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.
I think Jonas has been drinking anti-freeze again.
Behold:
Shnookems, you are trying to take a steaming dump on well-established science. Science explained in thousands of papers. You have yet failed to mention a single one that has issues, nor those issues for that matter.
If you were to dispute gravity, the burden of proof would be on you, would it not?
This shaky climate science is so easy to disprove, all you need to do is grab one, just one paper and dissect it for us. You can post your analysis here, or anywhere else of your choosing. You could even choose to have your analysis published in a scientific publication. Heck, if your stuff is good enough, you should send it right to the Nobel foundation. I mean, you are smarter than everyone else, aren't you? Why not cash in a cool million by writing up something you've figured out so decisively? You have oodles of proof, right?
-- channeling sadlyno --
IT IS ALL PROJECTION.
We are aware of all internet memes.
Jonas, you are dense as a post. You have demonstrably failed to absorb any new knowledge for at least two years, and almost certainly longer for an order of magnitude before that.
Yes, let's all pretend that we are all as dense as you and have no concept of the pathetic distraction tactic of JAQing off.
I actually did not expect you to show this much Sterno-induced brain damage. But hey, we can all be surprised, right?
$100, Jonas. One paper, one refutation. Go for it.
Stu, I don't think you've ever said or contributed anythingrelevant or of substance to any relevant topic or discussion. However, you did try at one point:
It was over a hand pushing a box and were ranting over different speeds for them. You derailed over three weeks (or more?) over what you must have believed was a major cock-up of physics. You kept lamenting over things that only existed in your head, even after it was pointed out to you that the opposite had been explained to you only minutes after you got it wrong the first time.
That was the one time you felt like arguing a point!
And you had studied physics for six years Stu, and could see nothing wrong with luminous ramblings.
Yeah right ...
And you think you can teach me anything, Stu?
But I'm glad that you now are aware that wheels and enging will follow the truck ...
A year ago, you had a three week hissy-fit over the opposite.
And I see Lionel A is back at the 'weather is climate, and climate is caused by man'-meme
And Jeff is back in his padded zone, yelling if IPCC says so, then it's science ...
@Jonas
Have you had a chance to look thru the AR5 second order draft yet? I see the "attribution" statement's been upgraded to "extremely likely". (chap 10 I think)
;)
Not in any detail GSW,
But Lionel will not be happy about what they have to say about extreme weather, neither frequency nor severuty ..
It's better to just 'feel the truth', saves a lot of time too.
And I noticed the beefed up 'certainty'. Jeff has already and preemitively declared that one isn't allowed to inquire about the science behind it. I wonder why ..
More funny is that several pro-climate hysterics felt the need to go out and comment in apparently some damage control effort ..
Everybody expects the IIPCC to beef up the alarmism and scare, especially in the wording between the
assessed science'. But they also know that won't get away as easily as they did up til 2001 ..
Funny too is all the stuff they chose not to address, or references they 'omitted'. But really, given what they've promised in earlier reports, and both the activism among (some of) their proponents, and the people who are watching them, paying attention to the details and point out weaknesses and inconsistencies ...
What can they do? They are where they wanted to be? But reality outside has moved on, both temperature wise and policy relevance. Their earlier predictions just look more and more rediculous, especially the promises of 'all the heat in the pipeline' and 'it's only going to get worse from here' ..
But hey, what can they do?
What can the white heterosexual middleaged males do, the ones that invended "science is settled", "elders of exxon against climate cience" and "right wing conspiracies"? Well, they can be offended big time! ;-)
@Jonas
Judith Curry has this on the AR5 document leak,
"I’ve downloaded the SPM and a few of the chapters. The extreme overconfidence of many of their conclusions is bewildering. More on this in future posts."
Bewildering indeed. Obviously as intrigued as the rest of us.
"More funny is that several pro-climate hysterics felt the need to go out and comment in apparently some damage control effort ."
Not half as funny as the crankosphere believing there is any damage.
Another kunatic with an agenda braying to the world about his poor reading comprehension is indeed damaging. But not to the IPCC, just the cranks.
Obvious and stupid lie. Cut back on the Sterno Jonas, it's getting a bit embarrassing now.
Judith Curry has this on the AR5 document leak "The extreme overconfidence of many of their conclusions is bewildering."
Not bewildering at all, As someone with personal experience of Judy's views, uninformed, unaware and unwilling to take responsibility sums her up pretty aptly.
To you cranks, she's a valuable asset (she has a real job! A real job everybody!) but as far as science or scientific research goes, she's a liability who's publication impact is meagre. And that's being kind..
"Obvious and stupid lie."
WB Stu.
OASL's are still the denier currency of choice, even when there is a choice.
Olap, how can you be of any purpose in discussing climate when you refuse to even think about how you would determine whether the climate has warmed or not.
Yet, despite not knowing even IF it has warmed, you still "believe" there's warming, just "believe" that it isn't anthropogenic.
Climate believer?
That would be you, Olap.
But Lionel will not be happy about what they have to say about extreme weather, neither frequency nor severuty ..
Now let us see the WHOLE of that on which you are forming your opinion. Don't go all Plimer on us and take bits out of context and skew them to suit your purpose unless of course you wish to join the ranks of obfuscaters (and that is the polite version) with David Irving.
Put up or shut up. Evasions and rhetoric will be ignored, as before.
"yelling"
You are such an twerp, Jonas. The only person who probably breaks keys when typing is you. You are an insignificant nothing as far as I am concerned. I'd be a bit concerned if you had some sort of scientific pedigree and influence, but as it is you are trapped in your own little teeny weeny corner of the blogosphere. With a few equally dim witted fans to bolster your bloated ego.
As for the IPCC, they interpret the scientific evidence. So yes, given the fact that the document is comprehensive, then yes, it certainly is based on the science.
@Jonas
Had more of a look at chap 10, the ellevation to Defcon 2, "very likely" to "extremely likely" doesn't rely on any relevant new science. At best they've just found more circular arguments. E.g CO2 can cause some warming, warming melts some ice, if some ice melts it must be because of CO2.
Side note, co-ordinating lead author is Nathan Bindoff, don't know much about him other than he's not one of the more vocal advocates. Found this,
https://rmdb.research.utas.edu.au/public/rmdb?indiv_detail_warp_trans+9…
Research funding in the Total Cash column is reported to be about $92million since 1994. Not bad for a second tier player.
How would you know? You don't know what science is.
PS Seen the quarterly reports for Exxon recently?
It's perfectly simple Griselda (and if you're not about perfectly oversimplifying you're about nothing at all): all you have to do is effectively refute the papers the chapter is derived from, It doesn't take a genius to understand that more data over a longer period wasn't going to bring in any good news in the wake of the last five years of climate related global disasters.
However given your guru Jonarse (and the rest of the clownosphere's) inability at simple reading tasks let alone competency in comprehension regarding the AR5 leaked chapters, that's never going to happen. Not ever.
"doesn’t rely on any relevant new science."
I stopped counting at a hundred new peer reviewed papers published since 2008 before attributing yet another casual, stupid, obvious and easily found out lie by Griselda.
"At best they’ve just found more circular arguments"
Another stupid and unsupported assertion from a know-nothing denier.
@chek
"I stopped counting at a hundred new peer reviewed papers published since 2008"
That's come as something of a surprise chek, I'd always had you down as a bit of moron, but now you claim you can count? WOW!
No chance you would ever get as far as reading them to see if they were relevant or not, never mind, "small steps" I suspose. Please report back when you've got the hang of "Janet and John".
;)
Jeff .. you've been telling me that I'm a 'significant nothing' for 1½ years. And still you haven't been able to land one single blow, and instead been swinging wildly at your own fantasies about me.
As I've said, I know far more about science than you. You never seem to have been close to any real science.
And you still argue that you should take whatever the IPCC puts in its report on pure faith. Although you already know that I at least want to see the alleged science behind it. And if it can't be produced, I'd call BS on it.
In contrast to you, I know what it takes to ascertain something, a cause for example, in a comples dynamic and non-linear system to the 99% level.
And can (almost) give you my word already now, that this hasn't been done, and instead are we fed another piece of opinion, by those who selfselected to opine about it. And opinions, not even expert opinions, aren't science, especially when the purpose is to influence policy and claimed in the SPM, not based on the WG science assessment. (but yoy might see this wording change to obtain 'higher agreement' between SPM and WG1-chapters)
Here is what Jeff hopes to be 'the science':
"It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s"
And at the bottom of the SPM page it states:
"Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute"
But really, it is funny how you can have a mock 'review process' with the reservation that later incoming publications (in press) may alter the content after the review deadline.
What are these guys thinking this is?
"As I’ve said, I know far more about science than you. You never seem to have been close to any real science"
If we were to take a poll of the world's scientists in response to that very question, there would be on big loser.
Guess who. It isn't me. Essentially, I am a professional scientist who has the training and background to prove it. You only have comments on a blog, a tiny number of blowhard supporters, no professional qualifications, except for your bloated ego and your own assertions.
Truth is, Mr. Ego, you can go and jump in the lake. Put me together in any scientific venue with you and we'll see who the real scientist is. Until then, bugger off and play with yourself.
PS.
Jonas, to refine your comment, I will confirm that you are, in the world of science, an insignificant nothing.
Hope that clears things up for you.
@jeff
"If we were to take a poll of the world’s scientists in response to that very question, there would be on big loser."
On the other hand, if you were to take a math or physics paper for 12 yr olds, I think you'd be quickly disowned.
Aren't you the one that can't read the climate science primary literature because it has sums and equals signs in it?
You never even had a go. You were just aware they contained stuff and there was a lot stuff. Hardly a basis on which to argue anything.
"No chance you would ever get as far as reading them to see if they were relevant or not"
Well it's a given that you're too incompetent to assess their relevancy, so the authors' decision to include them is good enough for me. They, unlike you, actually know their subject.
"Hardly a basis on which to argue anything."
.. says the sickening, sychophant smilie face pedlar after buildng a whole house of straw populated by an entire straw extended family.
You couldn't make it up as Murdoch's finest used to say, before doing just that.
" “It is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s”
And at the bottom of the SPM page it states:
“Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute” "
...and that's how we know you're a moron Jonarse.
Thanks, for a clearer more concise example than most could show so economically. Why, it's almost as if you're not only too stupid to realise context matters, but don't care if there's the slimmest of slim chances some moron (or specifically the three already accompanying you) even stupider than you might be taken in by it.
Nor do we expect any consistency with regard to the cases of Rawles and Gleick, although Gleick of course hadn't entered into any voluntary and freely given confidentiality agreements.
The other clincher is and most notably is once you step out of your safe zone riff, your complete inability to resist jumping on any old bandwagon du jour that trundles past even when a cursory glance makes plain its wheels are already coming off even as you type. I hate to be ageist sonny, but you really are an old fool.
But you have, right? You've read those new papers, right? As has Jonas.
Name one.
That's easy Jonas 'Wendy' N. this is a silly side show, one of your making.
Now don't go crying that I have taken your words out of context, 'pot-kettle-black' and all that.
The more you wibble the worse you appear.
And again:
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
I've never seen such a blatant, glaring, pathological inferiority complex on display for so long. Most would have figured out how sad they look about a year ago.
So yes, +1 for sickening cognitive dissonance and delusion, -1000 for being boring.
"Aren’t you the one that can’t read the climate science primary literature because it has sums and equals signs in it?"
Funny thing is, gormless, its your idol who hasn't yet proved that he's read a single peer-reviewed climate science paper in his life. I have linked to quite a few; Bernard, Lionel, Chek and Wow have linked to many more. Jonas has summarily dismissed all of them without even a cursory look.
The fact is that you both are a couple of arrogant hypocrites. I get attacked continually for showing that I am a scientist; your idol continually bleats about his superior scientific knowledge and education without any evidence ever being procured, except on his own word. We have a word for that: megalomania. You ought to look it up.
Stu, seems you are in denial again. One person was ranting for several weeks about hand and box and different speeds. Only one!
But I confess, I prompted you to go on and also start again later because it was so hilarious ..
All the time while it both was the most obvious thing (that nobody would claim anything but the obvious) and that your misconception(?) had been pointed out within minutes..
But all those problems and even the conflating 'physics studying' with cereal packages etc .. were caused by them 'evil deniers' too, weren't they?
;-)
And Stu informs me that he chuckles in other threads together with his chuckle-chums
Chek on the other hand, linked to the same Wipi-page twice, claiming they were two different ones even after I told him the second time. Meanwhile Jeff tries to redefine history again ....
"[Jonas] who hasn’t yet proved that he’s read a single peer-reviewed climate science paper in his life ... has summarily dismissed all of them without even a cursory look. "
It truly is stupidity beyond belief. 1½ years after the this started Jeff still doesn't know what it is about. He is madly shouting at his retina ingraved fantasies ...
Jeff ...
"I get attacked continually for showing that I am a scientist"
You get attacked for showing that you are unable to behave like a scientist. I think I've clarified that 100 times by now. And I would ad 'unable to behave like an adult' too
One person brought it up (not me), and one person ranted about how absolutely, ravingly stupid that person was (me).
But keep on maintaining your delusions, cupcake. It speaks volumes about your reading comprehension that you still cannot or refuse to properly process a blog comment. It instills oodles of confidence in you being able to comprehend climate change papers.
By the way, you still haven't read a single one, have you. If you had, you could just name it, refute it and cash in on my $100.
Each time you ignore that challenge you confirm you are nothing more than a lying little weasel with an inferiority complex the size of lake Vänern.
...as judged by a random, agenda-driven, highly delusional, willfully dyslexic pathological liar with a Napoleon complex on a blog. Who hasn't read a single scientific paper in his entire miserable existence and does not have a single scientific credential.
I'm sure he is crushed.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Again.
Holy canoli the necessary increases in cognitive dissonance are making you more pathetic by the minute.
Jonas, here's a hint: adults don't whine.
Stu ... in utter denial. Or worse, feeling the necessity to lie about your own actions: Only you went on and on about hand and box at different speeds ... And it was hilarious, Stu-I-studied-six-years-of-physics-and-can-see-nothing-with-luminous-calculations. Your chuckle-chum Wow couldn
't even find where I said that luminous was wrong, poor thing. But I understand why it's sensitive ...
