more (as to Jeff, so many times), âbelievingâ (and wishful thinking, desperately hoping) are not methods to address scientific questions.
>My opinion, however, I have already stated. And why I hold it. The question is rather the other way around: Does the support for the IPCC-stated âbest estimateâ of climate sensitivity hold water? Are the methods used assessing that value viable or even useful. How are all those large uncertainties incorporated and handled?
>Well, you did not participate then, and I donât think you are interested or knowledgeable in the field either. There was some (more detailed) discussion about a simpler statement, that of the AR4 claim about how much was very likely due to humans. But luminous (who actually provided a reference) couldnât argue its contents either. But tried anyway by rambling various (to him) sciency-sounding terms ... (and who later in detail showed how shallow his understanding of even the simplest physics was)
All this in response to what (to me, at least) was a straightforward request:
>Humour me.
>What do you believe planetary climate sensitivity to be to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and on what scientific work do you base your belief?
>It's a simple question, so your answer should be just as straightforward.
>Or are you instead going to spend months avoiding this question, as you have done with so many others?
It was worth reproducing your answer in full, just to demonstate that your reponse was to go with the strategy raised in my last point.
Jonas N. All you have to do is to give us a two digit number, to one decimal place after the decimal point, and backed reference to a minimum of one (your best) scientific source.
You make a lot of noise, but it seems that you can't do this one itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny little task.
Are you scared to actually commit yourself to something?! Are you shitting your pants because you might be soundly deconstructed?
What does a person need to do in order to elicit from your hundreds of pages of bafflegab any actual scientific content?
...backed with a reference...
I have been reading this thread for a short time. Pentax Z, Jonas N, and a few other of the nitwits clan should TAKE THE BET. Anyway, they look like utter fools. They never answer a question, no matter how simple or straightforward.
I have had it up to here with Jonas and his wilful ignorance, but for the record:
The reason I responded initially to Jonas' ramblings on Deltoid were to set the record straight with respect to the scientific community (being as I am one). In fields of research of which I am trained - population and evolutionary ecology, with some systems ecology - there is no dispute whatsoever as to the link between the human burning of fossil fuels, land use changes, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and the recent warming. To repeat, there is no controversy. The empirical literature, as I have discussed, is replete with thousands of studies examining the effects of this warming on the health and vitality of natural and managed ecosystems. This is where there is uncertainty - how will the warming, and projected warming, affect innumerable biotic and abiotic processes and in turn how will tis affect the functioning, resilience and stability of ecosystems across the biosphere. If one reads any of the thousands of articles that are cited on the Web of Science, in *virtually every one* the authors acknowledge the human fingerprint on the current warming. It is taken as a given, based on what we know about the physical and chemical properties of the atmosphere. This is based on many decades of research by climate scientists working tirelessly at academic institutions around the world, and their conclusions are found in the IPCC reports as well as in thousands of individual studies that are published in a wide range of journals. Again, if one reads almost any article on climate change in a peer-reviewed journal, the human component is acknowledged. It is not controversial, or stated as a possible theory; instead, by now the evidence is taken as significant enough to be confirmed. I recently cited two studies on warming which Jonas immediately dispensed by claiming that they said nothing about the human contribution. But of course, both did, as Chek pointed out. Both studies, in keeping with the vast majority in the scientific literature, described symptoms of warming (the Nature article projecting the current loss of Arctic ice in historical terms) but wound up their studies by emphasizing the human fingerprint.
One thing I made clear at the beginning of this thread was that I admit that I am not a climate scientist but that I defer to the opinions of the vast majority of my peers in this field who are in broad agreement as to the main factor - human forcing - responsible for the current warming. I have met many of them at conferences where the effects of warming are being debated and discussed. I came in here because I found it remarkable that people with no relevant pedigree in any scientific field - Jonas, and later Olaus and PentaxZ - disputed AGW as if they were doing so from the intellectual high ground. There seem to be an increasing number of 'armchair experts' - meaning people who think they know a lot more than they do about a specific field of endeavor - entering into the environmental arena, not because of any scientific curiosity, but because they conflate environmental regulations with some form of oppressive government control over our supposed freedoms. These people stick their fingers to the wind, and presto! - they are instant experts in fields that take trained experts may years to master.
Climate science is an immensely complex field and I appreciate the profoundly important research undertaken by thousands of scientists who each year are adding to the evidence showing that our species is altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere in ways that are changing climate patterns in a very short period of the planet's history. Like other scientists working in a different field, I am very concerned as to the ecological out come of this unwitting 'experiment', given that it is occurring against a background of a suite of other human-induced changes across wide swathes of the biosphere. But the point I am making, especially to those reading this for the first time, is that self-trained but in reality intellectual lightweights like Jonas show no deference whatsoever to the experts in the field (Olaus and PentaxZ don not count, because they are even more profoundly ignorant than Jonas, if that is possible).
Instead, Jonas writes as if our understanding of climate change related factors is either poor or non-existant, which is in complete contrast to real experts in the field. The reason he sticks to a few blogs is because his wilful ignorance would be laid bare if it were exposed to peer-review or at venues where climate scientists contribute. Some climate scientists have contributed to Deltoid threads in the past, but note how they avoid this thread like the plague: this is not because Jonas makes compelling scientific arguments (he does not), but because they would not not stoop to his basal level of discourse. in other words, like a million other climate change denying laymen, he is not worth their valuable time.
I have persisted here for the simple reason that people should not be taken in by self-professed experts who in reality could not debate their way out of a sodden wet paper bag. They should instead consult the primary literature, or even write to the leading experts themselves. Several of us here have provided titles to a range of studies that Jonas, Olaus et al. have ignored. Jonas claims to have read some of them, even though what he can glean from them is anyone's guess, given that he has no specialist training. All we are left with is his consistent refrain that he 'knows what he is talking about' and about his great wisdom that is self-professed. Bernard has repeatedly several pointed questions, all of which Jonas ignores. For instance:
What do you believe planetary climate sensitivity to be to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and on what scientific work do you base your belief?
I have also asked Jonas dozens of times why he doesn't write a detailed rebuttal and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal, or attend a conference and submit a poster or a talk. And her is the depth of the replies I get to these simple questions:
* [Jeff is] a fabulist who cannot help himself from incessantly projecting utter nonsense you so desperately want to be true (although it isn't and although your endless guessing is the worst conceivable method for learning something about reality)*
Or this from Olaus:
*Your asphyxiated but self abcessed (sic) whinings are so pathetic that they are beyond description*
Yes, real debate there. But do they answer my simple queries? No. Nor do they address why the scientific community for the most part agrees that humans are forcing climate. Jonas continually disputes my estimation of consensus, but one just has to read any of the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that mention climate change in the title or abstract to recognize that the authors accept the anthropogenic component. If once has no access to the Web of Science, then they should consult Google Scholar, and use that search engine. Read the articles. And then ask why every academic body on Earth accepts the link between atmospheric C02 concentrations and warming. Jonas would have you believe that a few old academic professors and members of National Academies got together in different countries, then blithely agreed that the warming is anthropogenic. But of course this does not happen. These esteemed bodies have huge conferences every year where the rank and file members meet to discuss current themes. The fact that every National Academy came to the same conclusion is a testament to the broad agreement as to the human component in the current warming.
But, to reiterate, I am fed up with Jonas and his merry band of ignoramuses. The science is out there for those who wish to know where we are standing now. And I can assuredly say that I am not the one out on an ever thinning limb.
There is no risk of that, Jeff ... certainly not from their posts to this buried thread.
ianam
"How do I win an argument with a fool? I state logic, he doesn't! And he thinks he sounds great doing it!!! Or when he talks about things he does not know anything about!IT DRIVES ME INSANE! Or if I send him a message that is 3 pages long, he will find the one irrelevant sentence and start arguing about it! Then he goes and makes stuff up thinking I wouldn't know he did. And probably the most aggravating part of an argument is when he ignores the truth i say and starts making up stories. HOW DO I WIN!!!?????!!!?!!!
Sad story, eh?"
You know that you are owngoaling heavily, right? #2866 is a perfect description of CAGW-people like you, stu, check, bernie, jeffie and others. Sad, really sad.
http://translate.google.se/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=…
Pentaxz. 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 skeptic" 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 climate change denialism. Sorry, but it's you who loose.
Consensus? Yeah right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU&feature=player_embedded
john
My answer to you is that you deep inside that head of yours know that the answers to the questions will shatter your religious AGW beliefs. Sorry, but it's you who loose
I am beginning to think you are not the genius I mistook you for.
Dito, john.
Ehm, copy-paste clown, have found a reference for that "13 year pause" yet?
Bernard
Are you even aware of how revealing your 'simple questions' were? Of how far you are from anything resembling (real) science? How they show that you have nothing else than waffle wrt to any relevant topic here?
The IPCC's guesstimate (which I am not impressed with) differs more than a factor two between its bounds, and you ask me to provide a two digit value (meaning within one or a few % precision)!?
Of a metric whose physical meaning (I'm pretty certain) you have only a very rudimentary understanding of. What a joke ..
Do you have any clue, any clue at all, what it takes, what it would take to establish a physical property of a system with 1% precision? Even a simple system and property (as eg a response-time to well defined input change, in simple dynamical system)? Do you? I suppose you have absolutely no clue!
And if you were not happy with what I've said previously about the matter, you could simply have stated where, how and why you were of a different opinion. Or why you'd think that what I said was unreasonable, let alone had it *"soundly deconstructed"* as you said.
But I am very certain that you neither read nor would have understood anything. As I said, you posturing *'provide me a number digit number, and the science basis for it .. '* proves how poor your grasp is even of your own question. It is even more Stu-pid than that other one repeated ad nauseum by some of the mushy-heads here ..
Shorter Jonas: *Jeez boys, I'm gonna have to bluster this one out better than General Bluster McBluster of the Blustering 49ers at the Battle of Blusterville. Wish me luck, boys...*
ahem....
No Bernard, I will not answer your simple question. And furthermore, IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!
@Bernard
cc: Jonas
The climate sensitivity, to one decimal place, request struck me as being odd also. Did you come across 'false accuracy' in your high school science classes? Nobody disputes there are tremendous uncertainties in this quantity - but you want an answer to one decimal place? really?
Oh, for pity's sake Jonas N. Seriously, are you brain-damaged?
How can you possibly say anything about climate sensitivity if you can't give a number and a source (or at least, a sound and defensible reason) for your claims that it is less than the IPCC's range?
And as to your whining about precision (and GSW's - a troll who has BTW been conspicuously absent until the heat was suddenly applied to Jonas N...), I'm asking for your best guess. The decimal point is to distinguish between, say, 1.6 and 2.4, which would both round to 2, but where the latter is 50% larger than the former. It's to try to nail you guys to a defensible figure - a figure which you are desperately avoiding nominating, even though you're convinced that thousands of the world's climatologists and physicists are completely wrong in their own estimates.
The IPCC summarised the science and settled on 3.0 degrees celcius, ± 1.5 C, for global temperature sensitivity to a doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration. This gives a range of 1.5 to 4.5 C (which, using your indicated penchant for not using decimal places, could be 'interpreted' as anything between 0 to 6 C - I'll leave it to you to work out how...). If you are too afraid to give a figure, then you're more than welcome to give your own range (with its presumed mean if Gaussian distribution of probability is assumed), and the science with which you arrive at your range.
It's a big case of "the world's experts are all wrong: I don't know the real answers, but I know that theirs are all wrong". How is it that you know that they're wrong if you don't know what is right?
Eh?
It's telling that you're as scared to commit to actually giving a figure that underpins your contentions, as you are to enter into a wager with me about the consequences of warming. You're all big and blustery that professional scientists are all wrong, and that you're smarter than the lot of them, but in all the months of your grand-standing, in all of the hundreds of pages of nonsense that you've crapped here, you've not once actually put down any science.
Why is that, little boy? What is it that you don't have to offer?
Is it, perhaps, that the only thing that you do have is nothing?!
I've not been closely following this for a while, but did Jonas ever come up with the name of someone he considers to be a real climate scientist?
@Bernard
In your example,
"The decimal point is to distinguish between, say, 1.6 and 2.4, which would both round to 2, but where the latter is 50% larger than the former."
that is exactly the error you are making. You can't distinguish between 1.6 and 2.4, within the large (+/- 1.5) error bounds dicussed here.
If you ask someone for a quantity to one decimal place, you are solicting an implicit accuracy of +/- 0.1, which is a false accuracy, out by an order of magnitude.
Again, you guys betray your lack of understanding of the simplest of scientific principles.
Jonas chooses his words quite carefully, at least the language *he* uses is scientifically correct, which does inspire some confidence that he really does know what he is talking about...
A Question for the rest of you,
Don't you think it is odd that whenever the discussion moves on from abuse to basic scientific principles you 'intellects' seem to struggle? no alarm bells ringing? If you can't get the 'language' right, what makes you think there is any value in your assessment of the rest of it?
(Sorry I forgot, other people think for you - you're like cattle)
Bizarre.
Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]
Well of course . . . in Climate Scientology any Inconvenient Data must be terminated.
FFS GSW.
You're as thick as two short planks.
I'm not asking you or Jonas N to measure climate sensitivity. I'm simply asking for you to tell us your best guess as to what it is, to one decimal place.
If you or Jonas N can't figure out the difference between using a decimal place in this context, compared to the context of measurement precision, then it's no surprise that neither of you are ever able to actually put a scientifically-supported fact on the table.
And as a slight aside, you do realise that mean estimation can be more precise than individual measurement estimation, do you not?
But let's play it your way - and Jonas N, you play too... Is climate sensitivity 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or more degrees celcius? As neither of you believe in decimal places in this context, your answer must be one of these five (or six) single digit numbers.
I can't make it any simpler than this, short of holding up a picture of a hand and asking you to point to the fingers.
GSW, the rest of your post is just kapok.
Sockpuppet love.
@Bernard
Ah, you've returned to safe ground bernard, if you've get it wrong, resort to abuse. How untypical of you ;)
"As neither of you believe in decimal places in this context"
Why try and portray this fundamental principle as being part of some sort of 'belief' system? (we are not all as uneducated as you)
Your request, as posited, is just plain wrong - painfully we're back to giving high school lessons again.
Plus ça change, plus câest la même chose.
So, what [you're saying GSW](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6206406), is that you can't come up with a figure for climate sensitivity, whether such involves an integer or a decimalled number.
At least you're consistently unable to put forward anything scientific...
Perhaps Jonas N can do better.
@Bernard
"So, what you're saying GSW, is that you can't come up with a figure for climate sensitivity"
Understanding what is being said doesn't seem to be in your area of expertise either bernard.
Do you accept the point being made? the school boy error in your request to Jonas?
Getting the basics right can't be too hard surely!
>Do you accept the point being made? the school boy error in your request to Jonas?
No, I do not accept it, because you're erecting a massive [straw man](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). End of subject.
GSW, you can say what you like, but all that you're demonstrating to the thread is that you can't come up with a number for climate sensitivity.
When all is said and done, that is what it boils down to - you have nothing to offer. As you yourself say, "Getting the basics right can't be too hard surely!"
Except that apparently it is, because you and Jonas N are dodging and weaving in desperate attempts to avoid actually putting forward something that can be examined and tested.
So, once again, what is your best guess at climate sensitivity? Or are you next going to tell us that even single-digit integers are too difficult for you?
You cannot possibly be serious. You truly do not grasp this?
Stu, if GSW uses your hand (moving the box) to grasp it he sure couldn't make it. ;-)
Hahaha! Yeah, totally!
Wait, what? That's not even a damned sentence, moron.
Bernard
>How is it that you know that they're wrong if you don't know **what** is right?
Apart from me specifically having addressed that and the relevant issues before .. take a moment (or some months, or the duration of your educational process) to ponder about your question and what it means!
>Jonas N. Seriously, are you brain-damaged?
You of course know the answer to that, but once more your 'question' conveys what this is all about:
You showing off in front of all the other like-minded know-nothings here who join in on the brainless shouting! Soliciting some cheap 'hear hear' from that crowd. Just like Jeffie, immediately jumping at the dishonest puffings from anonymous signature Principia.
Because I agree: There has been a tremendous amount of stupid bilge posted here in this thread .. but once more I think that you didn't stop to ponder what it was that you actually commented about.
>Apart from me specifically having addressed that and the relevant issues before ..
So then, Jonas N, for the umpteenth time - humour me. Tell us what your best guess is at climate sensitivity. If you've told us before, you should be able to tell us exactly at which post(s) you did so. I know that I can't be bothered to try to locate anything of substance in all of the trolling that you've dumped here.
You seem to be avoiding the issue.
As always.
I think you've been 'bounced' Bernard - It's what you get when you ask questions with the background of ignorance you so obviously possess.
For light relief, and as part of your on-going education, try asking the same question over at realclimate - demand that someone furnish you with a figure for climate sensitivity to one decimal place, so that, in your words, it can be "examined and tested".
I'd be interested in the response you get.
;)
GSW.
I know that your lips move when you type, and that your petulance at being confronted with decimals stems from the fact that you don't have a decimal point finger*, but really - why can't you tell us if you think that climate sensitivity is 0, 1, 2, 3 (or more) degrees celcius?
And why is it so bloody difficult for you to comprehend why I asked for an answer to one decimal place? You know, if you are so unable to accept what I am getting at, you should wander over to [Tamino's post about epsilon](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/what-is-epsilon/) where he (a professional statistician) gives his estimate to two decimal places. After all, how can he possibly know it to that precision?!
Two things are very obvious about you and your Scandinavian buddies:
1) you are demonstrably unable to ever produce anything resembling a scientificly-supportable fact, and
2) it's easier to teach a rock than a troll, although given that you and Jonas N and Olaus Petri and the other numpties have all ossified in the harsh glare of scientific reason, I suppose that there's not much difference between the two...
* I'd suggest a trick to help but given your clumsy ham-fistedness in all that you apply yourself to, it would risk you becoming more blind than you already are - if that is indeed at all possible.
Bernard, if I recall correctly the spiel is "I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows, because I said so and I am so much smarter than you that if I don't know you cannot possibly know, QED, I need a nap now".
How much do you want to bet his education included significant digits but stopped short of confidence intervals?
@Bernard
The only thing that is obvious bernard is that you don't actually understand what is being discussed.
Made me think of this,
Dilbert Cartoon - Betray Your Ignorance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HOUs9cF5uo
Still no answer eh, GSW?
Do you obtain a perverse masochistic pleasure making such a numpty of yourself? Or are you a actually a poe, or a half-arsed execution of a Turing test?
I'll type this slowly so that you might actually understand...
I am trying to elicit from you and from Jonas N a discussion of your best guesses of climate sensitivity, based on whaever it is that you consider the best evidence. I understand that you and Jonas N have failed to participate in this discussion, and I understand that you have offered nothing but bluster and dodging ever since you first apparated here last year.
I understand that you might think it's hilarious to spin out a thread until it sees itself approaching from the other side of the universe, but all you are doing is leaving a permanent record that proves that climate change deniers cannot mount a coherent and a cogent argument.
In fact, I understand that you and your troll-buddies have demonstrated that you are incapabale of mounting any argument at all beyond a Pythonesque "no it's not".
The only thing that I don't understand is the extraordinary magnitude of the fucked-up shit that must be festering in your mind to cause you to think that you're in any way clever.
So, once more unto the breech. What's your best stab at climate sensitivity?
You can pick up a crayon and draw a picture, if you need to. Just make sure that you don't draw off the paper and onto the table - the stuff is a pain to clean.
Bernard J
No, I have not made (nor would I ever make) so foolish claims as to know (or being able to accurately guess) what that (oversimplified and ill-defined) metric should be.
I did however address several aspects of it and argued (in some detail) why I'd surmise that the IPCC presented numbers are suspect. And this went on for quite a while.
In no way did you Bernard even attempt to make any relevant contribution to that discussion, or only object to any of the (actual) arguments I made. (Mostly you rambled on about other irrelevant stuff).
Before that, a related (but much simpler) issue was discussed: *If there was any proper science behind the most prominent AR4 claim*. Where I said, that no such science existed. Also there, you could only muster your 'backwards-argumentation' demanding that I list all references that **didn't support that claim**, that it was my job to prove that none of them contained support for that claim. Then (and now again) you demanded that I provide what I say is missing in the IPCC assessments.
And I repeat: Because I find an argument or a statement unconvincing or even faulty, and if I criticize how a (supposedly authoritative) body did arrive at it ... that does in no way imply that I know what the correct answer should be instead, or that I have to provide a link/reference with that correct answer.
If you believe that, you (once more) have no idea how real scientific inquiry works.
The 'But if you don't believe what we believe, then show us a better explanation .. and convince us .. and do so in the (only) way we dictate'-gambit is ridiculous. It is once more only a statement of faith ...
That *you couldn't be bothered to read* is your problem. And the trolling you mention is almost entirely on your side. You least non-relevant 'contribution' here seems to be to recognize that the term for (on part of) what's being discussed is 'climate sensitivity' .. and that was three months after the fact ..
I'd surmise that what you *'actually can be bothered with here'* is all the stuff you write instead of participating in any relevant way. Some however, might (quite appropriately) call that 'trolling' ..
It's funny ...
In retrospect, I almost (!) must give signature 'luminous' some credit for at all daring to argue his stance, stick to his statement and to try to support it with reasoning (some of which) resembling valid arguments, physical laws and implications of such.
OK, he started out (I believe *honestly* mistaken) from an unsupportable claim, and laid out his ideas why his understanding of the 'physics' should support his misconception. But at least he did argue his case and tried to find convincing (for himself) support for it.
After (quite) some time, when his wiggling maneuvered him deeper and deeper into his own mess, he started making up (knowingly, I believe) nonsense to cover his earlier f*ck-ups. Ie he started telling lies when caught out with his trousers at his ankles. As so many here feel necessary to do.
But at least, he tried to argue before resorting to lies and fabrications .. (*)
(That he was a waffler, I had determined before, but that doesn't imply that everything he states therefore must be wrong. That once more would be Jeffie-style logic, ie sheer nonsense)
(*) I can't respect the willful lies, but he was one of the few who actually tried his best (first). Has anybody seen him since?
Jonas N.
The confidence of human involvement in planetary warming is a separate issue to the climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide. They are related only insofar as they both involve carbon dioxide, but the two figures themselves represent very different things.
My goal with trying to dissect your claim about the confidence expressed by the IPCC was to see what material you had (and hadn't) read in order to reach your startling conclusion of concerted climatological fraud. You were unable to present a list of your reading (and non-reading) that led you to your conclusion.
How can you disagree with consensus science, finding it "unconvincing or even faulty", if you can't elucidate how you arrived at your own take on the subject?
My goal with attempting to elicit from you the value of climate sensitivity was to dissect your stance that the value is less than that expressed by the IPCC, in order to see what evidence you had (and hadn't) based your own 'value' on, in order to reach your startling conclusion of discipline-wide climatological incompetence (and/or fraud).
Once again, you have been unable to produce any substance at all. How can you disagree with consensus science, finding it "unconvincing or even faulty", if you can't elucidate how you arrived at your own take on the subject?
Jonas N. Look at yourself. You've been at this silly game for months, but you refuse to actually put anything on the table that can be examined. You simply cannot provide anything that can be analysed, that might support your case. You are intellectually impotent.
All you offer are claims that the world's physicists and climatologists are wrong, but never any reason why they are. How are we supposed to understand why you make those claims if you won't put down any evidence?
Oh, of course - we're not supposed to do that, are we? If you did actually start mucking about with empirically-based material, you'd be demolished immediately, and then you'd have nothing.
I have news for you. You still have nothing. It's only your buddies Olaus Petri and GSW, along with yourself (I notice that the other socks disappeared long ago), who imagine otherwise.
Even Tim Curtin, silly as a cut snake as he was, was able to supply reams of supporting material. The guy was embarrassingly wrong with most of his interpretations, but he didn't hesitate to get in there and and offer support to his claims. Of course, once he did so he was immediately demolished by others, but at least he tried.
You - you're like a bloke who says "I can swim faster than Michael Phelps", but who won't even lower himself into the water to prove it. Piss-weak, Jonas N, piss-weak.
Oh, and Jonas N:
>The 'But if you don't believe what we believe, then show us a better explanation .. and convince us .. and do so in the (only) way we dictate'-gambit is ridiculous.
don't use quotation marks to imply that those are my words. They're not, and you're being mendacious in doing so. Although that last has always been par for the course, has it not?
Finally...
Once more Jonas N, what do you think the value of climate sensitivity is, and why?
"consensus science" BEEEP, red card, your'e out.
New Yearâs Resolutions For Climate Scientist
1. I will admit that warming has been much slower than we expected
2. I will admit that recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening
3. I will admit that our forecasts of declining snow cover were wrong
4. I will admit that Arctic temperatures are cyclical, and that we have no idea what will happen to Arctic ice over the next 50 years
5. I will admit that our forecasts of Antarctic warming have been a total failure.
6. I will admit that Polar Bear populations are not threatened
7. I will admit that climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects
8. I will admit there was a Medieval Warm Period
9. I will admit that that there was a Little Ice Age
10. I will stop pretending that we donât have climate records prior to 1970
11. I will admit that the surface temperature record has been manipulated and is contaminated by UHI
12. I will stop making up data where none exists
13. I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
14. I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
15. I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years
16. I will stop telling people that the climate is getting more extreme, without producing any evidence
17. I will admit that hurricanes are on the decline
18. I will admit that severe tornadoes are on the decline
19. I will admit that droughts were much worse in the past
20. I will admit that efforts to shut down power plants have potentially very serious consequences for the future
21. I will pay for my own tickets to tropical climate boondoggles like Cancun, rather than improperly using taxpayer money for political activism
22. I will admit that there is no missing heat
23. I will admit that temperatures have been cooling for at least the last decade
24. I will publish the raw data and not lose it.
etc. etc. etc.
http://www.real-science.com/new-years-resolutions-climate-scientists
PentaxZ, you are a putz. TAKE THE BET!
" I demolished PentaxZ's claim earlier regarding the effects of warming on polar bear population demographics,"
You did, did you, jeffie? Na, don't think so. Perhaps in your delluted dreams, but sertanely not in the real world.
I wonder how the stupid deltoids define an open thread. Open for debate or open only for the CAGW-believers? Do alarmists even know the meaning of democracy?
PentaxZ, do you know how science works? The majority can't vote away gravity, no matter how many times you vote on it.
Yes, but you obviously don't. The thread is open to whomever its owner wants to open it to. And if this place were governed by a democracy, you would have been voted out long ago.
@pentaxZ
The open thread is 'open' in the sense that any discussion not relating to specific post should be carried out on that thread.
It is somewhat less 'open' if you dare to express non concensus views, as you are already aware.
;)
[Pentaxz](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6208185).
Open threads are not open to sock puppets. You posted as 'trooseptic', but were too stupid (you love that word, don't you) to figure out that you have far too many tells to disguise those tells effectively.
You were caught out immediately, and dealt with accordingly.
You can pretend that the facts are otherwise, just as you do with the physics of climate, but it doesn't change the truth. So stop whining.
Now pentaxz - and Jonas N and Olaus Petri and GSW et al - apparently more than 50% of US Americans believe in Creation over evolution, and 20% of them still think that the sun moves around the Earth. They ignore the scientific evidence to the contrary. You guys disbelieve the physics of climate (any Creationists hiding amongst you, perhaps?), but you won't tell us why: all you do is tell us that the scientists are wrong, just as the Creationists, geocentrists and flat-earthers do.
Where, exactly, is your evidence? Come on, we've been waiting almost 6 months to begin testing it...
So, in a Pentax 'democracy', I can come round to his house, abuse him, refuse to shut up, ignore what all the other guests are saying, and abuse them, too! And do it all in a second-language I barely have a grasp of.
Tell you what, this 'debating' the Scandinavian 3 Stooges is all generally rather tedious, so since democracy is all the go shall we just have a vote on what we'd like to see happen to Pentax? Not involving tube gags and masking tape?
I vote for a total blocking, in perpetuity. Who's with me?
Bill....if it were just about what I wanted...I'd be all for it...but I think these idiots should be seen and heard, just as my Founding Fathers wanted, being from the U.S. and all....Idiots in the open are just that....while idiots in hiding can be dangerous. So let the light shine on their ignorance for all to see.
@bill
pentaxZ's reference to democracy is in relation to freedom of speech. Your side of the argument is often accused of trying to create an intolerent, authoritarian regime, where dissenting views are dealt with by a loss of privilege.
There is plenty of evidence for that here. This thread 'Jonas Thread' is a good example if this. Jonas crime? He asked, on a climate issues/debate blog, to see the evidence in support of the IPCC's claim that the majority of recent warming was due to humans/co2 at a 90% confidence level.
After a lot of posturing and handwaving about 1000's of papers, we established that there was no empirical determination of this - in effect, it's of little more value than show of hands at a Greenpeace/WWF committee meeting.
We don't yet live in a world where scientific 'truth' is determined for the political convenience of a minority, or for that matter majority, do we?
You may think that relegating dissenting voices to thread oblivion 'works'. It doesn't. The criticisms, the inconvenient truths, are still there. The only consequence is that Deltoids become more and more detached from reality - a narrowed world view - which can't be beneficial?
Each to their own I suppose.
;)
*He asked, on a climate issues/debate blog, to see the evidence in support of the IPCC's claim that the majority of recent warming was due to humans/co2 at a 90% confidence level*
... while appearing not to have read any of the peer-reviewed papers in the relevant IPCC chapter...
...while refusing to write to any of the senior scientists whose work was refereed to in that chapter to ask their views...
...while repeatedly claiming that he 'knew what he was talking about' whilst giving no indication that he actually did...
...while continually dismissing the overwhelming views amongst the world's scientific community with respect to AGW...
...while constantly refusing to take up a simple bet offered by Bernard or other simple questions posed to him such as what percentage of the climate science community he thinks is made up of 'real scientists'...
Yes, Jonas made a REAL impression here. Your continued support for his nonsense, GSW, also says a lot about you, as well...
@Jeff
;)
"... while appearing not to have read any of the peer-reviewed papers in the relevant IPCC chapter..."
Jonas did. He just didn't find any substantive empirical evidence to support the claim - there wasn't any. WE'VE BEEN THRU THIS.
"...while refusing to write to any of the senior scientists whose work was refereed to in that chapter to ask their views..."
You made a funny Jeff! Despite your obvious shortcomings in all other areas, nobody can say you don't have a sense of humour.
"...while repeatedly claiming that he 'knew what he was talking about' whilst giving no indication that he actually did..."
Well, we're close to 3000 comments, Jonas relation of basic physics, in stark contrast to others here, has been pretty good, in fact 'word perfect' to date. Bernard and stu still seem unnecessarily challenged in even understanding what is being discussed.
"...while continually dismissing the overwhelming views amongst the world's scientific community with respect to AGW..."
You keep telling us you are a scientist, if you were even close you would know that 'Science' is non deferential in the way you suggest.
"...while constantly refusing to take up a simple bet "
Who in their right mind participates in Climate blogs with the intention of taking bets/challenges from half crazed loons like Bernard, I ask you.
Apparently my support for Jonas says a lot about me, thanks ;)
Jeff, you are clown!
JRC #2912
" The majority can't vote away gravity, no matter how many times you vote on it."
Exactly. In other words, concensus isn't science. Therefore jeffie isn't a real scientist because he claims that concensus is science. He thinks woting is science. I know perfectly well how science works, and it's certanely doesn't work by waving hands.
Athos, Pathos and Bathos, now joined by the 4th Musketeer on the donkey - GSW. Tireless Warriors for 'freem', all.
Not sub-literate boorish oafs who barge into other folk's places and get off on irritating people; no, not at all!
And with the same overweening DK hubris that makes Pentax somehow feel he is entitled to be an abusive smartarse in a language clearly not his own, all you geniuses can dismiss 1000s of pages of evidence compiled by hundreds of people who actually know what they're talking about on the basis of the sad little stock of prejudices that rolls around loose in your otherwise empty skulls!
Each to their own indeed, clown.
>pentaxZ's reference to democracy is in relation to freedom of speech.
GSW, you slimey, winky bastard, pentaxz is still free to have his say on Deltoid - under his own, original handle.
His crime was to use a sock puppet in order to pollute another thread. Tim Lambert doesn't have much time for the puerile nonsense that pentaxz tried to disguise with his sock, so neither he nor you have any reason to wail and gnash your teeth just because Tim chose to clean up what is, after all, his blog.
>There is plenty of evidence for that here. This thread 'Jonas Thread' is a good example if this.
Jonas N too is free to post on Deltoid. Being confined to one thread is simply a way to stop Jonas N trying to hijack every thread with his unsubstantiated crap.
And speaking of which, if Jonas N had told us what papers he'd read in order to reach his conclusion that scientists hadn't actually worked out the probability of human contribution to global warming, then we'd probably have moved forward months ago. Of course, Jonas N was never going to do that, because then his claims would have been shown to be the bilge that they are.
It's a shame that Jonas wouldn't play. For the last month I've really been wanting to establish his reading history before asking him about the [Huber and Knutti paper](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html#/), Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earthâs energy balance, that came out last year. The paper itself is interesting reading, but I was hoping to elicit from Jonas N a comment about a throw-away paragraph in the paper where Huber and Knutti say:
>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4; ref. 8) that 'most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations', that 'it is likely that increases in greenhouse gas concentrations alone would have caused more warming than observed', and that 'it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone'. Those results were predominantly driven by optimal fingerprinting studies.