:-)
"Each time you ignore that challenge you confirm .."
Ah, and there comes the Jeffie-style logic. And Bernard-style proof. And you probably still haven't figured out why your idiotic question you kept obsessing about, what percentage of climate scientists bla bla ... .. why that was equally stupid.
Well, Stu (I-studied-six-years-of-physics) I guess there isn't all that much you have figured out yet, and that's why you keep posting your stupidities ...
And are you aware of that Jeff essentially (in one of his very few, non-dim moments) had pulled the carpet from underneath that AR4 claim. He doesn't think it is real science either ... just a trumped up number by people he would like to label scientists
Of course.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
I went on and on how moronic it was for one of your bootlickers (GSW, I think it was) to bring it up. But you know this already. You're just lying through your teeth, trying to get the last line in and hoping that people happening upon this thread don't go back and check for themselves.
Everyone who has been following that particular subtopic knows you're lying, Jonas. You're a bad joke.
Oh sweetheart, you're STILL not over that?
Why are you blaming everyone but yourself for being unable to hack even high-school physics? We weren't there, cupcake. You' should be angry with yourself, not us.
Really? Weren't you the one carping about "real" science?
Yeah, I thought that was you.
So how is asking you what percentage of climate scientists you consider "real" scientists a stupid question?
It's not, cupcake -- it's just a question you can't answer without implicitly admitting you're a lying sack of crap, and you're (barely) smart enough to do that. Therefore, any question you don't like, or can't answer, or don't want to answer is magically "stupid", just like any science you don't like is magically "not real".
These are things that are obvious to everyone, probably even you in your more lucid moments. I point them out merely in the hopes you will seek professional help for your mental illnesses.
Good thing you're not still obsessing over that, sweetheart. Yikes.
I guess not. I guess maybe someone with your towering intellect should teach me a lesson and discuss one paper that person has read. And refute it. And make me pay that genius $100 for my stupidity.
Should be easy for you, right, Jonas? Aren't you the smartest person here? You keep saying so. Piece of cake, right?
Or would this be another instance where answering such a simple question would truly reveal you to be the pathetic lying little weasel you've been so far?
Only in your tiny, fevered little mind sweetheart.
Only in your tiny, diseased little place you call a brain.
By the way, you whine about my carping on GSW's inane comment for a few weeks yet see no problem with whining about a single phrase in the AR4 for a year and a half?
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Especially singe you've failed to address a single underlying paper, like the cowardly hypocritical douchecanoe you are.
"It truly is stupidity beyond belief. 1½ years after the this started Jeff still doesn’t know what it is about."
It's pretty obvious that you don't, joan.
Oh hai, look who was spot-on. Sorry, I had to look it up. I'll try to be more accurate in my description of Jonas' mental illnesses from here on out:
meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a (mg-l-mn-, -mny)
n.
1. A psychopathological condition in which delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence predominate.
2. An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.
As a random aside, this probably applies as well.
Funny Stu, you talk about 'it's all projection' while it was you and only you who imagined some hand an box at different speeds. And did so and derailed about it for three weeks. In spite your misconception being pointed out in minutes. It's all projection Stu ...
And denial. And lying too possibly, Stu.
Studied six years of physics (allegedly) and you lose the plot right away .. Yeah right Stu.
But you now once more dream that there is real science behind that AR4 claim? Why then hasn't any one of you produced it?
Have you noticed the long list (and short) that Bernard and Wow and chek point at? Hoping it's in there.
" By the way, you whine about my carping on GSW’s inane comment for a few weeks yet see no problem with whining about a single phrase in the AR4 for a year and a half?"
You really don't know? After all this time? Ok, I'll repeat it once more:
Because the IPCC made this claim, and alleged to be based on science. GSW never made any that stupid claim you obsessed about.
Why I bring it up? Because you guys derail over both. Can't handle neither that AR4 claim's non-existing science, nor that you swing at pure nonsense in your infantile fantasies about your opponents. And lie about how much physics you studied ... And about what you said.
Sure Stu .. only when you fantasize about the climate scare, you get it right.Blindy. Sure ..
No Jonarse, No, no no.
The science underlying the claim is where it's always been - itemised in Chapter 9 of AR4.
The problem - as it's always been - is your inability to understand the science well enough to understand the attribution. This is something that your quaint and personalised crank definition of 'the scientific method' is unable to comprehend.
But then whoever promised that complex science would be understandable by the stupid? Not the IPCC - they work with what they have, which happen to be the leaders in their field - not cranks with a crush on prettyboy economists out of their depth.
chek
Iäts quite obvious that you are too stupid to understand even the easier bits of both how science works, and what any particular piece actually says. In short "your inability to understand the science well enough to understand the attribution"
Just look at gems like:
"all you have to do is effectively refute the papers the chapter is derived from, It doesn’t take a genius to understand that more data over a longer period wasn’t going to bring in any good news in the wake of the last five years of climate related global disasters",
" the authors’ decision to include them is good enough for me" and
"I stopped counting at a hundred new peer reviewed papers published since 2008"
As already noted, counting papers may be within your skillset, but you said you didn't. Reading them, you most certainly did not. FUrther, papers published by 2008 or later cannot have been grounds for a 2007 AR4 claim. But most of all, you (and Jeffie) get it doubly wrong already at the kindergarten-Gore level:
Specific quantified claims (like the on in question) are neither establish nor bolstered by the number of publications not making any such claims. Get this into your head.
Lnsting papers you haven't read, or even counted won't make you look smarter chek (more like Wow, actually). And there is no need to 'refute any of those papers' unless they actually make such claims, and present any science allegedly demonstrating them.
It's still science on the absolutely most basic level, chek (and Stu, and others): If there is published science, it can be seen (by 2007) and read, scrutinizzed, questioned etc.
Oh, not by you guys of course, but by anybody trained in science.
And specified scienctific claims are not 'fealt' by scientists reading (or publishing) larger numbers of papers not dealing with those pecifics (nor by morons, not reading them, merely claiming the ability to count).Scientific claims are not felt, or voted upon, or established in negotiations, and especially not in the SPM summary where they appeared for the first time.
It really is as simple as that. And you guys completely derail over this simplest of facts. It's like you all cling desperately to a (now obviously corrupted) bureaucracy, and hoping its internal procedures somehow ensure claims by its officialls, but not made anywhere else. And in lie of published cliams, that it can be replaced by volume and sufficient opinion. It's quite pathetic.
But hey, it's what you have argued for many years now. Willfully displayed ignorance at the very core of your beliefs.
The funny thing, chel, is that you have spent 1½ here displaying pure idiocy, and elsewhere before that. And still think you can establish any of it by repeating it and claiming that someone else, others, know what you want to be true, but through the same shady unspecified consensus babble as yourself ..
And that only 'mentally ill stupid morons and deniers' would not share your faith. That has pretty much been your argument since the beginning. An argument from blind and stupid ignorance, from which you have claimed to be able to make more judgements by merely guessing them.
No wonder you'll get things totally wrong almost everytime ... Guessing, based on willfully blind ignorance will do that for you with quite som prescision ..
"If there is published science, it can be seen (by 2007) and read, scrutinizzed, questioned etc.
Oh, not by you guys of course, but by anybody trained in science."
Funny.... there are tens of thousands of actual trained scientists who agree with those "guys". More than 97% if the surveys are any indication.
In fact I dont know of anyone well-known in science - besides Chris Monckton, Anthony Watts, and Judy Curry - who carry on in the same way as Jonas. Of those four only Curry has any scientific credentials, but she is so waffly in her promotion of 'uncertainty' that it is hard to tell what she really believes.... which I suppose is her intention.
Sp what exactly is the scientific basis for your crusade Jonas?
But Jonarse, you are a mentally ill moron. A fact easily demonstrated by your five hundred plus word dyslexic rant including quotes unrelated to your one precious riff.
Looked at in context, my quotes that you take in support of your argument rant are in reply to your bootlicker pet Griselda's claim that there were no new relevant papers in the attribution chapter of the AR5 leak, and an earlier (quite prescient, as it turns out) comment re the upcoming AR5. And please, don't even try to imply that your pet simpleton read a single one of the post 2008 papers, because it ain't gonna be believed.
Now wipe the spittle off your screen, mop up the drool from your keyboard and try to make one coherent claim regarding any of the papers underlying AR4 Chapter 9.
Not your quaint ideas about what science should be.
Not your interpretation of the scientific method.
Not another disconnected rant about your own brilliance.
For the first time, some actual point regarding the science.
Wyvern ..
If you claim that som 97% of some tens of thousands actual trained scientists agree with those guys (the ones here, who rant but cannot read) I would cal BS on that.
If you would say that some 97% of some tens of thousands actual trained scientists agreeagree with those specified AR4 claims, I would call that BS too.
Same goes for if you restrict this to some self selected group of 'climate scientists' (although the percentage would increase, there are those who agree with those AR4 claims)
But still, agreement, unanimity, surveys among groups or subgroups etc, is not the way things are decided or facts or science is settled. You should know that.
And furhter, those 97% agree whowe hear som much about are about some very much different and relaxed claims about global warming than the issue at hand. You should know that too. But then again, you brought up that 97% figure, in the belief that it somehow boosts your beliefs, so on the balance probably you did not ..
You say: "In fact I dont know of anyone well-known in science ..."
Well, Wyvern, since you don't seem to know what the issue is about, your familiarity with anything doesn't carry that much weight.
But you got one part right, that the claimed 'certainties' are are a huge problem, as is the science, if it claims it arrived at these.
So Wyvern, did it? Does 'the science' establish these certainty levels or not? And if you include yourself among som loosely defined 97% ... would you be able to produce it? Or would we hear the same deraling as from 'those guys' who in blind faith believe things, and spout invectives for years if somebody doesn't share them?
chek,
"make one coherent claim regarding any of the papers underlying AR4 Chapter 9"
None of them even alleges to establish, by proper science, the quantitative levels made in that AR4 claim.
PS I have been saying the same thing for over a year, only here. Funny that this still seems to escape you, chek
Now chek, can you too say one coherent thing about the existence of any proper science, that domonstrates, or only attempts to demonstrate these claimed levels, particularly of the high certainty? ...
Anything that isn't your repition of your own blind faith, but based on facts that can be checked!? Particularly, a reference that makes exactly those cliams would suffice. (You don't need to have read it, or understood any of it, only address the combination of the two quantitative levels)
Now chek, can you too say one coherent thing about the existence of any proper science, that domonstrates, or only attempts to demonstrate these claimed levels, particularly of the high certainty? ...
Anything that isn't your repition of your own blind faith and tupid rambling of invectives trying to conceal thhis, but based on facts that can be checked!? Particularly, a reference that makes exactly those cliams would suffice. (You don't need to have read it, or understood any of it, only address the combination of the two quantitative levels)
Can you, chek?
I'm not interested in your self-invented definitions of 'proper science', Jonarse.
But if you want to make a dent in the attribution statement, you have to refute the science papers previously and exhaustively listed by Wow and Lionel - which we of course know by now you're quite unable to do. Hence your endless excuses, prevarications and constructs.
"attempts to demonstrate these claimed levels, particularly of the high certainty? …"
You've already been given two specifically.
"If you claim that som 97% of some tens of thousands actual trained scientists agree with those guys (the ones here, who rant but cannot read) I would cal BS on that."
And that means nothing. You're ALWAYS calling "BS" merely because you don't WANT it to be true.
"Same goes for if you restrict this to some self selected group of ‘climate scientists’"
You mean if you only ask Watts, McI and RPSr, several times each?
No, the number is NOT "self selected". It was selected from those PUBLISHING about climate science.
Something you don't do.
"But still, agreement, unanimity, surveys among groups or subgroups etc, is not the way things are decided or facts or science is settled."
No, but once the science is settled, you get consensus.
Once the science is settled, you get consensus.
chek,
Of course I didn't expect you to come up with any other than that moronic drivel you've been spouting here. And claiming I should have to 'refute' all those papers others have listed which don't contain any such claims.
But even this you didn't get right. I wrote:
counterfactual sutpidities again. I said:
"(You don’t need to have read it, or understood any of it, only address the combination of the two quantitative levels)"
I would do the 'proper science chek' for you!
PS Whatever you believe you know has so far only been a display of your blind faith. Simplest of facts still is that none of you (nor anybody else I've ever asked) has even claimed to have seen such science. Only told me about their beliefs
Wow!?
"You’ve already been given two specifically"
You are the one who listed two specifically, yes. And one was about monsoon patterns and trends, essentially confirming the more skeptic position that model simulations aren't doing a very good job ...
And, yes, if 100% of the papers supported the claim "AGW is causing the climate trend" then one paper saying otherwise would prove it wrong.
However, the figure is >90%.
Therefore unless you can find another twenty/thirty-ish papers saying "no change", then the AR4 claim is correct.
"essentially confirming the more skeptic position that model simulations aren’t doing a very good job …"
Essentially you're lying again.
The models are NOT INVOLVED in that paper. The paper was about MEASUREMENTS, NOT MODELS.
Then again, you are only here to lie out your two arses.
Wow ...
Wyvern was pretending to speak for 10s of thousands of scientists about some 97% claim he
1) apparentlyg didn't understand, and
2) is unrelated to the issue here.
And no, the science about those AR4 (and now soon AR5) attribution claims is as far from settled as it can be. So far there is not even any science presented purporting to establish those levels ..
The only people who in the face of me asking the obvious and relevant questions, have maintained that there is proper and published science although they have never seen and read any, have been utter morons and idiots (whose idiocy usually hasn't been limiyed to only this particular topic).
"Wyvern was pretending to speak for 10s of thousands of scientists about some 97% claim"
Yup, another lie. Really, you're Monckton, aren't you. Monckton lied about his "hitler youth" comment despite it was on TV. Really didn't give a shit that it was easy to spot.
And neither do you.
"And no, the science about those AR4 (and now soon AR5) attribution claims is as far from settled as it can be"
Nope, they aren't settled, but that is why they were saying "90%+" rather than "99.999%+".
And if it were as far from settled as you claim (again, another bare faced lie from you), then the confidence would be 0%.