I just wanted to know if Huber and Knutti are the latest to pretend that the IPCC based their estimates on science, but instead pulled the AR4 confidence figures from their arses.
After that, we can talk about the Huber and Knutti results.
bernie dear, with #2915 you are just trying to build a giant strawman. Pathetic. And you know, from a outside view, the ones coming out as religious nut heads certanely isn't us realists. You alarmists, on the other hand, has a deep religious belief in the holy IPCC. Therefore it's not wrong to call your beliefs Climate Scientology. You behave exactly like religious fundamentalists. But of course we realists understand that it's hard for anyone within your sect to see that.
>with #2915 you are just trying to build a giant strawman.
This should be interesting... what exactly is the strawman that I constructed?
The rest is your usual kapok.
Bernie thinks out loud, and it ain't pretty:
"And speaking of which, if Jonas N had told us what papers he'd read in order to reach his conclusion that scientists hadn't actually worked out the probability of human contribution to global warming, then we'd probably have moved forward months ago. Of course, Jonas N was never going to do that, because then his claims would have been shown to be the bilge that they are."
Bernie is as Muppet-Beekerish as Jeffie. Beep..beep....beep (while looking scared an upset). :-)
Again dear Bernie, Jonas has over and over again said that he hasn't read any papers elaborating on the maths and physics behind the 90% figure. Since you haven't come up with any articles/calculations/etc either in that respect, the obvious conclusion is that there are none and that the figure is a product of ideology, politics and even group thinking. Hence the existence of the figure 90% is best understood using sociology, not climate science per se.
Until showing us the money Bernie, the above explanation is the most valid on. :-)
billiboy, "somehow feel he is entitled to be an abusive smartarse".
Like you shout, you get answers. It doesn't matter how polite anyone makes a question here on deltoid, if the question questions the CAGW dogma the least, you deltoids immediately starts with the abuse and name calling. Often without even adressing the question itself. A religious fundamentalistic behavior, wouldn't you say?
I wonder why? You people claim that you have science to back your claims. Why in the hell are you then so afraid to have a normal discussion with people who doesn't share your beliefs? This phenomenon is by the way exactly the same on most of the alarmistic blogs around. I personally think that realistic blogs are boring to read without some alarmis writing on them. But you guys apparently think the opposite.
>Jonas has over and over again said that he hasn't read any papers elaborating on the maths and physics behind the 90% figure.
Olaus Petri, it takes a special talent to be as uncomprehending as you and to still be able to live independently.
I am not asking what papers Jonas N read that "elaborat[e] on the maths and physics behind the 90% figure". I am simply asking which papers he has read, in order to gauge the extent of reading, and with what material he arrived at his conclusion.
You really must be in the bottom IQ percentile if you can't understand that.
>You people claim that you have science to back your claims. Why in the hell are you then so afraid to have a normal discussion with people who doesn't share your beliefs?
Pentaxz, I have asked you half a dozen times to answer a simple rebuttal to some questions you posted. You initially agreed, but have since refused to either answer the rebuttal or provide any evidence to back up your beliefs.
In fact, your first action when I challenged you was to call me a "prick", which shows up your illiterate assertion that "if the question questions the CAGW dogma the least, you deltoids immediately starts with the abuse and name calling."
If you are so self evidently correct, it shouldn't be hard to prove Rattus wrong now, could it?
Dear Bernie, I can assure you that it's a lot more efficient if you come up with refs that actually elaborate on the science behind the 90% figure. But you can't Bernie, and when you deltoids did try to do so we all arrived at the conclusion that the number was an opinionated one
Please fantasize on what Jonas has read if it makes you feel better. You sure need to, feel better that is. :-)
john, at first i thought you were quite ok to have a discussion with. But after a short while you too started with namecalling. And with that my respect for you wanished. So, no, I will not make any rebuttal on your answers to my questions. And by the way you surely know what my answers would be.
bernie, of course you sertanely know that the strawman you are trying to build is that you are trying to project religious gibberish on us realists, when in fact you alarmists are the ones with deep religious beliefs in the holy IPCC church. A monumental owngoal for an Climate Scientologist as you.
Pentaxz,
Firstly, I have never called you "names", and I challenge to find a single instance where I have.
Secondly, your first action right out of the starting gate was to call me "stupid" and a "prick".
Your second post to me is worth quoting in full:
>Hey, stupid John. You foilhats is claming all sorts of weird and stupid things, hence you have to proof the empirical data, that the eight questions represent, wrong. Go ahead, be my guest. Get on it. If you, la creme de la creme of Deltoid intelligence can't prove them wrong, your *AGW church is in a deep sh*t. You know it. So, go fetch the proof, foilhats. Rambling and evading won't help you this time.
Don't lie and don't be a hypocrite.
Science would never evolve if there weren't any critics or skeptics. The same applies to climate science, because it can not develop without internal criticism and a skeptical attitude. But when you begin to cementing ideas and ban criticism, then it's no longer about science.
By your logic climate scientists shouldn't have to answer criticism because we know what they are going to say anyway.
Well john, I see you as one of the deltoid pack, one for all, all for one, kind of. You got on the bandwagon so you simply has to accept beeing one of the foilhat deltoids.
Duh, no, that's not my logic. By my logic they should defend their beliefs with facts, real, empirical, unalterd, not hidden facts. And that does NOT include model projections.
Yes, we know what they are gonna say: CO2 is the cause of all evil things on earth, from melting glaciers to earthquakes.
>Well john, I see you as one of the deltoid pack, one for all, all for one, kind of. You got on the bandwagon so you simply has to accept beeing one of the foilhat deltoids.
So now your argument is you don't have to provide scientific evidence to people with whom you disagree. Some "skeptic" you are.
All I have done is ask that you back up your assertions with evidence. Not only have you refused, you have now taken to lying about my behaviour towards you to distract that you are unable to answer a simple rebuttal.
You people claim that you have science to back your claims. Why in the hell are you then so afraid to have a normal discussion with people who doesn't share your beliefs?
Because it's virtually impossible to have a rational discussion with religious fanatics.
>By my logic they should defend their beliefs with facts, real, empirical, unalterd, not hidden facts
I agree. So why do you believe you are exempt from "facts"? And that is your logic. That is the very logic you have repeatedly used to deflect a simple rebuttal, while demanding entirely different standards from everyone else.
>Yes, we know what they are gonna say: CO2 is the cause of all evil things on earth, from melting glaciers to earthquakes.
That sad thing is you probably believe this. You are wrong. Would you care to know why?
>Because it's virtually impossible to have a rational discussion with religious fanatics.
That's not a very skeptical attitude. That sounds more like the attitude of someone who has chosen a point of view based on his political ideology, but doesn't understand enough about the subject at hand to rationally debate it without resorting to lies or ad hom attacks.
Would you state, in a paragraph, what you believe the theory of AGW to be and why you believe it is wrong? We can go from there.
Is it not a fact that progress in science is based on the questioning, the willingness to consider and reconsider? Where would we be today without this endeavor? In the Neolithics? Those who think they know everything and claims to be in possession of absolute truth, like the CAGW puppets, is sooner or later revealed, and dismissed by the reality.
>Those who think they know everything and claims to be in possession of absolute truth, like the CAGW puppets, is sooner or later revealed, and dismissed by the reality.
I'm not claiming "absolute truth". You are the one who believes his evidence is so self-evidently correct it isn't worthy of scrutiny here.
What you are really saying though is that there is a chance the AGW theory is actually correct.
How can that be wrong when your high priest Pachauri says so? Are you callenging your authority?
If you agree with facts, real, empirical, unalterd, not hidden facts, I propose that you share that with the clowns at the IPCC, so we don't have to see more of hiding declines and other unscientific rubbish. And perhaps also share it with berie and other deltoids, who thinks science is about waving hands.
Olaus Petri:
>I can assure you that it's a lot more efficient if you come up with refs that actually elaborate on the science behind the 90% figure.
Which is why, from the outset, I have been asking Jonas N what references he read in order to discount the fact that there was no "science behind the 90% figure". He started the whole pseudo-debate with sweeping claims, but he has never explained what he read or analysed in order to reach the conclusion that thousands of scientists are perpetrating a conspiracy of fraud.
Jonas N started the whole sordid saga. It's up to him to first put some evidence - any evidence - behind his story.
Why is it so difficult for him (and for you, and for all of the socks and sundry troll-buddies) to put anything down that can actually be analysed?
And it seems to have escaped your memory that a number of people have tried to lead him by the nose to evidence that contradicts his fantasy. I am assuming that you've not read Huber and Knutti yet either, because they give you a few extra clues, but I will leave that for later because I first want to see what material Jonas N based his case on - or rather, didn't base his case on...
Pentaxz.
You're just [blathering](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6208538) [incoherently](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6208543) now.
Seriously.
And I was not projecting anything. I was comparing your denial of basic physics with other people's denial of astronomical understanding and of biological understanding, and as a parenthetical aside I simply asked you if there were
>(any Creationists hiding amongst you, perhaps?)
If you take only that from a whole post, and morph it into me specifically calling you religious, then you need to go back to Grade 3 and learn to parse.
As you are hard of learning, I'll put to you again the thrust of that post...
...why do you never present any scientific evidence, data or references with which to support your claims, when you deny science? Why do you behave in the same manner as deniers of evolution and of heliocentricity and of global sphericity? Why are you any different to deniers of evolution and of heliocentricity and of global sphericity?
>How can that be wrong when your high priest Pachauri says so?
You infer that I uncritically accept whatever I am told from an authority. However you have accidentally posted links to scientific papers that disprove your views without actually realising they did.
Therefore, based solely on the evidence you have provided by your actions, I charge that it is in fact *you* who uncritically accepts whatever you are told as long as you believe it proves your opinion.
That is not skepticism.
Pentaxz.
In your confusion [you incorrectly claimed](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6208538) that I was creating a strawman. In a stunning discplay of hypocrisy you then immediately go on to make not one:
>Science would never evolve if there weren't any critics or skeptics.
not two:
>CO2 is the cause of all evil things on earth, from melting glaciers to earthquakes
not three:
>How can that be wrong when your high priest Pachauri says so?
but at least four:
>If you agree with facts, real, empirical, unalterd, not hidden facts, I propose that you share that with the clowns at the IPCC, so we don't have to see more of hiding declines and other unscientific rubbish. And perhaps also share it with berie and other deltoids, who thinks science is about waving hands.
straw men of your own - and I suspect that you have no clue as to why each qualifies as a straw man argument.
So, where's your evidence that consensus physics and climatology are wrong? And how can you look in the mirror each day knowing that you can't justify your libel against thousands of professional scientists?
When I write "you" I mean you in plural. So don't take it personally.
You (plural) all lean towards the IPCC. It's your authority and that is an undesputal fact. You (plural) wouldn't have zilch with arguments without it.
Realists don't have any need for authority, simply because we trust in empirical facts. We don't need to bend and strech reality so it will fit a predetermined pseudo reality. When the reality aren't consistent with the models, the Climate Scientologist put his beliefs with the model, the realist with the empirical facts. Using only your common sence, how would you do?
Haha, you really have humor, bernie. But that's all you have. Owngoal after owngoal. Keep on the good work, mr "hand-waving-is-science". Hillarious!
>Realists don't have any need for authority, simply because we trust in empirical facts.
But that's the thing, pentaxz, you never ever tell us what are the empirical bases for your "facts".
Never. Ever.
Don't you see something wrong with that picture?
"Don't you see something wrong with that picture?"
No, I don't, since you alarmists never ever tell us what the empirical, unaltered, unhidden facts for your hysterical religious beliefs are. The only thing we see is heavily biased, altered, streched, cherrypicked interpretations. Why? If the climate science is so sturdy you claim, there would not be any need to "hide the decline", would it?
Pentaxz.
As I have observed previously, there is a greater likelihood of wringing blood from a stone than of actually extracting from you anything that resembles sense, but I'll try again...
Imagine that you were down at your local pub, talking to a naïve scientist from Utopia who believed what she'd read in the IPCC's AR4, and in all of the professional literature, but who hadn't been told that it's all a global conspiracy until she met you leaning over a tankard.
Now, she's a scientist, so you can't just give her pub blather to let her know that she's been hoodwinked by her conniving non-Utopian colleagues. She wants evidence. She wants a coherent and supported counter to all of the material that she has read in her journals, material that has corroborated all of the data collection, experiments and analyses at the University of Utopia.
How are you going to explain to her why the physics of human-caused global warming is a fraudulent conspiracy?
Where do you start? What are your dot points, and what scientific sources do you use to support them?
Or are you just going to respond by saying "stupid foilhat fundamentalistic [sic] stupid religious nuthead CAGW strawman" interspersed with your usual disparate pieces of tortured grammar?
Given TampaxZ's last 'broadside' was Goddard's 'Resolutions' and his subsequent self-immolating, spiralling descent into projection, self-contradiction and catchphrases, the expectations of anything constructive emerging from the wreckage of such utter and completely self-described idiocy must by now be at zero.
What's interesting is that his fellow travellers have made no attempts to correct him whatsoever, and that they are so at one in knowing the mind of the alleged mightily independent though absent Jonarse. Curiouser and curiouser.
At one time I would have been quite happy to see this thread disappeared, but I've since come round to a view similar to [JRC's](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6208476): let this thread stand as a monument to and a self-explanatory warning about the musketeer's brand of half-baked, Scandinavian libertarian, think-for-yourself stupidity.
bernie, what you miss is that nobody has told me that the CAGW is a fraud. It's something I have discovered all by my self. Further, I don't think the IPCC "scientists" are involved in a conspiracy, they simply are so convinced in their beliefs that they can't grasp that empirical facts are contradicting their beliefs. Therefore they don't see that bending facts is wrong when their models don't sync with them.
On the other hand, NGOs, like greenpiss, WWF and so on, have clearly an agenda. And that is a world government in the name of preserving the nature. It's no wonder that enviromentalists often has a very left, communistic view on things. For them it's quite ok to destroy the modern way of life, as long as the nature is saved. Well, I too want to preserve our nature, but not at the cost of destroy our civilication.
Jeff Harvey #2919
Still full of it? (The same 'brown sticky stuff' Bernard J obsessed so about?)
When will you ever learn not to make up, invent, fabricate your own 'facts' just because you sp desperately would need them to be true to fit your own twisted (and equally invented) narrative!?
When will you ever learn that whatever things you dream/conjure up in you narrowminded little head about your 'opponents' are just that: Figments of you own imagination?
When will you grow up and be sufficiently mature to stop believing that you represent, or only speak for, or just stop believing that your beliefs and emotions are shared by what you call 'the scientific community'?
When will you be grown-up enough to abandon that ridiculous idea that there is a 'scienticic community' with a singular stance on one of the more controversial scienticic questions of our time, in a field which is about as immature as you?
When will you be man enough to actually dare to participate in any real debate (and abandon that stupid posturing about bets, about CV-waiving and all the other abundant stupidities found here)?
Well, to answer the last question, you need to posess some skill on the matter before that even can begin to be meaningful. Hence you may postone that!
I do however suggest you work on the preceding questions: Improving your maturity, abandoning your childish, foolish emotional and compulsive dishonest fabrications. And aquiring some (basic) scientific attitude towards information facts and reality. Followed by at least attaining a similarily basic and scientific treatment of the same (which strictly prohibits you compulsive fantasies)
And before you can manage that (I doubt it will ever happen), I had challenged you to only phrase on of you many comments in a coherent way, outlining a psoition, your stance on a relevant topic here (not your fantasies) so that it can be read and accepted at face value (not necessarily agreed upon, nota bene) by everybody reading it. In short that you behave like a grown-up partaking in a measured debate.
So far, it seems, that 'challenge' has been insurmountable for you ..
For those who few (GSW, Olaus) defend the gibberish Jonas spews out on a continual basis, here is an analogy for his obsession over the 90% figure in IPCC AR4:
This is a general blog site which discusses issues relevant to the arena of the physical and environmental sciences. Tim Lambert does a pretty good job dismantling the abuse of science by a comparatively small number of people on the academic fringe - by this I mean the characters one encounters at CA, WUWT, Plimer, Monckton et al. For reasons that should be obvious, much of this abuse occurs in fields that intersect with public policy, such as climate change. I see much less attention paid by deniers to other aspects of human-mediated global change, such as the rapid loss of biodiversity, because there has been much less effort expended by propagandists - industry funded think tanks, public relations firms, and astroturf lobbying groups etc. - in this area of empirical research. Instead, the battle cry of those fighting against government regulations has found its clarion call in the area of climate science.
Every Tom, Dick or Harry appears to think they can wade into this area of science and become an instant expert. No formal education required: just surf the internet, read a few skeptical blogs and presto! One can write all day about the infinite amount of expertise they express. Jonas is a model subject.
Here is my analogy-:
1. TheMillennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2006), as with the IPCC, was a prodigious document based on the collaboration of researchers at academic institutions all over the world. The conclusions made stark reading: amongst them were that 60% of the critical ecosystem services are being seriously degraded, and that the damage to key aspects of ecological systems and their functioning could have serious repercussions on the material economy.
2. On a general science blog, such as this one, a skeptical layman with no relevant expertise in environmental science writes in demanding to know how the 60% figure was reached. He argues to the bloggers that it is not up to him to read any of the many papers that made up the MEA to know how they came up with this figure, it is up to the other contributors of the blog and those who defend the integrity of the MEA to prove to him that the 60% figure is bonafide.
3. The readers respond by telling the skeptic that he ought to consult the relevant chapter and to download many of the peer-reviewed articles in it, and then to come back with a detailed critique of at least a handful of these studies. The skeptic bitterly responds that it is not up to him to prove anything, it is up to the defenders of the MEA to prove the 60% figure has a scientific basis.
4. This to-ing and fro-ing goes on for months. The skeptic digs in, continually claims he knows what he is talking about', but refuses to read any of the studies that are shoved in front of his nose except to dismiss them out of hand. He continues to insist that bloggers prove the 60% figure is based on sound science. When they do not do this, he and his supporters claim some kind of victory, as if they have proven to the world that the 60% figure is made up by members of the WWF or Greenpeace. All the while the skeptic and his supporters refuse to discuss any real science or the overwhelming support amongst the scientific community in support of the conclusions reached by the MEA. They seem to think that the entire scientific universe is contained on Deltoid, and if they do not receive the proper response then the entire science underpinning the MEA will crumble.
5. Given that none of the posters on Deltoid contributed to the MEA, the skeptic is advised by a few of the posters to write to some of the scientists who actually contributed to the MEA to ask what they think about the 60% figure and how it was reached. But the skeptic digs in and adamantly refuses to do this. He then starts baiting other posters, insulting them about their lack of scientific skills, knowledge, and calling them foolish, dishonest etc., whilst continuing to proclaim that he possesses the skill and knowledge to debunk the 60% figure.
6. The 60% estimation is thereafter used as a figurehead by the skeptic to debunk the conclusions of the entire MEA. If the 60% figure is arbitrary, then the entire document must be flawed is the skeptic's reasoning. Furthermore, the skeptic writes into the blog as if the debate over the validity of the MEA hinges critically on the outcome of the so-called 'debate' occurring on it. He forgets, or, more conveniently ignores, the fact that science by blog is not science at all, but commentary, and that the scientific community by-and-large does not give a rat's ass about debates on blogs, but in the peer-reviewd literature and in academic institutions and conferences. When the skeptic is advised to become more pro-active in the real scientific community, he lashes out with more insults, put-downs, and evasive tactics, secure in his own belief that on a few blogs he is a big person in a small pond whereas in the academic world, where it really matters, he is a micro-drop of water in an intellectual sea.
7. Eventually banned to his own thread for his persistent and willful ignorance, the skeptic continues to bleat about their expertise and knowledge, whilst refusing to discuss a a single scientific study. Its clear by this point that they know nada about environmental science, and especially about the link between biodiversity and supporting ecosystem services, but they think that the entire evidence for the importance of biodiversity hinges critically on the 60% figure. If this is shown to lack the concrete evidence they demand, then the whole subject of the importance of biodiversity will come crashing down. And remember, the so-called debate is being carried out on only one of a million blogs. The skeptic is a non-entity, and refuses to venture into the brave new world of science.
This sums up Jonas to a tee. Now be prepared for him to write some witless response in which I am deemed to be dishonest, foolish, childish, emotional, that I am incapable of debating with real men, that I make things up, waving my CV in front of him, that I have a narrow little head, etc. etc. etc. Its been going on this way for months now.
The guy is a parody.
Bernard @2952:
Brilliant! You have summed up the situation perfectly. I could not have phrased it better.
Moreover, being called everything nasty under the sun by the likes of PentaxZ, GSW, Jonas and Olaus is actually a compliment, given their combined standing in the scientific community. To be honest, I would be seriously worried if these people with their warped views were complimentary: that would be proof positive that I was doing something seriously wrong.
Jeff
One more (lengthy) post confirming that you (and so many more here, and elsewhere) have taken that AR4 90% confidence claim on pure and blind faith, and that although it is now almost five years old, none of you ..
.. and I really mean none at all of you who hold that faith/claim so dearly, even those of you belonging to 'the scientific community', ...
.. have managed to find and point out where that (very prominent as well as specific and quantified) claim is demonstrated, and demonstrated properly, with real and proper science that can be examined!
None Jeff! None among your revered 'Big Guys' in the scientific community can and has! Because: If it existed, it would have to be among the references of the IPCC AR4, published, identifiable, readable, checkable, scutinizable, chritisizable etc.
And none of you dares to point it out!
Instead you (plural) retort with the most pathetic objections like the list you try above (me paraphrasing your analogy):
1. The political UN-body writing these reports is indeed a fine one, purporting to assemble the finest research and researchers in the world. They are indeed very certain (90% confident), and they should be accepted as the experts
2. It is pointed out (on one general blog) that no one seems to know on what basis that confidence was reached. That no one can point to any real scientific underpinning of the most central claim of that UN-body. (And that no one else, on any other forum, can answer where it is supposed to be found). It is repeatedly pointed out, that if this is based (as is alleged) on published science, these publications must exist (have existed already ~2006) and available for general (scientific) scrutiny!
3. The blog-hang arounds immedeately 'answers' with endless insults and abuse of the worst kind. Demands for 'banning' appear within hours. Those who manage to be a bit more civil say *'Trust us, it is all in there, in the AR4, in the WG II and in the references. Go and look for yourself'* (leaving out the obvious *'But none of us has seen it'* and the equally obvious *'nor would be understand any of it if we had'*). However, the point is repeated: If there indeed was science behind it, it must be readable (since 2007), but no one seems to know where .. Eventually a bolder (tentative, but falsifiable) claim was made: There is no science behind it .. prove me wrong! And still no one stepped up to that challenge (but the faith was repeated in no uncertain terms). Instead, lots of references, lists, chapters, figures, captions, etc were pushed forward which the pushers (mostly) had not read, did not understand, or dealt with different things.
4. The few references that were actually pushed (with assertions of containg that claim) were read, and soon found to not at all contain support for the UN-body-claim. The pushers tried to wiggle and obfuscate, but only for a very short time. The hang-arounds now started screeching and making up untruths. In the face of the obvious lack of (self seen, read and understood) real science, the screechers continued flinging insults and made references to 'scientific community' to 'consensus' and to 'look at my CV' and other totally immaterial stuff. (Note: At the end here, Jeff introduces a caveat: Those who actually may know of and have seen and understood that science, may be absent here and haven't informed anybody else where it's supposedly is hidden. Fair enough! Jeffie, and no one else here, has seen it, ie it is taken on faith. As claimed). The message still is: Why don't you just believe them experts (Whose name we don't even know)? (As we all do and should do)
5. Another stalling tactic is employed: Why don't you write to someone and ask? Or why don't you publish your 'earth shattering views' in Nature? (And many more even more stupid ones). And all the time, the faith-based believers pile up insults, misrepresemt and fabricate all kinds of 'facts' about those who point out their faith, holes in it, and whom they can neither give proper answers to nor debate as grown ups (let alone real scientists). And when this incessant fabrication of facts is pointed out and eventually mocked, the insulters and fabricators pout, whine and complain .. (presumably for not being taken seriously enough :-)
6. After grudgingly realizing (conceeding?) that no one seems to be able to present where that 90% confidence claim was calculated (using proper science), all kinds of other diversion tactis were tried. Demands for banning were repeated, more insults were hurled, misrepresentations were repeated and new ones added. CVs were waived even more fervently (apparently, in the belief that they carried some relevance strengthening the blind faith). And it was argued that agreement (among those who agree) was indeed strong and enough. Even when such agreement was contrived or just plain false.
7. The shouting and demanding for banning eventually resulted in (almost) that, and the crowd congratulated itself on its victory. Patting each others backs about how smart they were, and how much on 'the side of the science' they must be (albeit not having seen or read it) and how 'stupid' everybody else must be. This sometimes became outright ridiculous, and continued in other threads.
This sums up Jeffies various and vacuous attempts to declare that his own (ignorant, emotional, and uninformed) faith about science neither he nor anybody else ever has seen still somehow must be valid. And hence, all his other firmly held beliefs about almost everything he doesn't know the first thing about.
The guy is a parody!
And all this he wrote, in a somehow twisted defence of him (and nobody else in the entire world, for four years running) not being able to produce the science underpinning the most prominent claim!
Blatantly in the face of him assuring that science is not carried out on blogs, but in the peer reviewed literature (which in this case nobody knows to exist). As he said:
The guy is a parody!
Bernard J #2906
The attribution magnitude/confidence is a partly different issue than the climate sensitivity. An (alleged high) value for the latter, however is major component of the (purportedly established) former. Another intimately related issue are the (once again) alleged high and positive feedbacks, and more interestingly the proposed physical mechanisms for high amplification factors of the radiative properties of (additional) CO2.
All these issues have been addressed, some i quite some detail, by me and also those (few) others actually partaking in (anything resembling) a debate. You were not among them, Bernard. And neither you, nor any of the others would actually address what I said on the matter. Mostly the 'argument' from that side amounted to nothing more than 'but Rahmstorf says so ... and there are so many more publications not questioning .. ' and similar stuff.
But as I said, you did not participate even in that Bernard. Now, three months later, you interject that the (one) adequate term is 'climate sensitivity'. Seemingly in the belief that you made a valuable clarification thereby. Whereafter you made various demands and comments further revealing your shallow understanding of what that term represents, and of measurments/uncertainties/probabilities more in general.
My impression is that most (all?) of you mostly rely on words, phrases, snippets you've picked up. Sometimes (but rarely) in the primary literature, sometimes and reviews and overviews (IPCC, abcstracts, DB-searches), but mostly just regurgitated on sites like this one. And that when somebody (like me) actually comments on the content, and what there actually is done, or what it says (and more importantly: What is not done and what it doesn't say/claim/show/prove),
you (plural) are at a loss. At least there is hardly ever any response to what is put forward (presumably, because your 'preferred reading' nowhere contains anything inteligible on the matter, nor even tries to prepare you for any chriticism or just other view(point)s)
Instead, the usual response is first to (a tinge shriller) repeat one's beliefs and thereafter attempting to change the subject, often to attack the 'person' instead. This has been the theme here for the entire time.
And often it doesn't even stay at that: Many among the (C)AGW-defenders must so grossly misrepresent whatever is said that it is really really hard to maintain the idea that this is only due to lack of understanding and grasp of the word's meanings, or poorly phrased and emotional talkback .. and not knowingly dishonest.
Either way, it is characteristic of the henhouse cackle one so often encounters when asking a few questions or daring to point out criticism or even errors and poor logic/arguments/science on sites like this.
But one thing I can give you: If you'd actually ban everybody that the crowd wants to ban, you would indeed have your much coveted consensus here. But unfortunately for you, only here and in similar henhouses ..
Pentaxz, rereading your overtly comical answers this morning I couldn't help but wonder if you know what projection is.
According to Wikipedia:
>Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.
When you refuse to supply basic empirical evidence for your beliefs because the IPCC are allegedly hiding theirs, despite the fact it's all contained in a 1600 page report you haven't read, you are "projecting".
When you accuse others of holding "religious views" but believe your views are self evidently correct simply because they exist and you hold them, you are "projecting".
When you accuse others of being beholden to an authority but rely on websites and people to tell you what to think, you are "projecting".
When you accuse others of refusing to debate the science of AGW while refusing to debate it yourself, you are "projecting".
When you refuse to debate people because you claim they called you "names", when in fact they were polite and the only name-calling was done by you, you are "projecting".
When you accuse others of not understanding the science, but link to papers that actually disprove your point of view because you don't understand them, you are "projecting".
When you accuse other people of the behaviour only *you* are engaging in, you are "projecting".
Bernard J #2892
>you and Jonas N are dodging and weaving in desperate attempts to avoid actually putting forward something that can be examined and tested
As you might remember, and even were a part of (avoiding), I put forward the notion that in the entire IPCC AR4 and among the references quoted therein, there did not exist any proper science which demonstrated the most prominent claim of the AR4, the one about attribution 'most of' and with '90% certainty'.
Do you remember that? Do you remember that I first asked for any such science, and when no one even attempted to produce such, I stuck out my neck further, saying that none existed, challenging you all to have a go at it!?
Do you remember that? And that I was fully aware that I was claiming a negative (which I could never prove) but that one reference (that anyone of you had both had read and understood properly) would falsify my claim, make me look like a fool and 'demolish' me (as you so eagerly would like to). Do you remember that?
Jeffie sure seems to remember (and he fantasizes a lot about 'demolishing' too) but of course blames everything (including his ignorance) on me (or rather his fantasies about me)
Well, that was in the beginning. Since, there have been various discussions about finer points. Both feedbacks, physics, statistics, attribution, sensitivity, boxes being pushed etc. And (as ever) an awful lot of my persona totally irrelevant and invented by those who have zilch to contribute here, you included.
But you might not remember that either, occupied with other things as you were ...
If so, fine. But don't blame it on anybody else.
Another thing Bernard (and at notorious liar Jeff too):
I have spent so many hours reading the references pushed forward (thrown out, at me) claiming that *this and that* was contained in there, *showing or proving this claim or those results, or confirming that hypothesis* etc. And inevitably the purported content of the paper would be either grossly overstated, or non-existent. Mostly the only 'support' for the claim (if any at all) would be handwaiving phrases in the discussion section, or vague statements that something was to be found elsewhere.
And every time this happened, the person pushing the reference would sneak away, not answering, not defending, not even pointing at what made him put forward the original claim. Every time Bernard! If one checked upon their assertions, it turned out to be empty waffle.
As a stalling technique, as obfuscation, dishonesty, or just utter ignorance and blind hope that the beef actually may be in there (often probably, because they have seen others throwing (the same?) references around, who were equally ignorant).
You tried the very same thing here, Bernard! For exactly the same reasons, references you hadn't even opened.
And since this is what I've encountered every single time I ever followed a reference thrown at me by a climate scare groupie, I have started to demand two things prior to me following that link:
1. That the referring person really had read it too, properly, and indeed understood the contents. And
2. That he would stick around and be able to defend or argue the contents if I had objections.
Almost without exception, those two conditions wiped away all claims and claimants that 'something specific was to be found i that certain reference', you included.
I still follow links and read references (of course). But not at the demand/command of blustering wafflers. And I make a point of first asking them if they've really read it (all of it) themselves (not only opened it in their browser). And if they understood what was both claimed and done there.
Essentially every time, this was sufficient and they didn't come back / switched tactics.
>I have spent so many hours reading the references pushed forward (thrown out, at me) claiming that this and that was contained in there, showing or proving this claim or those results, or confirming that hypothesis etc. And inevitably the purported content of the paper would be either grossly overstated, or non-existent.
Name one.
John, Jonas N won't be able to name one. Honestly I think he should go into comedy if I didn't think he were serious. He is a legend in his own mind, but that isn't a great accomplishment.
You are wrong JRC. Jonas himself has admitted that he has spent so many hours reading the papers referenced here it shouldn't be a problem to name only one. Jonas should be able to name one paper in his very next comment.
John, I may be wrong as I'm not perfect, but we are talking about Jonas here. So I have to say given his track record I think I have better odds at being right in this case. Really when his Jonas backed up anything he has wrote here with supporting evidence?
John (and JRC)
What's wrong with those I have named?
(But should you at should read what you reply to, otherwise you may look just as smart as Jeffie ...)
Dear John and JRC, I suggest that you recapitulate the earlier part of the thread for refs given to Jonas be deltoid scientologist. And if that's to difficult for you I recommend that you come up with some refs of your own. :-)
Jeffie scurried away to find out more in "in the literature", many weeks ago, and he's still prospecting for real nuggets to weigh in with.
Let's get ready to ruuuuumbleeeeeee â not! :-)
Olaus
I think it was Bernard who promised that he would read up on a lot of more references just to show how wrong I was ... (and never came back)
Just recently (#2923) Bernard claimed that his baiting and diversion technique was intended at paper published much later (Huber and Knutti), where he found that infamous AR4 claim, repeated verbatim.
But Bernard's proclaimed motives for whatever he says or does or says he does ... I wouldn't take too literally.
Apparently he still claims that it was me and not the IPCC who made a claim for which no supporting evidence yet has been found, seen or produced. In spite of the almost (claimed) unanimous support by 'the entire scientific community' of which not only many here pretend to be a part of. Some even claim to speak for them (at least 95% of them)
But then again, those are the same people having real difficulties already with as simple math topics as 'percentage', and even maintain that such ignorance is a virtue ..