"have maintained that there is proper and published science although they have never seen and read any"
That was you again.
"have been utter morons and idiots "
Yeah, definitely you.
"(whose idiocy usually hasn’t been limiyed to only this particular topic)."
Yup, you all right.
Wow ... Yes, that paper contained many sentences longer than three words ... It's undertandable if you didn't understand all of them ...
chek, Jeff and all you other guys ..
Have you noticed that your chuckle-chum Wow believes I am Monckton? Lets see if you guys can establish this (beyond doubt, with a very-likely certainty) based on consensus!?
;-)
What on earth are you wibbling on about now?
I know I said stuff that is
a) correct
b) reasoned
and
c) doesn't agree with you
therefore you refuse to acknowledge it.
The claim was 90%+ confidence AGW was affecting the climate.
One of the two papers you were given were showing that measurements of monsoon frequency hadn't been shown to be increasing.
This
a) doesn't disprove AR4
b) doesn't invalidate the models
c) doesn't agree with you
so therefore you haven't read it. Despite one of the authors' names being Watts.
"Have you noticed that your chuckle-chum Wow believes I am Monckton?"
Care to prove you aren't?
No Wow, I don't care to prove I am not ..
:-)
Then stop complaining.
Oh, you don't do that, do you. You just whine and whinge for years at a time and then when you get anything concrete jump over to the next non-sequitur and blame everyone else for your insanity.
“Wyvern was pretending to speak for 10s of thousands of scientists about some 97% claim”
Yup, another lie.
But rather than demonstrate me wrong (which would be a good trick, since it's true), you go off on a tangent.
You're a liar, Joan.
A flat-out bare-faced and psychotic liar.
Precisely like Lord Monkfish. Who goes to Australia because of the stop-over in Thailand for the same reasons as Garry Glitter did.
Anything concrete, Wow!?
You mean any scientific publications (by 2007) that acctually do, or only attempt to establish those by the AR4 SPM claimed attribution- and confidence levels !?
Nope, haven't seen anything concrete at all. Only idiotic ranting and waffle and wowble ..
"Have you noticed that your chuckle-chum Wow believes I am Monckton?"
One lying denier is the same as another. Who cares what the difference is?
"Nope, haven’t seen anything concrete at all. Only idiotic ranting and waffle"
Yup, that's ALL we've ever had from you. You seem to seriously believe your - heh - logic and rhetoric alone will suffice. And you still haven't given up banging your head against that wall.
"Anything concrete, Wow!?"
Yes.
"You mean any scientific publications (by 2007) that acctually do, or only attempt to establish those by the AR4 SPM claimed attribution- and confidence levels !? "
And yes, I do mean scientific publications that actually do attempt to establish the AR4 claims.
chek ...
One or some papers which establish or attempt to etablish said AR4 claims and levels will suffice ..
You, and quite a few more idiots, have tried to avoid the most simple and basic rquirement in science for 1½ years ...
And instead produced utter drivel and nonsens, and idiotic rants, interspersed with attempted infantile invectives in the vain hope of getting away from the issue, and the obvious fact that you are all taking these things in blind faith ..
Every single one of your comments underlines that you are defending your faith and belief system, and nothing else ...
"One or some papers which establish or attempt to etablish said AR4 claims and levels will suffice .. "
You've already been given two of them.
"And instead produced utter drivel and nonsens, and idiotic rants, interspersed with attempted infantile invectives in the vain hope of getting away from the issue"
That's you.
"and the obvious fact that you are all taking these things in blind faith .. "
Nope, you again.
Wow, are you referring to your monsoon paper again? :-D
Your point?
"One or some papers which establish or attempt to etablish said AR4 claims and levels will suffice .. "
So after all this time, you need someone to tell you how to use the Chapter 9 .pdf?
Actually, I can believe that.
Oh, and this is still waiting on your answer. So far all you've done is proclaim you don't know how to do it (though this doesn't stop you believing for no apparent reason that the climate has warmed).
How do you go about finding out whether the temperature has warmed?
My point Wow? That you don't have a clue, which you demonstraded all by yourself with the monsoon paper. Hilarious for us, but embarrising for you and the rest of the climate scare clergy.
chek ..
I have been able to read chapter 9 all the time, or to assess the list of references given there. If you truly believe anything else your are beyond idiotic in your deluded own fantasyworld engraved on the inside of your eyballs and skull ..
And all your comments here still paint you as an utter idiot, chek!
Wow ... you too are taking those AR4-claims in blind faith. But in yoru case, I am almost willing to give you the benifit of the doubt. Meaning that you aren't even aware of not ever having seen the science you hope exists ...
And unfortunately, you are not alone. And the probablity that I am Christopher Monckton is either 0 or 1. Nothing inbetween is possible. And you don't know which .. again, you can only guess. And try to establish consensus in replacements of facts with your buddies ...
Good luck!
;-)
Still an obvious and stupid lie. Again, if you can't even discuss something as simple as that rationally and honestly, why on Earth do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
chek ..
You are repeating your diversion-beliefs totally irrelevant for the issue. And I think it is the most funny thing, to see how shallow your understanding and knowledge of the issue is.
Jeff Harvey, only slightly more skilled than Wow and you, too tries to argue in some backward way that this lack of proper attribution science, is the fault of some (very few) skeptics ..
His claim is just as moronic as yours ... But at least he has stopped claiming it, even says some (partially) sensible things about it.
It seems, you aren't anywhere close to that anytime soon.But hey, you've tried the same tactic for little over 1½ years now. Maybe, by the time of any AR14 or so, even you'll get the memo ...
:-)
"My point Wow? That you don’t have a clue"
And the "evidence" for this is what? That a paper says monsoon frequency hasn't provably changed is used to illustrate the science behind the AR4 claim that it's extremely likely that climate change and very likely that most of that change is due to human effects?
How do you draw that conclusion?
Or is it the usual bollocks of "I deny AGW, therefore anyone supporting it must be talking crap"?
"you don’t have a clue"
Rather amusing coming from someone who doesn't even know how to determine a trend...
"I have been able to read chapter 9 all the time"
You haven't though.
Because you don't understand science.
"If you truly believe anything else "
No, we totally believe you've been ABLE to.
We know you neither have read them, nor are capable of understanding them.
"you too are taking those AR4-claims in blind faith"
Nope, because unlike you, I read the science for AR4 Ch9.
"You are repeating your diversion-beliefs totally irrelevant for the issue."
What issue?
The issue that you have been claiming that there is no science supporting the AR4 claim?
He's spot on there.
"But hey, you’ve tried the same tactic for little over 1½ years now"
Yeah, for 18 months or more you've been ignoring the science.
We don't expect any change other than your disappearance (hence why you won't identify yourself or your capabilities: plausible deniability "It wasn't me wot said that") by AR14.
Olap, how would you go about determining the change in temperature?
Or are you merely taking it on faith that there IS warming?
Stu
There was one Stu(-pid person) only who lamented about hand and pushed box at different speeds. Even in spite of being corrected only minutes after his first failure, even several times. Its all on page 15 of this thread. This quote:
and also this gem:
And you were siding with empty physics-blusterer 'luminous' back then.
And do you think I care the least about whether or not you take me seriously, Stu? Of handmoving-box-fame? Of studied-six-years-of-physics-fame?
C'mon
For three weeks you were lamenting about different speeds among hand and box. Or let me correct that, now it's more like 1½ years you've stuck to that particular idiocy!
Keep at it, Stu ...
:-)
"Its all on page 15 of this thread. This quote:..."
He's correct.
Or do you think that a hand doesn't have to touch something to push it along?
You are a complete moron, Joan. Complete.
Stu: “Still haven’t answered me though: what the hell does the velocity of the hand have to do with it? You brought it up. It’s a simple question. Answer it.”
None of you answered, though, did you.
Wow, claims "Nope, because unlike you, I read the science for AR4 Ch9"
And is unable to come up with it wrt to his beleived claim. Links to a monsoon-pattern paper istead.
QED
And you were whining about everyone going on about irrelevant stuff compared to "the issue"...
"And is unable to come up with it wrt to his beleived claim"
No, no belief necessary.
You were given TWO papers underpinning the AR4 claim.
The AR4 claim is not SOLELY from those two papers, though you continue to demand that it must.
Reality, however, doesn't give a shit about what you want.
You claim you are smart and better at science than Jeff.
And you're unable to come up with any evidence wrt your believed claim.
Wow, I copy it once more for you (emphasis mine):
"Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox"
And what does that have to do with anything?
Can't you stop with the irrelevancies?
But if you WANT to talk about stuff not relevant to "the issue", if you're pushing WITH your hand, your hand IS accelerating.
It's how hands push: they apply force and move if the stiction is less than the force applied with the hand.
Sorry 'bout the bungled quote, I hope any non-moron can figure out where it ends (Hint: It was posted just minutes earlier)
"But please keep at it, you too!"
"Jonas N
December 18, 2012
chek ..
You are repeating your diversion-beliefs totally irrelevant for the issue"
Do you withdraw your complaint now?
Or is honesty totally beyond you?
Is that because you're playing to the moron deniers, Joan?
Wow, you should have explained the obvious to Stu before he derailed. Now he has made an utter fool about himself, forced to lie about his physcis-studies, and is still in denial of the obvious.
Wow, as I said, I appreciate that you, chek and Stu are repeating all the nonsens you spout. Occasionally, Jeff brings up you guys in to demonstrate how many here side with him. That's a Double Bonus for me ...
"Wow, you should have explained the obvious to Stu before he derailed."
No, it wasn't Stu who derailed it. That is why he asked:
“what the hell does the velocity of the hand have to do with it? You brought it up. It’s a simple question. Answer it.”
Yet again, you talk of yourself but pretend the villain is someone else.
Is it a compulsion?
"I appreciate that you, chek and Stu are repeating all the nonsens you spout."
a) Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it's nonsense.
b) Apparently you don't since when you get the answers you childishly demand, you go off on a segue then whine, bitch and moan about how everyone else is an idiot.
PS learn to spell.
Wow, it was answered. Repeatedly ... And Stu stu still derailed, still is in denial it seems ..
I'm no part of his nonsense, but admit finding it entertaining. Also that Jeff felt the need to side wuth you guys ... It's like a compusion. And you couldn't even see that I contradicted luminous. Hillarious too if true ...
"Wow, it was answered. Repeatedly "
No, it was repeated, repeatedly.
"And Stu stu still derailed"
No, he continued to ask why you deniers derailed it (and I ask you why you didn't complain about GSW derailing "the issue").
"I’m no part of his nonsense"
Really? So someone else was posting as you here:
"Jonas N
December 18, 2012
Wow, I copy it once more for you (emphasis mine):
“Sorry stu it’s a physics thing. Keeping it simple for you,...""
Is lying as necessary to you as breathing is to normal humans?
I seem to have yet more lying tripe from Joan. When it claims: “I’m no part of his nonsense”
He must be forgetting:
"Jonas N
October 6, 2011
No, luminous b
You’ve got it wrong. And of course I know Newton’s laws. Much better than you here trying .. I don’t even know what.... "
Its always fun when white men like Wow, Jeff, Lionel, chek etc get hurt by reality. "Angry" doesn't cut it. :-)
Olap, why are you here when you don't even know how to measure temperatures?
PS what other than your own insanity makes you claim "get hurt by reality."?
What reality are you claiming?
Wow .. I'll explain it once more for you (because it is so hillarioulsy funny):
The discussion was about friction, sliding boxes, hands pushing it. Nothing even the least complicated about it. Kindergarten Stu(ff) ..
Stu lost it over the hand/box speeds (as you seem to have done too)m albeit it being explained to him repeatedly. See the quotes above.
For weeks he (alone) went on about different speeds between hand and box. All by his own. Here (page 16 in this thread) is one example :
All by his frikking own, Wow! The guys became a nutcase ... and he is not alone, I promise you!
Did you get it this time? If not, read again. Or ask me to repost it. I can put the various quotes in the same comment if that helps (can't shorten the length of the sentences, though, Wow)
:-)
"The discussion was about friction"
So when you whined:
"Jonas N
December 18, 2012
chek ..
You are repeating your diversion-beliefs totally irrelevant for the issue"
You wanted him to stay on the topic of friction?
Like I said: Angry doesn't cut it, mr. Monsoon paper. :-)
"The discussion was about friction, sliding boxes, hands pushing it. Nothing even the least complicated about it. Kindergarten Stu(ff)"
Yup, stuff you haven't understood (and it's not kindergarden stuff by the way. If you'd ever gone to school you'd know that).
"Stu lost it over the hand/box speeds "
No, all he lost was understanding what the hell it had to do with anything.
"For weeks he (alone) went on about different speeds between hand and box."
No, that again would be you and the slug horde. You kept going on about it.
"Here (page 16 in this thread) is one example :..."
Yes, someone asking why YOU are going on about different speeds for hands and boxes.
Like I say, you're always talking about yourself, but pretending the faults are done by everyone else.
"Angry doesn’t cut it"
And birds of a feather flock together.
A stitch in time saves nine.
Many a mickle make a muckle.
However, like everything you've tried since you had to run off to avoid answering my really simple question, they are irrelevant to anything.
This is a theme with you deniers.
"All by his frikking own"
Yes, all by his frikking own, apart from you saying for days that the speed of the hand is different from the box, he brought up why you kept saying it.
Obviously, Stu must be mind controlling you and doing time travel.
The chronology of this "issue" in normal linear time goes like this:
Joan: Talks about hands pushing boxes.
Joan: Insists their idiocy is correct.
Stu: Asks how joan can show their face after their insistence about hands/boxes/acceleration.
Joan thinks that this is proof Stu started this and Joan never was part of it (which you'll note that Joan has accepted without comment that they HAVE lied and now quietly contradicts themselves).
Marvelous Wow, now you too make the same idiotic claim as Stu did back then. I'll even quote it for for everyone to see (and find more easily). You said:
In total denial too? In denial of what you correctly identified as the opposite statement just minutes ago:
And Stu wasn't asking, he was making stupid (strawman) claims, see above.
But Stu isn't alone anymore among the idiots. I just wish Jeffie would come back and weigh in on your side ...
:-)
"Marvelous Wow, now you too make the same idiotic claim as Stu did back then."
Yes, people do tend to agree on the truth. Lies are unbounded, so there are so very many of them.
“[Me:]“For weeks he (alone) went on about different speeds between hand and box.”
[Wow:]No, that again would be you and the slug horde. You kept going on about it.”
Yes.
“Jonas N
October 6, 2011
No, luminous b
You’ve got it wrong. And of course I know Newton’s laws. Much better than you here trying .. I don’t even know what…. “
l by his own. Here (page 16 in this thread) is one example :
(which is dated October 19, 2011)
Now in REALITY, 6th October 2011 came BEFORE 19th October, 2011.
Indeed, the difference was 14 days, near enough.
"And Stu wasn’t asking, he was making stupid (strawman) claims, see above.
“Sorry stu it’s a physics thing. Keeping it simple for you, if you apply a greater force ...""
No, you're quoting yourself (maybe GSW) there, definitely not Stu.
How can YOUR statement be a statement from someone else unless you're claiming mind control by that other?
I do realise that subtraction of numbers in the range 0-99 are a little beyond you, Joan, but you really should have asked a grown-up to help before you displayed your ignorance for all the world to (potentially) see.
I am SHOCKED. Jonas quotes dishonestly.
Again, you pathetic, lying little weasel, this is what started it:
(Emphasis added)
We went back and forth a bit, until...
After THAT, you STILL went on about it for weeks (when one simple "well, that's not how it was meant, sheesh" could have ended it). That final quote ("keep pace with the matchbox", thank you for bolding it) shows you don't know a single farking thing about physics. No wonder you're still carping on my having six years of basic physics under your belt; I doubt you made it through two.
It's absolutely pathetic.
It wouldn't be that the sudden fortuitous yet irrelevant appearance by Jizzhead Putrid was designed to temporarily unbalance the thread's stupidometer in the hope of making Jonarse's mental contortions seem more believable, somehow?
Hey Putrid - forget Wow's trend question for the moment; what's a temperature?
Cheekie, you are a true major ass(et) to this site. Wrt temps, in contrast to Jeff, I preferr using thermometers. What about you?
Thermometers, eh? I'ts my understanding that deniers have a knee-jerk distrust of proxies of any kind.
But unsurprisingly, you avoided the simplest question. Jonarse certainly has rubbed off on you, hasn't he.
So how would you measure a trend in temperatures with a thermometer, Olap?
(why does it feel like I'm a teacher in playschool with Olap Dog here?)
"Thermometers, eh? I’ts my understanding that deniers have a knee-jerk distrust of proxies of any kind. "
Oh, no, they love proxies like
a) Wine records in Roman Britain pre 7th C.
b) Dead animals in permafrost.
c) Illustrations of rivers frozen
d) Viking settlers freezing to death
They also have a love-hate relationship with ice cores. They hate them when they tell the temperature but love them when they indicate that CO2 rises after the seas have warmed.
Wow: I know, right? It truly feels like educating the short bus. Remedial math, remedial English...
I'm afraid it's more like irremediable maths/english/science/reading...
So Wow, you finally found an instance where I told luminous he got it wrong? Marvelous, you were in denial about that too for quite some time.
Your quote now, however (from Oct 6, on page 13) does not allude to any hands and boxes and pushing. It deals with how luminous bungled his laws of motion. Explicitly!
Are you that incompetent? Or that dishonest?
Here (page 20, top Nov 5, almost 3 weeks later) is my final comment to Stu, after which he calmed down for some time:
Stu's next retort was about 'Ritalin subscription' on Nov7. But a year later he once more tries to rewrite history like a true denier. It is simply amazing!
Yes Stu, and that description of physics was quite correct. Still is. If your applied forece exceeds frictional force, the box will accelerate, and (to keep up with it) the hand would need to accelerate to, ie move quicker and quicker. Nothing difficult at all.
To avoind any possibly ambiguity (för the dim witted) the quickening of the hand even was accompanied by an "accelerate")
The thereafter imagined different/hand/box/speed was and still is only a something you brought up (or 'misinterpreted' if we would interpret it nicely). And of course repeatedly corrected for you several times. As copied above.
Still your problem Stu, still only yours!
And truly Stu (of studied-physics-for-six-years-fame), I don't know why you even started that? Why you pinned your hopes to luminous? He was out of his depth, and if you had understood the least little thing about physics, you would have noticed that quickly. But you didn't, and instead had a (almost) three-week-hissy-fit about different speeds among hand/box. Which only existed in your own head! As repeatedly demonstrated here again, and back then!
"Yes Stu, and that description of physics was quite correct."
Glad you now agree with Stu on what the physics is.
"So Wow, you finally found an instance where I told luminous he got it wrong?"
No, I found you talking yet more bollocks that YOU were claiming you never said.
Something YOU failed to find.
Despite all your whinges about how everyone else can "just find where I said it before" (and ignoring specifying the "it" into the bargain).
Mosoons man feels like a teacher when he links to papers that contradict his beliefs. Abominable like the snowman, but yet true! Amazing! :-D
“What GSW said about hand velocity was correct. "
What he said was bollocks.
But you love him, so you defend him.
Hell, your understanding is no better than his and so therefore you're willing to believe him without evidence, just by his proclamation.
"when he links to papers that contradict his beliefs. "
My goodness. You think EVERYONE thinks like you. I respect the evidence. I don't discard it if it doesn't proclaim "AGW is killing us all", yet you DO if it doesn't claim "AGW is a scam!".
And trust you not to know what the hell Joan's demands were.
Joan didn't demand a paper that proved AGW.
Joan demanded the science behind the AR4 report.
Then again, thinking for the pre-paid like you isn't really an option, is it.
And how can you claim a paper doesn't support my "beliefs" as you term them when you can't even work out how to calculate whether something is warming or not?
"Your quote now, however (from Oct 6, on page 13) does not allude to any hands and boxes and pushing."
It DOES allude to it. And that isn't even your first load of bollocks on the situation.
But you don't know how to search which is why you demand everyone else do it for you.
Your comments and history proclaiming just what you are now insisting you have never done are easily retrieved from your thread.
All you have are claims that have so far 100% been proven lies.
What are you talking about Moosesoon man? You are the one that links to papers that cointradicts your own statements (with the tail in the air). How clever is that?
So stop blaiming me for your long shortcomings. ;-)
I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't know how to measure if something is warmer to understand.
Then again, that last message indicated you continue with the "not knowing what the hell is going on".
Ah Stu, and you even (and again) want to blame all that stupid lamenting and obsessing on someone else!?
Your problem was and still is: The description is accurate, even emphasized ('accelerate', to avoid dimwit confusion) and thereafter explained twice more. And you still kept going on about different speeds, and later dependet variables etc.
What an utter joke you are Stu! And you accuse me of lying for accurately describing both the physics, then the example, then your misconcecption of it, your derailing, and further stupidities, and now reminding you of all.
What an utterly pathetic joke Stu!
"Your problem was and still is: The description is accurate"
No, our problem was and still is that you're talking shit and are insisting it's best beef.
"even emphasized (‘accelerate’, to avoid dimwit confusion) "
Then why is it, after all this emphasising, you're still a confused dimwit?
"and thereafter explained twice more."
Yes, repeating it doesn't make it true.
"And you still kept going on about different speeds"
Yes, different speeds between the hand and the box indicate how your statements WERE WRONG. However, since you refused (or are unable) to understand, it was repeated.
"and later dependet variables etc."
Yes, nother illustration of your error by showing how your assertions fail under circumstances that your assertions OUGHT to apply.
The only joke here is Olap, yipping away there irrelevantly.
You're not a joke, you're a failure. You're a warning sign to others who decide they don't have to learn something.
well Wow, you were the dimwit to claim not even seeing where I told lumunous he got it wrong .. none of the instances .. you possibly still believe he did get it right .. but then again you are a full blown idiot wrt to almost everything you address ...
Sorry, never claimed I didn't see where you told luminous he got it wrong.
Never even claimed I didn't see where you told luminous incorrectly he got it wrong.
Never happened.
But then again, you're pegging well on the 100% complete liar meter.
Glad to hear you admit you quote-mined Jonas.
Oh, wait.
s/calmed down/gave up on a discussion where the other participants were obviously arguing in bad faith
Which was not the point, moron. Hand velocity is not an issue. It should not be mentioned. It is not part of the problem. Since the original premise says "hand pushing box", the entire concept of the hand can be eliminated.
Holy tapdancing Jeebus you are a moron. And a pathological liar.
No, you just did not -- and do not, holy hakalela, over a year later -- understand my point. Everybody else did. You were STILL arguing that it is really important to know that a car's engine moves at the same speed as the car.
The only thing that keeps me coming back for more to this thread is seeing you get all haughty, Jonas. It's hilarious. Watching the spittle obscure your screen too much to properly spell when accusing others of being ignorant is sweet, juicy irony writ large.
I also see that me making fun of your pathetic spelling still has not moved you to download any of the myriad free available tools to make you look less like the utter dolt you are.
That too tells us more about you than any of your feeble attempts at argumentation ever could.
I fully understood then and understand now "whoosh, I missed the point", cupcake. It's not that hard. Fathoming how you think you have a point, however, is.
I did no such thing, moron. I stopped mentioning it because I ran the issue into the ground. Sentient slugs would have gotten the point by then. You did not. Draw your own conclusions.
Thank you for quoting this, showing that even a year later, you STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE. Or how to spell them, for that matter.
Again, for those happening upon this thread and unwilling to wallow through all of the past dreck: this is all you need. The hand pushes the box. By definition, the hand will have the same velocity as the box at all times. If it does not, it's not pushing the box and you're not doing the experiment anymore. Therefore, the hand, it's velocity, it's manicure and the rings on it are all equally irrelevant. BRINGING UP THE HAND AT ALL AFTER YOU SAY IT IS PUSHING THE BOX IS STUPID AND UNNECESSARY.
I'm going to assume from now on that that is all you did, and feel it safe to venture you failed at it miserable. As you do at logic, spelling, reading comprehension and sanity.
WHOOOOOOSH
WHOOOOOSH
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
You were then, as you are now by quoting this embarrassment, dense as a very large sack of hammers. My issue was with things that were not supposed to be in there. Things that GSW mentioned, and things you defended being in there. Things that make high-school physics teachers shake their heads slowly in dismay.
But like I asked you then: please show in the equations for this experiment where the hand velocity shows up as a variable.
Go on, I'll wait. I'll probably wait for a long time though. Just like other reasonable questions you refuse to answer. Just like other challenges you pretend to ignore.
You're not fooling anyone, Jonas. Not then, not now.
Yes, because you obviously need some to help your learning process. Although it might be a lost cause... thorazine and lithium seem more appropriate by now.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Hey, Jonas, who intentionally omitted the original post in his quoting?
Yes, that was you. You're a pathetic little man.
" "What you have argued for 2½ weeks has been utter nonsense."
No, you just did not"
Joan just missed out one word:
"What you have been arguing *against* for 2½ weeks has been complete and utter rubbish".
Now THAT is correct!
LURKER/POSTERITY COMMENT
The reason we harp on this is because it is a microcosm of Jonas' stupidity, intransigence, delusion and mendacity. Go back to check if you like. He can't even get this little thing right, nor admit that he was wrong. This is all you need to know about the caliber of the people denying climate change.
That's called denial Wow ... plenty of it among you. Stu and chek too, about different things though
Stu you utter nutcase,
Your personal issues are of little relevance. That you don't understand simple physics is already noted. Yor misconceptions about other things are noted too. And you're being helped. Hen you misunderstand things, they are explained once more. Or twice. Why you derailed over different speeds hand/box only you know. Nobody, and let me stress this nobody else was responsible for that. On the contrary, others tried to help you to get it right.
Well Stu, not only did you get that note. It was written on your nose, in plain language! The misunderstanding though is still yours, and only yours!
And please, you little insecure idiot moron, who allegedly studied six years of physic, but still have the most severe difficulties with the smallest things (a hand pushing a box), don't tell me what I understand and don't ...
Get your petty little act together first and catch up with those physics you never understood .. I am decades ahead of you.
And you are trying to shift all kinds of goalposts now, Stu. Nobody is interested in why or exactly how you deraild. You claimed, several times, that somebody had been going on about different speeds among hand and box. While it was only you. Only you Stu-pid. And even pointed out to you quite quickly, within minutes ..
Now you say, your issues were with things that weren't supposed to be in there. Well that's true in the first two instances: Neither
1) Different speeds of hand/box, nor
2) dependent and independet variables
were in there. However, you lamented about those things for weeks, now over a year. Nobody else but you brought this up.
Now, you want to move teh goalposts. saying that the hand velocity wasn't needed, and that dependet variables weren't either.
Well Stu, and still: Nobody talked about variables or equations, that the hands moves quicker when it accelerates a box by pushing it is trivial.
Only an near-autistic moron would take issues with the obvious. And that's what you did. And it seems that it all was everybody else's fault.
Poor petty misunderstood Stu ...
There you go. Feeling a little bit better now?
"That’s called denial Wow"
Yes, we know.
" plenty of it among you."
Yeah, you're putting it there.
Odd how you make these lying claims yet are unable to show proof of them.
Nah, it's not odd, it's standard denier 101.
Joan, you don't understand physics.
How does the speed of the hand affect the acceleration of the box whilst being pushed?
You haven't ever once managed to answer the question.
You are unable to now.
Instead you just whine "Oh, you don't understand physics". Except you don't even understand subtracting 6 from 19.
"Neither:
1) Different speeds of hand/box, nor
2) dependent and independet variables
were in there. "
Do you want proof that you're lying here?
I can prove it if you want.
Go on, defend yourself from your lying frigging idiocy if you dare.
Or are you afraid to acknowledge your lies?
Wow,
Nov 2, towards the end of page 17:
End of story. Once more in denial Wow.
And luminous many erorors were pointed out in detail. You guys just are to dim to understand even the simplest physics. Whoch you confirmed by agreeing with luminous (ie hoping desperatly he got it right).
Again a display of you blind, and emotionally misguided faith ...
"Nov 2, towards the end of page 17:"
Sorry, the only denial there is you denying the answers.