;-)
Jonas,
I used an appropriate analogy to critique your apparent obsession with the 90% figure from AR4/IPCC. Let me turn the tables. Why do you think they produced the 90% figure? Why do you think the MEA produced as estimate of 60% for lost or severely degraded ecosystem services?
The answer should be obvious. Policy makers and the public demand handles. In the view of most climate scientists, there is a very strong link between the human combustion of fossil fuels and the current warming. But, for policy purposes, the words 'strong link' or 'significant correlation' mean very little, as scientists are well aware. So they attribute some kind of significance factor to their conclusions. When this happens, the nit-picking brigade (of which you are a charter member) come out in force. How did they reach the 90% figure? they shout with indignation. The same handle applied to the MEA - 60% - falls into the sam,e category. Your strategy, if indeed it can be called one, is to suggest that, without some immense scientific underpinning for these estimations, that there is no problem; that climate change, or the loss of ecosystem services for that matter, are artificial constructs that are meaningless. From here we can deduced that you go on to say that both are myths.
Is this the level of your debating skills? Come on man, lets see if you can deconstruct any of the articles Bernard (and I) cited above that discuss the causes or symptoms of the current warming. PentaxZ made the vacuous assertion earlier that warming does not threaten polar bear populations. No evbidence needed to be procured or dicsussed; in his feeble little mind it was taken as a 'given' because Joanne Nova's web site or some other contrarian source said so. I went on to discuss the concepts of habitat thresholds, habitat equilibria, the extinction debt, tipping points and demographic lags in response to the points made by PentaxZ. I suggested he read Tilman and May's seminal 1994 Nature paper on the extinction debt or any of Martin Scheffer's articles on ecological tipping points; His response? There wasn't one. He thinks that one wins a discussion merely by making an assertion. Then he claims that I cannot debate science. And this guy is one of your key allies on this thread? What does that tell you?
I find it amusing that you repeatedly call me dishonest and a liar: perchance tell me where I have lied? The only example I can think of relates to your versus my interpretation of the level of peer review accorded to various kinds of scientific submissions. You actually dismissed an article on the basis that it constituted part of the proceedings of a conference, claiming that it wasn't peer-reviewed as rigidly as articles submitted to scientific journals. I strongly disagreed with this, because many conference proceedings end up being published in rigid scientific journals as parts of special issues. So what we have here is your opinion, as someone with no scientific background, against mine, as someone who not only is a scientist but who is and has been an Associate Editor at several scientific journals as well as having contributed to conference publications. Essentially, what you are saying is that if you say something, it has to be taken at face value. Jonas said it, therefore it must be honest and correct; people who disagree with Jonas are dishonest liars. Isn't that the extent of your debating logic? What else can one assume?
No wonder most posters on here find you a despicable con artist. You've managed to glean support from a few other characters of dubious value (Olaus, PentaxZ, GSW) but that is about it. The vast majority of posters think of you in much the same way as I do. You wouldn't last 5 minutes in an academic arena with your ideas and views. That it why your restrict your activities to a few blogs, where you don't have to face off against opponents and can avoid the nitty gritty. As John said, you have yet to discuss the content of a single study that has been put in front of you here. That is clear evidence of the depth of your knowledge.
Jonas N.
>The attribution magnitude/confidence is a partly different issue than the climate sensitivity.
Yeah, [I told you that a few days ago](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6207967). The message must still be in transit between your retinas and your Wernicke's Area.
>An (alleged high) [sic] value for the latter, however is [sic] major component of the (purportedly established) former.
So, you should be all over Huber and Knutti to point out where they are wrong.
Except that you have not shown any inclination to list the papers you say that you've read - let alone to participate in a transparent deconstruction of the papers and your apparent problems with them. This is in spite of your claim that:
>[a]ll these issues have been addressed, some i [sic] quite some detail, by me and also those (few) others actually partaking in (anything resembling) a debate.
See, I tried back in September to elicit from you a list of papers that you read in order to reach your decision that the IPCC simply guessed its confidence levels. I did this in order to establish, using the concept of first principles, whether you had adequately read and understood the science that discusses the confidence of human involvementin global warming.
Have you ever heard of that phrase - 'first principles'? It means that one starts with the basics, the beginnings, the fundamental underpinnings that can't be arrived at by, or that depend upon, precedent levels of understanding.
In the context of your claim that the IPCC must have 'made up' its confidence levels because you couldn't find the methods used to derive them, you first need to observe the first principle that requires you to explicitly detail the extent of your reading. Without this information it is not possible to say that you have proved that the calculations haven't been done.
You steadfastly refuse to explain what you've read - and didn't read - in order to make your claim.
Jonas N, do you know - I have tried to find proof that you are not a pædophile, but I found nothing that exonerates you. Of course, I am not going to tell you what I read, because your own example dictates that doing so is completely unnecessary.
Unlike you though, I am not going to make a libelous claim based on my undescribed effort to establish a fact.
I find it bizarre that you have skirted an explanation of how you arrived at your conclusion. As I said, this request was made back in September, and I even tried to jog your response by [listing some of the papers that I'd accumulated that had direct or indirect relevance to your claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5240991):
>Jonas N.
>I have been waiting for you to tell us which IPCC references you have read, and that by doing so have permitted you to make the claim that the organisation makes up its estimation on future temperature ranges. You claim that you can't find them.
>I am now going to ask you whether you have looked anywhere in the professional climatological literature for explanation of procedures to assess modelled future temperature ranges?
>So, have you?
>To make it easier, I will also ask you if you have read and discounted each of the papers below:
>[snip list of over 20 papers]
>Some of these touch upon the questions that you claim are not answered. Some don't. Do you know which ones do, and which ones don't?
Jonas N, you're apparently having a hissy because I "didn't participate" in your evasive spiel those months ago. The whole time since then I've been trying to wangle from you this fundamental first principle, without which all of your diatribe becomes nothing more than fantasy, idle speculation, and hot air.
>Just recently (#2923) Bernard claimed that his baiting and diversion technique was intended at [sic] paper published much later (Huber and Knutti), where he found that infamous AR4 claim, repeated verbatim.
No, I did not claim that. You need to learn to parse. I said:
>For the last month I've really been wanting to establish his reading history before asking him about the Huber and Knutti paper...
We all know that I have been asking for your reading list since September. My reference to Huber and Knutti simply means that since the beginning of December I have been further waiting for your reading list, with the additional anticipation of seeing how you handle the analyses of Huber and Knutti.
I most certainly did not say that any queries put to you before December were predicated on Huber and Knutti.
Jonas N, it strikes me that perhaps your problem is that because English is not your first language, you are not competent to understand the intent of commentary in English. Perhaps your difficulty in understanding English scientific literature stems from your inability to adequately process the meaning of the language in which it is written. Nothing else would seem to explain well your (and your Scandinavian trolleagues') constant twistings of what people say.
Unless it is that you are all either intellectually challenged, or deliberately mendacious, or both...
>I have spent so many hours reading the references pushed forward (thrown out, at me) claiming that this and that was contained in there, showing or proving this claim or those results, or confirming that hypothesis etc. And inevitably the purported content of the paper would be either grossly overstated, or non-existent.
So, you should be able to tell us then what you've read. And you should be able to demonstrate to us the process by which you eliminated each and every IPCC reference as a potential source for their confidence intervals.
So, once more from the beginning - what did you read, and what did you not read, in order to arrive at your claim that the IPCC "made up" its confidence levels?
Bernard
All (relevance) I can see from your many posts is that you yourself also do not have the slightest clue where that AR4 claim supposedly is derived based on proper science. And this is what I said from the beginning: That all of you who so dearly cling to it and want to believe in it are taking it on pure faith. That none of you has seen, read, and understood that alleged science it supposedly is based on. None of you. And obviously not you either!
If you really maintain that this is wrong (in your case), could you please state so for the record? That **you indeed have seen, read and understood** where that 90% certainty-claim comes from, and that it indeed represents proper science?
Because if you have not, the thing is that you yourself know (personally) that my claim about you (ie your faith) is correct. And that your many contortions here merely serve to confuse the issue.
As I have said many times before: It is not me who has made an extraordinary claim (about 90% certainty), I am the one asking for the basis for that claim! (And so far, almost five years later, nobody ever seems to know, but asserts that others do. Instead they come up with utterly ridiculous demands and nonsense-logic that this somehow is my responsibility). Bizarre indeed!
BTW, maybe you shouldn't go about posturing about 'first principles' here ...
Neither me not having read every single reference in WG II nor you demanding that I do qualifies anywhere as 'first principles'.
Where on earth have you gotten that idea?
Jonas N.
What scientific papers and/or other resouces of any type did you read, and not read, in order to reach your conclusion that the world's physicists and climatologists did not actually calculate the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming od the planet?
Why have you avoided, for going on to five months, answering the previous question?
Bernard
Albeit asking and trying (for years) I have yet to see any proper science establishing that 90% certainty claim.
And I don't know any physicist or climatologist who has put his/her name behind any science in a publications where that certainty is properly established.
As you may remember, I am asking for such a reference/publication/science together with their authors/names.
And (as you also might know) nowadays, I ask the persons who push references and dito lists, if they have read them themselves, and if they (personally and) truly mean that what they say, indeed also is contained (as proper science, not just words) in those references.
As they so often do not want to state that they have, I assume that they haven't ...
But maybe you 'missed' that I just asked you something similar:
>If you really maintain that this is wrong (in your case), could you please state so for the record? That you indeed have seen, read and understood where that 90% certainty-claim comes from, and that it indeed represents proper science?
PS The idea that *âthe world's physicists and climatologistsâ* should have calculated and established one particular value for a certain claim, is as ludicrous as the notion of (95% of) *âthe scientific communityâ* somehow having confirmed that through (perceived or real) âconsensusâ. Especially if no one is able to produce any reference where this supposedly had been done.
Bernard (contd)
>>The attribution magnitude/confidence is a partly different issue than the climate sensitivity.
> Yeah, I told you that a few days ago. The message must still be in transit between your retinas and your Wernicke's Area.
You really do seem to believe that you by mentioning the term 'climate sensitivity', somehow made a valuable clarification thereby!?
If so, it makes perfect sense together with all other funny stuff you've written (about two digit guesses, about Gaussian distribution, about first principles or physical sciences in general)
> I used an appropriate analogy to critique your apparent obsession with the 90% figure from AR4/IPCC.
What 90% figure? There's a band "90-95%", but no 90% figure. Since 95% is considered statistically rigorous, what's the problem, Jonarse?
Jonas N.
What scientific papers and/or other resouces of any type did you read, and not read, in order to reach your conclusion that the world's physicists and climatologists did not actually calculate the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming of the planet?
Why have you avoided, for going on to five months, answering the previous question?
Jonas,
in lack of real scientific debate with the deltoids I'm forced to question your statement that it was Bernie, not Jeffie, who promised to dive into the deep blue ocean of refs (to later surface with heaps of evidence). In # 341 Jeffie says this, and was never heard of since (regarding that matter) :
"OK Jonas, here's the physical science basis for the anthropogenic fingerprint on the current warming:
www.ipcc.ch/publicationsanddata/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html
I intend to go through these references in the coming weeks. How about you? Ditto for the other two anti-science right wingers, GSW and Olaus. Care to sift through the science, chaps?"
Mind you Jonas, like you I can handle being corrected with facts. So if you come up with a number supporting your Bernie-hypothesis, I will cave in immediately. ;-)
Bernard
AFAIK nobody claims that âthe world's physicists and climatologists did [..] actually calculate the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming of the planetâ. Hence, I donât need to claim the contrary.
However, the authors of the IPCC AR4 SPM implied the existence of science showing one very specific claim (echoed all over the world). Peer reviews published science, that is â¦
I fully understand that youâd rather talk about anything else. And avoid the (obvious) answer to my for-the-record question.
Olaus,
We seem to be right both of us. Bernard J in #299 wrote:
>Which leads me to my next point. I'm trawling through more IPCC references Joans N, and I am going to ask you in the near future if you have read any of another batch of them - and then another, and another... Given your current refusal to admit that you've actually read any of the ones I have already put forward, I should be able to soon ascertain whether you've read anything at all, and certainly whether you've read sufficient of the IPCC's referred literature to make the silly claims that you have.
Note, that he still was trying to label my observation as 'silly'. Previously he essentially said 'only an idiot couldn't find it' (see quote/link in #56). And four months later he still desperately wants to maintain/keep his belief intact ...
I had forgotten sll about Jeffies 'promise' in #341. Him reading up on anything pertaining to establishing high confidence levels of attribution to some particular cause of a noisy and only difficultly measured metric ..
.. must just have appeared so outlandish to me, that I never even considered to take it seriously.
>AFAIK nobody claims that "the world's physicists and climatologists did [..] actually calculate the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming of the planet"... However, the authors of the IPCC AR4 SPM implied the existence of science showing one very specific claim...
You're a slippery bastard Jonas N.
You say that the IPCC pulled the confidence estimates from their arses and not from the scientific literature. You won't tell us what scientific literature you read to come up with this claim, so we have no way of acertaining how well you followed the IPCC's references to the literature.
Now, the IPCC is tasked with the summary of the science, and not with the production of the science. However, many of the authors for the IPCC's ARs are actually the professionals at the coalface of the science, so even though they are only reviewing when the have their IPCC hats on, they are nevertheless some of the most pre-eminent scientists in climatology.
If, as you claim, the IPCC authors are making things up, then you are essentially laying the responsibility for this alleged misconduct at the feet of science anyway. And further, the argument isn't about what working is or isn't shown in AR4, because as a review document it's sources are the scientific literature that is reviews.
To say that the scientists compiling the AR4 made stuff up, you first need to explain what of the source material you read, and didn't read. Many people here, including at least one or two with direct involvement in research related to climatology, have told you that the information you sought is there, for the looking.
I want to know what you read, and didn't read. I want to know how you know that the IPCC reviewers didn't source actual confidence calculations. I want to know why some of the world's most pre-eminent climatologists, who were involved in writing AR4, allowed apparently fabricated material to be published.
If you're accusing the IPCC process of manufacturing data, you're ipso facto also accusing climate scientists of the same fabrication.
So, back to the usual request, with a loophole closed for your convenience...
What scientific papers and/or other resouces of any type did you read, and not read, in order to reach your conclusion that the IPCC did not reference any of the world's physicists and climatologists when it publish AR4, physicists and climatologists who may or may not have actually calculated the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming of the planet?
And why have you refused, to date, to tell us what you have read?
> What scientific papers and/or other resouces of any type did you read, and not read
Well he didn't read the IPCC reports for a start.
Bernard J
>You say that the IPCC pulled the confidence estimates from their arses
I am not saying that, because I truly donât know where exactly they came up with such a specific and quantified claim. But yes, It looks (just as Jeffie suggests) that it was more a âreasonedâ number, more expressing how strongly the SPM-authors believed (or wanted to believe) in such a high confidence.
As I have said (almost) 1000 times: If there is proper published science behind it, this can be read, and could already be read in 2007. As you state yourself:
> the argument isn't about what working is or isn't shown in AR4, because as a review document it's sources are **the scientific literature** that is reviews
And that is exactly what I have been asking for! As you put it yourself. I am asking for anything that disproves that:
> that the IPCC reviewers didn't source actual confidence calculations
And you know perfectly well that it only takes that/those reference(s) to disprove that. If they indeed do exist!
>Many people here, including at least one or two with direct involvement in research related to climatology, have told you that the information you sought is there, for the looking.
Yes! Everybody Iâve ever asked starts out saying that *everything* is to be found in the reports and in the referenced materials. Every single one of them. Laymen, wafflers, AGW-groupies, activists, serious scientists and other honest people believing in that the IPCC is a serious endeavor, journalists, politicians etc. Every-single-body!
It is from there I make my follow-up question to find out if anybody has seen or knows more than those blanket boilerplate phrases.
And as you very well know, this is where the squirming, wiggling, the diversion tactics start. One person here (Martin Vermeer) did actually present a named reference (together with some comment of it being relevant). And I had a quick look through, and asked if he really meant, that this was it. He didnât answer, and disappeared after some more non-committal comments about the matter. From my 1st (and 2nd) reading, I did not get the impression of my core question being treated or properly established there (other things were) and I later detailed what (some of my) objections were. (Nobody ever responded, or even seemed to understand)
The other one who actually put a reference forward was luminous, and I added one more very similar to his, which I both read, but they showed something else. Ie confidence that (after weighing together three separate forcings) using models, the historic data could be recreated reasonably well. Implicitly assuming both that these models got the mechanisms correct and that the various effect could be seen as linear and additive. (But now Iâm way over your head again, Iâm afraid)
As you very well know, most of the believers donât even try to put forward one (or a few) real references for that claim, together with the assertion of both having read and understood them, and who dare to stay even after I have read them.
As for you, and your posturing question? Since you obviously have no clue yourself where that alleged claim is supposed to be found, and you obviously have very little interest in finding (or understanding) its basis, and equally little interest in anything else apart from maintaining your present beliefs, I too have very little interest in playing posturing games with you. Especially not with somebody who doesnât even pretend to argue seriously.
And still, I have given you every relevant answer and statement from my perspective. And whatever your (real) perspective is, it looks like you are really desperately clinging to the notion that the most prominent claim, by the supposedly most looming question of the presence, investigated by the largest and most extensive and thorough and openly reviewed process of scientific endeavor in the history of mankind ..
.. is concealed and hidden so well that no one ever has seen it, and in spite of the issue(s) being hotly debated all over the place, not even the most devoted believers can manage point it out or summarize it correctly. Not one review paper presenting a comprehensive basis and methodology for that claim has been written in four years, and everybody I have ever asked, canât say much more than âsomebody else is supposed to knowâ ..
Well, Bernard, if that is what you pin your hopes on, and want believe, there is not much I can do about that. But neither can I imagine that this sounds convincing to anybody outside a small circle of devoted believers (who additionally lack an skill assessing scientific claims)
Jeff #2969
I have never said one word about any MEA (whose work, and claims I am not familiar with).
I do however (as well as you and most of the others) know what the IPCC claims about itself and its assessment reports: That it is based on science (some even say that it is âthe best science availableâ, a bit more questionable)
If I read what you now write correctly, your interpretation is that the believed âstrong linksâ corresponding to the âwidely accepted viewsâ among the authors, werenât strongly enough expressed in their view, so that this 90% claim was added (in a somewhat awkward phrasing) to spice up the urgency for the media release and policymakers!? That for this reason *âthey attribute **some kind of significance factor** to their conclusionsâ*!?
Is that what you think?
I am however not the one to second guess ulterior motives by others (that is more your department) so I cannot say if this really is the reason and how it came about. What I however can say, and indeed do say is that: Everyone
However, that absence of proper science behind the allegedly scientific and most prominent AR4 claim, seems to lead you to accuse me of thereby making countless other assertions, statements, accusations and claims I have nowhere made (and in some cases, and repeatedly, explicitly clarified that âI say no such thingâ). I donât know why you have to invent so much about your opponents, but after more than three consistent months, you can hardly blame it on a temporary lapsus, an occasional overstatement uttered in the heat of the debate. You making up stuff seems to be an integral part of your âmethodologyâ. And you donât hesitate to make claims (about me) of which you know you donât have the slightest trace of a clue!
Still you ask:
>perchance tell me where I have lied?
Every time you knowingly tell blatant untruths, Jeff ! Or are you telling me that you are totally unaware when you just âmake stuff upâ?
Example:
> Essentially, what you are saying is that if you say something, it has to be taken at face value. Jonas said it, therefore it must be honest and correct; people who disagree with Jonas are dishonest liars. Isn't that the extent of your debating logic?
I have never ever even come close to uttering anything that even remotely can be construed as anything like that. And still this and similar (nonsense-) claims appear time and time again. Or:
> You wouldn't last 5 minutes in an academic arena with your ideas and views. That it why your restrict your activities to a few blogs, where you don't have to face off against opponents and can avoid the nitty gritty.
What utter infantile nonsense. Many here claim (and I believe them) to be academics, and every time it comes down to grinding details (even of the simplest things, definitions of pdf:s, linear ODEs, boundary conditions, assessments, measurements etc) they falter and retort to all kind of immaterial nonsense. You are one of the ones who (I presume) knowingly has stayed the furthest away from any real issues (and instead spent every comment on lambasting why your beliefs should be shared blindly, without you even being able to argue them, hardly even phrase them correctly)
You seem to have an infatuation for the words âdemolishâ and âcrushâ, you certainly repeat them and fantasize about them. But in here, since you waded in proclaiming to be âa senior scientistâ (hoping that would carry some weight) you have never even entered the arena. The small factual points you have made, were on peripheral issues, not really challenged. For instance, I donât think our positions about peer review of conference contributions and subsequent publications I ordinary journals differed more than in nuance (in spite of all your noise)
> As John said, you have yet to discuss the content of a single study that has been put in front of you here.
Another blatant lie, Jeffie! And you must know it too, since you subsequently tried to challenge my assessment! Based solely on that this conference (ticket-) paper still had passed journal peer review. Your words hit the mark:
The guy is a parody!
But not the intended one â¦
Don't sell yourself short Jonas. Your Bernie-evidence had a better number. You win!
:-)
Jonas,
By academic arena, I mean a university or research institution, where you could not evade the many questions posed to you that you have done here... I also mean in front of accredited experts in climate science. You know, REAL scientists, the ones you forever bang on about. Of course now you've convinced me that the extent of your chest-thumping will be on a few blogs like this one, so I suppose the mercy is that academic bodies will remain free of your pontificating.
And its certainly not true that I have not cited scientific literature. I cited 4 papers describing glacial loss in the Himalayas, and two more (one, 2011, in Nature) which described symptoms of warming both of which they attributed to anthropogenic causes. I also described studies by Nepstad, Shukla and others who have examined the effects of forest loss on evapotranspiration regimes as well as one the circulation of precipitation across the South American continent. Your response was to instantly dismiss the various studies I linked, in the last instance claiming (incorrectly) that the two studies I cited did not mention AGW. As Chek pointed out, both did.
Your trained monkey (Olaus) appears to like cheering you on from the sidelines, but he's worse than you when it comes to discussing published studies. I have yet to see Olaus once - just once - come up with anything remotely scientific without referring to WUWT or some other abominable contrarian site. If he and PentaxZ are your intellectual 'cheerleaders' on Deltoid, then heaven help you.
To reiterate, the science underpinning the 'significant' or 'very significant' correlations listed in the summarizing chapter of AR4 is derived from an overview of the empirical literature. The same thing is true of the MEA - the scientists who contributed to that document weighed up the evidence and made their estimates for policymakers based on that. I believe that the 90-95% figure - as well as the define significance - are reached based on a thorough overview of the published studies and by the contributing authors to the IPCC deriving their estimates based on this. The key point is that the document bases this on the opinions of many scientists, some who clearly feel that the human fingerprint is all over the warming whereas others are more cautious. As Stephen Schneider pointed out, no extreme views dominated the final draft. The same is true of the MEA - I am sure that there are systems ecologists who would go way beyond the 60% figure for human impact on ecosystem services, but their views have to be balanced against those who see human impact on natural and managed systems less severely. I honestly don't think that the 90-95% figure could ever be expressed more strongly. The IPCC and most of the scientists contributing to it clearly believe that that the situation is very serious.
I think its dishonest in the extreme for anyone to latch onto one figure generated for policymakers and to make such proclamations about 'frikking science' and the like. As I have said, it appears pretty certain that the vast majority of scientists across many disciplines take AGW as 'given', but the debate lies in the seriousness of the predicament; some think it is not so serious whereas others have very different views.
Exactly so Bernard. Can Jonarse get to 3K posts and still pretend that the AR4 WG1 detection and attribution studies mean nothing?
Of course he can - that's his 15 minutes of denier fame that so impresses his pissweak posse. He's not giving that up in order to be intellectually honest with you. It's the biggest thing that's ever happened - or is ever likely to happen - to him.
There is some really scary talk about an acidified PLOS-paper...
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0028…
>It is from there I make my follow-up question to find out if anybody has seen or knows more than those blanket boilerplate phrases.
Which is why I have been trying to take one step step back and find what you read and didn't read.
I suspect that your intended program looks something like this:
Why do you struggle so much with the idea that you should justify your original serious claim by demonstrating the extent of the work you applied in order to arrive at your conclusion?
You're all for organising stuff so that you can do your "follow-up", but it seems that the same stricture doesn't apply to you. To refer again to that distasteful (but hopefully awareness-engaging) analogy, do we need to leap straight to the point where it's up to you to prove that you're not a pædophile?
And on a completely tangential line, have you dissected [HK12](http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n1/full/ngeo1327.html#/) yet?
Oh, and before I forget...
What scientific papers and/or other resouces of any type did you read, and not read, in order to reach your conclusion that the IPCC did not reference any of the world's physicists and climatologists when it published AR4, physicists and climatologists who may or may not have actually calculated the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming of the planet?
And why have you refused, to date, to tell us what you have read?
So Bernard J, you seem to be standing on the exact very same point as I am:
You have never seen any real carried out proper, peer reviewed and thereafter published science which demonstrates that these very specific (most prominent and spectacular, echoed to everyone over the entire world-) claims of the AR4, the ones about 'most of the warming' with '90% certainty' ...
Because neither have I! Nor has any-frikking-body I've have ever asked! And nobody has ever even claimed the opposite (after my follow-up questions)
From that point people can take various attitudes towards assessing reality:
1. Nobody ever seems to have seen/read/understood/accepted&agreed-on any science demonstrating that claim. Before the opposite can be established and such science can be produced and scrutinized, its existence must (at best) be taken on faith, and be viewed as mythological ... But definitely not be accepted on hearsay from unknown and unnamed others through several layers, and even less so its validity. Especially since the claim purportedly is about published science ..
2. One can (for undisclosed reasons) maintain such faith, and fend off every request for its existence being verified. With faith-based claims about nobility and excellence of those unnamed allegedly behind it. With counteraccusations of heresy by those not accepting that faith. By feigned indignation about that someone actually dares to ask to see the basis for such extraordinary claims. By posturing and making all kinds of silly demands that the requester first has to prove himself 'worthy' before such holy information can be disclosed and shared with a heretic. Or for countless other whimsical trumped up pretense reasons.
I firmly place myself in category one, Bernard. Where you place yourself is your business, and the reasons for your choice are too. But I don't expect you to have anything at all substantial to contribute to the issue.
(And this confirms my observation that 'debaters' using your kind of language rarely ever do. Meaning: Never!)
For the record:
My original claim was that
- I have never seen any of the alleged scientific basis for that claim, and
- Nobody I've ever asked has either. And finally:
- Those who still put this forward as an argument are doing so solely based on faith (ie blindly guessing and hoping)
All of these claims stand. Without a dent or scratch. Four months running here. Four years in the real world.
I then, and additionally made a (knowingly tentative) claim. Fully aware of it claiming 'a negative', which can never be proven true. But which could easily be falsified if it was wrong:
That no such science exists!
It has not been falsified, and hardly anybody has even tried. Definitely not you, Bernard! Hence your plenty posturing (I'd surmise)
Do you know what 'falsification' is in the world or real science, Bernard J (of 'first principle' infamy)?
>You have never seen any real carried out proper, peer reviewed and thereafter published science which demonstrates that these very specific (most prominent and spectacular, echoed to everyone over the entire world-) claims of the AR4, the ones about 'most of the warming' with '90% certainty' ...
I didn't say that.
I am asking you...
What scientific papers and/or other resouces of any type did you read, and not read, in order to reach your conclusion that the IPCC did not reference any of the world's physicists and climatologists when it published AR4, physicists and climatologists who may or may not have actually calculated the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming of the planet?
And why have you refused, to date, to tell us what you have read?
And Jonas N.
On an almost completely different tack, you have been noticably quiet about HK12.
I'm keen to know what your thoughts are on the work, and especially on the paragraphs:
>The probabilistic contributions of individual forcing agents to past and future decadal changes in global temperature are shown in Fig. 3. We assume that all forcing agents have equal efficacy (see Methods), in contrast to studies using more complex models19. The probabilistic ranges presented here account for uncertainties in the observations, radiative forcing, internal variability and model inadequacy (see Methods). The simulated mean temperature increase 2000-2009 compared to 1850-1859 is 0.82 C, with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 0.72-0.93 C. The estimate is similar to the observed value of 0.79 C. Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31 C (0.85-1.76 C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85 C (-1.48 to -0-30 C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2 C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small.
>The individual contributions to the observed temperature increase of about 0.55 C since the 1950s are illustrated in Fig. 3c. Our total estimate of 0.51 C (0.45-0.57 C) is close to the observed temperature change. The largest positive contribution of 0.85 C (0.57-1.13 C) is from greenhouse gases and compares well with the values estimated by optimal fingerprint studies [5,6,20] (see Supplementary Information). Expressed as a fraction of the total warming, greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%). The net cooling from the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is -0.45 C (-0.78 to -0.16 C), thereby offsetting -44% (-73 to -28%) of the greenhouse induced warming. It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero.
Is nothing twigging for you yet?
bernard:
>You have never seen any real carried out proper, peer reviewed and thereafter published science which demonstrates that these very specific (most prominent and spectacular, echoed to everyone over the entire world-) claims of the AR4, the ones about 'most of the warming' with '90% certainty' ...
Correct, you didn't say that. I said that about you! And let me stress the central point here: Read and understood (not just âfound some words/phrases')
Jonas N.
What scientific papers and/or other resouces of any type did you read, and not read, in order to reach your conclusion that the IPCC did not reference any of the world's physicists and climatologists when it published AR4, physicists and climatologists who may or may not have actually calculated the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming of the planet?
Why have you refused, to date, to tell us what you have read?
And what have you gleaned from HK12?
>What's wrong with those I have named?
I can't find them in the nearly 3000 posts here. It shouldn't be hard for you to find a single paper that you have been referred to by a Deltoid reader in which "purported content of the paper [was] either grossly overstated, or non-existent."
Just one.
Jonas N.
It seems that you really are sticking to [your program](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6209334), and refusing to detail on what reading (or otherwise) of the literature you based your claim that the IPCC 'made up' its confidence levels.
I have tried to avoid prompting you to specifics (although I dropped a hint or two along the way), because I want to see how you go about detailing your apparently devastating scientific methodology, but it's approaching the point where I'm almost past patience - we are approaching the half-year mark, after all...
So, in addition to the standard list of questions from which you persist in running away, can you answer these:
What have you read of the publications of Stott et al?
What have you read of the publications of Stone et al?
What have you read of the publications of the International Ad Hoc Detection and Attribution Group?
I might wander through some more sources, but I am hoping that you might first (and finally) show some integrity by explaining whether (and how) you have discounted all publications by the aforementioned sources in order to make your claim.
And so as not to disappoint you...
What scientific papers and/or other resources of any type did you read, and not read, in order to reach your conclusion that the IPCC did not reference any of the world's physicists and climatologists when it published AR4, physicists and climatologists who may or may not have actually calculated the confidence levels of humanity's involvement in the warming of the planet?
Why have you refused, to date, to tell us what you have read?
Have you yet gleaned anything from HK12?
Jonas can't tell us what's he's read Bernard, but rest assured, he's definitely read blog comment threads where we know all real science is done.
[John](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6210108), I suspect that (barring stochastic interference) Jonas is currently reading some more, given his sudden quietness. The guy has an ego the size of a planet (quod vide his dismissal of the IPCC, of climatologists and physicists in general, of ecologists, of statisticians...) so I find it difficult to imagine that he's not watching as his eponymous thread centimetres toward another millenial coffin nail.
Something's obviously keeping the boy occupied...
And speaking of reading, although it's somewhat tangential to Jonas N's gagging on the IPCC's confidence levels, the boy might be interested in Lean and Rind's attribution paper from a few years ago, based on multiple regressions. I missed this one first time around, but [Skeptical Science commented on it yesterday](http://www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-nat…), and it contains some comparative uncertainties that might inspire (or not) Jonas to think about how the IPCC might have arrived at its numbers using a non-arse method.
More importantly, it might motivate Jonas N to read the literature a little more carefully than he appears to have done - of course, if his silence with respect to his reading list is any indication, he hasn't actually done much reading at all with which to arrive at his claim.
> Something's obviously keeping the boy occupied...
No, he's just not posting so that something else will turn up he CAN answer (or, rather, *appear* to answer) and avoid, as usual for him, fail to give any concrete examples.
Look, for example, at both his and his fan club's inability to find one single instance of him showing LB's science is wrong (and the post and part wherein where that "wrong science" is shown).
So it's currently running silent waiting for the depth charges to move on.
John
I don't recall having had any meaningful disussion about any relevant topic here with any signature 'John' here.
My comments are available above, including some of the papers discussed and I have read (here) recently.
And no, it isn't hard to find examples of overstated claims. Why not start with the obvious one here:
That alleged 90% certainty of attribution of 'most of' the warming to humans.
(But, then this was not claimed to be proven in a paper, but in a report citing such papers)
Bernard J
Are you once more attempting to derive knowledge/information from the absence of such? (You are definitely not the first ... John tries something similar))
Two of Stott's papers have been discussed here. I don't recall anything of substance (wrt to them) you cared to contribute that time either.
I understand that you'd rather talk about other things, that you'd rather have me responding to different silly demands about other things. To 'humor you' as you put it.
But if your 'demands' is to be taken seriously, you need to behave accordingly serious. (And you have spent much space/time her doing the exact opposite)
If you wan't to abandon the 'rescue-attempt' of that AR4 claim now, just say so.
I will most certainly have a look at that HK-paper. But do you really claim to have read and understood it?
Whenever I ask, such (fully reasonable) questions, people tend to get very quiet.
Jonas, you have not in the slightest addressed what I asked, which was to name a single paper referred to you by a Deltoid reader in which "purported content of the paper [was] either grossly overstated, or non-existent". You made this claim. It should be easy to back up.
Skimming down the thread I see a lot of boasting about your incredible ability to comprehend complex science and the hours you have spent reading referred papers, but no actual evidence of any of this. A lot of evading and topic changing, but no evidence.
It couldn't be that you're just full of hot air, could it?
>Two of Stott's papers have been discussed here. I don't recall anything of substance (wrt to them) you cared to contribute that time either.
Jonas N, you did not parse my question correctly. I asked you which of Stott's papers you used to reach your conclusion that the IPCC made up its confidence level numbers. I did not ask how many were discussed on this thread. I certainly did not suggest, imply, or in any other way indicate that I had participated in the discussion of the Stott papers mentioned here.
>I understand that you'd rather talk about other things, that you'd rather have me responding to different silly demands about other things.
Yes, I'd like to "talk about other things"... the most important thing - what you read in order to make your claim that the IPCC made up its confidence level numbers.
However you might have to explain to the thread why that's a "silly demand"... after all, in any scientific paper an integral part of the justification of the statements made is to explicictly include the references relied on.
Why does this not apply in Jonasworld?
>If you wan't [sic] to abandon the 'rescue-attempt' of that AR4 claim now, just say so.
I'm not even properly starting a "rescue attempt", because you've given no indication that you actually did any reading of a serious (or any other) nature to suggest that the IPCC requires rescuing because it made up its confidence level numbers.
>Are you once more attempting to derive knowledge/information from the absence of such?
It would appear so.
I am trying to elicit from you an explanantion of what material you read, and didn't read, in order to arrive at your conclusion that the IPCC made up its confidence level numbers.
After almost half a year you have still not presented an explanation of the nature and the extent of your reading.
Using your own insinuation, I can only conclude that the reason that you have not answered the repeatedly-asked question is that your knowledge/information on the IPCC's source is absent - as you yourself indicate.
It's appropriate that you chose the 3000th post to admit to everyone reading that such is the case.
Tim Lambert, with Jonas N's confession of ignorance and baseless rumour-mongering I think that we can now finally close the thread.
Any explanations to why the models aren't backed up with real world data?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=5UKI3lKts9Q
Any explanation as to why you are unable to answer Rattus' rebuttal?
Any explanation as to why you continue to spam links here knowing that when you are shown to be wrong you will refuse to respond?
Any explanation as to why you claim there is no point debating us but continue complaining that we won't debate you?
Any explanation as to why you are so fond of projecting all over this thread?
For comedic purposes it should be pointed out that the video Pentaxz links to was produced by one Dr. Coffman, CEO of "Sovereignty International", a right-wing foundation dedicated to stopping global governance and Agenda 21.
That's right, Pentaxz continues to get his science from right-wing political websites.
Nope, it actually gets better. Dr. Coffman's views are deeply based in his religion.
>In 1999 Dr. Coffman began to publish Discerning the Times Digest, a highly focused monthly newsletter designed to help busy Christians understand world events as related to the Bible and their Christian lives. Although the digest had accurately predicted what was eventually called the 9-11 terrorist attack during its first year of publication in 1999, the actual event so shocked our readers that revenues dropped sharply and we had to discontinue the digest.
>Dr. Coffman accepted Jesus Christ as his savior in 1973 and is currently very active in his Church where he is a board member, active in a number of church programs and teaches an in-depth Sunday School class for adults. In the latter effort he spent 1994 and again in 1999 he undertook extensive research and writing for his class on Bible prophesy as it relates to past and current events. He is married to his lovely wife Susan, has two children Jonathan and Tamera and five grandchildren.
That's right - Pentaxz accuses us of having "religious views" but gets his science from religious extremists because they share his opinion.
Bazinga!
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/latest-satellite-data-human-co2-emis…
Did they put error estimates on that, tampax?
Or are they pretending unscientifically to be certain that it's cooling?
Pentaxz is a religious nutter. His views are based in faith, not evidence. He appeals to authority, not science.
>Bazinga!
Yes, pentaxz was certainly fooled...
Although that's a trivially simple feat, therefore hardly worth comment. The guy would need written instructions in order to know which way up to hold a book.
[Pentaxz](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6210573).
Besides the ridiculously obvious fact that your 'source' (and yourself) completely ignore the influence of all other factors besides CO2, do you understand the trickery that was used with respect to scaling the two trajectories?
Really?
Do you?
I'd call you a moron, but that would be insulting to morons.
PentaxZ: Did you notice that, although they state that the temperature is trending slightly cooler, the end point is actually higher than the starting point?
RS: did you notice that the correlation between CO2 and the temperature is nowhere near the predictions of warmizts? And that the microscopic slightly higher endpoint is just a pathetic grabbing for a grass straw on your behalf?
>...did you notice that the correlation between CO2 and the temperature is nowhere near the predictions of warmizts?
Sheesh, Stupid sticks to pentaxz worst than dog fæces sticks to a boot.
OK, Einstein, explain exactly what correlation does exist between temperature and CO2. You only need to do a few things:
Ball's in your court smarty-pants. Show the world how CO2 and global temperature are not correlated.
Keep in mind though that there will be a few folk correcting you after you've tried. Your refusal to oblige with a proper analysis will be taken as explicit acknowledgement that you are completely wrong in your claim that CO2 and global temperature are not correlated.
Why should I? Since you alarmizts hasn't shown the opposite. And I don't mean the last hundred years or so.
Tampax, take time to read back over the previous dozen posts and then ask yourself why you think anyone is going to take notice of anyone as ignorant, ill-informed, idiotic and downright stupid as you regularly show yourself to be.
Bernard says:
>Your refusal to oblige with a proper analysis will be taken as explicit acknowledgement that you are completely wrong in your claim that CO2 and global temperature are not correlated.
Pentaxz responds:
>Why should I?
Case closed. Pentaxz demands everyone debate but runs screaming in the opposite direction when he is challenged.
Now might be a good time to quote Pentaxz's authority on AGW, Dr. Coffman:
>Headlines proclaim the New World Order is coming! World governments, including the United States, must increasingly seek United Nations permission before taking international action. Israel has signed an unprecedented peace agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization. A guarantee of Israel=s security is all that blocks a lasting covenant of peace. Have the first tentative steps been taken that will eventually lead to the covenant made between the Antichrist and Israel in Daniel 9:27?
>Why should I?
To prove that you are not intellectually dishonest, as well as intellectually depauperate.
>And I don't mean the last hundred years or so.
Odin-weeping-on-a-tree.
Do you know when the Mauna Loa data started? 1958. Fifty-six years ago, not a "hundred years or so" ago.
And why would you not use the full dataset? Really?! You wouldn't be looking to cherry-pick, would you?
However, I acknowledge your immediate capitulation and admission that you are full of shit. You fold so easily pentaxz.
And to address your claim that:
>...you alarmizts hasn't [sic] shown the opposite.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/papers-on-co2-temperature-c… (Jonas N might like to have a flick through...)
http://chartsgraphs.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/excel-chart-misrepresents-… (nails exactly the chicanery that you tried to pull here)
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/does-co2-correlate-with… (just for repetition's sake)
And to finish, I note for the record that you were unable to explain the problem with the axis scales used on the graph to which you linked (the answer is pretty much implied in the third link).
If pentaxzium could be found in other places besides the space between your ears, it could be used to shield nuclear reactors.
What's interesting about RSS's temperature measurements is that the RSS satellite doesn't measure temperature. It measures radiance at various wavelengths and process that data through a mathematical model to calculate surface temperature.
I know I'm repeating myself, but its such a biggie that it's worth saying twice: Satellite "temperatures" are not actual temperature measurements, they are *model outputs*.
Interesting that Pentax chooses to use evidence from a model to boost his case, when just a day earlier (@ 3003) he had disparaged models. Are models good or bad? Or is it just [the models that give the desired result](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) that are good?
Oh well, consistency was never the strong suit of deniers. But on the upside, it is often a source of unintentional humour, so that's something, at least.
;)
Does this mean that you accept that they lied?
One aspect of the confidence levels issue is the matter of attribution. Skeptical science has [yet another post on the subject](http://www.skepticalscience.com/gillett-estimate-human-and-natural-glob…).
If Jonas N can be polite about it, perhaps he should apply his omniscience to set straight the consensus-accepters over there...
I can hardly wait.
John, you alarmiztas claims that the climate is out of the ordinary, hence you have the burdon of proof. And to this day I haven't seen a single empirical, scientific evidence that that is the case, apart from "model projections" which of course is worth zilch as evidence.
BernieBS. So, when you want to show us science it's ok to link to alarmist blogs. But when realists points to realist blogs it's suddenly unscientific? What an shitload of poo you are.
Which "realist" blogs of yours are you talking about Pentaxz? Dens of racism and conspiracy like World Net Daily or Christian apocalyptic websites like Discerning Today?
Your questions about empirical evidence were rebutted by Rattus and you refused to respond, remember? If you want to start debating empirical evidence you can start there.
Pentaxz, I just remembered you've already linked to some empirical evidence that proves global warming, only you wrongly thought the opposite because you are an intellectual lightweight out of your depth.
Please stop using tampax as a pejorative. Its use says more about the abusers than it does about Pentaxz.
I respectfully disagree Ros.
A Pentax is a finely designed piece of precision engineering. A Tampax becomes a throwaway piece of useless, toxic wadding, and deniers don't come much more useless or toxic than our eponymous 'friend'. The crossover analogy holds.
Ros may have a point. Tampax are useful.
You just canât stop digging. So you need to be told. There is no justification for referring to menstruation in order to belittle. And then to call this female sanitary item âtoxicâ!. Additionally you refer to a menstruation item that is inserted into women in order to discredit another, makes you even grubbier and creepier. Each time I read the word in this context my skin crawls.
Clever John, useful. You too need to be educated. Lack of sanitary items for 3rd world young women is more than about usefulness. It means that they are unable to attend school for at least a week a month, for some it means the end of their education. Not an item of humour at all.
So guffaw away boys.
Or do yourself a favour and imagine being at a party or at a public meeting with a mixed gender audience and calling someone a tampax. How do you think the audience might respond. Then reflect and instead of digging with more vigour, apologise.
And sometimes some of you wonder why it is that women are so disinclined to join in on the blogosphere!
I think that Ros needs it's own thread. It will be the shortest such thread on record.
Thanks for the thought Rattus . Perhaps it could be called Sexism and Climate Science. But then I also find the poo etc references (usually articulated by small boys) a bit over the top also, so perhaps Sexism, Bodily Functions (that would cover poo and toxic tampons) and Climate Science would be better.
On the other hand as you chaps seem to be either very attached to your sexism (jealous flouncing princess professors) or have no insight, and seemingly Tim doesnât mind, I might just chalk it up. Even women eventually get the point.
Or broaden your minds and read this article in Scientific American âIs It Cold in Here?â, Jennifer Oulette july 20 2011
âThereâs a phrase for what Linda Henneberg is experiencing: itâs called a âchilly climate,â and it describes not just overt sexism or sexual harassment â which most people agree are unacceptable, at least in theory â but the myriad unconscious diminishing behaviors that seem to proliferate in any male-dominated environment, whether it be a classroom, a boardroom, an Internet chat room, World of Warcraft, or an international physics laboratoryâ¦.
It pretty much mirrored every Internet comment thread (follow that link for a terrific comic by Gabby Schulz) that ensues whenever a woman, however diplomatically, dares to raise the issue of sexist behaviorâ¦.
If a woman calls you out on your behavior, instead of getting angry and defensive, just say, âWow, I never thought of it like that. Iâm sorry if I made you uncomfortable. It wasnât intentional.â Cop to the behavior, and we can all move on. Or just be like that anonymous guy at Watsonâs TAM9 quiz show event; as Watson took the stage, he shouted, âWE RESPECT WOMENâS VOICES SO HARD!ââ
Ros, white middle-aged heterosexual men in search for status have a strong tendency disrespect everything, in this case anything female. Don't get in their way or....In this case you are threatening their self-invented position as the good guys saving the planet from right wingers polluting the world. Of course its a false dichotomy but nonetheless the organizing principle in their lives.
The truth is totally irrelevant for such guys. The only comfort zone of theirs is obedience hence group thinking and smearing is their main forte.
Ros @ 3031
Your point is well made. And a good article. I have a daughter who is in science and it can be tough going to be taken seriously. My own field is computer science which is still largely an exclusive male domain.
In fairness to Tim, I am not sure that the junk threads like this one are well moderated or even read outside the participants. Deltoid discussions are traditionally less polite than elsewhere and personally I like to be able to ridicule the ridiculous but I agree that a line has been crossed.
Olaus - pathetic attempt at point scoring.
Read this link at SKS about a young female physicist & evangelical christian & convervative who is receiving death threats because she was to write a chapter on AGW for Newt Gingrich.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Katharine-Hayhoe-labour-of-love-inspire…
This woman is not my cup of tea at all and the scripture debate in the comments at SKS is probably best avoided.
AGW is mainstream climate science so it is hardly suprising that it is defended by a broad cross section of the science community and the broader community including men with last century's sexist attitudes and other people whose religious or political views I personally do not like.
However, what is true beyond a shadow of doubt is that the deniers are almost exclusively white, male and conservative. The GOP is the party of climate denial in the USA and also the party that is opposed to women's rights. In fact they are opposed to any rights other than their own and their paymasters.
MikeH,
Yr. 3033
Thank for your smarmy, feckless attempt at putting the best face possible on Deltoid-land's scandalous misogyny crisis. Just a couple of "point scoring" notes, if you don't mind:
-While you, MikeH, are of the opinion that a "line has been crossed", your hive-mates chek, John, and "the Rat" have not acknowledged any such thing. And, I might add, you have yet to reprimand these pip-squeak creeps by name for, as you put it so discreetly, "crossing" that vague, airy-fairy "line" of yours. C'mon, MikeH you know chek et al. are impervious to appeals to common decency and are morally and mentally incapable of admitting a mistake, offering a gracious apology, and making amends. Call 'em out, MikeH! Man/Woman up!
-And Katherine Hayhoe, MikeH, is not your "cup of tea", so you say. Perhaps in the sense of "Coffee, tea, or me!" Yes, women are like beverages to you, aren't they MikeH--to be indulged or not as your frivolous pleasure urges. Notice you didn't say, Katherine Hayhoe's views are not my "cup of tea", No. Rather you said "she" is not your "cup of tea." And as far as your reaction to Katherine Hayhoe's views go, I note you did not take Ros' advice and shout-out "WE RESPECT WOMEN'S VOICES SO HARD!" But that last is between you and Ros.
-And, finally, MikeH, I note you indulged in some further "line-crossing" of your own when you disrespected the ideas of "deniers" with sexist and ageist references to their person--white, conservative, and male. And, most certainly, you did not shout, WE RESPECT WHITE,MALE, CONSERVATIVE VOICES SO HARD! But ageist, sexist, racist appeals and disrespect along with false-flags, special-deals, agit-prop hype, tolerated-hypocrisies, situational ethics, proletarian morality, passes, and a death-suck attachment to the public's taxpayer-tit are all worthy tools of the left if in service to the "cause." Right, MikeH?
One for Ros: What you see here on Deltoid is what you must expect when boys are raised according to the lefty recipe card. Think about it. And to think these preposterous, obnoxious, untested and untried spoiled-brats aspire to be our philosopher-kings and cull-masters. Like what you see, Ros? If not, I recommend you check out the highly-respected, Dr. Judith Curry's "Climate, etc." --you can do better and deserve better than this Deltoid bunch. Dr. Curry's blog is your kind of place, I'm sure.
And,a parting "oh by the way", I see where you're hiding chek! Ros has asked for an apology, you know. Your buddies too.
> A Pentax is a finely designed piece of precision engineering. A Tampax becomes a throwaway piece of useless, toxic wadding
And Pantax is also a stuck up c*nt. Hence the spoonerism.
http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming
I wonder, who's religious, a foilhat or a realist?
> I wonder, who's religious, a foilhat or a realist?
You're the nutter who is unable to face reality.
I see the regulars here ars till working hard at maintaining their playground level and vocabulary ... Really impressive.
Bernard J, almost five months ago my point was that nobody so far has been able to produce that alleged science behind that prominent AR4 claim. And that it's defenders were doing so and believing it on pure faith.
Almost five moths later, you still seem to argue that no one should point this out, that this problem really should lie somewhere else. Along the most peculiar lines ..
Ros, I don't like or approve of any of the name calling, but I don't usually read any of the comments in this thread. I'm sure that if Jonas ever comes up with something, folks will let me know.
Ros,
So what did you think of Wow's comment no. 3035? Kind of fired up and in-your-face--no? And Wow's usually the daintiest creep-out in all of Deltoid-land.
My opinion: In part, Wow is just trying to be funny. Since infancy he, like many another Deltoid, has had his every bratty utterance and gesture petted and applauded by adults and youth-master mentors who should know better. So he thinks he's "cute" and takes care to limit his circle of acquaintances to mutual-admirers who feed his "Delinquent Teenager", center-of-attention needs in return for reciprocal caresses. So, his comment was undoubtedly, in part, just a goof-ball stab at wit of the sort that typically passes for humor on this blog and, I'm sure, cued the conditioned-reflex laugh-track of his many Deltoid fans.
But further, I think Wow just wanted to let you know, Ros, that he's gonna use sexist language anytime, anyplace, and anyhow he cares to use it and he wants you and everyone else to know it (cue Deltoid's applause-track). So there! (cue Deltoid's standing-ovation sound-track)
So,Ros, what do you think? I mean, like, these Deltoids, to include Wow, are supposedly on your team! Right? Again, I recommend you visit Dr. Curry's blog. Her blog is an addictive e-salon, with some real scholars, an assortment of colorful characters, genuine humor and banter, some rough-and-tumble--on occassion, trenchant exchanges of differing views, and generally an interesting, lively, thought-provoking and educational place to gather for good conversation and conviviality. Indeed, quite a refreshing contrast, I think you'll find, to the trite, good-comrade lefty, dreadfully serious, party-line flunky, going-through-the-motions, faking-an-orgasm leg-humping and heavy-petting that passes for commentary on this Deltoid blog.
But just so my recommendation produces no mis-understanding, I assure you that you'll find respect at Dr. Curry's blog of the common-courtesy variety. However, if you choose to toss out snark-boogers, yourself, then expect a counter-battery in kind. Also, any respect that accrues to you beyond that of common-courtesy must be earned. But I wouldn't think you'd want it any other way, would you, Ros?
Hey Deltoids!: Just wanted you guys to know that in one of my rare visits to this blog I chanced on that really great thread where you guys really beat-up on the unfortunate Keith Kloor and a few of his fair-weather defenders. Never did understand what the fuss was all about, but that poor sap, Keith Kloor, obviously mis-judged some jot or be-littled some tittle of the greenshirt orthodoxy and paid the price he fully deserved, I'm sure. And all it took was a little fratricidal, lefty-on-lefty dust-up to get, for once, some real blood-lust up in you mighty, Deltoid, pack-attack worthies. Keep up the good work, guys!
Aah...I love the smell of burning-bridges in the morning!
Tim, that sounds like the oh so common posturing. You encourage the name calling ... You do it by catering to the demands of some of the worst. And you know it ..
Paul
You are saying that people with HIV might contract AIDS, unless they die of other causes before, or get inhibiting treatment. Fair enough, I agree. Your original statment however was:
>1. HIV is the causative agent in the development of AIDS in humans
I see now that you slightly revise that (very plausible) statement to mean:
> "every person that gets HIV ends up with AIDS"
which you however immedeately admit needs several caveats. And I would like to point out, that it is a distinctly different (and stricter, stronger and more specified) statement for which I would require quite some additional support (proof?) to accept, compared to pt 1.
The question whether or not HIV-infected persons would (ny neccessity) contract AIDS if they only lived long enough, however, is slightly moot.
But wrt warming attribution, and more specifically that AR4-claim, you made some very pointed and specific statements. And not only that, you claimed to be capable and prepared to argue and defend them in detail, based on your own claimed full understanding of the published science you had actually read. I would like to go back there, and particularly that 90% certaintly attribution claim.
Could you please summarize how this atttribution and quantification of high certainty was accomplished, by describing how this was done, with words describing the methods used, how this number was established, and also how one goes about ruling out other possible (or less possible, or even unknown) causations including 'internal variabiltiy' or natural fluctuations and chaotic behavior.
Just describe what was done with words. We can revisit the equations, relations, numbers, and what those amount to later.
If you please ...
Tim,
Sorry but that is posturing, tim. There have been a number of occasions where certain individuals have been getting off - bandying child abuse around, as some kind of cheap point winning currency - this has happened many times, the regulars appear to enjoy it - hence it continues.
Wow has been the main offender in this, why he has not been banned from this and every other blog, I do not know.
Your continued allowance of his (and a small number of others) participation speaks volumes.
Tim, so, if "Jonas ever comes up with something" you will take action, but not when wow et al does the same, is that correct?
Dear wow. The "alarming" rise in temperature is nowhere to be found. IPCCs models are completely off the target. Who's not facing reallity?
The only thing correlating with IPCCs rising graph is the CO2 level. But, unfortunately for alarmiztas, it has nothing and zilch to do with the temperature. One would think you guys would be happy that the catastrophic alarms were false. But no, for you guys it's all about prestige, which of course, has nothing to do with science.
What - no comments on the death threats against Katherine Hayhoe. I suppose cherry picking becomes a way of life for deniers.
and mike @ 3034 - you are dribbling onto your keyboard.
MikeH, death threats are awful.
>Bernard J, almost five months ago my point was that nobody so far has been able to produce that alleged science behind that prominent AR4 claim. And that it's defenders were doing so and believing it on pure faith.
>Almost five moths [sic] later, you still seem to argue that no one should point this out, that this problem really should lie somewhere else. Along the most peculiar lines ..
Almost five months ago I asked you back up and tell us what you had read in order to make your claim that the IPCC has made up its confidence level for human-caused global warming. I asked this because I was not prepared to take your claim on pure faith, and I wanted an indication of the amount of reading you had (or had not) done.
Almost five months later, you still seem to argue that no-one should ask you for this most fundamental background - background that is a basic and an essential component of any logically-contructed and properly scientific argument. A most peculiar avoidance of a simple question...
Jonas N, if you think that you can keep on dodging this fundamental question without completely destroying* your credibility, then you're probably bordering on a pathological psychology.
Answer the question, you slimey tosser. How much did you read in order to make your claim? At this point you need a an absolutely comprehensive and fully-numbered list, in the form of an annotated bibliography, in order to substantiate your drivel.
[*Actually, your credibility was destroyed long ago. You have entered the peculiar state of possessing increasingly negative credibility.
> The "alarming" rise in temperature is nowhere to be found.
[Yes it is](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif)
> IPCCs models are completely off the target.
[Even old models are on the button](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-proj…)
Pentaxz,
>I wonder, who's religious, a foilhat...
I dunno. Probably the person who cites evangelical conspiracy theorists as his sources.
Probably the person who refuses to debate others on the science because he knows The Higher Truth - that Al Gore and the UN and using global warming to install a one world government.
Mike,
>-While you, MikeH, are of the opinion that a "line has been crossed", your hive-mates chek, John, and "the Rat" have not acknowledged any such thing.
What is it with the right and political correctness?
I think you need to get a sense of humour installed Mike. Stop being so po-faced and *serious*. If you want political correctness and niceties where everyone agrees with you and you never have support your conspiracy theories with anything as dull as boring-old *evidence*, please feel free to return to Dr. Curry's insipid blog.
There you can wank off about the scam and all the horrible people over here who intimidate into calling them juvenile names because they are smarter than you.
And next time you might not want to throw so many insults around when complaining about insults being used here. Makes you look like kind of a hypocrite.
>Hey Deltoids!: Just wanted you guys to know that in one of my rare visits to this blog I chanced on that really great thread where you guys really beat-up on the unfortunate Keith Kloor and a few of his fair-weather defenders. Never did understand what the fuss was all about,
"Facts", eh? Who needs them?
And it's really easy to discuss when ones comments (even without bad language) are being erased.
>Sorry but that is posturing, tim. There have been a number of occasions where certain individuals have been getting off - bandying child abuse around, as some kind of cheap point winning currency - this has happened many times, the regulars appear to enjoy it - hence it continues.
Rubbish. Mike and Pentaxz have engaged in juvenile name calling every bit as much as Wow has and, unlike Mike (who has previously admitted that science bores him and he only drops by here to get a cheap rise out of people to fill his lonely, aged existence), Wow actually contributes something to the blog.
I don't like the name calling either but it is Tim's blog and we are adults and you will ultimately be judged by the quality of your arguments.
> Mike and Pentaxz have engaged in juvenile name calling every bit as much as Wow has
Nope. Count the number of times. I'm little league in comparison.
Funny how you're well up on the false equivalence doctrine in its application to modern rhetoric.
And, unlike Tampax or Mike (and indeed yourself, John), I've actually got evidence, science and validity on my side.
>And it's really easy to discuss when ones comments (even without bad language) are being erased.
You don't "discuss". You spam links and refuse to respond to people, except to be a facetious smart alec.
Oh, seems like I didn't read far enough, John. You already said that I contribute.
Oopsie. Sin bin for 20 minutes for me...
Wow, stop being defensive. You do abuse people, and you do it a lot. Being in the correct scientific position doesn't suddenly make it better.
> You do abuse people, and you do it a lot.
Yup.
Now, question: is it unwarranted?
PS has anyone noticed ANYWHERE a denialist telling off another denialist for being rude all the time?
No, me neither.
Yet we have here two climate realists with one telling the other one off for being rude.
Rather shows how the tone troll denialists have nothing valid.
Ros,
Well, I guess, based on comments 3050 and 3057, I can safely predict you're not gonna get any apology from the Deltoids. Though, in fairness, "the Rat" has yet to speak and might be, I mean maybe, still laboring over his apology, in that furtive, rat-like way he has, anxious to ensure he precisely captures in his apology the sincerity and earnestness of his regrets and the depths-of-shame he feels at the sexist-piggery of his insensitivity. Or maybe not.
And, I also don't think you'll get, any time soon, a chorus of "WE RESPECT WOMEN'S VOICES SO HARD!" from Deltoid-land's famous and fully-booked up community choir--the celebrated audience-of-choice for increasingly-desperate preachers of the watermelon-cult.
Indeed, if I understand the implications of comment 3050, above, the Deltoid consensus is that the real issue, Ros, is that you need to get a sense of humor! Great bunch of guys, huh? And these guys are supposedly on your side, too!
Again, Ros, I recommend you dump these doom-butt, sexist-schweinhund losers, here at Deltoid, and check out Dr. Curry's blog. Give it a shot.
Just call PentaxZ "used toilet paper" -- then dishonest morons like Ros can't claim that it's sexist.
I had been waiting for one or two of the women commenters on this thread - y'know the alleged non-existent ones according to the Swedish boyband contingent - but in the meantime...
'Ros', you may have noticed but mysteriously failed to comment upon the fact that this thread long ago submerged below the level of the scientific and deep into the idiotic. Featuring Jonarse the Lomborg-lover Idiot Science Authority Who Requires No References and his satellite lapdogs GSW, Petri, Tampax et al. Jonarse (and his lapdogs) of course are that rare breed of half-arsed GWPF-fed Euro-libertarians intent on 'reclaiming' reality. Reality of course - except in the sickest of Rovian mindsets - requiring neither 'claiming' nor 'reclaiming', but merely acknowledgement.
In lieu of being susceptible to actual arguments regarding the science of AGW, as for example with morons like Tampax for whom spamming links to political theatre activists who have no regard for science but only their own political agenda, the weapon of choice for dealing with such is ridicule. Facts being completely impervious against the armour of stupidity.
It is noted that you mistakenly take umbrage with form over content, and further noted that you seem unaware that the lexicon of ridicule descends rapidly into bodily functions, whether male of female.
Thus we can with equal regard label 'Pentax' or 'Petri' or GSW as ignorant 'asswipes' or in the case of 'Pentax', spoonerise his name to 'Tampax'. No disrepect to women being meant or intended, merely the transferred equivalence to a bodily function being applied.
I'd also observe that the generic is 'tampon', and not the brand name you take alleged exception to.
Li'll mike we can completely disregard, being a cretinous joiner-in who enjoys nothing more than sitting on his 80-grit buttplug and railing against 'lefties', railing against anyone smarter than him (which is 99.999% of the population of the planet) and bragging about his fantasy military career. Oh and let's not forget his penchant for attempting to link the UN and the IPCC with childprostitution. A real piece of work is li'll mike.
So 'Ros' I'll leave it that your objection is noted but disregarded pending second thoughts (from me) being prompted by either reinforcement from another female participating in this thread, or perhaps some indication of your opinion on the subject of this thread - namely Jonas N The Lomborg-lover Idiot Science Authority Who Requires No References. Otherwise as has been pointed out previously, you are de facto engaging in tone-trolling in support of the idiot contingent.
>Indeed, if I understand the implications of comment 3050, above, the Deltoid consensus is that the real issue, Ros, is that you need to get a sense of humor!
Couldn't have summed it up better myself. Anybody who is offended by my little offhand quip that tampax are more useful than Pentaxz *does* need to get a sense of humour. And fast.
I don't imagine that my mother, girlfriend, three sisters or three female housemates would have been offended by that. In fact, not being po-faced PC trolls, they would all agree with me.
Of course, what this is really about is you dishonestly using any means possible to bash the evil left you so despise, and stop our evil plans to take all your precious property away with our Al Gore UN green cult scam or whatever fantasy you have built up in that rotten little brain of yours. Where was your concern for the use of the name "Tampax" before the dishonest concern troll Ros appeared, Mike?
You can give up trying to appeal to emotion over logic in this stupid battle-that-only-you-are-engaging-in over Ros' soul. It would appear she's long been on your "side". As much as I have enjoyed watching you appeal to emotion over reason as a means to "convert" somebody to your denier faith, you are really wasting your time.
In fact, I encourage anybody genuinely offended by my little gag to reject logic, embrace emotion, and run over to Judith Curry's to talk about how horrible we all are for accepting evidence and not being nice to trolls and discuss the latest exciting nail-in-the-coffin you will forget by next week.
ianam @ no. 3060 "...dishonest morons like Ros..."
chek @ no. 3061 "you [Ros] are de facto engaging in tone-trolling in support of the idiot contingent."
MikeH @ no. 3033 "I have a daughter who is in science and it can be tough to be taken seriously." and "...I agree that a line has been crossed."
Ros,
Please note,Ros, Deltoid-land has now determined that you not only lack a sense of humor, but you are, moreover, a "dishonest moron". And what brought this opprobrium on you? Well, Ros, as I recall it all originated with your objection to the pervasive, sexist language of this blog that you found offensive (and it was offensive by any reasonable (i. e. non-Deltoid)standard). You then, as I recall, made a good-faith, well-reasoned appeal for the offensive, sexistlanguage to stop--with appropriate apologies. At that point, I'd bet you thought you'd done a "good deed", right Ros? But not so simple, is it, in Deltoid-land. Rather, your "good deed" got you, contrary to your wildest dreams and expectations, I have no doubt, denounced(thank you comrade chek--you have rendered great service to Deltoidland with your 3061 report on the slacker Ros!)as a counter-revolutionary thought-criminal and betrayer of the "cause." Some deal, huh? I mean, this is Red-Guard quality stuff.
Ros, I hope you've had your revolutionary-consciousness properly raised by this blog's good-comrade Deltoids so that you now understand that it's Deltoid's bold, sexist-porkies that are the "victim" and you, the "victimizer." Welcome to Deltoid-land, Ros! And, I might add, if the Deltoids ever get the real power to which they aspire, we will all become Deltoid-landers--all equal, of course, but with the current crop of lumpen-Deltoids more equal than all us others. Interesting thought--no?
Ros, long-ago the left co-opted the saintly language of those holy men and women who dedicate themselves to a selfless life of work among the suffering and abused poor and dispossessed. It is noble language that the left cynically appropriated and it has been used by the left to ensnare, under false-pretenses, idealistic individuals with a good-heart and a desire for a just world. But that noble language and its ostensible ideals, which drew you to the left, I suspect, in the first place, are, with the lefties that count, nothing but utilitarian humbug and a bait-and-switch hustle--read the history of the monstrous crimes against humanity of Pol Pot's Cambodia, Mao's China, and Stalin's USSR and see how the lefty nomenklatura really operates when there are no restraints and the nicey-nicey mask drops. May I respectfully ask you, Ros, to reflect on your experience with this Deltoid blog. And, then, I respectfully ask you to consider if there are not any lessons to be learned from your latest Deltoid experience. Please, Ros, I make those respectful requests as a once-devout former-lefty, myself.
MikeH
Interesting. I mean, MikeH, that you have a daughter who works in science. And of further interest, you also find the offensive sexist language, to which Ros objected, to be a "line [that]has been crossed". All sounds reasonable to me and just what I'd expect of the proud papa of a lovely, accomplished daughter (I'm one myself, I might add). But then, MikeH, the off-note intrudes. I mean by that, MikeH, that you've watched the beat-down administered to Ros on this thread in silence. I don't get it.
So tell me, MikeH, how would you feel if it was your daughter, not Ros, that was on the receiving end of the Deltoid bully-boys? Would you still consider that your over-riding commitment to watermelon-loyalties and the "cause" required revolutionary-silence? Are you really that much of a good-comrade, MikeH?