You claimed there were errors.
Yet you are unable to actually tell anyone what they are.
And somehow, you think that YOU being unable to get evidence for your claims are because of MY denial???
Fruitcake, that's what you are. Complete loon.
"And luminous many erorors were pointed out in detail."
No they weren't.
You spend a lot of posts saying "LB you have this wrong". However, that is only pointing out an error if your statement "you have this wrong" is correct.
a) You need to prove it first
b) it's a fake claim anyway
"You guys just are to dim to understand even the simplest physics."
No, we understand real physics perfectly fine.
Its your made up shit we haven't a clue about.
Stu, you sound like mediocre schoolboy who has read some new stuff (dependent variables) in a book, or his older brother's book, and is eager to bring it into a conversation, to display his newly aquired vocabulary. And finally thinks, here is the opportunity. And goes forward ..
Geeh what a joke you are. A hand pushing a box, overcoming friction and accelerating it, ie the hand moving quicker (nad quicker) ...
What absolute moron would feel he needs to take issues with that, and more than a year later even defend his hissy fit? What stupidity must lie behind even thinking that would be a smart way of showing off?
On top of that, someone claiming to have studied physics for six years, and who didn't spot anything wrong with luminous' ramblings!?
Projecting again, Joan?
Sad little sack of crap, you.
"A hand pushing a box, overcoming friction and accelerating it, ie the hand moving quicker "
Making up the argument to fit your current needs again, I see.
Now wow, you don't understand the first things about even simple physics. You couldn't spot any of the. That you first (and inadvertently?) admitted when you copied one of those instances, when defending another one of the nutter brigade's acions.
Thaat's the thing kid. Once you start lying, you have to remember every falsehood, and avoid contradicting it for all future, while ensnaring you and only further limiting your possible ways to 'argue' ...
Pathetic bunch!
How do you manage to say that?
Really.
Completely fummoxed.
It's absolutely patently obvious you are incorrect, yet still you say it as if somehow repeating it makes it true.
Are you five years old or something?
"You couldn’t spot any of the."
Any of the what?
You never pointed anything out. Just claimed they had been. This is different, but language isn't something you do, is it.
Wow
"Making up the argument to fit your current needs again, I see"
Nope, you being in denial once more. Even Stu understood it was about a ha d pushing a box, overcoming friction and thereafter accelerating ..
His beef was:
1) That the hand and box don't have different speeds (true, and he only imagined that anybody else siad the opposite. Severl times)
2) That this statement should involve 'dependent variables' somehow, that hand and box have the same speed (see above)
3) That someonde should have pointed out what was meant (It was, several times)
4) That this multiple misconception proves a lot of things (denialism, lack of physics understanding, unfamiliarity with dependent variables, lying and mental illness etc) All stupid and wrong fantasies. As were his original issues with a hand pushing a box sliding on the ground ..
More denial Wow, to cover up previous denial? Or why else?
Still making things up?
You claim and claim, but never evidence is seen.
"1) That the hand and box don’t have different speeds (true, and he only imagined that anybody else siad the opposite. Severl times)"
No, GSW said that many many times.
"2) That this statement should involve ‘dependent variables’ somehow,"
No, though you don't know anything and may have shoehorned that into your head rather than try and work out what he was talking about.
"that hand and box have the same speed (see above)"
Which you just agreed was true.
You insisted your list was showing where Stu/LB (you keep changing what you're on about) was wrong. Yet here you are proving me right and you wrong.
"3) That someonde should have pointed out what was meant (It was, several times)"
Made that up again, haven't you.
"4) That this multiple misconception proves a lot of things "
Was that what Stu/LB was having problems with?
Or was it just that you're talking bollocks, still are, always have and never will do other than?
My bad, you couldn't spot any of the grooss errors, Wow. Said so yourself.
And I know, there were several long sentences, some using difficult words, like physics and acceleration. Sorry about that Wow ... Can't really help you with that. And I see many areas you could use a hand ...
"(denialism,"
You are a denier.
"lack of physics understanding,"
You don't know the first thing about science.
"unfamiliarity with dependent variables,"
You haven't a clue what they are.
"lying"
Yes, you do lie all the time.
"and mental illness etc)"
Yup, you are mad. Only the psychotically insane could do as you have done for years.
One only wonders what you think you're doing.
"My bad, you couldn’t spot any of the grooss errors, Wow. Said so yourself. "
Yes, I actually require something to exist before I can spot its existence.
You don't seem to want to limit yourself to existence and reality, however.
Problem for you is that nobody wishes to share in your delusion.
Mind you, I think I know what Joan is.
12 years old.
Nope Wow, still n idiotic denial
1)Only Stu was going on about different speeds among hand/box
2) His 'dependent variable' alsoe only existed in his own head. The 'need' for one was only in his head.
3) And yes, wanted to make others responsible for his many misconceptions, still tries
4) His logic is amlost as poor as yours
5) Luminous bungled the physics, big time. Stu, did too, but mostly invented his own strawman about different speeds hand/box.
6) You didn't even know what was being discussed. In neither of the cases luminous and Stu ..
7) and you are in denial
PS Monckton isn't 12 years old. But you of course have seperate and parallell universes for your facts. Sometimes it seems you have a new one for every statement. And those times you actually are in agreement with some previous invented 'fact' it is pure coincidence. What do you think you are in every one of them?
Just remember Joan here is named after the Two-faced god of doorways:
Joan earlier: “I’m no part of his nonsense”
Joan now: "Wow, I copy it once more for you (emphasis mine):
"1)Only Stu was going on about different speeds among hand/box"
No he wasn't. GSW went banging on about it. Mind you, you have trouble enough finding what YOU said, never mind someone else's statements.
"2) His ‘dependent variable’ alsoe only existed in his own head."
No, they really exist.
"3) And yes, wanted to make others responsible for his many misconceptions"
No, he was not under any misconceptions, therefore apportioning blame for the nonexistent was not desired.
"4) His logic is amlost as poor as yours"
Since you make shit up, this too is made up and completely expected.
"5) Luminous bungled the physics, big time."
So you continue to claim, but all you have is your claim that this happened.
You are wrong.
"Stu, did too, but mostly invented his own strawman about different speeds hand/box."
See above: GSW started that.
"6) You didn’t even know what was being discussed. In neither of the cases luminous and Stu .."
Because you were taling about Stu then started demanding attention to LB.
NOBODY (not even you) know what you're discussing.
You are made of metasyntatic variables.
"7) and you are in denial"
Another claim with only contrary evidence behind it.
I notice you are making a total idiot out of yourself also in the sea level thread, Wow ... what a surprise.
And I really appreciate both you and Jeffie, who likes to point out how many in here agree with him and that he even admits you are one of them ... Just wonderful
This fuckwit really is tiresome.
"I notice you are making a total idiot out of yourself also in the sea level thread,"
Yeah, that imagination of yours is impenetrable.
Do you ever leave your imagination?
PS do you think 150 people have managed to sink the entire North American continent? Glittery ballsack thinks so.
Has anyone got any evidence that a 12-year-old posting as JonasN is false?
Anything at all?
Because it's the only reason I have for this idiot to do as they do.
It's very likely truer than you mean. As with spanky dildo on the sea level thread, like children they want to believe despite the evidence. And in order to do so, either the evidence is false (spanky's route) or isn't there (Jonarse' route).The one thing they can't do is refute it.
But despite having their brain sacs displaced by an even larger .22 pellet direct hit apiece, it'll take the nervous systems of both a while to register their hosts are gone..
But like children, they can't concentrate on anything. Don't have good communication skills. Have no CV or experience. And have plenty of time to annoy grown ups (and if teenaged have a superiority complex that some never grow out of).
More idiocy from Wow emulating a poorly programmed spam-bot. Responses to
1) No he wasn’t. GSW went banging on about it. Mind you,
Nope, just your fantasy
2) No, they really exist.
Yes, dependent variables exist, completely unnecessay here. Only Stu lamented about them. Made them even a major point
3) No, he was not under any misconceptions, therefore apportioning blame for the nonexistent was not desired.
Stu was under so many misconceptions, you'd normally feel sorry for the sucker. You are even worse
4) Since you make shit up, this too is made up and completely expected.
I don't, you do, Stu does, Jeff does, chek too
5) So you continue to claim, but all you have is your claim that this happened.
Both claimed so, and in detail described how and where. And the correct way. You missed all of these
5 contd) See above: GSW started that.
Still wrong
6) Because you were taling about Stu then started demanding attention to LB. NOBODY (not even you) know what you’re discussing.
As I said, you had and have no clue. Never had
7) Another claim with only contrary evidence behind it
Nope, you are making counterfactual claims. Even about your own previous claims
But that's you Wow .. and you have found you perfect place here. And as I said, I am really happy you get some appreciation for your efforts here.
You seem even more confused than before.
Are you saying it WAS GSW doing it or that it was your fantasy?
"Yes, dependent variables exist, completely unnecessay here"
Except you claimed they didn't exist.
"Stu was under so many misconceptions"
Nope, he was not under any misconception, except in so far as he thought talking to you would help you understand. In that he was dead wrong.
But maybe you'd like to point out one of his misconceptions and where he made it.
Oh, hang on, you don't do evidence, do you.
Just proclaim a truth that everyone else is supposed to believe.
Sad sack of crap, you.
Joan, you're a moron.
chek, thanx for siding with Wow here. I
Re: "like children they want to believe despite the evidence"
That would be the science behind that Ar4 claim you have never seen, just desperately and in blind faith (still) hope is in there somehow.
Among your trees, and Wows heap of scrap metal parts. Or Wow thinks is a monsoon-pattern paper ...
Joan, you are a moron.
More invention and denial from you Wow ...
Among the stupid commenters here, with absolutely no signal among the noise, I think you are the worst. There have been other utter idiots commenting here, but not as much nonsense as you.
The extent of über-stupid claims you've made rivals the fact-invention of Jeffie. The latter however, sometimes managed to make some reasonable statments, vaguely on topic, in the early part of his posts. Before his emotions got hte better of him, and he angrily started to shake his CV at me once more, and then went off on another 'fact' fabrication tirade about me ..
You don't even do the insults and fact inventing very well, your number of own goals by far exceeds the number of your posts ... and those are many and short
Quite a feat, I'd say ...
:-)
Joan you are a moron.
As I said ... no signal just noise. And zip understanding of anything else you've 'addressed' either ...
Zip!
Could some of you others please contradict me? That you believe there is one valid argument among the Wow-noise? Somewhere?
You're a moron, Joan.
Jonas, others have pointed out before that you are all talk and no substance. What is your proof to contradict my experience with other scientists?
I'm a chemist. No one in my department disputes the science of AGW. None of the physicists who I work or mix with with dispute it and neither do the biologists I know. Even most of our geologists are OK with the science although some have trouble admitting it. Things get muddier when you talk to the engineers and the economists but thats hardly surprising. My colleagues seem to have the same experience as I do when we go to conferences. So the numbers even from my own experience support what I said and dont support you.
Show us why all of the scientists who publish in the scores of journals that cover various fields relating to global warming are not actually believing what they print. Please show us how you know that proper scientists do not accept the basic principles that physicists tell us underpin climate change.
Are you a physicist?
Oh, you'll rile him with your waving your CV, Wyvern.
He doesn't have one (he's a moron, and you don't get a good CV from that).
Oh goody, Jonas is drunk again.
How can I tell, you ask?
It's when his poor spelling gets even worse. And again, note that he could avoid this easily by downloading any of the many freely available spell-checking applications around. Must be the spittle preventing him from proof-reading.
Of course, none of that would help with his Sterno-fueled idiomatic embarrassments:
(Greatest hits of just today)
[s already noted] [Hen you misunderstand] [[six years of physic (yes, Jonas, call me Miss Cleo)] [deraild] [independet ] [teh] [dependet]
Oh whatever, that was just one post.
POSTERITY/LURKER: Whenever he is challenged, Jonas has a fit and goes off into a megolamaniacal rant, with spelling going off the rails immediately. This is how denialists react when called on their lunacy, be it climate-related or not.
If I get bored later, I'll react to Jonas' arguments (such as they are).
God help us all if he is.
Wyvern
Maybe you shouldn't rely all that much on what others say here (That's a sublte hint ... )
I repeat. You certainly don't speak for tens of thousands of trained scientists. Generally, I'd be very cautious about those who pretend to respresent many more, and what they claim.
Furhter, I extremely much doubt that you have discussed the high level of certainty expressed in that AR4 claim with so many others. Probably not at all, but maybe repeated it since you've heard it before, as have many others ..
Another giveaway was that claim about 97% agreeing. But I already said that.
Maybe you are new to the discussion, and have missed the pertinent points (others aren't but miss every single one of them). You talk about the 'science of AGW' and again it is a very vague definition. The usual argument goes like.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) We are prodicing it by burning fossil fuels
3) Its content in the atmosphere is rising, and
4) it is getting warmer, while
5) point one through three would agree with point four ..
Alas ... and it is getting warmer (or at least has been)
So far I am completely with you in the argument. These points are sometimes referred to as 'the basic physical principles underpinning climate change' (but that would already be an overstatement)
But here is merely where it first starts. Those so keen on shouting 'denier' really want to believe that skeptical individuals deny exactly the above points, prefereably all of them.
(You can see countless attempts at exactly that in only this thread. It doesn't matter how often you clearly state otherwise, the envisioned 'denier' and what he is like is engraved in their retina, also their mental ones)
If your colleagues and aquaintaces agree with those points above, I have no real quarrel with them. I am with them so far, agreeing without reservation on the four points.
But the whole issue rests on the magnitude of the warming to be expected, if CO2 really is the main driver of the climate, and (inherently) if those large claimed positive feedbacks really are what some hypothesize ..
That part is very much in question, the scarse publications attempting to establish these high levels are very shaky and their empirical foundation even more so.
But I think you too actually miss the point I am making. I have not claimed that the numbers share my view, and not yours (especielly if it is as uncontroversial as points 1-4 above), and further, I have not claimed that all of the scientists who publish in the field don't believe what they print. Far from it.