You know, MikeH, I'm trying to figure you out. I'm trying to understand just what kind of a father you are. Indeed, I'm trying to figure out just what kind of a man you are. Any hints you might want to provide me to aid me in my quest?
This is glorious. Mike cries "sexism!" and pretends to be offended over the pejorative "Tampax" and meanwhile draws similarities between the modern left and regimes that killed millions of people. No, that's not offensive!
The problem with today's right is they are driven by emotion and not reason, as evidenced by 100% of everything Mike has written in this thread. What an intellectual fraud.
>May I respectfully ask you, Ros, to reflect on your experience with this Deltoid blog. And, then, I respectfully ask you to consider if there are not any lessons to be learned from your latest Deltoid experience.
A troll begging a troll to troll. This is new.
This is glorious. Mike cries "sexism!" and pretends to be offended over the pejorative "Tampax" and meanwhile draws similarities between the modern left and regimes that killed millions of people. No, that's not offensive!
The problem with today's right is they are driven by emotion and not reason, as evidenced by 100% of everything Mike has written in this thread. What an intellectual fra*d.
>May I respectfully ask you, Ros, to reflect on your experience with this Deltoid blog. And, then, I respectfully ask you to consider if there are not any lessons to be learned from your latest Deltoid experience.
A troll begging a troll to troll. This is new.
I should however thank Mike for giving us a disturbing insight into the dark recceses of his mind where he really draws his views on science - his opinion that global warming is a "bait and switch" tactic designed to install a scientist-led Stalinist one world government so we can all commit "monstrous crimes against humanity".
To prevent this atrocious event he is...calling people names in blog comments threads.
And here I was thinking that increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was slowly causing the globe to warm. You know, physics. That thing.
I wonder which of us sounds like a complete ranting nutter?
Perhaps this explains it John.
mike says
I have noticed that the nuttiest jihadists tend to come from the ranks of those who have converted.
MikeH, I would say that definitely explains it. Mike clearly believes his mission is to convert others to his ideological faith through emotional arguments free of evidence, logic or facts of any kind.
John @ 3062
You say, "Where was your concern for the use of the name "Tampax" before the dishonest concern troll Ros, appeared, Mike?"
Well, John, it appears you haven't been paying attention, again--at least not with your thinking-cap on.
Way, way up-thread on this "Jonas" post you'll find a comment (if it's still there) where the improbable Jeff Harvey--you know the booger-eater with all the hot-dog credentials--calls someone or other a "twat" (the doom-kopf also calls that very same someone or other, IN THE VERY SAME COMMENT!--mind you, a "prick", as I recall,--I mean, like, I sometimes think that ol'Jeff Harvey has really gone off the deep-end with that "doom and doomer" bio-diversity business of his!) Now, when "the Harv's" comment first appeared (I was then a political prisoner of the "Open Threads" re-education camps, though, later, my continued refusal to compromise with the truth sent me to the "Jonas Thread" hard-labor gulag), I did, indeed, object to Jeff Harvey's use of sexist language that was demeaning to women. Even called the doom-butt, credentials-flashing leg-humper a "sexist schweinhund!" I mean, like, I've even called him that twice! And all this was long before your "Tampax" laugh-booger ever appeared John, ol' boy. Or, at least, before I ever noticed the same (your comments, John, (take out the hankie) are not a part of my must-read list).
The fate of my complaint? Alas, it was deleted within the day. I concluded, therefore, that Deltoid-land was a safe-haven for misogynists and it would be a waste of my precious time, wit, and energy to pursue the qualms I had with Deltoid's tolerance of flagrant, sexist language.
So that's why you didn't find me wasting any effort, John, to call out your stupid, albeit sexist and offensive, "Tampax" zinger. Besides, I figured once your mom got wind of your sexist trash-talk, she'd wash your potty-mouth out with soap and send your useless-eater, momma's boy, loser butt packing from her house with orders to find a job. You know, John, you can't hide your filthy little sexist secrets from mom forever. Momma's gonna find you out one of these days and, when she does, she's gonna get you good!
Ros, of course, lacked my prior experience with you Deltoids and assumed, I can well imagine, that she was dealing with normal human beings. Too bad she didn't check with me first--I could have saved her a whole lot of time and trouble. I mean, set her straight that Deltoids are actually not even human beings at all, of any sort. Rather, as you and I both know, John, Deltoids are created in the laboratory from mutant, greenshirt, zit-shaft extrusions. Hence, the famous Deltoid iron-resistance to any appeals for common courtesy and decency.
Incidentally, I don't find the term "prick" to be an offensive sexist term at all. Indeed, I,ve even used the term at least once in my commentary on this blog--(quoting from memory)"And nothing more reliably adds zest to my golden years than to drop in, from time to time, on my ol' Deltoid pals and take you arrogant pricks down a notch!" A view of things that still holds, I might add.
Right. So you could definitely prove me wrong except all the evidence has been deleted. Do you see how this might not be as persuasive an argument as you think it is?
Anyway Mike. I would like to offer you an apology. I am sorry that, on one of your frequent journeys here to throw juvenile epithets like "booger flicker", "doom butt" and "leg humper" around, I happened to *offend* your preciously sensitive tastes by being politically incorrect.
>So that's why you didn't find me wasting any effort, John, to call out your stupid, albeit sexist and offensive, "Tampax" zinger.
That's funny, you appeared to have wasted many hours and thousands of words.
>Besides, I figured once your mom got wind of your sexist trash-talk, she'd wash your potty-mouth out with soap and send your useless-eater, momma's boy, loser butt packing from her house with orders to find a job. You know, John, you can't hide your filthy little sexist secrets from mom forever. Momma's gonna find you out one of these days and, when she does, she's gonna get you good!
There is something deeply, deeply wrong with you.
>Hence, the famous Deltoid iron-resistance to any appeals for common courtesy and decency.
Typical hypocritical right wing troll. What makes you think you can abuse others without receiving the same in return? What makes you believe you are entitled to politeness?
>And nothing more reliably adds zest to my golden years than to drop in, from time to time, on my ol' Deltoid pals and take you arrogant pricks down a notch
Really? Where have you done that? I see a lot of insults, abuse and projection but absolutely nothing that could be described as taking anyone down.
John @ 3069
Well, jeez, John you've provided me with quite a good-little-boy rejoinder, there with your last. I mean, like, all is in impeccable, if a little predictable, smarty-pants good form and all.
Actually a little too good, if you know what I mean, John. I mean, like, your by-the-book, obsessive attention to detail suggests, ever so slightly, the lingering status anxiety of the scholarship-boy. But, hey, I'm an American and we could really care less about such things.
I mean, like, I only brought up your wrapped-a-little-too-tight, control-freak issues, John, in order to emphasize just how nearly perfect in every detail your reply was and everything. And what especially struck me, initially at least, about your reply was how systematic it seemingly was. But then, John, I considered your reply more carefully and noticed that there was something missing. I mean, like your reply was very, very systematic, John, but with one exception--ONE EXCEPTION, John! And what was that ONE EXCEPTION, John? C'mon, John, tell the folks. Name that exception, John. Hmm...So we're maintaining a discreet silence are we, John?
O. K. John, I'll give you a helping hand. Where, John, and I mean where-oh-where in your otherwise, systematic-to-a-fault reply is there any reference to this part of my original comment?:
"Rather, as you and I both know, John, Deltoids are created in the laboratory from mutant, greenshirt, zit-shaft extrusions."
Do you really think by skipping over this part of my original comment, by ignoring it, by pretending it's not there, John, you can really make this "inconvenient truth" simply go away--maybe even disappear into thin air? Was that your hope, John?
Well, sorry John, it's not so simple as that. The word is out, John. You can't put the tooth-paste back into the tube, you can't put humpty-dumpty back together again, you can't make Al Gore un-fat, and you, most certainly, can't un-eat all those boogers you've spent a life-time munching, John. You see what I mean, John?
So, John, why don't you complete your too-clever-by-half, defective prior effort at a "systematic" response to my original comment? And, please--pretty please--do give us your thoughts on Deltoid's secret lab, this time--and yes, John, I mean the one with all those steaming vats full of mutating, roiling masses of zit-hole ejecta. We're waiting, John.
Silly old Mike. Thinks he can bait me into an emotional response. You're so transparent I can actually see your lack of spine.
I liken Mike to vomit.
chek
>Jonas N The .. Who Requires No References
Well, if you had any contact with anything at all, you would be aware of that I was asking for (or if anyone had seen) the alleged science behind that notorious ICCP claim that became the posterchild of the AR4 (the 'hockey stick' being it for TAR).
And additionally if any of those believing in it, defending it as 'consensus' (or similar) had actually read and understood it and was prepared to argue its merits (even after I had had a chance to scrutinize it).
So far no one has stepped up to the task.
Bernard too has spent almost five months (backwards) 'arguing' that IPCC-claims don't need to be backed by references, that they should be taken on faith.
And his 'stance' seems to be backed by every single Deltoind-regular ever touching upon the issue. You, chek, most definitely.
What has been your most 'substantial point'? That glaciers have been receding for 100s of years? Well, many have ...
And Jeff H is upset because people aren't 'doing sufficiently much about it', or at least aren't posturing sufficiently about wanting 'to do something about it' ..
This is a nice review of D&A studies if you don't have the time to read AR4 Ch. 9. Some of the studies cited here postdate the last assesment, but others were included in it. I think you'll get the idea, though if you bother to read the damn link.
Jonas N.
Here is [another thread](http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of…) requiring your incisive deconstruction.
As you will have a new audience, perhaps you can post your reading list there...
Oh, and:
>Bernard too has spent almost five months (backwards) 'arguing' that IPCC-claims don't need to be backed by references, that they should be taken on faith.
I HAVE NEVER SAID that "IPCC-claims [sic] don't need to be backed by references, that they should be taken on faith". I have also not aurgued this, nor have I 'argued' it.
You are a filthy, stinking liar.
Oops, didn't follow Rattus' link...
and oops again:
>...aurgued argued...
Bernard J
>I HAVE NEVER SAID that "IPCC-claims [sic] don't need to be backed by references
No, you never **said** that. And I never **said** that you said that. However I've pointed out repeatedly that this is what you (and all the others) have been arguing for months.
And that you, unless you actually produce these references (which) you additionally have read and understood) are arguing that the claim should be taken on faith. Not only by you believers, but also by sounder sceptical minds.
And this is just so wrong when it comes to science ..
> However I've pointed out repeatedly that this is what you (and all the others) have been arguing for months.
And every time you've done so, you've been wrong.
> unless you actually produce these references
They're available online here:
http://www.ipcc.ch
Follow the links to the reports and go to the "References" section at the end of the chapter you wish to see referenced, and the addendum at the end of the report itself (if this applies) and you will see these references.
Since you have not yet read the IPCC reports, this will answer your questions directly and simply.
Wow
Thank you for so perfectly well demonstrating my point here. Which was:
>I've pointed out repeatedly that this is what you (and all the others) have been arguing for months. And that you, unless you actually produce these references **(which you additionally have read and understood)** are arguing that the claim should be taken on faith
Which is the same thing I have said over and over again. Just before, in the preceding post:
>I was asking for (or if anyone had seen) the alleged science behind that notorious ICCP claim that became the posterchild of the AR4 (the 'hockey stick' being it for TAR).
>And **additionally** if any of those believing in it, defending it as 'consensus' (or similar) **had actually read and understood it** and was **prepared to argue its merits** (even after I had had a chance to scrutinize it).
>So far **no one** has stepped up to the task
Thank you too for equally well demonstrating the mentality behind those beliefs among so many of you, which Iâve pointed out repeatedly:
>'Trust us, it is all in there, in the AR4, in the WG II and in the references. **Go and look for yourself**'
but that:
>everybody I have ever asked, canât say much more than â**somebody else** is supposed to knowâ
And finally also: Thank you for being such a perfect example of the crowd here mostly barking away and up imagined trees, without even having read what is discussed, let alone understood any of it (as when you for weeks couldnât find any commnet, where I pointed out any of luminousâ many occasions where he bungled it badly)
Bernard J
My comments #2961 and #2971 summarize well what it is about. Every attempt youâve tried so far has only affirmed what I noted there. And your comment:
>You are a filthy, stinking liar.
.. was quite unwise in my view. Since you firstly once again had to misrepresent what I actually claimed (You indirectly, ie â(backwards) âarguingâ â ⦠anything else **but* producing those (alleged) references), secondly because you are fully aware of that you havenât seen them, that nobody else here can produce them, and hence that all of you only base this on faith (but the claim, and tex scienceâs existence). And thirdly because you, by those standards (implied by your statement), would be far far worse â¦
But hey, owngoals is what I expect. So Iâm not complaining â¦
There are half a dozen probabilties here, with the first two being most likely.
1. Petri and Tampax7 are intellectual giants compared to Jonarse.
2. Like someone who refuses to accept they need to wear glasses, Jonarse's comprehension of English - and particularly technical English - isn't capable of the necessary level of understanding required to either understand, formulate a rebuttal or more relevantly formalate a referenced rebuttal.
At this stage of the proceedings, I'm going with option 1.
chek
Since *'probabilities'* (and confidence levels) are a part of the issue here, it is funny that you start blathering away about just those.
And since you really and most definitely are among those neither understanding the basic premises of the issue (the science 'missing' behind that AR4-claim) nor about probabilities more generally or how such are assessed and determined, my previous comments apply equally well to you (and all you've *'accomplished'* here).
But in case you really and still had totally missed it (after 4+ months), I'll repeat the core point once more just for you:
As long as there is no published science even proffering any (alleged)basis for that AR4-claim, there is nothing to read, check, scrutinize and most certainly nothing and no need to *'rebut'*!
Got it!?
And I find the entire idea (that so many of you put forward) that I should rebut, deconstruct, present what is wrong etc, even do so with 'references' ...
.. of what is solely existing in your faith and hopeful imagination (that (non-)existing alleged 'science') ..
.. just plain laughable!
As is your squirming about 'technical english' 'intellectual giants' and all else you have produced here.
Bernard J #3082, the:
>You are a filthy, stinking liar.
was what the remainder commented upon (I'm sure that even you figured that out, although you you're very keen to point out typos and syntax)
Since Bernard J. didn't just write that he didn't say it, but also that he didn't argue it, but Jonas snipped that part and then proceeded to write as if it hadn't been said, a reasonable person would conclude that Jonas is a stinking pile of dishonest feces who is not worth any effort, let alone a thread of over 3000 comments. Let it go, guys.
Dear Ianam,
Why don't you address the topic at hand instead of whining about the deltoid (yours) obsession with Jonas? You can kill the thread in a heartbeat if you just stayed focused. Until then the real facts are:
"As long as there is no published science even proffering any (alleged)basis for that AR4-claim, there is nothing to read, check, scrutinize and most certainly nothing and no need to 'rebut'!"
Got it? Jeffie has at least admitted that its just an opinionated figure even though he had to embed that insight with 99,9% smearing and long essays of self idolatry.
ianam
Although I have very low expectations (none, that is) of you, I think your comment:
>Jonas is a stinking pile of dishonest feces
.. was equally unwise as Bernard's.
And it is unwise because firstly it in it self is an obvious and far worse untruth than the straw-one it you pretend to condemn. And secondly, because you (and so many more) don't even pretend to try represent the views of others honestly. Or are interested in, or even just capable of doing that ..
Hence, the excessive piling up of sh*t and feces in your comments ...
Olaus
I think your assertion to ianam:
>You can kill the thread in a heartbeat if you just stayed focused
is a bit on the optimistic side. Don't forget, I have been quite particular about that extra qualifier condition:
>And additionally if any of those believing in it, defending it as 'consensus' (or similar) had actually read and understood it and was prepared to argue its merits (even after I had had a chance to scrutinize it).
As I've told you, so far nobody has stepped up to the task. And frankly, almost nobody has even claimed to have read any reference that he pushed, that it actually contained the sought for science, and that he had actually understood it.
Rather, I would expect that ianam's capacity, understanding and scientific level to be on par with what he presents here .. As I just said.
As you know, I usually expect that (in such discussions) people come up with the best arguments they hav (left)
Jonas, don't confuse me being nice to Ianam with my actual trust in his capabilities. ;-)
Jonas N.
I am still wondering why you won't tell us what papers you have read and what papers you haven't read, in your journey to claiming that the IPCC made up its confidence levels.
And you can bluster all you like, but I have read the papers that I've drawn to your attention - papers, I note, that you won't confirm or deny reading...
You are asking other people to complete your homework, without even trying to demonstrate that you had a go at doing it yourself. I don't know why it's OK to do so in Jonasworld, but in the real world people usually try to prove that they've had a decent bash themselves at doing something, before they ask someone else to do it for them.
And in the real world, when you accuse someone of fabrication, you usually present definitive evidence that you have actually done the work to establish that such fabrication is supportable.
You have not done this.
I'm also wondering why you are steadfastly refusing to comment on the list of attribution papers that has been growing, and capped of with the [recent post at Skeptical Science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of…). Are you too afraid of pursuing that avenue lest your claims evaporate into nothingness? Or are you just too scared to post on SkS, where there are actual climate scientists in attendance?
And finally, you can argue all you like about semantics, but your comment:
>Bernard too has spent almost five months (backwards) 'arguing' that IPCC-claims don't need to be backed by references, that they should be taken on faith.
can only be interpretted in one way by any literate person. I have never at any time implicitly hinted or explicitly stated that IPCC claims do not need to be referenced, or that faith should be relied on for acceptance of any claims.
You put those words in my mouth, and I do not resile from my description of you as a liar.
You are.
Bernard, his claims are already nothing, but that has no bearing on his repeating them forever. He's just a bot, and your continuing to engage with him as if anything you write would have any effect on his course is quite neurotic ... let it go, man.
[Ianam](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6215991).
"Compulsive" is probably more appropriate than "neurotic"!
Nevertheless, I have tired of the enterprise anyway. I think that it is quite evident that Jonas N cannot detail the reading he did (or rather, did not) do in order to arrive at his claim.
Nor can he critically deconstruct the attribution papers that are sprouting like mushrooms, and nor will he engage on RealClimate with those he libels.
I've been close to calling stumps, and now is as good a time as any.
Jonas N, you and your trolleagues are hollow men boys. If you can't do logic and debate properly, there's no point in further engagement.
[Close tab...]
Bernard J
>You put those words in my mouth
No, I didnât! How is your command of the english language? I specifically indicated that your behavior indicated that âbackwards arguingâ trying to get away from the only relevant core substance:
What alleged science is (was!) there behind that infamous but prominet AR4 claim? Is there anybody who has seen it **and** can argue its merits? Instead you have been talking about almost anything else. (Maybe you believe that what you and the others here deliver should be called to *âdebate properlyâ*, but only in la-la-land). You write:
>You put those words in my mouth
But it is certainly you who repeatedly (and obviously) misrepresent what I am saying. And making up peculiar stuff as you go.
But I donât need to tell you that:
>You are a filthy, stinking liar.
That is your description of your own actions, which you (albeit wrongly) accuse me of.
You (and Rattus) refer to another activist site, run by a Australian cartoonist. But they too erase questions and critique they cannot handle. The level in the posts is often very low. The discussions are usually better. But real discussions are not possible there. For the same reason as they arenât at Real Climate or Taminos.
We had a good example further up. I pointed out the logical fallacy in Taminoâs argument (in very mild words), the response was of the level as you guys here manage (an insult without substance). I pointed out where he was wrong in more precise words. And no more comment was allowed.
And some tell me that Tamino supposedly is good at statistics. Well well ⦠the words in âclimate lingo landâ very often mean something entirely else than in the real world! Who is surprised!?
PS The immaturity, the hollowness, the lack of logic and the perpetuous dishonesty is abundant on your side.
The performing elephants of Deltoid are frustrated because no one wants to see their clumsy stunts anymore. Must be hard being the centre of attention in an empty cir...climate tent.
Chek, Bernie, Jeffie, wow, cupcake, LB etc honking horns and have a scientific blast.:-)
"...the attribution papers that are sprouting like mushrooms..."
Really? Not in the real world. What planet are you from, bernie? Hillarious.
"...the attribution papers that are sprouting like mushrooms..."
Really? Not in the real world they aren't. What planet are you from, bernie? Hillarious. You know that the "peak climate" is past us, do you not? The CAGW ship is taking in vater. The good days with easy money for you and your cheating and lying "science" buddies is soon to be over. Please, wet your finger and stick it up in the air. I'm sure you will feel in what direction the wind is blowing. You know, you can do that even with your head in the sand.
Climatescam: Jonarse has so totally owned the IPCC. Yeah he's like shown that their posterboy claim is absolutely false.
Deltoid: Really? When did this happen?
Climatescam: In this blog. Jonarse like totally asked where the science was and nobody could tell him.
Deltoid: Yes they did.
Climatescam: But they couldn't and he couldn't see it so they totally didn't.
Deltoid: So why's he wasting his time arsing on blogs? Why isn't he knocking on Jim Inhofe and Marc Morano's and Christopher Horner's and Charles Koch's door with this magic key insight? This is surely killer information in the most literal sense that Watts' and McIntyre's can only dream about.
Climatescam: Well....
Deltoid: Well it's because he can't.
He's unable to.
He's powerless to do so.
He's a grandstanding liar without a clue who's more interested in recruiting - or should that be attracting - young boys with the political acumen of sandworms and ignorance to match into his half-baked Euro-libertarian club.
Presumably 10,000 ill-informed idiots like Tampax7, whom nobody would ever require an opinion about anything from, may equal one Lawson on the Peiser scale of idiocy.
Chek, you have my sympathies. I hope you get well soon and realize that you did an all in and lost â big time. The fire and brimstone geschäft is out of fashion and you better come to terms with it. Or you will continue being a laughing stock.
A friendly advice from someone who knows better. :-)
Chek, stop foolishly being baited ... every one else has. Leave this thread to the trolls and only the trolls.
"Petri", Jonarse has a meme which has not, and will not, go any further than those like you. It's designed only to resonate with conspiracy-minded idiots like you and Tampax7 and the rest of the gangbangers.
Meanwhile back in the real world [this is happening](http://www.youtube.com/embed/EoOrtvYTKeE) and real scientists - not fake blog scientists like Jonarse - have found the mechanism causing it.
All thats left for the likes of you to do is to complain about your taxes. But not here.
Chek, like GWB says I will leave no child behind. I'll continue educating you despite your learning disabilities. You are a true believer and and a scary on at that. Your authoritarian personality (which you share with other Ds) has a big F, like Adorno would phrase it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/27/sixteen-prominent-scientists-publ…
I think this is where we all came in -
Judith Curry and Peter Webster have a new paper in BAMS "Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster" worth a read.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/10/uncertainty-monster-paper-in-press/
There's been a bit of to and fro, and the following (from Judith to an anonymous Mr X) caught my eye,
"Listing a large number of uncertainty locations, and then coming up with a âvery likelyâ likelihood statement using expert judgment in the context of a consensus building approach, is at the heart of our concern regarding the IPCCâs treatment of uncertainty."
Very much "On Topic" on this thread, I would have thought.
Also I notice, Gavin's yearly "Turd Polishing" excerise, aka "How well are the Models doing?" is running a little late this year over at Realclimate. Maybe even he is finding it difficult to say anything positive about them.
Enjoy Delturds!
;)
You might want to check out this discussion of Judith's little paper. It also includes a nice little discussion of the logic behind the IPCC statement which started this thread way back when, but you would have to be at least a little bit familiar with the D&A literature cited in AR4 Chapter 9.
Thanks Rattus, it was the Realclimate article that drew my attention to Curry's paper.
As Gavin says, the attribution statement "correctly reflects the opinion of most climate scientists on the subject".
Somehow this is translated into a 90-95% certainty figure as the "opinion" of the majority, which you'll have to agree is less than ideal. In reality, this methodology would be laughed at in any other field of science.
GSW, thank's for correcting my spelling (of Delturd). :-)
And the fossil fuel right wing creationist bullies have come up with a new conspiracy. Enjoy the settled science friends:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-wa…
Sorry guys ..
But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.
What is missing between the models, and observed reality increases a little every year.
If we would do statistics on that (I know, that is taxing your taxonomy quite a bit) we would have to note that the probability that those models got it right is just about statistically insignificant now. Albeit not entirely disproved ..
You can also see that phenomenon on many pro-AGW-blogs, they are more and more desperately trying to cling to the trend now, avoiding actual temperature measurements. The argument more and more becomes 'we, the models are not quite proven wrong just yet'
So much for the settled science since decades ago. Its protagonists incidentally claiming that 'we have a decade at most to turn this around ... '
And I bet quite a bunch of you are gritting teeth over it.
Someone said that lefty activists are particularly sensitive to losing face, and that this die-hard denial of reality is a consequence of that ..
But I never claimed to understand the psyche of the doomsayers and fear mongers .. and those activists followers they inevitably seem to attract ...
Heck, some of you might even really really hope and believe that those large positive feedbacks are the true and real thing .. that they are just hiding in the deep sea (or somewhere)
Meanwhile the CAGW edifice is losing ground everywhere .. and more and more realize that it never was anything close to science .. and the Jeffie Harveys of the world become even angrier with it!
Obvious and stupid lie. 3100 posts in, and you are still going to sit there and pretend not to know the difference between weather and climate? Pathetic.
Bald assertion. Obvious and stupid lie. Citation needed.
Vapid. Pathetic attempt at sophistry.
Obvious and stupid lie. Projection. Citation needed.
Obvious and stupid lie. Projection. Citation seriously needed.
Prerequisite not-even-a-farking-sentence interjection.
Vapid. Citation needed.
Poor English. Projection. Vapid.
Projection. Passive-aggressive faux-Libertarian whining.
Pathetic attempt at taking the high ground. Inconsequential. Vapid.
Vapid. Projection. Inconsequential. Asinine dog-whistle martyrdom.
Yes, if only there was recent research into that issue...
Clown.
Passive-aggressive. Delusional. Whining. Vapid. Citation needed.
You took an entire week off to bring us THAT tripe, Jonas?
What a sad, sad little man you are.
[Apologies all if this eventually turns up again, I assume it was a server error - for one horrible moment I thought I'd been moderated from a 'Troll thread' - you are a spineless lot]
Jonas! you're alive!
I was a little worried you had given up on this bunch of non numerate, hiding under the stairs, someone else tells me what to think, no hopers. Good to see you're still at it!
;)
As for current temperatures, I asked gavin over a month ago on realclimate when the annual 'Dad Joke', sorry 'turd polishing', sorry 'How are the models doing?' would be unveiled. Apparently, he's still waiting on the results of some CMIP5 model runs(?).
Gavin's conclusion is of course well known - they are doing fine! The 'intrigue' is more the somersaults that will have to be gone thru in the production of this magnum opus. Downplay Hansen's ~20yr old forecasts, push some new, shiny, state of the art (dubious and untested) ones on a better computer, leave any reference to HadCRUT3 out altogether(?), blame the 'travesty' of the lack of warming on..on (?) .. Big Oil?
In any event, the non numerate Jeffs of this world will accept the Gospel as handed down. He's on a jaunt at the moment looking for biodiversity armageddon isn't he? can't wait till he gets back with the news.
;)
What a poor looser you are, stu. Pathetic indeed.
Hi Pentaxz, care to answer the rebuttal to your copy-and-pasted-questions-you-didn't-understand that you promised to nearly two months ago?
Stu
>>But now it is about the same **temperature** (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.
>
>Obvious and stupid lie. 3100 posts in, and you are still going to sit there and pretend not to know the difference between **weather** and **climate**? Pathetic
I've highlighted the relevant words for you. You see, they are all different, Stu. Often it helps to read the words properly, even if you donât understand their meaning, or of the sentences they construct. Even for you, Stu!
> But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.
> You see, they are all different, Stu.
You also haven't shown the data showing the "about the same temperature" figure.
I mean, if you're going to demand exactitude, then you need to show the precise mathematics.
>But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.
Duff tried to make the same inept argument, so no points for original thinking.
Seriously though, here is the graph that Jonas belives is proof of the scam!
No, seriously.
I see we have quickly reached Pentaxz levels of woefulness and Duff levels of confusing climate with weather variation.
Even if you split it into "current year" and "average for the 80's", it still shows today as warmer.
How odd.
Am I? What's a "looser"?
Sweetheart, if you say "But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago", you don't know the difference between weather and climate. It's the intellectual equivalent of "yesterday was the same temperature as September 2nd, therefore winter is a myth".
But you knew that already. You were just hoping to get the last word in on a zombie thread so you could point to it and say you got the best of all of us alarmists. I did have higher hopes than that vapid tripe, though. Care to address anything substantial? Do you have any citations for the numerous bald assertions you made? Care to tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Hi john. No.
Sorry stu. I mean loooooooooooser! Big time!
Guys, listen! Do you hear? Reallity is coming, like a tsunami. And it's coming fast. Brace your self.
>Hi john. No.
At least you are a devout member of your faith.
>Guys, listen! Do you hear? Reallity is coming, like a tsunami. And it's coming fast. Brace your self.
You mean, an .... *apocalypse*?
Aural and other forms of hallucination are highly regarded in some religions. Including denialism by this over-excited account, presumably somehow intended to impress.
Of course, one may be impressed - or more accurately appalled - by the level of habitualised cretinisation required to post such a comment.
Guys, it helps to clean your ears from wax. You will hear better!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-gl…
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-gl…
Stu
Let me repeat it once more for you:
>But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago
Observed temperatures are recorded, reported and updated as monthly averaged. That is so even now! Ie for january. If you have a problme with this, you indeed have a problem with that (too!). So let me spell it out even more blatantly so that (even) you have the chance to get the message:
>But now it is about the same temperature (global **average [for last month]**) it was in the early 80s **[averaged monthly]**, ie [more than] 30 years ago
John even was so kind to provide a link, but incidentally(?) left out just the **early** 80s and which didn't include the most recent [monthly averaged] temperatures. But I'm sure, (even?) you can make the relevant changes to see that what I said is correct.
Temperatures [recorded/reported monthly, averaged] are something different than weather, which in turn is something different than climate. And hence, I was not mentoining the latter. You were, and erroneously!
If you (really?) wanted to talk about climate [Do you really, really want to? Not just posturing? and] ... talk about climate, which commonly is viewed as 30 years of weather averaged, you would have only two data points since ~1950. And any ranting about change would be nonsense. Difference, yes, probably, at least a little, but systematic change: No way! And talking about accellerated change with only two datapoints would immedeately disqualify you from any grown up deliberations.
You may, of course, include even more 30-years periods (data points), but then you would have to go back to the early 1920s, and before that, and could not possibly use those (three! or more) data points to make a case for any anthropogenic signature in the change. Since before ~1940-45 human changes in CO2-level where essentially insignificant.
No Stu, you really don't want to talk about cliamte, because then, you would have absolutley no point. The whole (C)AGW-scare depends on temperature records (some of them dubious) and I pointed out to you that today's temperatures (averaged monthly) are about the same as more than thirty years ago (averaged monthly)!
And I also pointed out what this means for the reliability of the modelled forcasts. And that you are (for good reasons) more and more 'afraid' of yet more (threat-) prophecies not being fulfilled!
The rest of you post is even more stupid. I'll leave it at that. (And you really need to work on your command of the english language. Before, I know you hade problems with the words 'six', 'years', 'studied' and 'physics' but it seems much worse than that)
PS Did you read you own link? Din you know what it said? Probably not, because it more made my point than reinforce the opposite ...
Thanks for proving unequivocally - indeed so unequivocally that even morons like Petri, GSW, Tampax and sunspot should be backing away (if indeed they ever understood anything to begin with) - what a science challenged dolt you are, Jonarse.
Nobody else's words but your own could have been so eloquent in exposing you for the cretin grooming frawd you are.
"talk about climate, which commonly is viewed as 30 years of weather averaged, you would have only two data points since ~1950"
Yeah, because
1951-1981,
1952-1982,
1953-1983,
1954-1984,
1955-1985,
1956-1986,
1957-1987,
1958-1988,
1859-1989,
1960-1990,
1961-1991,
1962-1992,
1963-1993,
1964-1994,
1965-1995,
1966-1996,
1967-1997,
1968-1998,
1969-1999,
1970-2000,
1971-2001,
1972-2002,
1973-2003,
1974-2004,
1975-2005,
1976-2006,
1977-2007,
1978-2008,
1979-2009,
1980-2010,
1981-2011
constitute just 2 data points.
lol
Yeah Robert Murphy ...
And why stop there? If you take monthly points, you would have 12 times more 'datapoints'even (and if you'd take them daily .... well I'm sure you can *'do the math'* yourself ;-)
And of course, if you use monthly data, you would have to wait only one month to observe 'climate change', and after another (month) you may even be talking about a trend, and two more months would possibly allow you to start hollering about **accellerating** climate change .. won't it?
After just four (extra) months of observations ...
Nope, you don't and you can't! Sorry chap. (Can you see why not?)
But incidentally and ironically, you underscore two other aspects where the AGW-followers get it wrong over and over again:
1. The 'Wheather is not climate'-meme(*) where you present a magnificant own goal: Accordeing to your 'argument', after just one more year (or month) of 'wheater' you believe that you can observe changes in 'climate', and
2. The practice of using the same observations/data many times and believing if you make small changes to the treatment the results are 'independent' or 'confirming' each other. Moreover, the newspeak (mis)use of 'independent' is also manifested when talking about those many 'inquireies' ..
(*) Funnily, the AGW-followers often try to beat their critics over the head by repeating that (intrinsically correct) meme, but regularly get it terribly wrong when doing so. Just a few posts before you, Stu unchallenged felt compelled to make just that own goal too ...
Yes chek, the sort version for you:
In 60 years, you can make only two **independent** observations of 'the climate'
That is what I say!
(I added the 'independent' here since you obviously need help with exactly that)
The above post (@ chek) was by me of course! Sorry
Jonarse, you're an idiot with no comprehension.
An equatorial climate in February remains an equatorial climate the following month, as do tropical, temperate and arctic climates etc..
You don't even understand that.
"And why stop there? If you take monthly points, you would have 12 times more 'datapoints' even..."
That's true. Your "there are only two data points" claim was complete nonsense. I notice you have not even tried to claim otherwise.
"And of course, if you use monthly data, you would have to wait only one month to observe 'climate change',"
No, you would wait about 30 years to get a handle on climate. It doesn't matter if you divide your data into seconds, it still requires about 30 years to be useful for climate. It's not an exact number, but a good approximation.
"..., and after another (month) you may even be talking about a trend, and two more months would possibly allow you to start hollering about accellerating climate change .. won't it?
After just four (extra) months of observations ...
Nope, you don't and you can't! Sorry chap."
Of course we wouldn't. Not everybody is as stupid as you. It must have made you feel so smart to demolish such an idiotic straw-man.
"Accordeing[sic] to your 'argument', after just one more year (or month) of 'wheater[sic]' you believe that you can observe changes in 'climate',"
Bullshit. That's not an argument anybody made. Are you really that deficient in basic statistics and reading comprehension? Basic intellectual honesty? Yes, you are. On all accounts.
Robert M
Which part do feel is difficult to understand. You write:
>you would wait about 30 years to get a handle on climate
Which is exactly what I pointed out to Stu, and subsequently poor chek. I called these observations âone datapointâ wrt to an observed climate.
Are you seriously saying that you have difficulties understanding that?
And to talk about âclimate **change**â you need several such observations (ie at least 60 years) and even more if you want to talk about **acceleration**. Is that too difficult too?
>Not everybody is as stupid as you
If you really feel that you have something to contribute, I suggest you help your fellow travelers Stu and chek (and the others here) to avoid looking stupid.
"Which is exactly what I pointed out to Stu, and subsequently poor chek. I called these observations âone datapointâ wrt to an observed climate."
There are more than two 30 year periods over the last 60 years. This is basic stuff, which is why you don't get it.
1951-1981, 1952-1982, 1953-1983, 1954-1984, 1955-1985, 1956-1986, 1957-1987, 1958-1988, 1859-1989, 1960-1990, 1961-1991, 1962-1992, 1963-1993, 1964-1994, 1965-1995, 1966-1996, 1967-1997, 1968-1998, 1969-1999, 1970-2000, 1971-2001, 1972-2002, 1973-2003, 1974-2004, 1975-2005, 1976-2006, 1977-2007, 1978-2008, 1979-2009, 1980-2010, 1981-2011
There is nothing magical about the first value or the last one. You sound like the guy who tried to tell me the best way to find a linear trend was to draw a line from the start point and the end point and ignore the data in between. All of the above are valid 30 year data points, and by looking at how those rolling averages change over time you can see how climate has changed over that time frame.
"And to talk about âclimate changeâ you need several such observations (ie at least 60 years)"
Absolute horse crap.
"Is that too difficult too?"
Basic stats is too difficult for you.
Robert M,
OK, so the point I made indeed was **too difficult** for you to understand.
You now make the point, you just before vehemently denied you were trying to make:
> "Accordeing[sic] to your 'argument', after just one more year (or month) of 'wheater[sic]' you believe that you can observe changes in 'climate',"
>Bullshit. That's not an argument anybody made
Now you are saying the exact opposite:
> All of the above are valid 30 year data points, and by **looking at how those rolling averages change** over time you can see how **climate** has **changed** over that time frame.
It is very hard reading that in any other way than that you want to drop the earliest year, and add the latest observed to you dataset, and call that difference climate change.
But (changes due to) one year is just weather. As I said before:
>the AGW-followers often try to beat their critics over the head by repeating that [weather-is-not-climate-] meme, but regularly get it terribly wrong when doing so.
"Now you are saying the exact opposite:"
No, there's no contradiction at all.
"It is very hard reading that in any other way than that you want to drop the earliest year, and add the latest observed to you dataset, and call that difference climate change."
*Everything* is really hard to read when you're as dense as you are. Of course, what I actually said was the opposite of the above. When you look at all the 30 year time periods over the last 60 years, any particular one loses it's significance. Not the way you do it, however; for you, only the first and last 30 year periods are counted. You ignore the other 29 30 year periods.
"But (changes due to) one year is just weather."
Which is why I never ever said to look at changes from just one year.
Sorry Robert, but that is not what you wrote:
I copy it once more, and highlight different parts:
> **All** of the above are **valid 30 year data points**, and by looking at how those **rolling averages change over time** you can see how **climate has changed** over that time frame.
If you claim that indeed all of those were (in this context) valid data points, your statement would be correct for any number you chose to include in what you call âthat time frameâ. Ie even if you only took two consecutive points.
There I donât agree with you. Iâd say your âchangeâ is observation of mostly weather. Iâd say you need much more, and that you indeed need to wait 30 years to have two **independent** points. And I specifically clarified that above #3129.
>You ignore the other 29 30 year periods
No, I donât ignore them (*)
>Which is why I never ever said to look at changes from just one year.
So, Robert Murphy, are **all** these (your) ~30 data points **valid** to study **climate change**, or are they not? Itâs a simple Yes/No-question.
Because your statement is quite ambiguous. If you by âallâ mean *âall 31 of them, combinedâ*, Iâd agree with you, because that is what I actually said. And the intermediate ones show you solely show your moving average changes during that time frame. (*)
But if you by âallâ mean *âeach and every one of them, individuallyâ*, your statement (which does **not** specify any **required minimum** number of points/time frame) is bollocks, and implies exactly what you deny.
As Iâve said before:
> the AGW-followers often try to beat their critics over the head by repeating that [weather-is-not-climate-] meme, but regularly get it terribly wrong when doing so.
(*) But remember, you did make all your statements to contradict me!
"Ie even if you only took two consecutive points."
Yeah, but each point would be averages of 30 years of temperature data. But we don't have just those 2 points, we have over 30 since 1950.
"There I donât agree with you. Iâd say your âchangeâ is observation of mostly weather."
And you'd be wrong. Again.
"Iâd say you need much more, and that you indeed need to wait 30 years to have two independent points."
You can say whatever you want, it doesn't make it so.
"No, I donât ignore them"
Sure you did. You only count 1951-1981 and 1981-2011. You ignore 29 30 year periods in between. Of course, just looking at the two data points you did pick, you would see that temperature has greatly increased.
"So, Robert Murphy, are all these (your) ~30 data points valid to study climate change, or are they not? Itâs a simple Yes/No-question."
Yes, of course. That is what I said explicitly, and what you reject implicitly when you only look at the first and last data point.
"But if you by âallâ mean âeach and every one of them, individuallyâ, your statement (which does not specify any required minimum number of points/time frame) is bollocks, and implies exactly what you deny."
Nonsense. Each data point requires 30 years of temperature data. I said so explicitly.
"But remember, you did make all your statements to contradict me!"
Yes, all statements of fact are only stated to contradict you. It's all about *you*. lol
Just when you think Jonas cannot possibly get dumber...
Your comments are getting really really stupid, Robert!
Now you claim that taking two consecutive (of your) points is **not** studying mostly weather. Amazing â¦
> But we don't have just those 2 points, we have over 30 since 1950.
That is true for the earlier points (and irrelevant for the question: whether 2 data points suffice). What can you say about âclimate changeâ between the two (or four-five) last of your points? (And please donât conflate climate with temperatures)
I repeat what I said once more, on chek/Wow/Stu-level for you (Maybe I should include you in that group):
> In 60 years, you can make only two **independent** observations of 'the climate'
PS It is a bit surreal that some punk kid(?) here tries to tell me something about averages, about moving averages or basic statistics (and even argues that two points are valid âbecause we have many more of themâ). And on top of interjects with stupid insults.
Stu, your many thoughts, which youâve shared so generously (about moving hands, physics studied, climate vs weather etc) are valuable too. Only not in the way you may have believed â¦
"Now you claim that taking two consecutive (of your) points is not studying mostly weather."
It isn't when each point is 30 years of data.
"What can you say about âclimate changeâ between the two (or four-five) last of your points? (And please donât conflate climate with temperatures)"
A lot. And of course we are talking temperature here. The last 5 points would cover a 35 year range of temperature. Just the last one would be good enough to get an idea what is happening to the climate. The point is while one 30 year period is OK, the more the merrier. Looking at the 30 year moving averages gives a better idea of what is going on over time than just looking at the first 30 years and the last 30 years. It lets you ask different questions.
"In 60 years, you can make only two independent observations of 'the climate"
And that's still utter bullshit.
"PS It is a bit surreal that some punk kid(?) here tries to tell me something about averages, about moving averages or basic statistics (and even argues that two points are valid âbecause we have many more of themâ)."
Why? You are completely ignorant about all of the above. Why are you surprised that someone calls you out on it?
"and even argues that two points are valid âbecause we have many more of themâ"
We don't just have two points; only an idiot like you would delete the other 29 30 year averages.
"And on top of interjects with stupid insults."
BWAHAHAHA!:
"some punk kid"
You have to be a POE.
Robert Murphy, you're being baited. Jonas and the rest of the trolls here are ignorant and corrupt morons who cannot be reached with facts and logic (they are not POEs, they are really that stupid), and there are no lurkers to be educated; no one reads this thread except when it pops up in the recent posts list. Please stop posting here and polluting that list. And Stu and chek, you should know better by now; stop acting like hopeless neurotics and leave this thread alone already.
Stu and chek are not acting like hopeless neurotics. They are... :-)
Robert, this is why it is so much fun to poke fun at you climate scare believers
I ask:
> What can you say about **âclimate changeâ** â¦
>⦠** between** the two (or four-five) last of your points? (And please donât conflate climate with temperatures)
And you answer:
> A lot
Really!? Thatâs just too wonderful ;-)
So you believe you can say **anything** about the climate **changing** â¦
⦠**between** those two points? Really? (And still, you immediately switch to âtemperaturesâ!? (*) )
Maybe you still havenât even understood the question? Itâs that misdirected [weather-is-not-climate-] meme the believers often try, and thereby display their ignorance about the matter. Here it is you who both believe that overlapping sampling intervals give you independent observations, and that the moving averages between independent (ie separated) sampling intervals contain much more information. You even say:
> You are completely ignorant about all of the above [averages, moving averages and basic statistics]
Sorry chap, but if you asign a representative interval of some continuously changing data observation, and decide that its average is a relevant metric, and if you then observe it over two independent (ie non-overlapping) such intervals to get two observations of your metric (the climate) ..
.. the moving average calculated over a sliding interval between those two separate observations, will merely connect those to data points with a fairly smooth line.
By definition! By necessity, Robert! There is no extra revealing information contained in those intermediate, overlapping calculations! And it will be fairly smooth because that is what is meant of having chosen a ârepresentative intervalâ.
> Looking at the 30 year moving averages gives a better idea of what is going on over time than just looking at the first 30 years and the last 30 years. It lets you ask different questions.
No, not really. It just connects the two consecutive and independent observations by a line without any major squiggles. It must, by definition.
(*) That was one of the more obvious climate-vs-weather cockups Iâve seen here, and that says quite a bit ..
PS I see that ianam utters âsupportâ and hopes youâd have any valid point here. He has made that mistake many times before. And (as far as I can remember) never had any valid point or even only any reasonable interjection whatsoever ..
"So you believe you can say anything about the climate changing ⦠⦠between those two points? Really? (And still, you immediately switch to âtemperaturesâ!? (*) )"
Sure, you're talking about 31 years of temp data. Of course we're talking about over 30 of those 30 year averages, and looking at how they have steadily increased over time and at what rate tells us something important about how the temperature trend is changing. Btw, temp data *is* what is under discussion. There is no single data point for "climate".
"By definition! By necessity, Robert! There is no extra revealing information contained in those intermediate, overlapping calculations!"
Sure there is. You can see how the 30 year averages are changing over time. This helps to ensure you have removed the extraneous noise inherent in the system.
"No, not really. It just connects the two consecutive and independent observations by a line without any major squiggles. It must, by definition."
No, it really mustn't.
"That was one of the more obvious climate-vs-weather cockups Iâve seen here, and that says quite a bit .. "
Says the man who doesn't understand first year stats.
OK, I've had my fun beating up the idiot. My blood pressure has gone down to acceptable levels (it was a little high this morning which is why I need some relaxation smacking around a troll or two). You can continue to spout your nonsense in peace.
So Robert Murphy, who vehemently argued that he can tell **a lot** about climate change by comparing two consecutive datapoints of moving 30-year averaged temperatures, one year apart, after first vehemently denying that he ever suggested "to look at changes from just one year", who doesn't even know that moving averages change continuously and merely and quite smoothly connect two separate (consecutive) sampling intervals, if your chosen sampling interval is representative (here for 'climate'). Who time and time again shows that he has difficulties keeping climate and weather (temperature) apart ...
And this kid thinks he can teach me anyting about basic statistics!? What a farce!
Well, there was at least some bonus for his feeble attempt to score an insignificant point: Several other know-nothings here jumped in and took his side. Both ianam, chek and Stu once more desperately hoped that the next insult-spouter has a valid point.
Quite precious!
>And this kid thinks he can teach me anyting about basic statistics!?
No, I suspect he knows he can't. Nobody can.
John, nobody here has even been close to saying anything relevant about statistics, certainly not Robert Murphy.
A guy whose most 'valid point' has been that in a 60 year period, wherein you can make two independent observations of a 30 year average, you can also construct several other 30 year averages (but then never more than one independent one) cannot teach me anything.
On the contrary, I have been telling him about some of the very simplest things about 'moving averages', which he instinctively denied, thereby getting entangled in the most stupid contradictions and making a fool of himself.
This is so rudimentary basic, that it's not even worth calling 'basic statistics'
But I'll add you to the list of hopeful supporting voices who have nothing of substance to add, but still desperately hope that somebody else (on their side) knows what he's talking about.
But I can inform you, that this is where it always ends. (C)AGW-faithers bailing out after having cocked-up about as simple things as moving averages, hands moving boxes, the laws of Newton, non-existing IPPC-references supporting its most central claim .. and of course loads of insults if their blind faith isn't shared or accepted.
Yes Jonas, I am well aware that you believe your own interpretations of science to be so self-evidently correct that you don't have to back them up with evidence.
I am well aware that you cherry-picked two points thirty years apart and tried to argue that it constiuted a trend.
I am well aware that you will respond to this excellent comment with a flurry of namecalling and assertions that I am incorrect without actually providing any evidence to the contrary except your own opinion.
I also haven't forgotten you have been completely unable to find just one scientific paper given to you here in which the claims made were either non-existent or exagerated, as per your boast that you debunked all of them just by looking at them. One is all I asked for.
Au contraire, John
I am saying something very different.
I am saying that you need to have (some) 30 years(*) of observations to make intelligable statments about 'what the climate is'. Meaning that we today have a reasonable grasp of what climate we have about now, that is since ~1981. And that deviations from that (meanwhile) should be interpreted more as weather.
And I am saying that you need (at least) two such independent, seperate observations to start talking about **climate change** (prefereably more), and that you need even more if you want to talk about a trend, ie a rate of change, and yet more if you want to start talking about any change of rate (acceleration).
In short, during ~60 years you can observe climate **change** (it being **different** among those two observations), and you need some ~90 or ~120 to talk about a rate of change, or even change of rate (accelleration).
Absolutely nowhere do I need to cherrypick around which years I need to center my 30 year averaged observations. Quite the opposite:
If you have a long sequence of many (independent) 30 year intervals, and make a smooth curve going through those (averaged) observations, you will end up on the same curve using any other (tranposed) choice of 30 year intervals, pretty much spot on. That's what I am saying.
(And poor Robert seemingly thought something else, and got himself entagled in hopeless contradictions and complete nonsense)
And I brought this up for two reasons:
Firstly and mainly, because we since CO2 emissions became notable have barely more than two such intervals, to remind people of that observing climate change (and making measured statements about it takes long long time), and
Secondly, because the oft-used weather-is-not-climate-meme is exactly where many (C)AGW-believers go wrong, thinking that the most recent temperatures (if high) are the present climate (albeit being merely 'weather'). Sometimes blatantly confusing temparture with climate.
(and poor Robert did exactly that, repeatedly)
>you will respond to this excellent comment with a flurry of namecalling
Haha, you really haven't been following the 'debate' (and your fellow travelers) at all, have you?
>without actually providing any evidence to the contrary except your own opinion
So you think that sampling (of observations), averageing over representative intervals, and how such behave is 'opinion', that I need 'evidence to calculate a mean?
Well John, that's why you are on the side of Robert,Stu, Wow, ianam, and quite a few more ...
(*) That's the common convention
John (contd)
>I also haven't forgotten you have been completely unable to find just one scientific paper given to you here in which the claims made were either non-existent or exagerated
>One is all I asked for
Thats wrong on two counts, John. You also wanted to chime in on Bernard's meme that I need to provide him with this and that, so that he could avoid the core question: If he (or anybody else) had read (and understood) any science underpinning the most prominent AR4-claim.
You asked if I could name any paper I had read, and I replied 'What's wrong with the ones I have discussed here', whereupon you told be you were to lazy to wade through som 3000 posts.
Secondly, I have done exactly that. In this thread! Shown that the referring claims were vastly overstated.
>as per your boast that you debunked all of them just by looking at them
Inventing up your own story again, John?
Well, that's why you are on the side of Robert,Stu, Wow, ianam, and quite a
few more ...
Sorry, but I have not seen you engaging in any substantial way at all. Not here, and not elsewhere. Just empty siding with your side, and making demands ... to lazy to even properly read what is being discussed.
(Or are you really totally unaware of what a 'moving average' actually is?)
>You asked if I could name any paper I had read, and I replied 'What's wrong with the ones I have discussed here', whereupon you told be you were to lazy to wade through som 3000 posts.
That is a lie. You insisted that you had glanced at every paper given to you here and squealed loudly that every claim made for the papers was "non-existent or exagerated". I asked you to name *one* in which the claims were "non-existent or exagerated", as per your wording, and you refused. So readers can take that as they will, and I'm sure they will forgive me for not wanting to scroll through 3000 comments.
>I am saying something very different.
No, you are lying. What you said, with no prompting, was that the weather was the same as thirty years ago and completely ignored the long term trend. When called on this you started babbling about "moving averages" and "thirty year intervals" to distract from the fact you are wrong. Your original comment had nothing to do with either. You specifically chose that time period because the UAH shows the averages are similar to now. But the trend, Jonas...*the trend!*
I do agree, however, that temperature is not climate. Perhaps you should spead the word down at Watts.
John
You arenât really with the program, are you?
As so many more, you are not reading anything properly.
>You insisted that you had glanced at every paper given to you here
I most certainly didnât say that. I said something very different. But I did name several I had read, in this thread too. Repeatedly.
>you said, with no prompting, was that the weather was the same as thirty years ago
I most certainly did not say anything even close to that. What is it with you Deltoids? Can none of you read properly? I mean, even with some slack for mistakes, and sloppy formulations, people come up with the most amazing rubbish. (Robert, denying what he just had said, hands moving boxes etc)
No wonder som many of you are completely lost when it comes to (even the simplest) science. Heck, not even moving averages do (quite some) people here understand.
The point I made initially (here, recently) was about temperatures now. Not trends or climate,
I got the usual idiotic babble-nonsense-answer from (this time) Stu, and I explained in detail where he went wrong. Which prompted Robert to try to have a go at it. Hopelessly getting entangled in his own contradictions.
Now you tell me that you want to switch topic to âthe trendâ!?
I have pointed out that too: That when temperatures donât comply with the âpredictionsâ the climate scare believers very very much rather would like to talk about the trend. Most eagerly about âthe long term trendâ.
For the most obvious reasons. And by âobviousâ I mean for those of us who actually understand what statistics, and moving averages, observations, sampling intervals etc are.
John, you seem to be only a clueless bystander here, and in the bigger picture. Why do you believe so hard in the scare (which you have never seen)? Why!?
Just for fun, these quotes are from the same person:
and
I've actually submitted this thread to my daughter's 8th grade science class (they're doing a thing about critical thinking), but her teacher rejected it because she refuses to believe any of the denialist clowns are actually serious.
As a random aside, the verdict was unanimous on Olaus being a "creep" and "rapist".
Dear Stu, you sure are more than a travesty. You haven't brought anything to the table (besides arm waving, bad mouthing and a box moved by a hand) and now you proudly let us know that your little 8th graders found out that I was a rapists.
Well, that's science class deltoid style if anything.
I on the other hand (sic) have shown this thread to colleagues of mine and come up with some results too. They didn't label you a rapist or child molester, but as an ignorant ranting excuse for an activist lacking scientific training what so ever.
Mind you, the difference in outcome could be explained by the fact that my colleagues aren't 8th graders. They work at universities.
stu,
Thats one hell of tough school your daughter attends. A supposed failure in critical thinking gets you branded a rapist?
I'd have word with authorities if I were you, something has gone seriously wrong there.
Stu ... Short version, and I highlight the significant word for you:
>In 60 years, you can make only two **independent** observations of 'the climate'
(I remember you being very fond of using that word in connection with some moving box, but I also remember the math was way to tricky for you to then ... not to speak about those darn 'physics' you struggled so long with ... six months here, and years before that)
Here is Jonas not cherry picking temperatures thirty years apart and ignoring the underlying trend:
>But now it is about the same temperature (global average) it was in the early 80s, ie 30 years ago.
Those are your own words.
As for "predictions", the only long term "predictions" that have turned out to be wrong are those of the deniers who claim year after year that cooling is imminent. Any moment now.
>What is missing between the models, and observed reality increases a little every year.
Which models? Name them.
>So much for the settled science...
The only person claiming "settled science" here is you.
> I...I...I...I...I...I...I...I...I...I...I...
Referring to yourself eleven times! A new record.
Ah, I see what you were getting at, John
I did in fact note that the temperatures today are similar to the ones in the early 80:s, which are releated to weather. And I did go on to explain what that meant wrt to likelihoods for the models (and your 'trends) to be correct. It's all in there in #3107.
I even specifically addressed the 'trend' that you claim I was ignoring.
But probably on too high a level(?)
The rest of you comment is only babble ..
>I did in fact note that the temperatures today are similar to the ones in the early 80:s, which are releated to weather.
You mean you ignored the underlying trend and pretended there had been no warming.
>The rest of you comment is only babble ..
Yes, you pretended the trend is meaningless which is a lie.
>But probably on too high a level(?)
Probably!
>The rest of you comment is only babble ..
You mean the bit where I asked you to name a model that was wrong? (You didn't of course, but I knew you wouldn't.)
Or the bit where I ridiculed you for endlessly referring to yourself as if all climate knowledge begins and ends with you?
John
>You mean you ignored the underlying trend and pretended there had been no warming.
>you pretended the trend is meaningless
Nope! Learn to read! I explained what it means wrt to the trend.
> which is a lie
So now, your imagination, about what you think I am pretending (and do not write) constitutes âa lieâ in your view? Sorry chap, you really should work on your understanding of individual words, and language skills. (Long before you try understanding anything about statistics).
Yes, everything except that I pointed out that temperatures today (last monthâs average) are the same as in the early eighties was just babble. A lot from you is. Most of it, Iâd say. But you were correct that this pointing out of fact could be seen as me comparing the âweatherâ today with that from some years in the early eighties. (I didnât say âwas the sameâ because that thatâs not what I meant, and because it would constitute any checkable information. I said temperatures)
Which part of what I said about âthe trendâ do you think you didnât understand?
I am fully aware of that many climate scare believers much rather talk about âthe trendâ than actual, observations. Thatâs why I started out by pointing out what is missing between supposed âtrendâ and reality, and what it means.
But do you seriously think that a fitted straight line (through a sequence of observed data points) should weigh more than the actual observations? Why?
And regarding to âwhat model, name oneâ: You can pci pretty much every one estimation of âtemperature rise per decadeâ that has been proposed based on the models from the AGW-side. The exact number is completely irrelevant to what I say.
PS I still see you mostly as a poorly informed bystander, making some noise from the sideline, demanding a spoon feed you your latest attempt to maintain a constructed strawman.
I am fully aware of that many climate deniers much rather talk about âthe weatherâ than the actual, (sic) trend.
Jonas, I simply demand that you actually provide evidence to back up your ficticious claims. To date you've provided none, and in all your waffle have been unable to prove to me that the trend is irrelevant. Your attempts at choosing random "observations" and trying to link them as if they mean something has been quite laughable, as has your endless condescending boastfulness in lieu of actual substance.
I repeat my charge. You say the trend is irrelevent. I say you are lying. What's more: you *know* you are lying. If the best you can do is pick two "observations" thirty years apart and argue that it's more important than the overall trend you are an even bigger lightweight than I thought.
John ..
The observed data is the observed data.
Fitting a trend line to it does nothing to the actual data, it reduces its content of information.
Nobody has ever doubted (much less âdeniedâ) that if you fit a trend line to a series of data points, you get a line, and you may label it âtrendâ.
It still does not contain any more information than the actual observed data points.
You can point at that line as much as you want as yell, it lies above the actual observation, and it slopes upward. The observed temperatures are still what is real (and the constructed trendline still is only that).
May I try to help you with (what I think is) your problem:
You argue that any individual data point just by chance (âfluctuationsâ) might vary and occasionally thus noticeably lower than (what you hope/believe/think is) the true and correct trend prescribed by the underlying physics and laws of nature (so far not sufficiently established or demonstrated).
That is a perfectly reasonable argument, if one believes that the underlying physics are fairly accurately captured. I am not questioning that stance. In short:
If (!) there exists a true (!) trend, with scatter/fluctuations around it, some occasional data point may (by chance) happen to fall below lower than the rest.
(~Half should fall below, and the rest above, together reasonably well scattered around that descriptive underlying trend)
Are you with me so far? Your argument seems to be that (almost) only the latest observation is so low, that it showed similar temperatures as he early eighties.
Because if that is what you say, I agree with you. Nobody is denying the existence of the existing data points (How can anybody even argue that?)
Are you still with me?
Because these quite (no, very!) obvious observations were the starting point of what I was saying. Iâll even repeat it once mor for you convenience (although repeating obvious things does not seem to help some here):
I noted that for quite a long period those observations did not cluster evenly around the supposed trend, especially not the previously predicted trend. (Including them in new trend constructions, of course lowers that trend, but only marginally if you are talking about longer trends).
The point being that you need to ask you self: By what probability can this ârandom fluctuationâ for longer and longer periods give you observed data points that fall below the trend, and sometimes far below:
One occasional one is not a problem, especially if you have equally many on the upper side. But what is the probability that the observations are lower than the trend for most of a decade or so?
You can try this at home: What is the probability that you can roll a dice 10 times and âby mere chanceâ have the datapoints all fall below the average? (*) And a dice has a completely flat underlying âtrendlineâ, level at 3.5.
My point was, that what the longer time elapses, the more improbable is the âexplanationsâ that all these points fall short of the âpredictionâ (under the trendline, and some even far short) by mere chance or random fluctuation (âitâs just weatherâ) and your underlying hypothesis (the trend) is still the most plausible explanation/description.
In your (plural) case, you even argue for a substantial upwards slope, so even with unchanged observed temperatures, the discrepancy increases with time, and at the same time rapidly(!) decreases the probability that this is just a fluke â¦
But I have been saying this many times before. And you guys (some) still try the stupid âclimate is not weatherâ- meme).
And if the above argument really is too difficult for you to comprehend, you indeed have a problem with âlightweightâ. Another one youâd probably be completely unaware of ..
(*) Its ~one in a thousand, in case you canât calculate even that
[Citation needed]
I suppose [this @ 3164](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6229003) is what passes for logical, scientific thinking in the insane-iverse and goes some way to explaining why Jonarse attracts disciples of the calibre he does. Bumcheeks like Pentax, Petri, GSW et al aren't impressed by just anybody, you know.
Chek
It seems that you believe that your very frequent use of some term(?) âJonarseâ somehow elevates you standing among some here, that it somehow enforces the important points(?) you set out to make here. And that it even renders you some admiration or at least support.
I cannot judge to what extent others silently admire or just respect your âperformanceâ here, but I got a few good laughs out of when Jeff Harvey (and I think some of the trolls) drew âsupportâ from your utterly substance-free drivel.
In that latest comment you even refer to âlogical, scientific thinkingâ as if you think that you were posturing and pretending about your own level ..
I found that funny too!
BTW Have you yet found any science showing that the (maybe, somewhat) melting of Himalayan glaciers threatens the fresh water supply for half a billion? You claimed something to that effect in the Open thread ⦠in your usual eloquent language
It reinforces the extremely important and evident point that you're an arse. Since time immemorial, and long before, puncturing the vanity of painfully and insufferably arrogant bores has employed ridicule and where possible equating them with bodily parts or functions. You fit the bill admirably in every regard, even down to your login being readily and amusingly corruptible.
Well that's mainly your own ching-a-ling thought processes in action, but I'd suggest probably not as funny as the audience, nor for the same reasons.
We did all that earlier in this set. Perhaps you should re-read the posts and then RTFP that are linked. Oh but I was forgetting - you're likely another one who prefers hanging their hat on a denier spin version of the recent GRACE survey paper, rather than the opinions of the actual [glaciologists involved](http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2012/02/08/cu-boulder-study-shows…) and [others.](http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/samudra-tupa-glacier-retr…)
chek, thank you for once more sharing your profound and heartfelt emotions, thoughts and even wisdom ...
But I wonder, which part of:
>threatens the fresh water **supply** for **half a billion**?
did you not understand?
Jonas, what part of
did you not understand?
By the way, kudos on calling other people trolls. That is the most stunning lack of self-awareness you've displayed yet.
By the way, either provide a citation for
or admit that you were lying. Again.
Stu,
I am glad you identify yourself among the 'we' (as in "**We** did all that earlier ..") chek wants to include in your collective efforts. Who more (do you think) should be included?
And I sa a lot of brouhaha about threatened freshwater supply for half a billion, but no science what so ever. Only repeated expressions of belief that it still should be so ..
OK, I'm a bit unfair to you here. Of course you would have absolutely no method to establish if that claim indeed where supported by any science. But it is not even claimed by any (alleged) science, it is merely one more of those many factoids that get swallowed wholesale when fed to those you call 'we' ..
And no Stu, there is no trolling from me. The worst you can accuse me of is feeding some trolls, sometimes. And even heckling them occasionally. Of that I am guilty.
It's funny that you mention self awareness too. I have lost count of how many approaches you've tried to sound superior, but never providing any substance at all.
I think poor spelling and syntax is the most relevant criticism you've come up with.
And I still chuckle at the thought of you 'having studied six years of physics' .. it's still priceless. And yes, I think it is a wonderful statement about your self-awareness wrt you knowledge of physics ... Really!
;-)
Oh Stu ...
I almost forgot. I know you need spoon feeding even with the simplest things. That quote you demanded a reference for was a question that I proposed 'John' (and others) ask themselves. I think that this (by me) suggested question can be found exactly there where you copied it. I am quite certain that you'll find that it was me who suggested the ('But instead look at the') trend-believers ask themselves that ...
I can even explain why it is a relevant question for (specifically)
But you have to ask nicely!
;-)
Thank you for admitting that you were lying, Jonas. Again. Thank you for admitting that you are trolling, Jonas. Again. Thank you for admitting that you are insecure about your education, Jonas. Again.
Thank you for admitting you have no argument, Jonas. Again.
I'll do the math for you Jonas: first grade+second grade+third grade,+forth grade,+fifth grade,+sixth grade = six years of deltoid climate scare physics (and an extra curriculum in spotting rapists through criticism of CAGW).
Stu ... I am certain that you are and have been doing your very best. We can all see what that amounted to ...
Jonas.
Is that right Jonas, you've been banned from your own thread?
GSW, it pretty much seems so. What else could Tim do? People have been embarrassing themselvs and him here for half a year ... He really needed an excuse.
I've not been following this thread closely, but did Jonas ever get around to identifying a single person he considered to be a 'real climate scientist'?
Richie, I'm sure Jonas identify professor Curry as a real climate scientist. I do at least. :-)
Yes, Olaus, and as I asked way, way, way back in #1568:
Richard S, Yes, I described every single one of them, in #2194
Stu, any more real rapists in the neighborhood?
Jonas, thou liveth!
;)
GSW
Nah .. I don't really know. My comments have been disappearing, or 'making it through' days later it seems. Ie. the usual tactics at climate-scare blogs.
Nut I live indeed, have been the entire time. This 'Deltoid-experience' has been quite entertaining. Almost none of them even attempted to argue their case, or just behave like a grown-up.
It must be a strange world those activists populate. Their latest meme is a bogus 'Heartland Strategy-memo' which many hope constitutes the final blow to those 'evil deniers' .. and the wish so even after its status as fabricated fake has been established with extremely high certainty.
They are just wishing and hoping so hard, and closing their eyes and covering their ears ... Because the 'already knew' before checking any facts. Incidentally, neither checking nor facts are familiar activities or terms among them ...
So it seems now, my comments make it through long long after I post them. Presumably because of the effect it has on other commenters here.