On the contrary, I have been pointing out that the most prominet of the AR4 claims are not anywhere to be found in the publsihed scientific literature. Nobody has published anything even attempting to establish these high degree och certainty levels, and put their name to it.
And this again goes back to the previous query: Without those very large alledged feedbacks (which are nowhere close to established) it is impssible to make even the rather careful attribution (of at least half the warmin since mid 50s) with a 90% certainty.
That is my point. And the other is that nobody even claims this. Other than the IPCC in the SPM, which definitely is not science ..
It was later repeated in the AR4 WG1 reports, but without any references to published science, but rather more obfuscating wording, footnotes, figure captions and tables ..
I hope that answers you question
Tou're a moron, Joan.
Temperature change is now more than you would get from a 2C per doubling of CO2. And energy in is still greater than energy out.
So you are, true to form, being a moron.
Stu, you couldn't find anything wrong with luminous 'physics', you claimed to have studied physics or six years, and had a major hissy fit over purely imagined things about one of the simplest descriptions of an experiment everyone can do ...
This you had all by your own (although I must admit, I tried to keep you at it and repeaat your stupidities a bit longer)
Stu .. you have never challenged me or anything I said really. You have tried, that's true. By demanding a percentage, but not even the hand/box thingie was at me. You derailed over GSWs perfectly clear description. And you found nothing wrong with the many gross violations attempted by luminous ... Nuff said
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Anyone with any physics in their education is making fun of you, Jonas. Draw your own conclusions.
Yor?
Also, I am happy that they are noted, cupcake. Care to point them out and back that notion up?
Because GSW brought it up. You pathetic, delusional little man.
Wait, I am responsible for GSW bringing up something stupid now? How did that happen?
Does this refer to your weeks-long quest to prove that the hand and box move at the same speed? "It's a physics thing" again, you moronic turd stuck in a clown shoe?
You still don't get it. We know. Sheesh.
Everybody understood what GSW was saying. Everybody understood how stupid it was. Everybody understood my issues with it... except you.
It's YOU, Jonas. YOU. You don't get it. You ARE the joke.
I sense...
I sense...
I sense Jonas never had any education in physics.
CALL ME NOW.
Thank you for showing that you still do not understand what I previously, repeatedly, in very small words tried to explain. Scroll up, cupcake. It's right there.
Oh, but I will. You do not understand basic math. You do not understand basic physics. You do not understand English. And because of that, you do not understand anything more advanced than My Pet Goat.
Jonas, you are an idiot. And not ha-ha, you're an idiot; you are a holy crap, is there an institution for people this dense-idiot.
You do not know what dependent variables are.
You are too dense to download a spell-checked.
You are stupid enough to think that if you quote-mine old comments you won't look like a moron.
In what way, exactly, are you ahead? Are you a pensioner, precious?
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Why should they be? What is "deraild" anyway?
Oh, do you mean "derailEd"? Oh, ok. This should be good.
I claimed no such thing, you pathetic clownshoe. I claimed that somebody (GSW) brought it up (as quoted and objectively proven, you dolt), and that whilst I was railing against the abject idiocy of bringing hand velocity up in the first place, certain jackwagons (that means you) kept defending the blatantly, jezum-crackers-were-you-dropped-on-the-head-a-lot fallacy of it all.
Obvious and stupid lie. Why do you do this, moron? I dug up the actual quote just now. What in hell makes you think people cannot read?
Obvious and stupid lie. That was my objection from my first post, over a year ago. Why are you blaming others for your failure to comprehend it?
Oh, oh, be still my beating heart. Jonas is going to try to address an argument. STAND BACK EVERYBODY!
You mean that thing that GSW brought up? Why don't you ask him why he did, cupcake?
Yes, yes, yes... we know you have no idea what those terms mean. Not being able to spell them is a bit of a giveaway, Jonas.
Obvious and stupid lie. It has been pointed out to you, with quotations, links and other documentation that I was not the one to lament about any of it... I was lamenting about the utter stupidity of GSW bringing it up, and of your utter stupidity of defending it.
Yes, my precious sack of hammers.
Your continued, pathetic defense of it.
Obvious and stupid lie. You tried this a year ago. You looked like an idiot then for saying this, and you look like one now. I've already quoted the specific first instance this was brought up you moron, and it was not me. Who the hell do you think you are fooling? You tried this before and were embarrassed.
Are you truly incapable of learning?
Oh. Wait. That would explain a lot about your physics "capabilities".
Jonas, you are so cute. It's so patently obvious when you learn a new catchphrase. If I recall correctly, there have been three instances in this thread alone where you tried that out.
There's a direct quote above that directly shows you are full of crap claiming this. Are you blind, dyslexic or dense as a post?
So you are admitting you simply do not understand what I am trying to tell you about dependeNt variables. Thank you.
Did you even make it out of high school? You seem far too dumb to make it past any organized education designed for children over 12.
Wait, so your solution to being caught in a lie is to lie harder? This is pathetic even for you. Holy canoli, I'm glad I'm doing this piecemeal or I wouldn't have made it past this. Are you serious, turdmuffin? In this entire physics discussion, me saying "the hand pushing the box means hand velocity is irrelevant, moron" was the first mention of variables or equations?
Wait, I didn't even mention either.
Jonas, do you even know the meaning of the words that come out of your mouth?
That the word "hand" is even in that sentence means that even a year later, you still cannot grasp the basic point.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Funny. Everybody here understands me except you. Draw your own conclusions.
Oh do quote your detailed deconstruction of all the "erorors", sweetheart. I must have missed them.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION. For crying out loud, sweetheart, you still don't grasp the concept of a dependent variable. Please, do show us the equation for the velocity of the ring on the pushing hand.
See, here's the fun part. I didn't explicitly do that, moron. Very few of us did. .We asked you to point out a flaw, and you could not.
Repeatedly. To this day.
Almost like all o' them climate change papers you have "debunked" only in your diseased little mind.
Again a display of you blind, and emotionally misguided faith …
Yeah. You blind. Me Tonto. Me no know English.
Also, me no have no proof. Me bluster lot. Me bluster all time. Me say you faith. Oog. Me not need arguments.
Okidoki, moving on...
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Totally! And that would have been a GREAT argument in 1989. You really have no concept of how pathetic you sound, do you Jonas?
Hey Jonas? Sweetheart? Even though you're too damned stupid to download spell-checking software... you really want to make sure that when you diss someone's vocabulary, you do not misspell the word right in front of it.
AqCuired. MORON.
"nad quicker"? What the hell was that supposed to read, Jonas? Are you asking us for sites to quicken your nads?
Also, thanks for reaffirming you still do not understand physics -- by mentioning the hand. Again. Moron.
Precious, we KNOW by now you have a massive inferiority complex about your education, and probably your physics education in particular. You couldn't mention anything substantively wrong with LB's posts last year, and you're not doing it now. Did you do some more research, cupcake?
I doubt it, since you still don't know what a dependent variable is.
Derp derp derp Jonas. Sterno is not your friend. Svedka should cut down on the brain damage.
You do this all the time, Jonas. You do realize that every rational person pictures you jumping up and down in glee at writing this, right? Whilst drooling profusely?
Would you like to know why?
Because you JUST SAY THESE THINGS, Jonas. You scroll up to where people say them to you, and you say them back, and you got us good, and...
Well, no, not really. You don't even quote people when you do this. You just yell, and drool, and whine, and again make everyone in the thread decide between pity and hatred.
You're sad. You are mentally ill. You need medication. This thread now vacillates between cheap entertainment at your expense and an honest-to-God intervention, Jonas.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
You haven't made a point yet, cupcake. In 19 months.
(I missed quoting one para back there -- "Again a display of you blind...", but things should be fairly obvious)
As a random aside, just in case it gets lost, this is how incoherent Jonas gets on Sterno:
The usual argument goes like.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) We are prodicing it by burning fossil fuels
3) Its content in the atmosphere is rising, and
4) it is getting warmer, while
5) point one through three would agree with point four ..
Alas … and it is getting warmer (or at least has been)
---
I've read it three times and my head is hurting.
Jonas, you are insane. Get help.
I don't speak for them, I speak with them. Lots of them. I would figure that I have spoken to hundreds and hundreds and probably thousands of scientists during my career. Our of that number of scientists I've spoken to about three or four who disagree with the main stream understanding of the physics, and each of those people had unusual ideas in general about science.
So if my own experience reflects the numbers that the main stream quotes and if other scientists have similar experiences where is the large group of scientists that you claim agrees with you? And why do so many scientists in my own experience disagree with you?
Have you ever walked into a university or government department that contains scientists and asked them what they think? Do you go to conferences and speak to professional scientists? Are you a member of any professional bodies or academies of science? There are literally thousands of actual scientists that agree with the physics of global warming. I know that this is distasteful for you but it is true and if you dispute this you should show everyone what your evidence is that supports you.
I'm new to this board but not to the science of climate change. Unless 20 years counts as new.
CO2 is not the main driver of climate. But it is the main driver of the warming seen over the last century.
The climate sensitivity and the feedbacks are indicated by a variety of independent studies. If this is the reason why you dispute mankinds contribution to warming what exactly are the studies that you use to make your claim?
I'm new to this board so you will have to be a bit clearer about what claims you are referring to. Are you talking about the certainty levels about climate sensitivity or feedbacks? What literature are you referring to that doesn't contain the material that you say is missing?
That's just silly. The only way to obscure the human influence on warming is to fiddle the figures of forcing and feedback to ridiculous extents. But if you disagree you must have evidence that shows how the warming can be attributed to natural processes instead of to human carbon dioxide, can you show this please?
No it doesnt. I asked you what your proof was that contradicts my experience with other scientists and you didnt answer. I asked you if you were a physicist and you didnt answer.
I was warned before I posted here that you wouldnt answer and I can see that it was a good warning. As other posters here note you make a lot of noise and you write a lot of fluff but you dont seem to ever put any evidence forward that makes your case.
Can you explain how you know that most working scientists disagree with the ipcc's summary of the climatology? Can you tell me if you are a physicist or in fact any type of scientist? Can you provide a list of quotes of literature that you disagree with in terms of the claims that you say it makes that is not supported?
Stu
You are wrong. Nobody is even attempting to contradict me about any physics. Luminous was trying to establish his own. And failed miserably. You tried to score som point about a hand pushing a box, and failed miserably.
GSW never brough up any different speeds, those existed in your head. Only. Fail, Nobody else brought anything like that up. Fact is that GSW within minutes corrected your misconception. And still you derailed for three weeks. Still seem to believe sombody else but you brought up the 'different speeds'. Still didn't happen. Other than inside your head.
There is absolutely nothing stupid about a proper description about a hand pushing a box. Nothing. Your issues were (according to your own repeated claims) different speeds among hand and box. Again, only in your head.
OK, later (once you hopefully? realised how stupid that sounded) you tried with 'dependent variable'. Equally stupid though.
Six years of physics, and saw nothing wrong with luminous many attempts. There is no need to even point out how embarassing this is. Regardless of whether you did or didn't study physics for six years. It's a total joke. As I 've already said. Only you don't seem to get even the first part of this.
Again: Pushing a box is a simple experiment. Correctly described by GSW. And you couldn''t handle it.
And now, you utter hand-moving-box think you can teach me about math!? I am decades ahead there too! What an utter joke again, stu!
You still haven't found any of all the gross violations of luminous, albeit wanting to jump in.
And yes, you claimed several times idiotic things about hands and boxes at different speeds. Some are copied above. You are in denial now. GSW didn't bring any such thing up. It appeared only in your head (and later Wow's). Your "actual quote" does most certainly not contain any 'different speeds' those are only in your head. That you cannot read is not, was never other people's problem.
...
This is getting tiresome. You've claimed now, many times abd counterfactual, that GSW was going on about different speeds/velocities between hand/box. He hasn't. You even said quotes were provided. They weren't! The closest quote was:
and there is absolutely nothing there about different speeds between hand and box. Nothing, Stu! Absolutely nothing.
If you feel that this wasn't the alleged proof you meant, please provide it instead. A quote and the page will suffice. This now, has become your lifeline. If there is any suh claim (different speeds) I'll backtrack. But it there isn't Stu, I will mock you even more than up til now!
The rest of your post (about 'dependent variables') is as empty as the first part. But if you provide substance for the first part, I'll look at it again.
But before that: Please provide any cited quote about different speeds among hand/box which you have claimed about four times only in your last comment.
So Stu, the utterly stupid, will you please show and copy where anybody (other than yourself) brought up the idea that hand and box move att different speeds?
Because it really is that simple. Not even a child would even think this. But you made it the core of your argument here. In spite of GSW, saying the opposite within minutes of your misconception.
Please provide the citation and date/page.
Or expect to be even more ridiculed Stu ...
And in case you really hadn't noticed: Nobody of the ranters and the nutter birgade has even seen any science establishing that AR4 claim that everybody seems to believe in based on pure faith ...
But even that point probably escaped you. Or worse, you are in denial about that too ...
Oh Wyvern, you are so naive. All of those scientists you know are just not "real" scientists.
You see, Jonas has a very definite distinction between "real" and "fake" scientists. Or so he tells us; he never elaborates. So far, it seems "real" equals "agrees with me". A nice definition to be sure, if you're a clinically insane, delusional megalomaniac.
On the other hand, he has an absolute tantrum when anyone asks him what percentage of climate scientists he considers "real" scientists. For some reason (unspecified), that question is "stupid", and our cupcake refuses to answer it.
Oh Wyvern, so much to learn...
Yes, you are clinically insane. We all know that by now.
In which case you should have ample quotes and refutations, right?
Come on, Jonas. Quote your inanities from back then. I dare you.
No, that was not scoring points, that was pointing out that GSW didn't know physics from a hole in the ground. And by jumping to his defense EVEN NOW confirms that you don't, either.
This remark also confirms that you are too stupid to download a spell-checker. Still. I know it's too much for you to learn how to spell on your own, given your track record, but really... let's assume (safely, I reckon) that you are too stupid to figure out a download on your own; don't you even KNOW someone smart enough to do it for you? Doesn't Sweden have a Geek Squad type of thing where you could just pay someone to do it for you?
Have you no shame, sir?
Is it not worth some of your time, or worth calling a friend, or spending the $50 or so to not continue to look like a moron?