But after the latest blow (magnificant own goal) from the CAGW-crowd dishonestly trying to smear those who promote open debate ..
.. what can you guys do?
I will add some more thoughts to the Gleick-scandal, because pretty it isnât, and I am quite certain we haven't seen the end of it.
Firstly, Gleick alleges that *"At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail"*. This is quite hard to swallow (and Judith Curry states flat out *"hard to believe that he didnât write this"*). And even if he didnât pen this himself, I would be surprised if he didnât know who, or had a good hunch.
Secondly, the fake Strategy-memo looks as if it was written after the other documents had been read and searched. It is crafted around tidbits found in the authentic ones. In a rather clumsy way trying to inflate common activist talking-points and conspiracies (and making gross errors about Koch-money). It is hard to believe that that creation of the fake memo preceded the reading of the authentic ones.
Thirdly, as is somewhat indicated in Gleickâs confession, there seemed to be a wider group informed of (at least) the existence of those documents before. The immensely quick reaction from DeSmogBlog, only an hour after that (alleged first, and fake) strategy document âleakedâ to Gleick was scanned one final time?
Moreover, I was somewhat surprised at how quickly both blogs, some journalists, but more importantly âThe Teamâ and other organizations had ready and condemning statements about Heartland prepared. Most noticeable, [the Team in The Guardian]( http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/02/17/hea…) (incidentally not penned by them, but by Aaron Huertas from one of the worse climatescare astroturf lobby groups, the misnamed âUnion of Concerned Scientistsâ) and some [Climate and Health Council], both with many signatories from all over the world.
The noticeable things is that these more âofficialâ responses to the alleged leak made no reference at all to the, by then, well known information that the most âjuicy bitsâ all came from one by Heartland strenuously contested (and quite obviously) fake fabricated document. Not one reservation even about any authenticity. Reading these puff-pieces give the strange impression that they were written beforehand, or at least that they addressed a situation that had already passed. It is hard to rid oneself of the suspicion that these signatories had prior information of at least the upcoming âleakâ. That this âstrikebackâ was a âcoordinated attackâ (incidentally, one of Michael Mannâs favorite phrases since 2009)
Finally, Peter Gleick is the [chairman of f the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity](http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics…). (And Lybia under Ghadaffi, [chaired the UN Human Rights Commission]( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2672029.stm))
As a closing note: The paid propaganda outfits at [DeSmogBlog have hailed Peter Gleick for âhis courage, his honorâ](http://www.desmogblog.com/whistleblower-authenticates-heartland-documen…) â¦
Say no more!
Sorry guys, I know you insatiable thirst for information and checking the facts ... but I forgot one link, so here it comes:
[Climate and Health Council](http://www.climateandhealth.org/magazine/read/call-to-reveal-all-fundin…)
@Jonas
;)
Apologies Jonas, its been very exciting around and about hasn't it! I missed your posts on this thread (too many distractions) , I was hoping you would show up, you've always had a good eye for the truth behind these things. Let me grab a cup of coffee then respond.
"My comments have been disappearing, or 'making it through' days later it seems. Ie. the usual tactics at climate-scare blogs."
As you've no doubt realised, you being managed Jonas - quite a compliment in a way - let a few well chosen words from the rational thru and the whole CAGW edifice could fall apart, or least that's how they think.
While I remember, I came across some of your earlier posts at the bish's.
Sorry, there was me telling you earlier in YOUR thread that you would be better off over there! Better class of poster, which is true, and all that. Do you still frequent the bishops? As you are aware, there is a lot activity there and practically everywhere, but I haven't seen the "Jonas N".
"It must be a strange world those activists populate. Their latest meme is a bogus 'Heartland Strategy-memo' which many hope constitutes the final blow to those 'evil deniers' .. and the wish so even after its status as fabricated fake has been established with extremely high certainty.
They are just wishing and hoping so hard, and closing their eyes and covering their ears ... "
Yes indeed, very much a siege mentality in play here. I don't know if you've tried posting on the Legal Notice'd sites
everything is going thru moderation at the moment - which I only find strange because I've posted freely at some of them before.
Oh, BTW, once they go into moderation they Never appear. Its all being 'managed' very carefully, only ineffectual non party line comments allowed. Loads of 'slap on the back'/'I admire your stance' going thru - comfort messages.
As for,
"They are just wishing and hoping so hard, and closing their eyes and covering their ears ... "
This seems to be a crisis moment, a test of faith. If they can block reality out at this critical time, their place in "climate science heaven" (along with all the little calculators, if that means anything to you) will be assured, or some such thing.
Actually I prefer ..(along with all the little climate models).. If you've never seen "Red Dwarf" you'll be very confused at this point.
;)
And so with a fully navel-gazed Jonarsian conspiracy (and Judith Curry thinks so too! Probably...) GSW urges Jonarse to retire the the Bishop's lounge, where no doubt he'll be respected. Unlike here.
It's almost like a they've some sort of prediliction for denierdrivel blogs connected to phoney right-wing 'charities'.
And while Jonarse and the crew toddle off in their Black Knight fashion with nary a fleshwound, let's take a moment to recall that Jonas came to bury AR4.
But despite literally thousands of words from the ... er ... great man himself - all preserved here to be enjoyed - not one single piece of data or evidence was ever produced, and AR4 lived a long and happy life anticipating what the world may be like when AR5 was born.
Bye bye, Jonarse and crew - don't go swallowing too many protocols all at once now, y'hear!
"I will add some more thoughts to the Gleick-scandal, because pretty it isnât, and I am quite certain we haven't seen the end of it.
Firstly, Gleick alleges that "At the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail". This is quite hard to swallow (and Judith Curry states flat out "hard to believe that he didnât write this"). And even if he didnât pen this himself, I would be surprised if he didnât know who, or had a good hunch.
Secondly, the fake Strategy-memo looks as if it was written after the other documents had been read and searched. It is crafted around tidbits found in the authentic ones. In a rather clumsy way trying to inflate common activist talking-points and conspiracies (and making gross errors about Koch-money). It is hard to believe that that creation of the fake memo preceded the reading of the authentic ones.
Thirdly, as is somewhat indicated in Gleickâs confession, there seemed to be a wider group informed of (at least) the existence of those documents before. The immensely quick reaction from DeSmogBlog, only an hour after that (alleged first, and fake) strategy document âleakedâ to Gleick was scanned one final time?"
Yes, others have commented on this also, the timing is suspicious all round.
Your "Secondly...", "St Peter of the Ethical task force" has a few more questions to answer here. Heartland are pushing the line that he is the mystery forger also and there is at least some circumstantial evidence that this is the case - Mosher did a lot of the leg work on this. As you point out JC, who is normally quite cautious, says "hard to believe that he didnât write this".
St Peter has admitted "error's of judgment" which seems to cover a multitude of, apparently forgivable, sins. Ordained CS priest to canonized saint thru thievery and deception, I ask you.
As you point out, all that is needed to construct the forged document is the info in the other pdf's that Gleick gained access to. It would be doing a disservice to Occam's razor to require another '3rd party' to participate in order for the narrative to be complete. It'll all come out in the wash no doubt, one way or another, in the meantime, order the popcorn, sit back and enjoy.
;)
I suspect at this point any replies you have may be held up in moderation. So I'll continue in anticipation of them coming thru at some later date.
;)
"Moreover, I was somewhat surprised at how quickly both blogs, some journalists, but more importantly âThe Teamâ and other organizations had ready and condemning statements about Heartland prepared. Most noticeable, the Team in The Guardian (incidentally not penned by them, but by Aaron Huertas from one of the worse climatescare astroturf lobby groups, the misnamed âUnion of Concerned Scientistsâ) and some [Climate and Health Council], both with many signatories from all over the world."
I'm not so sure about this. I think it is possible to mistake "being forewarned" with excessive eagerness and glee that at last there was some 'good news' on the beleaguered CAGW propaganda front. No rational person takes it that seriously anymore and they had found someone to blaim - The $4million/yr Heartland institute, all of a sudden the delusion made some kind of sense, even if the little numbers didn't.
Normal journalistic fact checking was thrown out of the window, a last ditch attempt to embrace the dying narrative was too good an opportunity to miss, reality could go on hold for awhile.
"Union of concerned scientists", Anthony Watts dog Kenji is one of them you know. ;) Their speedy response? It's what the organization is for, some numpty qualified public administrator/advocacy specialist puts a few clumsily chosen words together in 10mins - 5 minutes later, after careful consideration, a dozen or so dubious concerned scientists say ok put my name to that. Done.
Did you see Josh's cartoon on the letter of condolance to Heartland? It actually read better than the original!
;)
"It is hard to rid oneself of the suspicion that these signatories had prior information of at least the upcoming âleakâ. That this âstrikebackâ was a âcoordinated attackâ (incidentally, one of Michael Mannâs favorite phrases since 2009)"
I do know where you are coming from on this, keeping it simple though, Occam works here, I wouldn't underestimate the useful idiots/"use my name if it helps the cause" factor. I don't think consipiracy is required where the facts can be adequately explained thru their stupidity.
Yeah, like because who needs people like Julian Assange, or Daniel Ellsberg or Mordecai Vanunu exposing that which would much prefer to remain hidden away from the glare of public exposure - like undue and corrupt corporate influence in this case.
As [John Mashey shows,](http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/fake_0.pdf) there's nothing in the Strategy doc. not available elsewhere at Heartless, despite your ongoing futile tactical efforts to focus on the peripheral areas of non-interest. And so we see incompetent, unpaid shills thinking they're 'libertarians' picking the wrong side of history and getting a sound thrashing on global MSM comments pages and those blogs outside their own echo chamber.
But then Jonarse is guiding you.
"Finally, Peter Gleick is the chairman of f the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity. (And Lybia under Ghadaffi, chaired the UN Human Rights Commission)"
"Climate and Health Council"
I knew about the AGU task force on Scientific Integrity, Gleicks name was quickly removed on the day of his confession. I should probably be more concerned about this than I am, but Gleick never really came across as an appropriate sort of person to be included in the first place.
His appointment must have pleased somebody I suppose.
The others, Gadaffi and Human rights? are you sure? Also "Climate and Health Council" did Gleick ever have an involvement with them? Quick look couldn't find any reference to Gleick there, has his name been removed, Ministry of Truth style there as well?
Look forward to hearing from you Jonas! Glad you are still participating, albeit as a citizen with percieved lesser rights, Rosa Parks would be proud of you, as am I!
(I'll check back tomorrow)
;)
Yes GSW
I am reading your posts. But they weren't visible yesterday evening yet. And I commented at BH in the Gleick Confesses thread.
Maybe you misread my thoughts above: Gleick 'confesses' that he had the forged document for quite a while, and claims to subsequently have received the others.
If we for a moment accept that (implausible) timeline, my question is:
Given Gleick's compulsiveness to (even in public) spout his feelings about his 'enemies', do you think he managed to keep quite about this for weeks even among his closer friends and network? To have done all this alone in furtive seclusiveness?
I was not implying an orchestrated 'coordinated attack', my question Rather(!) was:
Were there rumors making the rounds among the inner CAGW circles that something 'juicy' about Heartland was about to appear, that people should keep their eyes open?
Gleick said he mailed the files (including the fake) from that anonymous account to 15 persons. I also really would like to know who all the others were. And if they didn't use it, even suspected it to be faked, why they don't come forward
PS Don't you find it ironic even hilarious that Gleick's confession most certainly is not at all is penned by him, but his high profile criminal lawyer?
chek ...
Still, after half a year, nobody has ever seen and read any science behind that most prominent AR4 claim. Nobody who can read science, and understand it ..
That of course doesn't include you, so you are still only one of the faithers, always have been. Like so many others here ..
I think the wisest (smarter, wiser) ones among the readers kept their mouth shut. Didn't make stupid claims, bonheadedly arguing their faith ..
It's only difficult to determine if there were that many of them ..
@Jonas
Some interesting points Jonas, I expect nothing less of course. Can't respond fully now, will give it some thought throughout the day and get back to you this evening. How does the trick of your posts not appearing in the recent comments list work I wonder?
;)
But Jonarse, that's just your meaningless little meme that you use to groom idiots like Petri and GSW & Co. It means nothing in the real world.
Well that's you excluded.
Jonarse, you forget that we have witnessed your interactions with real, professional scientists and you get dismissed within minutes because of your clumsy idiocy.
Of course you and your clique fondly imagine to yourselves that it's because of your own towering genius. But of course, it's not.
Jonas,
"Given Gleick's compulsiveness to (even in public) spout his feelings about his 'enemies', do you think he managed to keep quite about this for weeks even among his closer friends and network? To have done all this alone in furtive seclusiveness?"
If I'm honest, I don't know a lot about the man personally, I have a view though based on;
His run in with barry woods circa 24th-26th of January this year. Interesting dates, slap bang in the middle the dialogue with Jim Blakely at Heartland over the speaker invitation and just prior to his "lapse in judgment".
http://www.realclimategate.org/2012/02/clarifications-and-how-better-to…
Short summary: Gleick blocked BW from his twitter, citing harrassment and being sent âincredibly offensiveâ tweets. Now as we know, barry is nothing if not a gentleman and a few of the more UK moderate climate scientists jumped to his defense. Read thru all of it to get a view of the man.
My take: Surprisingly, very much like your own. This guy is a 'Hot head', a self percieved martyr, makes rash statements he can't back up and sees 'Evil doers' everywhere. He's not the kind of guy who takes his time to make well thought thru rational judgments, spur of the moment emotional actions are the order of the day.
So, do I think this guy quietly sat on a 'damaging' document for weeks on end carefully thinking about what to do about? No, I don't. Which is the point you are making.
So we are thinking along the same lines so far.
Sorry to interrupt the circle jerk, but do any of you clowns care to address the substantive issues in the documents the Heartland institute has acknowledged are genuine?
Moving on Jonas,
"closer friends and network? To have done all this alone in furtive seclusiveness?"
I'll re-state this as "who else knew?".
I don't buy widespread conspiracy theories. A few individuals with a cunning plan maybe. The CAGW blogosphere can be pretty much relied on to react in a predetermined way given the right, often rather tenuous, input. So there is no need for everyone to be "in the know" to make it happen.
I've not seen a consolidated list of the 15(?) "outlets" that the documents were sent to. Desmog seems to be the most ardent/cited/vociferous in all this. Are there any long standing ties/relationships between the Desmog guys and Gleick that would mark them out as being the "natural" sounding board? I don't know.
As you say, surely Gleick would take council from some other party before embarking on this? and even if he did, the extent to which they needed to be informed of the full provenance the documents is likely limited. The point you made before, Desmog did turn the story around very quickly (~1hr was it?) which I think would make them a potential candidate zero.
I'd be prepared to accept one close "confidant" in the know. The other 14 postings could just be to defocus attempts to identify the source, "Hey we were sent this anonymously, just like everybody else" as well as make sure the story went viral as soon as possible.
All just speculation of course, but I think a widespread conspiracy is very unlikely.
So that would be a "no" from GSW. Anyone else?
"PS Don't you find it ironic even hilarious that Gleick's confession most certainly is not at all is penned by him, but his high profile criminal lawyer?"
Is this the case? It would indeed be ironic if the only thing in all this he didn't author was his confession. ;)
Anthony's trying to get people to have a go at running JGAAP (Java Graphical Authorship Attribution Program) on various documents, I don't think anyone has even suggested trying the confession. I think it's assumed that, as you say, it'll will have been well rehearsed with his legal guy - all Gleickisms removed.
PS I'd be amazed if JGAAP proved useful here, in the main, the fake document is a cut and paste of other heartland stuff and carry over a strong heartland signature. Will that be enough to out match the juicy, contentious newly authored pieces? We'll see.
;)
Just to make sure, GSW: let's for the moment assume that Gleick is a adulterous baby-raping tax-dodging murderer. What does that have to do with the content of the documents the Heartland institute has acknowledged as being genuine?
Apologies Jonas,
I'm always suggesting things to you- have you seen this? and you always have ;)
Just in case you haven't on this one occasion, Joe Bast's appearance on the WSJ Opinion page today/yesterday was very good.
http://online.wsj.com/video/opinion-the-purloined-climate-papers/F3DAA9…
I think it is 'Opinion' in that it is very much a 'soft' interview. I assume Gleick has/was offered a similar opportunity, in any event it's unlikely he would accept without his lawyer pretty much sitting on his lap. ;)
I've seen Joe speak once before, he introduced one of the guests during their 2011 "International Climate Change Conference". It seems that last year will be the last time they stage the event, the cost $400,000 means they can no longer continue. So much for the well funded denier machine that is tearing the CAGWers apart. ;)
I assume you're in moderation, I'll check back tomorrow, Enjoy!
Still curious about the Gadaffi, Human rights, "Climate and Health Council" thing.
Stu
The real documents showed that Heartland does exactly what it states as its mission, and on its website.
There is no beef there. The only 'beef' found by the alarmists were the contortded words by the forger ..
Only the faithers are obsessed with Heartland, I have never brought them up, and I have not seen any critics of the climate hysteria citing them as primary source for anything. As I said, the are hardly ever mentioned. Except by the increasingly desperate activists and climate scare groupies ...
Chek #3201
So you claim that the lack of any real science properly demonstrating that most prominent AR4 claim is a:
> meaningless little meme ⦠It means nothing in the real world
Well, that is probably a correct description of **your** world. But in the **real** real world, and particularly when it comes to science (the real variety, that is) it means everything.
Do you get that? It means **everything**! Unless there is published science, to be checked and scrutinized by **everybody** who is not being convinced by words only, or accepting those on blind faith of others, there is nothing behind that claim worth calling science. Nobody can claim that it is based on science! Nobdoy! (Blind belief is still possible, but not the issue)
By now it is five years old, and as (the more educated among) you very well know, the IPCC does not carry out any research by its own. It is a political body, its reports are written by politically selected and appointed authors. Particularly, the SPM (summary for policymakers) where infamous claim was first stated, is written by an even smaller circle and must be approved by the government bureaucrats.
Before release of the actual AR4 reports, it was necessary to make changes in them to concur with the (already released )SPM. This (presumably) also is the reason for the contortions in the text, the footnotes, the appendices, the figure captions (and among the more educated AGW-followers)
But my initial point (here) is still as valid as when I first pointed it out:
None of you who want to believe in that AR4-claim has ever seen the science. (Most of you are not even capable of reading real science, and that goes for more than just a few who after all have a PhD-degree here. Jeff Harvey maybe being the most obvious)
And no check, the âdismissalâ by all those who havenât seen, read, understood, and are capable of pointing out this alleged science, has no value at all (Regardless of how much you wish for the opposite to be true). On the contrary, those who want to dismiss without knowing prove themselves to avoid the issue (quite understandable, since they have nothing to offer).
And the shouting and spouting by characters like you!?
Do you really really think that anything youâve performed here impresses any other than chanting kids, and blind faithers and others making equally stupid empty comments? Is that what you try to convince yourself of, chek? Really? Do you even believe that yourself?
Câmon ⦠Donât insult you own intelligence with such crap â¦
GSW
Thanks for your comments. It seems we see eye to eye on t his. Yes, I hade seen the WSJ intervju. I also read the mail conversation where Gleick very cordially was invited to talk at Heartland, all expenses covered, and $5000 to a charity of his choice. The guys is really something else, and (unfortunately for the rest of his family) deserves whatâs coming for him, and the disgrace suffered.
But his behavior is strangely similar to many of the commenters here. Because I stll (in spite of what they write) believe that they are adults, some even with an education (but very unlikely in physics ;-). He (Gleick) seems to be as angry as Jeff H, and chek, and others at the world for not sharing his/their faith. And constructing not only strawmen, but entire straw-worlds populated by straw-bogeymen who are after their imagined alternate version of reality. It is really strange and quite sad too ..
Libya chairing the UN-Human-Rights-Comission was just a parallel. And the âClimate and Health Councilâ was just another organization (I had never heard of) jumping in condemning Heartland, and sign by a long and curious looking list of figures ⦠James Hansen among them. There was no more point than pointing this out â¦
Are you back interacting in real-time now Jonas? or is there still a noticable moderation delay?
Obvious and stupid lies.
Jeff, obliquely, in #624;
Wow, factually, in #801;
Wow, factually, in #999;
Oh, look! Jonas, whining about a fake memo in #3184;
Jonas, whining some more in #3185;
GSW, whining about perceived moderation in #3190;
GSW, whining about Gleick in #3192;
GSW, blabbering on in #3194;
GSW, beginning to tinfoil in #3195;
chek, pointing out that you're lying in #3196;
GSW, tinfoil and more Jonas-worship in #3197;
Jonas, adding another layer of tinfoil in #3198;
GSW, unable to contain himself in #3202;
Me, trying to get any of you clowns to say anything substantial in #3203;
GSW, not saying anything substantial in #3204;
GSW, becoming completely incoherent in #3205;
Me, trying again for anything of substance in #3207;
GSW, now in full-on what-the-hell-are-you-talking-about in #3208.
GSW. My recent comments have made it through (without delay). I wouldnât count on consistency though ⦠even before, my correction #3186 was let trough one day before they let the original through. And months after the fact, Tim deleted comments so that references to earlier ones became all screwed up. But this is how it is at every pro-AGW-site. And they canât even state what theyâre afraid of. Further it does reflect badly on what they think of their readership (and I think that is one of the reasons)
Stu â As I said, Heartland (and tobacco lobby and all the oterh stupid stuff) is only brought up by the faithers as an argument. It signals the same insecure and ignorant lack of substance as all those âdenialâ or âdenialists/iatiâ, the uninformed attempts to âname dropâ Dunning Kruger (and what else you havenât tried), so many of you hope and feel would youâd strengthen our stance with.
Stu, people who donât know what theyâre talking about, donât know more after they repeat that 10 or 100 times. Look at chek, or Wow, or you.
> Me, trying again for anything of substance
Laughable Stu! The laws of Newton, and pushing boxes on surfaces with friction was where you had to throw in the towel. And many more with you. âLuminousâ tried at least, but just made it worse. (Has anybody seen him since?)
And as I said, that's an obvious and stupid lie. You and GSW have been hyperventilating over the Heartland leak for over a hundred comments now.
But thank you for admitting you have nothing of substance to add. Again. That you cannot help yourself lying. Again. That you have nothing to add about the contents of the Heartland documents. Again. That you're delusional, paranoid and sociopathically unable to follow the simplest rules. Again.
You can re-start the circle jerk with GSW again now. Just making sure you're still as pathetic and nutty as ever.
Jonas #3212,
"But his behavior is strangely similar to many of the commenters here....He (Gleick) seems to be as angry as Jeff H, and chek, and others at the world for not sharing his/their faith."
Yes it does appear to be a characteistic of the breed. All very angry, all the time. It isn't clear whether Gleick's confession was an act of conscience, or with all the intuitive fingering pointing going on, the heat being turned up etc, he felt he had no choice. He's quite contrite, the difference between doing right and wrong are only too real for him now. I don't think Jeff and chek are likely to encounter their own 'epiphanys' in the near term, they have other, deeper, psychological problems to contend with as well.
chek is very 'odd'. Do you remember his earlier post where he was fantasizing about how jeff would be spending his evenings?
Perhaps he might pen another award winning paper? walk the dog? what colour underwear would he be wearing? that sort of thing.
The man's a mess. Do you think that holding all these, in some cases, contradictory, in others manifestly incorrect beliefs in their head at one time could ultimately cause long term mental illness? a bit like asking the computer on Star Trek (original series) the square root of minus one, if you know what I mean.
Yes, all very angry, over not very much.
GSW, I believe you are correct. Chek is something extra, even for a deltoid. I also remember the cold chills and the goose bumps I got from reading his semi-erotic fantasies about Jeffies evening activities.
Scary guy.
Ah, suddenly it came to me why I find chek more than creepy. He reminds me of Robin William's character in the movie One Hour Photo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QspevZYkNbw&feature=related
I hope Jeffie knows how to handle himself. For all we know chek could be lurking outside his house this very minute.
You're right Stu - time to leave these boys alone with each other, their projections and their creepy, homoerotic fantasies.
Oh and boys - one day when Jonarse isn't looking, look up 'detection and attribution'. You'll find he's been lying to you all this time. You of course were dumb enough to believe him.
Chek, what about looking up the phrase ""time to leave these boys alone". You sure don't seem to understand the meaning of these words. :-)
By the way chek, what's Jeffie up to now? If he's in the proximity of the the bathroom or bedroom, please don't answer.
Olaus,
#3221 Ha! and the video in #3219, that's the chappy to a T.
Do you recognize yourself there chek? It's how you come across at least.
;)
Stu,
It sure is not easy for you, regardless of what you attempt ..
If you remember, in the latest brouhaha it was DeSmogBlog who **brought up** (look up that phrase too) Heartland. And the hyperventilating started in the open thread by quite a of you few here. Still goes on, piling up more and more fantasies. (The latest was that Joe Bast concocted up that fake memo, sent it to victimized Pavlovian dog Gleick, who then just couldn't help himself)
Those fantasy figures you are up against, sure aren't nice to you. No, they are very very evil and sinister, and really do exist. Because you can sense them so intensly, just beyond that computer screen or whatever is the horizon of your perception. Pure and concentrated evil, burning away there right in the middle of your suffering but pure and nobel minds ...
So intensly, that six hard years of physics studied, disappear without a trace, never to be seen again. That even you slip up to occasinally belive that 'idiot' or 'arse' are strong arguments for it's existance ..
Yes, it's a wicked evil world out there. And reality is its accomplice, lauging at and mocking you. I fully understand why you prefer to lurk here and demand protection from it ...
chek ...
Are you seriously trying to pretend that you have found, read and understood that science that nobody dares to even utter? That everybody shuns looking for? You of all people?
Or are you still, five years after the fact, hoping that it is to be found in there, under that heading which kinda suggests it deals with the topic?
And six months after I told you to your face that you were taking such claims on blind faith!
You surely are one self delusional faither in utter denial ...
Who was talking about DeSmog?
Moving the goalposts. Misplaced condescension. Continued evidence of D-K. Red herring.
- GSW is the only one hyperventilating.
- Not me.
- Who is talking about the open thread?
- Why were you in the open thread?
Projection. Red herring. Inability to follow the single-sentence direction on top of this thread. I still don't know what you and GSW are trying to accomplish with the "gee why would the comments of the all-knowing Jonas be moderated" circle-jerk. It's a single sentence, moron.
Setting aside the serial pathological lack of self-awareness with this serial sad-sack "wow, it worked on Dan Rather" series of pure, unadulterated ad hominem claptrap... could you please, for the love of Jeebus, address what this has to do with the content of the Heartland documents they have acknowledged to be genuine? That they are funding stooges to actively work against science?
Could you at least try to be coherent for more than a few sentences in a row?
Wait, hold on. Are you saying that Exxon and the Koch brothers are imaginary now?
What is your point, Jonas? Are you drinking again?
For crying out loud, precious, we KNOW you are insecure about your education. But how about we put aside physics for a second and talk about someone who says things like "intensly", "nobel", "intensly", "occasinally", "belive", "it's", "existance", "its" and "lauging". Did you take more than one year of English? If you didn't, that's quite alright. There are tools to prevent you from looking like a complete moron by misspelling every other word. They are called spell-checkers.
Oh, wait. Those are obviously not in your universe either. Did you take more than one semester in typing, precious? I've told you SPECIFICALLY over a half-dozen times how not to do this. Do you enjoy looking like a moron, or were my instructions too complex?
>Who was talking about DeSmog?
I was talking about **'bringing up'**
You may want to check who *'brought it up'* here too ..
Please try to read you own posts, and think about what you are actually trying to say **before** you post them. Otherwise Pid, you just make yourself look so Stu ...
For instance, your reply:
>Wait, hold on. Are you saying that Exxon and the Koch brothers are imaginary now?
to my:
>piling up more and more fantasies. (The latest was that Joe Bast concocted up that fake memo, sent it to victimized Pavlovian dog Gleick, who then just couldn't help himself)
Those fantasy figures you are up against, sure aren't nice to you. No, they are very very evil and sinister, and really do exist.
So Stu, I can inform you that both Exxon and the Koch brothers exist. As does Joe Bast. Now, do you want to have another go at it?
Or did you just perfectly well and once more demonstrate what I was pointing out?
;-)
Jonas,
Apologies for interrupting your "bashing of the troll" but I am interested in exploring the CAGW "Anger" issue and the potential long term effect on their mental health.
It occurs to me that Gleick's "lapse in Judgment" could be interpreted as the early stages of some kind of nervous breakdown. It would better explain his self destructive actions than the "St Peter the Martyr" line that they are pushing at the moment.
The conflict between tenets of faith and discovered fact must be causing some increase in stress levels.
Shoestring budget Heartland as (a well-funded) Voldemort.
Himalaya's dying as a result of lack of glacier ice loss.
IPCC/Greenpeace/WWF 'opinion' as numerical scientific fact (your thread) ;)
A few inches (100yrs) of sea level rise i.e. of "Biblical proportions".
The "Travesty" of living on a planet that is incapable of replicating even the most simple of climate models.
Somehow they manage to hold both tenet and fact in their heads at the same time. Espousing one, whilst the other sits in the back of their minds repeating "Does not Compute", "Does not Compute", over and over. Emotional exhaustion must surely follow.
You could imagine surviving like this for a brief period, but it has being going on for years! Some long term damage must be occuring. Interactions with other people/family members (the anger) will be suffering - I don't know if you've noticed the marked deterioration in stu over the last few weeks - Not quite the full blown wow, but competing with chek for second place.
Olaus has said they will write books about this condition in years to come, perhaps they will. The transition from CAGW theory to CAGW Syndrome is not too far off I fear.
Your thoughts, as always, greatly valued.
;)
Jonas,
How's it going over here? moderation still in play?
;)
GSW
I don't think there is a background script running, saying 'Does not compute' causing emotional stress and eventually exhaustion. Definitely not i general.
I think emotional anxiety (*'the world is not as it should be'*) is the set-out for their personalities. And the inability to calculate things, to assess (or estimate) proportions and comparing them, to not notice (ignore, even deny?) the gaping differences of (many) orders of magnitudes among what the do argue etc ..
.. I think all these are prerequisites among many of them. Navigating by their feelings and emotional preferences, rather. Replacing inquiry and gathering of facts, data, information by consensus among the like-minded, by heartfelt conviction, by 'knowing' because 'you just know anyway' ...
But I am reluctant to generalize too far or broadly. I think the above description is captures the more emotional and those who navigate by following their perceived leaders and authority. And who are guided by their emotions when deciding what should be seen as 'authority'.
There are of course many others types, reckless immoral opportunists, politicians driven by the urge to 'represent and lead' something (whatever), activists, power brokers, criminals, rent seekers, and countless incompetents merely driven by the urge to 'belong to and being accepted by' a larger group for some greater good and cause.
We have seen similar movements before, and all the same mechanisms and effects as then are in play. And if it hadn't been for the internet, who knows where it would have ended this time.
How it will end, and how the today 'hooked' or 'pushing' will cope with it when it finally blows over and deflates to amusing joke reference at parties or more pointed reminder/parallel in political debate .. I don't know.
I would assume it'll happen in the same way as when previous highly pushed '-isms' finally collapsed. This means I don't agree with Olaus, that the distancing will be public, general, and formal. That sanity will pick up the remnants and sort out the details and how, when, where and why it all went so wrong.
A few will try, and pass unnoticed by the broader public (who will be mostly occupied by the next looming disaster or hysteria and its reincarnated activists .. as every time before)
Presently no moderation ..
Jonas,
Yes, it is possible that it is personality driven as you suggest. They behave oddly and irrationally because they have always behaved so. The conflict between what they 'know' and how things actually 'are' may never have been reconciled fully on anything.
It is difficult to tell. I see the various deltoid 'types' as being a progression towards mental disfunction/collapse. You simply argue a spectrum of personalities, which there must be some basis of truth to, but is it only that?
I don't know if you follow the other Deltoid threads, but recently wow had a bit of a run-in with ianam i think it was.
wow was arguing that the best way to win an argument was to post something stupid. This I think thru ianam a bit, the logic of this course of action didn't make any sense him (or anybody else). ianam said he didn't think that would work, to which wow replied in words to the effect
(paraphrasing) "That is because he had never tried it"
Which you have to admit there is some basis in logic, albeit of slightly perverted kind. It does certainly explain wow's contribution. Worrying nevertheless.
As for numeracy, what I consider to be the early stages of a hypothesized CAGW Syndrome starts with a complete loss of perspective; eg the Wegman hunt and Heartland finances, before developing into a complete inability to quantify scale, or assess numbers in any objective way at all.
Wegman and Heartland will be fine by the way. But let's say their "dream scenario" comes true; Wegman losses his job and Heartland their tax exempt status.
What difference does that make to anything?
While they congregate around this trivia, the real world moves on regardless.
Your,
"This means I don't agree with Olaus, that the distancing will be public, general, and formal. That sanity will pick up the remnants and sort out the details and how, when, where and why it all went so wrong."
I agree with. The problem will morph into something else, a bit like the scare over the hole in the ozone layer. Having fixed the problem once, thru changing our deodorants, the hole is now expanding again due to guess what?
Twas ever thus.
As usual, Enjoy Jonas!
(Saw the no moderation, excellent!)
GWS
You have to distinguish between the 'smart money', and the stupid money.
The smart money realized a long time ago, that 'this was it'! This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power.
I'm not saying that it created the hype (I don't think so), but early recognized it and latched on and furthered it. They also had a fairly good idea about what buttons to push and strings to play to get the (more gullible part of the) public, the media in general, and the 'useful' part of the political spectrum to run along.
In short: ~100 years ago, it was the situation of 'the workers', ~50 years ago it was 'social justice' and 'social engineering' of the 'great society', after that it was 'the environment' which now has morphed into 'one global environment' ie 'the climate'
Those players never were the front figures, they saw what was happening, was working in the public space and adjusted.
Which brings me to Mann, McIntyre, Gore, Wegmann and now Heartland.
Mann is/was a minor player, but was pushed forward by pulling smart strings, behind the curtains. And it worked! For a while. And once the hockey stick had become an threatening issue ~2004/5, a new campaign was required, and two things happened (and were bankrolled) simultaneously 2006:
Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' (I think Al was just at hand, useful, the right kinda guy, not realizing why this happened). And secondly the launching of RealClimate. Which was explicitly to counter the attacks och the hockeystick.
Both quite clever moves. And they worked. Really well! the 2007 year's Nobel prize! (Peace price! But what would the gullible know, why would the journalists and activists care?)
But the pressure had already been building, and the shortcomings of AIT and its claims as well as the Hockestick couldn't be swept under the carpet without some (vocal) voices noticing.
Both the Wegmann- and the NRC reports were consequences of that kerfuffle, and the realistic side winning small incremental victories all along the way. And albeit 'friendly', not even the NRC report could quite ignore how bad Mann's 'reconstructions' were and their many methodological flaws and overstated claims. The leaks in the edifice were becoming many now, and needing more and more attention and 'handling'.
The IPCC AR3 yielded short (but well needed) relief. Once more the threat, the calamity and the certainty were echoed all over the world, and caught the politicians attention (pushing back skeptical voices over the entire field). But once again it was a short term regain of the initiative, based on poor science and overstated claims. And once more sexed up with more activist propaganda. But it worked for a while.
The Wegmann-report, and also Mann's continued blabbering and string of shoddy published reconstructions, was a problem though. And it needed to be countered, and attacking Wegmann's person I think was the method of choice. It is both vile and quite effective, driving the accused on the defensive for quite a while, and without ever really getting back the initiative.
Especially not in the eye of the public (that part that is susceptible the good side/evil side narrative).
But, and this was what I was getting at: The commenters here, esseltnially none of them were material in the Wegmann witch hunt. They have no clue of what the issues were, and what was of any consequence and what wasn't. (The same goes for the crowd believing in resurrected hockey sticks).
What you see here (wrt Wegmann) is just the mouth frothing crowd. The ones who got them there, we probably never saw (or heard of).
Finally, the Heartland institute: Yes, it has been a vocal but very minor player countering climate alarmism and indoctrination. Why they went after it (if Gleick is to be considered as part of 'they') I don't know?
They have suffered two more major blow backs through ClimateGate 1 & 2. And have been on the defensive since. And without any obvious possibilities to regain initiative.
They really needed some juicy ClimateGate-like scandal hitting their opposition. And many may even have thought that Heartland was their command center. They have tried smear them for many years. Mostly for the benefit of the faithfuls.
How this Gleick scandal came about, I don't know. But God, that didn't work out well either. This time, it just lasted 2-3 days ..
BTW quite a few more than me, nourish the suspicion that the Gleick-lone-wolf-story just sounds too implausible ...
Jonas,
Haven't had a chance to read thru your post properly, but looks interesting ;) Need to dash off to the cinema, will have a look when I get back, otherwise it will be tomorrow.
Appreciate you spending the time on this.
Cheers!
For some reason, this youtube-vidoe (about Heartland) was just uploaded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9DjPo0ewuCw
What a coincidence, a professionally made video, involving minors attacking, smearing Heartland, appearing just one week after the alleged leak.
What those alarmist lack in intellectual integrity and prowess, the sure make up with ferocious legwork, don't they?
Hold on guys, I don't necessarily believe that the collapse of CAGW will be public, but that it will be studied and written about by academics â a lot. Formal yes but in the sense that CAGW will be fair game for sociologist, psychologist, etc.
Media-wise this turnover will be rather marginalized, at least that's very likely.
Peace?
Jonas,
Taking the last points first. The video tagged "Heartland Department of Education" is quite sinister. It's posted by ClimateReality which is the Gore 'communications' thing?
As you say, kids relating various memes. Starts off with some "climatey" things then,
Germs aren't real if you can't see them?
the Sun goes round the Earth?
The Earth is flat?
It's not exactly sophisticated is it. I noticed as well the didn't recite the "Intelligent design" meme, I'm guessing because, it being US focused, there are a lot of christians in their target audience.
Really quite sinister. Can you imagine how it would have gone down if say Heartland had tried a similar pitch?
I can hear the screams now, SCANDALOUS distortion, misrepresentation, Anti-Science!
It seems to be alright though, if you come from the right side.
A side note: I don't think Gore's quite the figure he was. He's done more to turn people off CAGW with his "over statement" of bizzare factoids than Heartland could ever hope to do. Take some comfort from the fact he is on their side, and still going!
;)
"BTW quite a few more than me, nourish the suspicion that the Gleick-lone-wolf-story just sounds too implausible ... "
I am sure others are happy speculating on that too, so you're definitely not on your own ;)
As I think I said it's an overembellishment of what is otherwise a fairly straight forward story.
Your original point was that the story was put around very quickly - which requires some forward planning/involvement of others.
I think a perfectly adequate explanation is that the various blogs,Guardian etc, were so desparate to believe they had found their own 'Climategate' that no thought whatsoever went into questioning the apparent 'truth' of what they were being shown. Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread. It's not pretty, but it has the ring of truth about it.
Anyway, for all I know you may be right, but I would like to see something 'tangible' along those lines, before I start relying on a conspiratorial string of events explanation.
It's no big deal honestly, more will be revealed over time.
:)
Olaus,
Peace ;)
You seem to be kicking up quite a stir on the open thread. Not my field I'm afraid. Do you have a background in politics/history?
Jonas,
"Which brings me to Mann, McIntyre, Gore, Wegmann and now Heartland."
I'll leave Gore and Heartland out as I've already dealt with them to a certain extent. McIntyre was a big part player in the Mann & Wegmann stories, but the story is now mainly about the latter two gentleman.
Actually don't have too much to say ;) the interest in Mann & Wegman is largely historical, not that relevant now. It's difficult to see the processes they are going thru as being anything more than trophy/scalp hunting for percieved past misdeeds.
Jonas,
"The smart money realized a long time ago, that 'this was it'! This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power."
Have you been watching Lindzen's "Deconstructing Global Warming" Video?
;)
Jonas,
Were you pleased with "The Bloggies"? I 'm not sure what significance to attach to the jaw dropping successes, other than perhaps it is a sign that the on-line sceptical community is very, very healthy!
A link to Lindzen's video, there are others, sound is good on this one though and the slides are shown full screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw
I'm sure you've seen it. The words from your post,
"This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power."
made me think of Lindzen's quotes from Mike Hulmes book. I know you are aware of it, worth watching again though, Lindzen's a brilliant speaker!
Your commentary appreciated, Enjoy!
Back after a few days in the mountains. See there is some catching and up to do on the Gleick story. Will comment later ...
Unintentional, meter-exploding irony (and a future doctorate on projection and progressive pathological delusion, I bet):
and
Thanks for the laughs, guys.
By the way, where's our favorite registered sex offender? Shouldn't he be gracing this thread with his cutting insights on fascism being a leftist phenomenon?
Dear Stu, insinuating that I'm a rapist is indeed a very strong argument for that fascism is right wing. Quite impressive stuff, yet it's all you got plus a volcano of emotions and foul language. Anyone reading the open thread can see for themselves that you guys had to rely on Tim to save face (and probably to save Jeffie from a coronary).
Sorry chaps, when you can explain how Mussolini was able to STEAL "anti-capitislism, anti-liberalism and hatred of the bourgeoisie" from socialism when he in fact was one of the leading socialists in Italy, then you might have a point.
But like I have said all along, I'm perfectly content being fed with evidence regarding the evil right wing multi-billion denial machine fighting climate science.
Your pathological self-hatred of your own fascist, Breivikian tendencies, tempered only by your crass, almost GSW-like idolatry of Jonarse's arrogant cretinism is duly noted, Petri.
And has been for some considerable time.
Stu,
I see that you (and quite some more) are in denial also over national socialism and (other versions of) fascism beinge socialist movements.
Where production of goods is subordinated to the 'good of the society', which in turn is interpreted and defined by 'people's leader'. Where the also the individual, his ambitions and needs are subordinated to the collective, it's good and once more interpreted by the (self apointed collective) leader of 'the people' ..
But I didn't expect anything else from (many of) you. Reading the denial, and wiggling in the Open thread was really hilarious. And the 'arguments' are on the same level as wrt what you guys know and understand about the climate.
It is precisely as I said:
>by heartfelt conviction, by 'knowing' because 'you just know anyway'
You (many) guys are so detached from reality, so sucked up to believing your own delusions its almost only comical.
It took Olaus one push on the 'right' button. And once more, the lot of you went off the deep end. Collectively .. As if that was an 'argument' by it self.
Ah, and so two of the most diseased organisms I've yet to encounter on the Internet are finally safely quarantined together.
It gives me great pleasure to know that I won't have to encounter the lunar-Right ramblings of either of you again!
I, for one, won't be wasting my time debating two such complete victims of reactionary Epistemic Closure.
So, I wish you no success, gentlemen.
Or, alternatively, I wish you all the happiness you so richly deserve.
Yet you are here bill, with your empty arguments and strong feelings. :-)
bill, I am sure you feel much better among the knowledgable intellectual giants such as chek, Stu, Wow, and Jeff Harvey, won't you?
But seriously? Have you been debating? Anything? I must have missed that ... Me thinks you sound more like your 'friends' who are equally afraid of both debating, facts and the truth ...
Well, when you have fake libertarian Scandinavian oafs coming here claiming they sees no science in probably the most studied and contested subject in modern times, while the support crew attempts to redefine words outside their own language, then 'facts' and 'truth' don't stand much chance.
Your irrelevancy knows no bounds.
As always the heated naked cheeks of chek hit the very bottom. Cute. :-)
By the way Chek, your therapists owe me big money. :-)
Good to see Napoleon and Snowball keeping each other company. Climategate good, Heartland leak baaaaad.
;)
Seriously though, GSW makes an excellent point:
>The conflict between tenets of faith and discovered fact must be causing some increase in stress levels.
The Heartland leak has had a profound effect on Olaus, who immediately started drawing comparisons between climate science and fascism. Rational in his own mind, I'm sure. I know he accidentally posted his annoyance at Heartland's political manipulation of science for financial gain, but luckily the usual blogs came through and gave him some talking points he could spread here without any danger of thinking for himself. Phew! Close call! He was almost making sense for a second.
Jonas, meanwhile, has jumped right off the paranoid conspiracy theory deep end:
>The smart money realized a long time ago, that 'this was it'! This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power.
Here I was thinking that a long established theory was currently supported by thousands of lines of emperival evidence. No! It turns out it's all a Nazi scam!
And, lo, the evidence of the scam? Why, if it isn't the usual obsession with personality over science! Do you know who else valued personality over substance?
In fact, Jonas sounds strangely like his fellow far-right-fringe buddy:
>You might know them as environmentalists, enviro-communists, eco-Marxists, neo-Communists or eco-fanatics. They all claim they want to save the world from global warming but their true agenda is to contribute to create a world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world. They hope to accomplish this through the distribution of misinformation (propaganda) which they hope will lead to increased taxation of already excessively taxed Europeans and US citizens.
But that guy was bad. Must be left wing! Shucks!
;)
In other news, did anyone here that Heartland emailed their financial records to a climate scientist and journalist and revealed that they were paying off out-of-field scientists to spread disinformation, "undermine" real science, stop teaching real science and silence their critics in order to protect the political and financial interests of their donors? Fascinating stuff!
No scandal there, of course!
Breaking: an anonymous insider from The Climate Scam has leaked me some footage of Olaus.
You are flattering me John. My six pack isn't Rainer Wolfacastle quality. ;-)
>My six pack isn't Rainer Wolfacastle quality. ;-)
Don't worry, the six packs of angry right-wing conspiracy theorists who inhabit the internet never are.
Hehe...well John, first we need to find one who sponsors the right-wing denial machine. Until then we can't say for sure, can we? ;-)
Mine was funnier.
John
>Heartland's political manipulation of science for financial gain
You never struck me as particularly smart, or knowledgable. And your
>Jonas, meanwhile, has jumped right off the paranoid conspiracy theory deep end:
>
>>The smart money realized a long time ago, that 'this was it'! This was the question capable of harnessing politics, taxation, regulation, and control beyond national democracy and all its limited power.
Seems to be in denial of the facts that monies indeed change hands, that policies are drafted, that regulations are imposed, that taxes are levied, that careers are built, and whole institutions, and that a whole industry now relies on this kind of support and that it is upheld ..
Not to mention the fact that politics are something different than any possible scientific support.
But I'm afraid I am putting to much strain on your thinking process if several issues are adressed, John.
PS And I should have mentioned you together with the others above, of course you belong among them. And bill, and quite a few others, no offens to all I've missed. You all really really belong here ... Tim thinks so too!
Olaus
Tim Lambert believes he has been more than patient with you!
But it seems that you have been even more pation with his cabal of followers and hangarounds.
And my patience here has brought (a tiny fraction) of them to the realization that thhis infamous AR4 claim about 90% certainty is not based on any real science ...
But Doh! That took some time. And a majority (perhaps as much as, or more than 90%) still remain in denial. And cling to blind almost desperate faith or wishful thinking that somebody else has seen that (non existing) science ... that it just hasn't been discovered yet!
Chek still reafrims himself that it is indeed in there, and Wow, once more links the IPCC AR4 list of references, and sputters: It's all there ... Trust me!
Jonas, one cannot make a career in deprogramming if not being a very patient and philanthropic guy. :-)
Wonder how the shaking tent will react on Svensmark's latest? Is he final proof of the right wing multi-billion denial machine?
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/yet-another-trick-of-cosmic-ra…
:-)
I see Jonas' reading comprehension is as poor as his scientific abilities.
Are we now in denial that donors fund Heartland to help protect their financial and political interests by the spreading of scientific disinformation? Not even Olaus disputes this.
However, I do enjoy the moment when deniers drop the pretense of scientific integrity and reveal the entirely unshocking fact that their scientific beliefs are driven by extremist ideology and paranoid conspiracies. From now on I will call it Duff's Folly.
I see exactly the same attitudes Jonas displays here on websites like Stormfront, 9/11 trutherism and moon landing conspiracy theories - they are always convinced of a vast government conspiracy, that they alone know The Truth and everyone else is simply too stoopid to realise.
Correction, John: it's not the government, it's Greenpeace, the WWF and 99.9943% of climate scientists (I hear Judith Curry is the sole exception).
Fellas, please help Josh get the numbers right (left):
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/3/1/us-government-climate-change-s…
:-)
John
Are you losing it completely? You, who cannot argue even the simplest things pretend to talk about illiteracy, and scientific understanding? You whose entire comprehension of any of the topics here is based solely on faith? Is your thinking really so restricted as your many comments indicate?
What a joke ..
As I said, you belong here with the Stus, the Wows and Jeffies ...
Anyone else notice that the more wrong Jonas is, the higher the percentage of insults he issues?
John
Sorry for that snide comment, but yours was just too stupid and every thing you tried ended up as another own goal ...
Let me detail it for you:
>I see Jonas' reading comprehension is as poor as his scientific abilities.
I don't even know what you mean. My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me. You certainly have not even attempted to address any pertinent issues. And wrt your reading comprehension, you are the one mixing up stuff, seeing things that aren't here etc.
>Are we now in denial that donors fund Heartland to help protect their financial and political interests
Heartland has a political stance, so far you are correct. But you were the one starting out with
>Heartland's political manipulation of science for financial gain
which is bunk of course (and probably why you tried moving the goalposts).
>by the spreading of scientific disinformation?
You need to understand this John: Somebody not saying what you desperately believe in does not make it wrong, false, dishonest or disinformation. Not even if others say what you do want to hear. I haven't even seen you addressing any 'disinformation', you are probably just repeating the stupid talking points frequently repeated among the climate groupies about Heartland (which I pointed out seems quite a bit obsessive)
>However, I do enjoy the moment when deniers drop the pretense of scientific integrity and reveal the entirely unshocking fact that their scientific beliefs are driven by extremist ideology and paranoid conspiracies.
Utter nonsense. There isn't even a tangible statement in there,
just your beliefs. (And you brought up the conspiracy, see above: "political manipulation of science for financial gain")
>I see exactly the same attitudes Jonas displays here on websites like Stormfront, 9/11 trutherism and moon landing conspiracy theories
Same nonsense once more
>they are always convinced of a vast government conspiracy, that they alone know The Truth and everyone else is simply too stoopid to realise.
What is it with your guys, and you lack of proper reading. Nobody talks about a 'government conspiracy'. But politics are, by definition, driven by agendas. And I pointed out that many other agendas latched on too. Which you seemed to be in denial of.
So John, once more you came up with exactly nothing. Just regurgitating that you so badly believe what you want to believe. And demonstrated once more that you can't even read what is stated or what is the topic. And I think that its no coincidence that you are a climate scare groupie too ..
John, I really like your Deltoid-style logic:
>Anyone else notice that the more wrong Jonas is, the higher the percentage of insults he issues?
It never ceases to amaze me how onesided your (plural) reasoning is, how you fail to apply or just think about how your 'logic' or 'arguments' work if they indeed were valid and applied in both directions.
Are you really completely unaware of all those here who just couldn't help themselves piling up insults and invectives ..
Is it their poor or lack of (real) arguments you are pointing out?
Because, they sure have tried to compensate lack of substance with many many words like 'denier' 'idiot' 'Dunning Kruger' 'filthy liar' 'pile of ....' and many more.
And when I pointed out that those are not convincing arguments, some even tried to counter me .. Poor things
John, time to leave Jonas to his comforting delusions of superiority.
Suffice to say that it is punishment enough that his attraction is limited to those like Oluas/Olaus, GSW and their ilk and always will be.
It's enough that he knows he hasn't made any impact whatsoever on any detection or attribution research. Even Curry has the sense to play fast and loose on the all-too human psychology that 'uncertainty' means 'it'll never happen', rather than its true meaning.
chek
>he hasn't made any impact whatsoever on any detection or attribution research.
Still, after half a year you get it wrong. The topic was and is that the claimed **detection or attribution research** supporting that proiment AR4 claim in its SPM are nowehere to be found. None of the followers has ever seen it, not even claimed to have seen (& read & understood) it.
The lack of understanding of 'uncertainty' of 'confidence levels and -intervals' and statistics in general is on the faither's side ..
But I must commend you for this time spelling my name correctly. Was that an accident? Or promted by John's notion about insults when you have no substance? Or is it your general learing curve, the rate of improving your knowledge?
*My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me*
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!
Jonarse is a legend in his own mind. An arrogant little pri**.
That's because it's a summary, idiot. However lest it be thought that goalpost moving is what all this amounts to, let's remember you were referred to the science in Chapter 9 of AR4, which you refused to recognise.
So for the benefit of your knuckle-dragging crew (they know who they are) let's do a little experiment.
As we know when you ventured into Tamino's, he stomached about three paragraphs of your unfocussed, waffling drivel before cutting you off at the knees. What we didn't know at the time was that Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 was due to be published, specifically addressing the 'A' component of AGW. However, Foster is obviously a warmist lackey in your and your crew's view. So I propose this:
email Judith Curry with your insight.
My predicted result will be she'll tell you to go take a flying one. She may be happy to acquire a questionable reputation in pursuit of playing her outsider game, but she will point blank refuse to be written off as an idiot who knows nothing, like you.
You won't do this of course. But hopefully the seed of doubt as to why not will nevertheless be planted in the minds of your support circus.
Chek, you sure are very good at leaving Jonas alone. :-)
Your yearnings are heart-breaking Chek, not to mention your complete lack of arguments. :-)
...aaaand there goes another irony meter.
Yes, Jeff Harvey
I was particularly thinking of you.
You who after all calls himself a scientist. I have a far better understanding of science than you have, in every single matter where you have been trying to mouth of at me. Fact is that you have avoided discussing/addressing any single topic where I have stated my position. You have tried endless ad homs and spent months making up fantasy claims about me, in order to get away from what is substance. And not only that: You have actively sided with many here who have made the most stupid claims about the simplest things concerning physics and math etc.
Point is that you have done this all by yourself. Invented facts, sputtered nonsense, and taking sides with the many who are incompetent even at high school level.
Jeff H (contd)
Nobody but yourself made you behave and look like an utter fool.
Now, semi hysterical (written) laughter
>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!
may be you way of coping with this, I donât know. Your many previous methods sure havenât worked better.
But let me rub in one more magnificent own goal here:
>⦠is a legend in his own mind. An arrogant little pri**.
Because I only remember one commenter here, constantly waiving his CV, telling us what a legend he is, how seriously he is taken, telling us we should take his word for what the science says (incidentally never addressing the science). And who told what big-boys he gets to mingle with, even that he considers himself to speak for the entire scientific community. And who has tried to make all that (pompousness) his foremost âargumentâ in the debate!
Donât you remember that Jeff? Or who that was?
Jonas, are you seriously going to sit there and pretend that you didn't just say
Your lack of self-awareness is a wondrous thing to behold.
Stu
It seems that you (with your alleged six years of studied physics) comment as if you in any way were capable of judging anybody elseâs level of scientific understanding. And on top of that you go on about âDerangementâ
You are a priceless gem here indeed, Stu â¦
Olaus,
You seem to be a victim of another "Toys out of the pram" moment from Tim. It is surprising just how insecure these guys are.
How can it be an offence to try and resolve once and for all the "billion dollar denial machine" question? Another "Pillar", that the faith is based on, bites the dust. It's not obvious what they have left.
Jonas, asks about the science behind the AR4 attribution claim - BANNED.
Olaus, asks about the evidence for the big oil conspiracy - BANNED.
So much for the debate that Gleick belatedly claims is needed. He's had an epiphany!, he didn't used to, the science was settled if I remember him correctly.
Jonas, Olaus, Good Men! Amazing how much consternation you can create amongst the faithful with only a few well chosen words - incredible really, and you don't appear to be finished yet.
;)
GSW
Yes, I agree, and if I was a regular (but supportive) at Deltoid, I would be annoyed at the notion that Tim thinks I couldn't handle dissenting voices or arguments. It looks like Tim doesn't think think too highly of the regulars. Or is just overly protective ... (which amounts to the same)
Another thing I noticed is that there has been almost none who objected to (or tried to defer from) the absolutely staggering amount of abuse and insults people here have tried (as a substitute for factual arguments). Very early, I think one commenter pointed out that calling people 'asshole' and the like, was not going to be conductive to their cause(!) or ambitions. And I think one more agreed. But that's all.
All the rest, both those who practice it, and those who chip in on their side seem to think that invectives are a better method than refraining from those ..
No wonder, that these people mostly stay among each other, and hardly dare to face the 'ugly reality' outside their protected enclosures ...
Sorry Stu, I see I bungled a copy-paste before in #3277. Here it is again, corrected:
It seems that you (with your alleged six years of studied physics) comment as if you in any way were capable of judging anybody elseâs level of scientific understanding. And on top of that you go on about âYour lack of self-awarenessâ
You are a priceless gem here indeed, Stu â¦
Typical lying lies from mega-liar GSW, who's dishonestly agreed with by the premier liar himself.
As is quite plain to anyone without a martyr complex wondering what that URL above's playing at, nobody here is 'banned'.
Confining your tedious, crackerbarrel, evidence-free, run-of-the-mill denial however is a public service.
Jonas, sweetheart, again with the insecurity about your education. What's wrong, precious? Did you not get to go to the school you wanted? Did people make fun of you?
You can tell us, it's okay.
Stu - are you telling me about "the insecurity about your education"
Which part are you insecure about? The six? The years? The physics? Or the studying? Or a combination thereof?
I have no clue why you made that claim. But you did .. And here you are posturing, pretending that you know something about science.
As I said, you are gem. Here ..
Another substance free tirade from Jonas boasting of his own genius and telling me, without reference, I am wrong. I am shocked, shocked!
You entirely miss the point. Sorry kid. It sure is not easy for you, regardless of what you attempt.
Still goes on, piling up more and more fantasies. Once more you came up with exactly nothing. Just regurgitating that you so badly believe what you want to believe. And demonstrated once more that you can't even read what is stated or what is the topic.
But after the latest blow (magnificant own goal) from the denial-crowd dishonestly trying to smear those who promote open debate.
But I'm afraid I am putting to much strain on your thinking process if several issues are adressed, Jonas.
The rest of you comment is only babble.
You need to understand this Jonas - you are wrong, and no amount of boasting about your own genius is going to change that. History is littered with dopes like you, convinced that they alone knew The Truth. I understand one of them with similar views to you is now sitting in a Norwegian prison.
I maintain my contention that you are no better than 9/11 Truthers, moon landing conspiracists or the clowns at Stormfront. Your views are nothing more a hodge-podge of bitter grudges based on a warped ideology and your posts are substance free grandstanding. You even have the identical victimisation complex.
>I have no clue why you made that claim.
I would have thought it was obvious.
He was making fun of you and suggesting you aren't the genius you think you are.
Jonas, I have read your posts closely I believe you possess an IQ of less than 90. Your lack of comprehension regarding Stu's comment is astonishing.
John
So you are telling me that you know why Stu claimed to have studied six years of physics while not being able to follow the simplest demonstration/example of the laws of Newton?
I don't know why he made that claim. If it indeed were true (which I very much doubt) it would reflect extremely poorly on his intelligence. And if it is not true, but he hoped to get away with it, it would reflect equally poorly on his intelligence.
John #3284
I don't think that you have ever even attempted to bring some substance to the table. Whatever is your own contribution to #3284 certainly is exactly that:
>Another substance free tirade from Jo[hn]
Sweet tapdancing jeebus you are a moron. YOUR education Jonas, YOUR education. And are you still persisting that there is no such thing as a dependent variable? You do realize people can scroll up, right?
You'd better call back GSW to tell you how smart you are, precious.
*You who after all calls himself a scientist. I have a far better understanding of science than you have, in every single matter where you have been trying to mouth of at me*
Really now? I recall you spouting on about the demographics of polar bears, an area where you clearly were way, way out of your depth. Ever hear of the extinction debt? Temporal lags? Tipping points? Ever read any relevant science in the area?
Moreover, at least I have a CV to wave; you apparently don't. My CV was obtained on the basis of producing actual science: a BSc degree followed by a PhD in turn followed by three post-docs, a tenure as Nature editor and then 12 plus years as a senior scientist. Your CV appears to lack anything scientific whatsoever. And its you claiming to know more than anybody else here; that borders on the psychopathic. The only ones in Deltoid who support your drivel are Olaus (who relies for his world view on WUWT and similar bilge), GSW and PentaxZ. A pretty small small sample size to be honest. And the simple reason these clowns support you is because they all share your right wing anti-government views, combined with the ludicrous notion that those arguing in favor of the huge (and growing) evidence for AGW are communists promoting some kind of world government. The bottom line is that the debate about climate change isn't based on science from your side but on advocating a political ideology. All you and your ilk do is wrap it up and camouflage it as science.
Moreover, I don't have to call myself a scientist. I am one, 100% and bonafide. Just ask thousands of my colleagues around the world who are also scientists. Which is more than can be said for you. You instead rely on the adulation of a few twits here and there on right wing blogs. If the extent of your fan club lies at the feet of Olaus, GSW and PentaxZ, then you are a sad, little man. Confined to your own pathetic thread on Deltoid. A storm in a teacup.
Lookie, lookie...Jeffie is here â again â shouting about his...drum-whirl.... CV (demanding attention)! Hilarious. :-)
Jeffie, you are confusing not waving with a CV with not having a CV. What a surprise...not.
Another error of yours is that self-obsessed drivel becomes scientific if you wave a CV in front of you. I'm sure you can learn us a lot about mating bugs and bananas, but your understanding of climate science doesn't go beyond political standpoints about an evil right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science.
Jeff ...
So you are a legend in you own mind, and have tried to beat me over the head with your own imagination and fantasies for half a year running ...
... and failed every single time!
That's what I said. Once more a magnificent own goal from Jeff.
And yes, in every single meaning of the word I am more scientific then you on every issue I have brought up here. Every one of them. And you in almost every single post prove that you are incapable of following even the simples principles of the scientific method ...
Your arguments here, Jeff, are a total joke!
Olaus,
"political standpoints about an evil right wing multi-billion denial machine obstructing climate science."
I thought there was universal agreement that there is no "right wing multi-billion denial machine", at least no one had any evidence for it.
It doesn't seem to be channelled thru Heartland at any rate as many had suspected. They've gone a bit quiet on the "well funded" denial machine bit of late.
I wonder how long it will be before the goldfish forget this ever happened and return to their old faux argument.
;)
...aaaand another irony meter bites the dust. Dangit, I knew I should've gone for the heavy-duty ones.
I'm afraid you are correct GSW. When Nemo (aka Jeffie H) admires his CV again, and that have probably already happened, he will see see the robust proofs of a multi-billion right wing denial machine take shape.
By the way, the latest version of the Summary for policy makers seems to harbor a new definition of climate change â both natural and human caused is included. Wonder if i90% of the scientists agree... ;-)
Olaus,
"the latest version of the Summary for policy makers"
Which version is that Olaus? not the 2007 SPM?
GSW, its called a special report with a SPM:
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/
Thus proving - probably for all time - why engaging with morons like Petri is so unproductive. Essentially they have understood nothing so far, and likely never will.
Really chek?
Would you call what(ever?) you have produced here **'to engage'**? I certainly wouldn't. Idi0tic blathering at most.
And what would constitute 'not unproductive' in your view? Somebody accepting your blathering at face value? Even being convinced by it? Seriously?
I have seen some (very very few) attempts (from the Deltoid side) at actually discussing any of the issues seriously. The level of this has been (to put it mildly) quite shallow. Things like
'90% is less than 100%, thus ... ', or
Pointing out some arithmetric error I've made.
And (admittedly) a little more, in the early stages.
But you, you have never been close to anything that in my book qualifies as 'engaging' or 'productive' ..
And judging from your performance here, there is very very very little you have actually understood about the topics.
I think you are still in denial of that nobody here (or elsewhere) has ever seen the alleged science underpinning (and properly demonstrating) this infamous AR4-claim you all know about, and want to believe in so desperately ..
No Jonarse it is you, once again, doing the ineffectual blathering.
If you knew anything at all, you would've corrected your stooge Petri - but you didn't. Instead you did your helicopter-impersonating exercise in handwaving - again.
Let's remind you and your tame cretin, shall we?
[IPCC AR4 SPM, Page 1, Paragraph 1, first sentence:](www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf) "The Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report describes progress in understanding of the human and natural drivers of climate change, observed climate change, climate processes and attribution, and estimates of projected future climate change.
As I said, and you so promptly confirm, morons will never learn.
You sure are an angry Chihuahua Chek, I was referring to footnote 2, hence no need for the rabid behavior of yours, as always.
Now, scurry away to your favorite activity, mounting the legs of Jeffie.
Olaus
"mounting the legs of Jeffie."
Ha!
;)
Once again a lying liar from climate scam se, Petri in this particular instance, has been caught out with another of his lies and what does he do?
Apologise? No.
Be thankful for the correction? No.
Instead he projects his worthless 'feelings', and another of his and GSW's homoerotic fantasies.
Pathetic.
Good Grief, given the bed-wetting adulation Olaus and GSW have for Jonas, its amazing how they can write the crap they do. This is the same Joans who writes,
*My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me*.
Talk about self-worship!!!! But this is fine with the right wing-nut deniers here. They of course are also idol worshippers and fantasize endlessly about Jonarse. Heck, my view has always been to let others determine where my standing is in science. Hence why my research papers and grants are all peer-reviewed. But the only supporting 'peer-review' for Jonarse here is by a guy with an arts degree (Olaus) and a few third raters (GSW and PentaxZ). Wow. What esteemed company. And what are Jonarse's qualifications? He won't tell us. He refuses outright. He hides behind his self-righteous 'wisdom'. Where are the publications? The lectures? The research grants?
Jonarse, given your complete anonymity in science, for once in your miserable life, tell us what your day job is. Or is it too embarrrassing to tell us all the truth? What are you hiding?
Sorry Jeffie, you are barking up the wrong tree. Indeed your CV is pure crap. Just because you have butt-plugged it (on yourself I reckon) doesn't bring explanatory value of any kind regarding the right wing well-coordinated mullti-billion denial machine. And you know what Jeff? Nor does it help you explain the science behind the 90% figure.
And what is that waggling little hairy thing on your left ankle Jeff? It looks like chek, so go easy on him â with your CV. ;-)
My CV is "pure crap": according to who? YOU????? Olaus putrid, an arts major? You think I take your sh*@ seriously? Get real, idiot!!!!!
While you are stewing in your own pitiful ignorance, take your head out of your large butt and do a bit of searching for who funds PR firms, think tanks, astroturf lobbying groups and other anti-environmental organizations. Its certainly a multi-billion dollar industry. Why? Because polluting industries see regulations as a threat to the way they do business. Just because you read nix on the subject does not mean it ain't so.
And please don't tell us any more of your fawning admiration for all things Jonarse. If anyone has a homoerotic fixation its you, Olaus.
Ah, now it gets interesting.
Olaus, are you saying that Jeff is lying about his CV, or that his education and publications are worthless?