Are you proud of looking like an idiot, Jonas? You must be. Is there a denialist merit badge for bad spelling I am unaware of?
Obvious and stupid lie. I just quoted the original post, you twit. Bringing up the hand speed (even if to say they should be equal) is spectacularly moronic. And if it isn't, he should be dinged for not mentioning that there would be no earthquakes during the experiment, that the density of air would remain constant, and that no black holes would emerge close enough to affect the basic gravity constants.
Oh, that's cute YOU GAIS! IT HAZ LURND "FAIL"!
Doucecanoe, GSW brought up hand speed. Period. There's no denying that. Whether it is different or not is totally besides the point. As I have explained to you over and over and over.
No, he and you went on and on how obvious it was (you know, a physics thing) that the hand and box had the same velocity.
Demonstrating vividly how you did not, do not and will never get the point. Which is obvious to mentally challenged bonobos: bringing up the hand velocity was stupid, the entire point and proof that you know nothing about physics.
Moron.
If by "derail" you mean "drive the point home to the point where even my fridge understands how wrong and dense you are", yes, you are correct.
It was a DIRECT QUOTE, lard-for-brains.
Di-rect-mother-humping-quote. IDIOT.
Yes, and inside the head of anyone who can read.
You know, most people know to quit when they're really, really far behind.
Herpa derpa derp. No, it was GSW bringing up the hand speed to begin with. As I have stated then, just stated before this pathetic reply, and am restating now.
Hey, Jonas. Not everyone is as stupid as you are.
Sorry.
Live with it.
Same thing. That you don't know the difference is your problem, not mine. Your inability to parse a sentence does not excuse you from putting forth a good-faith effort to comprehend what people are telling you.
Yes, I know, you never made it past the first semester. I'm sorry Jonas. That's not really my fault though, is it?
There was? Wow. I'm sorry, I must have missed your incisive and substantive deconstruction of LB's physics. Please point me to them, Jonas. You had the time to dig for your other embarrassments, why not these?
Actually, there is. Please do. Go on. I dare you.
You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for that. You've lied about just about everything so far, including knowing physics.
But do tell, how far ahead are you? How shall we measure it?
Obvious and stupid lie. Direct quote, moron.
It implies that they can be different in the context of the experiment (must move faster also), which is moronic.
You, sir, cannot read.
He implied there could be, by bringing up the hand velocity.
Your failure at reading comprehension is not my problem, cupcake.
Obvious and stupid lie. I did not quote that. I quoted the actual, original statement by GSW. You're an idiot.
I already did. I did so a year ago, and I did so earlier today.
Moron.
Go ahead. I've provided GSW's original quote, in context, about the hand having to move faster as well. Which implies the speeds can be different.
Oh be still my heart. Go on Jonas, I can't wait. You complete and utter idiot.
I know. To you. Because you don't know what it means. Because you sucked at physics in high school and you are too dumb to catch up. We know, Jonas. It's okay. Shush. No need to embarrass yourself further.
Why? You wouldn't understand it. You'd look at the sky and discuss the meaning of the word "blue". For a year and a half. That's how stubborn and dense you are.
Already did, moron. Just because you don't like it does not make it any less concrete, valid or relevant.
You dismiss all science you don't like as "not real".
You dismiss all questions you don't want to answer as "stupid".
The only question remaining is who you think you are fooling with this pathetic little spiel. If you were serious, you'd've answered my challenge and collected an easy $100 by now.
I already did, wanker.
You are pathetic. We could read every single paper underlying the AR4, slowly, to your face, and you'd still deny it. Just as you are denying GSW brought up hand velocity.
Pathetic. Little. Lying. Weasel.
Stu, thats apparently so.
Its a pity that I wont be learning any of it from Jonas .... I was warned before I posted here that he cant support his claims with actual evidence , and that has been proved to be the case.
"Stu, you couldn’t find anything wrong with luminous ‘physics’"
That's because it wasn't wrong.
Finding something that doesn't exist is either religion or insanity.
Which is it for you, you moron?
Wyvern
So you don't speak for tens of thousands of active scientists. Good, I would not have believed you had claimed anything like it..
And I don't know what you refer to as 'the main stream physics' .. if you still are at points 1-4, you aren't with the discussion yet. But if you say that CO2 isn't the main driver, you are quite a lot above the bunch I've been dealing with here. You say:
"But it is the main driver of the warming seen over the last century"
And I'd say that this is the prroffered hypthesis, yes. However not any one that is established or has coped sufficiently with all questions around and objections to it.
And please, don't give me the usual rant on 'climate sensitivity' you've picked up. I haven't argued that prticular point with you. Nor with any of the others. The issue here has been a different and simpler one: That those who believe in (a high sensitivity) and hope for the high certainty of that AR4 claim, are not able to produce any science to support the most prominent claim made by the IPCC in their AR4.
Instead, the point has been me asking for any of that, Which has caused many here to completely lose it. I haven't dispiuted mankinds contribution, I have disputed the high certainty claimed by the IPCC to a specifically stated level of contribution. That it is based on science. And so far, everybody taking the opposite stance, has confirmed my assumption.
And I'm sorry if you weren't aware of what those claims were (incidentally, those why you challenged me to begin with). Here it is again:
And no, it's definitely not silly to question that high (claimed) certainty. And the figures of both forcing and feedback (esp the latter) are nowhere close to being decided. There are claims (found in the AR4) to high values, but nowhere established beyond questioning. Essentially all of them rely heavily on both model simulations (based on the same assumptions) and fiddled Bayesian statistics. And this has been the topic here.
That there is belief in high certainty (and large feedbacks) is correct, but none of this has been even attemted to be demonstrated. Otherwise, there would have been one or a few references where this could have been found. And almost six years after the fact, none have ever been presented.
Further, you are wrong that I must prove anything else, just because I ask to see and look at the science and data. That would be a very common warminst diversion. Please don't repeat it. It has nothing to do with science.
I am sorry if this didn't answer your question, and it seems you are not quite aware of what is being discussed. I don't question your vague description about interactions with others. But I doubt that you have been discussing the science behind that claimed high certianty. The fact that you were unaware of this being the topic, and that you even in your reply are avoiding this, indicates that you haven't,
So, I'm afraid that you missed the main point:
I have been asking for the evidence, for the science behind that main AR4 claim about high certainty (cited above). It is the prudent question to ask for any real scientist, and that's why I am asking it. The only case I've made (wrt thos) is that those who chose to simply believe it, do so in faith. And I would argue that essentially everybody here (who argues the case) does so.
Finally, you ask "Can you explain how you know that most working scientists disagree with the ipcc’s summary of the climatology"? And the answer is simple: I don't and I never claimed anything like it (ie it's a strawman).
However, it bothers me that there were accomplished scientists who put the above claim in the SPM, and even doing it without properly referency that claim in the main report. And it bothers me too that there seemingly are many others who didn't ask the same question as I and accept it just on alleged authority.
Well, finally at last some scientists are starting to ask the same questions. And pointing out the same problems as I have been a long time. But it shouldn't have taken six years.
BTW, those shouting and losing it because I ask the proper questions, for demanding to see the evidence, I have less problems with. If they don't even understand why it needs to be asked, they have nothing to do in the field of science (although I fear, even know, that quite a few have PhDs and claim to be working with science)
So, to start with: The quote above (from the AR4-SPM) is what I strongly question, and also that there is (was by 2007) any published science even trying to establish the claimed levels.
"Nobody is even attempting to contradict me about any physics"
Hang on, wasn't luminous and stu both doing that and that your entire rant is about how they and I, contradicting you about physics, don't understand you?
You are a moron.
"I must have missed your incisive and substantive deconstruction of LB’s physics. Please point me to them, Jonas. You had the time to dig for your other embarrassments, why not these?"
Heck, it's the season of good will and all that, we won't demand the evidence of your assertions you have made. We will allow you to just state now, in new words if you wish, what was wrong with LB's physics.
But you never did this before with any question.
Because you're a moron.
"So, to start with: The quote above (from the AR4-SPM) is what I strongly question,"
You have nothing to say about what it is, however.
"and also that there is (was by 2007) any published science even trying to establish the claimed levels"
You were given a huge list. The very first few alphabetically are:
AchutaRao, K.M., et al., 2006: Variability of ocean heat uptake: Reconciling observations and models. J. Geophys. Res., 111, C05019.
Ackerman, A.S., et al., 2000: Reduction of tropical cloudiness by soot. Science, 288, 1042–1047.
Adams, J.B., M.E. Mann, and C.M. Ammann, 2003: Proxy evidence for an El Nino-like response to volcanic forcing. Nature, 426(6964), 274–278.
Alexander, L.V., et al., 2006: Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D05109, doi:10.1029/2005JD006290.
Allan, R.J., and T.J. Ansell, 2006: A new globally-complete monthly historical gridded mean sea level pressure data set (HadSLP2): 1850-2004. J. Clim., 19, 5816–5842.
Allen, M.R., 2003: Liability for climate change. Nature, 421, 891–892.
Allen, M.R., and S.F.B. Tett, 1999: Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting. Clim. Dyn., 15, 419–434.
Allen, M.R., and W.J. Ingram, 2002: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature, 419, 224–232.
Allen, M.R., and D.A. Stainforth, 2002: Towards objective probabilistic climate forecasting. Nature, 419, 228–228.
Wyvern
Some words of caution. I would (stronlgy) advise against siding with the regular shouters her. They have proven themselves to understand almost nothing even about simpler matters, contradicting themselves, making all kind of nonsens up based on pure fantasy. And (in many cases) to know nothing about science or even understanding simple physics.
Another observation I've made is that all those who use 'denier' denialist' 'Dunning Kruger' 'Creationist' and the like, never ever have anyhting substantial to contribute. Rather, they are only in it for the shouting contest.
If you read here for more than a few minutes, I'm sure you'll understand what I mean
Wyvern (contd.)
Other terms which often get thrown around, and not really contain any substance an relevance to the pertinent questions are the alleged 'consensus', the alleged IPCC 'peer review' process, the number of publications 'supporting' whatever stance, or even worse 'not contradicting'. Further, the academies who repeated claims and wordings directly from the IPCC SPM don't carry any real weight. Other topics that are irrelevant to the core issues are arctic sea ice, sea levels, glaciers, ocean accidification, freshwater supply, polar bears, biodiversity etc.
These all may be interesting for other reasons, but not wrt to he core question here: If, and if so how much does CO2 cause the climate to warm
Or phrased more broadly (than the IPCCs interpretation of their mandate). Why and how does the climate vary and fluctuate, and what are the main causes for it, what controls this, and what limits the fluctuations etc.
Point is:
Before one can be quite certain to have very good, empirically supported answers to all thosw questiond (of the second version), it is exceediningly difficult to make definite claims about one particular hypthesis attempting to explain the lasts few decades ... especially with high certainty
Stu,
I will for now only address one of your claims, the one where I challenged you to provide evidence. (Where GSW allegedly claimed or talked about different speeds hand/box). Unfortunately you didn't give the qoute, just said it had been posted already. So, to the best of my knowledge it must be this one:
(You gave that one earlier, and the emphasis was yours)
And there is not one hint about any speeds differing among hand and box. None! And to add insult to injury, GSW, not many minutes after your first 'query' about this even clarified further:
(emphasis mine)
Again, explicitly nothing about different speeds between hand and box, instead the exact opposite:
"Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox"
This all was within a few minutes, on october 16 ,2011 ("page 15 here) . See! The exact opposite of what you later claimed, and still claim.
Even the possible misconception of confusing the 'quicker' for meaning 'quicker than the box' (or something else) was avoided beforehand by clarifying that it meant 'to accelerate' (ie to move quicker and quicker)
It's all still there to be seen in the link above.
Sorry Stu, but I can't help you with reality. How you can construct any alleged differences in speed among hand and box from an explicit statement of the exakt opposite (they have to "keep pace") is beyond me. Wow, however is fluent with counterfactual claims. Maybe you should ask him for help ..
(The rest of your post is even worse, so please try to focus on this simplest of things, a quote and page # justifying your derailing and hissy fit about hand and boxes at different speeds. And don't get too emotional, it just worsens things further for you)
I tried to link to page 15, don't know if that worked out. Here is another try:
Page 15, October 16, 2012, towards the end of the page
And if you meant some completely different quite (than the above, you gave yourself, and even highlighted), please tell me, and caopy the relevant parts for me to see. The ones where anybody (except you) makes claims about hand and box at different speeds.
Wyvern
Some more comments (since others are trying to confuse you with made up nonsense again)
I refer to real scientists as those who know about and adhere strictly to the scientific method in their work.
I most certainly have not made any division of real vs fake scientists. However, I do distingish between hard and soft sciences respectively, and use those terms as they are commonly understood (allthough not all, not even all 'scientists' are fully aware of the distinction).
And I most certainly don't think or claim or argue that peer reviewed and publsihed means anything more than just that. It doesn't mean true, valid, checked, verified, to be accepted, or not questioned. I am saying that after publishing, the work still must be evaluated on it's own merits.
This too has caused some consternation among people here. Who argue that if it is printed, others therefore must accept (whatever they think are) the claims made therein.
You're an idiot.
Good comeback, Stu
;-)
But I have an even better one, a quote by you <a on Oct 19 on the same topic, after having kept harping on 'dependet variables' for over a week, directed at GSW:
Particularly, note the "you spent days saying that ..."
You surely don't lack strength i your imaginations, Stu, just a little accuracy ...
It's enough for a moron like you.
Why bother with any more when you'll pretend you don't understand, if you even bother reading.
Again, the link to Stu's wisdom didn't work. Here is another try:
On Oct 19, 2011, (Page 16)
Being a moron, you can't find your own statements.
Or indeed GSW's (earlier) comment:
GSW
October 16, 2011
@stu
stu, some easy questions for you;
Did you do physics at school?
Why do you think the hand velocity is “obviously and completely irrelevant”?
But you're a moron.
Joan: "As long as (constant) friction is present, ie as long as the velocity is non-zero (in the same direction) , the loss of velocity of any (equal) period of time will be the same."
I'd explain the problem to you, Joan and the Slug Horde, but you're just too damn thick to get it.
These members of the 'Troll Collective' or 'Wendy Club' may well be suffering from a genetic effect linked to the action of the FOXP2 gene. In Dawkins''The Ancestor's Tale' pp. 61-62 Dawkins describes how, 'A family code-named KE suffers from a strange hereditary defect. Out of approximately 30 family members spread over three generations, about half are normal, but fifteen show a curious linguistic disorder, which seems to affect both speech and understanding. It has been called verbal dyspraxia, and it first show itself as an inability to articulate clearly in childhood....'
The Dyspraxia Foundation has this to 'say':
One should of course be careful with labelling somebody as dyspraxic, for childhood language difficulties may be caused by other factors such as a hearing impairment.
Maybe we should just be kind and disengage with them until such times as they have sought help.
Lionel
go easy on Wow, Stu and chek .. I assume what they bring here is their absolute best.
Meanwhile, here is another gem from Stu (Nov 2, 2011, page 17).
"Let me ask you outright: when pushing an object with your hand, can your hand have a different velocity than the pushed object? GSW thinks so, and so far you’ve been defending him. That’s why the subject of physics is closed to you"
The guy is simply amazing in his ... ehrm .. 'creativity' (for lack of a better word)
"GSW thinks so, and so far you’ve been defending him. That’s why the subject of physics is closed to you”
And you don't understand what that means, do you, Joan.
Because you're a moron.
Later, same day (Nov 2) same page (#17), Stu is at it again:
He really must believe in his own stuff. Still does apparently ...
Here is a double gem for you. Stu (Nov 18, page #18) gets both his misconceptions inte one sentence:
Just making nonsenes up, aren't we Stu? :-) No wonder you feel so comfortable around these guys ...
"Stu is at it again:"
Ah, I get it.
Your problem is that you are NEVER consistent in your claims and therefore cannot understand how someone else could.
And that's why you're a moron.
Joan, here's a way forward for you.
Explain why GSW mentioned the velocity of the hand.
Bercause as Jonarse's chief fluffer it's his primary pre-occupation?
I presume this latest episode recap of the pantomime is so Jonarse can inform Wyvern that he really du kno physix?
Following this excruciating endgame could actually be quite the guide to what denial entails.
I see what you are doing Jonas. This is the second time that you have repeated the idea that I claimed to "speak for tens of thousands of active scientists" when I did no such thing. You seem to be unaware of the politics of debate so let me inform you that what you are doing is constructing a straw man. Look it up and think about what it means that you can't address the point but instead have to swipe at nonexistent points.
Jonas since I have been talking to you your posts seem to be all over the place, so I am trying to understand the historical context of this board. It is too long for anyone with a grain of self respect to go back and read from the beginning. I think I now understand where you are coming from, which is really just a continuation of the notion that Judy Curry likes to promote.
Feedbacks? I thought that you settled on the problem being proof of attribution. Perhaps you should explain again what you want to see, and refer to papers that you say don't provide what you want to see when scientists say they do contain this material.
But you say that you don't believe models or Bayesian statistics, so you must have already seen "science and data". Why can't you refer to the science and data that you have seen?
And have you considered the paleoclimate data? They give an empirical method of figuring out the relative sizes of different forcings, as well as sensitivity which you don't seem to be worried about after all.
Thats quite funny. You appear to have been very vague yourself about what you have read and think doesnt explain how the attributions were determined, and from what others have said you have avoided referencing any papers. Have you read Allen and Stott's "Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting"? Or Stott et als "Observational Constraints on Past Attributable Warming and Predictions of Future Global Warming"? Both use statistics that determine the type of 90% confidence intervals that you say were made up.
I see your problem. You are assuming that you understand everyone else better than they understand themselves. You are assuming that you know what others do, and how they do it, and because they wont put their work on a plate in front of you you think that its not been done. How do YOU know what real scientists read and calculate and analyze when you cant show anyone that you have ever done anything that resembles science?
Ah so you do know what a straw man is. More curiously my straw man is not ok but yours is? And for what its worth my question is NOT a straw man. You brought up the subject that I couldnt speak for tens of thousands of scientists -or for the hundreds that I know- when I pointed out that these same scientists agree with the ipcc. So by challenging my experience of other scientists you are directly challenging my indication to you that the vast majority agree with the ipcc and therefore you are effectively saying that most working scientists disagree with the ipccs summary of the climatology.
I can see why the others here think so little of you. You are very good at pretending to be scientific without ever presenting any science at all- when you accuse everyone else of doing exactly that. What are you Jonas- an engineer?
Has it ever occurred to you that the problem is that you dont know where to look or how to find it?
Which ones? Not the ones who get so much of the physics wrong?
On the matter of your banning of particular words, if they are backed up with demonstrated validity why should they be avoided? It would be no different to you avoiding science because its reviewed by the ipcc or published by the scientists who you say you have read but which we know nothing about because you wont tell the board.
You must be joking. Most of these things are indications of the amount of warming that the planet is experiencing, and are proof that warming is occurring. If no known natural forcings can account for changes in these 'topics', then what remains -human emissions of the GHG CO2- is very much part of the core question.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Solar-Cycle-Model-fails.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Sun-climate-moving-opposite-directions…
Paleo data says about 3 degrees, and is completely separate from models and Bayesian statistics. You don't seem to address this.
Again you must be joking. There are huge passages in the ipcc reports and there are hundreds of papers that go into great detail describing the causes for climate variation. You truly dont read the literature do you?
Thats a coincidence- Im referring to these scientists myself. Because I work with them, I talk with them, I socialize with them and I even argue with them. I understand them because I am one of them. And I know that they would laugh at you because you are looking at the specks in other peoples eyes while ignoring the log in your own. How many do you know or work with or socialize with?
A simple question to finish with Jonah ....
If it is not humans then what forcing is warming the planet- and what is your confidence in your attribution? You must have something in mind given that you dont seem to want to accept that its caused by humans.
Thats 3 degrees *per doubling of CO2*.
Sorry Wyvern, but it seems you are the one erecting the strawmen here, and being mislead if you trusted the descriptions of others.
From your first comment, one could easily get the impression that your views reflected those of tens of thousands more. Especially since you brought up that 97% figure too. I say, none of these approaches will convince.
And if you truly think I am unaware of "the politics of debate" you must be a total amateur. Especially when it comes to climate debate. Strawmen is the absolute favorite tool among those who don't like the climate hysteria or policies challenged. Please don't tell me you've never heard the term 'denier' before!? You would be lying! And it's the most simple strawmen there is ...
And yes, I can repeat once more what I've been asking for: Proper science that establishes two specified magnitudes in the most prominent AR4 claim:
That most of the warimg (>50%) very likely (90% confidence) is due to human GHG emissions.
Two numbers, thrown out for the media and political consupmtion of the entire world. I'd like to see where they come from.
And no, I don't need to cite papers which don't make those claims, not even those who speculate about these levels in the discussion-section. I would like to see how this was arrived at. And nobody I've asked has even been close to havin gseen any. I have not seen/heard any scientists making these claims. I have however met an aweful lot of people, both in online discussions, and IRL, who just throw out entire lists and say: Go and find it for your self. Essentially saying: They don't know, they have no clue! (Which is my contention after many years)
Look, it's very simple: People throwing out lists of references they haven't even read, I cannot and will not take seriously in a scientific debate. Point is that almost nobdy even has claimed to have seen read and understood this alleged science. And the two ones who did, faltered completely when taken to the task ..
And I have no clue from where you've gotten the idea that I "don’t believe models or Bayesian statistics" (that must be another one of your strawmen. On the contrary, I know what models and Bayesian statistics are good for and capable of. That's why I'm saying that you cant establish high confidence in neither model assumptions, nor how certain your inital guess was using these. I think that would be ovious to anyone dealing with these matters (but whenever I bring this up wrt to IPCC claims or GCM simulation relaibilty) people seem strangely unfamiliar with even the simple aspects of how science works .. and yes, that bothers me. Or increases my skepticism about their claims if you will.
Those people who claim that the models proves its underlying hypothesis correct, I disregard from thereon.
Pale-data? No, it doesn't establish the magnitude of 'forcings'. At best (and that's quite a questionmark) they can be reconstructions of past temperatures, not of its causes or the relative contribution among those.
I have read a couple of papers by Stott and co-workers, even linked one myself here in this thread. And no, the did something different. Essentially an andvanced curfitting procedure (uwing models) where they claimed to get 90% agreement for one specific targeted parameter. And this is something very different than establishing a 90% confidence i what actually caused the same observations.
And no (spare me another strawman), I don't assume to understand others better than they do. I ask them first (in contrast to what almost all here, on your side tried)
That sounds like Jeffie-style stupidity. Please spare me! the IPCC claims, and is very proud of claiming, to deal with the peer revied literature. If any basis for their claims actually did exist in 2007, they would be there to see for anyone to read. My ability (or lack thereof) to understand it, would not be a factor.
At the end you return to strawmen (which you've tried several of). But I'm missing the point here. I don't know how many (real) sicentists agree or disagree with that AR4 statement. I will probably never find out. The 'community' is very protective about its secrets and dirty laundry ..
And I don't know what your aquaintances agree with our not. As I said, belief is not a relevant factor. I did however strongly question your implied statement of of having pointedly and directly addressed exactly those queries I have. And I still doubt thats what your friends 'agree' about .. or at least I would how so.
What others here think of me is completely irrelevant. If I would to put down in writing my assessment of many here, it would be as bad as what the write. And I would have grounds, whereas the don't ..
But you are right, I am not presenting that much science 'at all', I ma just making many, small, and pointed comments about where the alleged science (or arguing thereof) doesn't hold water.
You ask:
And the answer is No! Because I have been doing exactly that: Asking for it, asking if anyone has seen it. If anyone has read and understood it, and is not taking this claim on faith. And this started long before I asked the same question here.
Today, I am more wary about all the stupid activist's diversion tactics. I ask more pointed questions. But they are still the relevant ones. That others, scientists in the field, should have asked lpng before me.
On baning of words. I am telling you about my assessment of all debaters. These words and terms are not part of a scientific discourse.
Sorry, that was posted prematurely... Continuation to come
On nning of words. I am telling you about my assessment of all debaters. These words and terms are not part of a scientific discourse. And I think you are completely missing the point.
They are used, not only by the fringe activists, and loony blog commenters, but by the core 'experts' and proponents of the climate scare. And when they do use such words, you can discard them wrt to any question about finding out about and getting more knowledge about the climate system.
There are a lot of (ex-)communists on your side. But their existence is not the reason (or a valid argument) for the poor performance of the AGW-hypothesis. Real observations are! Not your your comany. And you might want to pay attention here. Because 'your company' (often only implied) is by many made a central part of the argument.
And no, I am not joking. It has gotten warmer, arctic summer sea ice minimum has decreased. And this says absolutely nothing about what may have caused this, And you then try the old we-have-no-better-explanation gamibit. And even if this is correct, it is not a scientific argument. But you shouldn't have linked to John Cook's site. There definitely, science is not the concern.
Paleo data still doesn't establish the cause, You've got that wrong. And I think you got it wrong if you believe that the climate and how it varies is understood. Very wrong! Not even major events such as glaciations are properly understood.
ANd I am happy that you socialize with other scientists adhering to the scientific method. The only problem I have then is why you even in this much simpler conversation brought up so many strawmen, and arguments wich are completely counter to the scientific method?
You end with the same challange as before (which at its core is counter to the scientific method). You demand: Well if you you dont believe it'w CO2 who dunnit, then come up with a better explanation.
Again, this has nothing to do in science. But is frequent in advocacy. And don't tell me what I accept or don't ... I am still only asking to see the basis of made claims.
But I can give you not an answer, but the scientific position opposing the proposed explaining hypthesis. It's called the null-hypothesis. When you ask 'what has caused the variation now', the null hypothesis would be: It varies the same way as it always has done (and which we don't understand) . The challenge (in real science) is to establish that the null-hypothesis can be ruled out.
But if you are a scientist, socializing with others, all this would be very familiar to you already. At least you claimed to. So let's hope that was true. The socializing bit. My counter question to you (and directly related to your claim) would be:
You do understand what I am saying, don't you? You are aware of the prundence of adhereing to the scientific method and asking to see the data? And you do understand that I don't have to provide you with a lot of irrelevant information about other things before the data can be shown. And you also do understand that I don't have to offer a better and competing hypthesis, in order to have a look at your data and your methods. Or th questions if those explanations really are valid and hold water. All these things are and were obvious to you long before .. Weren't they? Please confirm!
Yep, Jonas is drinking again. That's what, 15 spelling errors in that last post alone?
Given that I have never said that I have not heard the term 'denier' before you are yourself creating a straw man.
Again.
I gave you some papers to read .... don't you understand the statistics they contain?
I take it that you are aware that you are creating a straw man because you yourself say that "it’s the most simple strawmen there is".
When you say things like "There are claims (found in the AR4) to high values, but nowhere established beyond questioning. Essentially all of them rely heavily on both model simulations (based on the same assumptions) and fiddled Bayesian statistics." you are discounting the models and simulations that have been conducted by many scientists.
This a curious thing to do because you apparently once said that the "numbers are made up, guessed at best”. The fact that there are both models and Bayesian statistics in the literature as well as paleoclimate analysis shows that you are wrong .... and your own dismissal of "model simulations and fiddled Bayesian statistics" -your own words- show that your original claim that the "numbers are made up, guessed at best" is untrue.
Really? That will come as a surprise to many paleoclimatologists.
Are you a paleoclimatologist?
In that case you should be able to start with the first two papers I referred you to and show how the statistics there do not establish 90% confidence ranges.
I hope that you can be detailed and specific and point to particular equations.
And by the way I would not call reading "a couple of papers by Stott and co-workers" enough of a basis for making the claims you make.
I disagree with your claim. You said of those many scientists who accept the mainstream view -whether on this board or elsewhere- that "The only case I’ve made (wrt thos) is that those who chose to simply believe it, do so in faith".
To me that is assuming that you know those people better than they do themselves. After all how can you possibly know what motivates their acceptance of the science? In addition I originally said: "You are assuming that you know what others do, and how they do it, and because they wont put their work on a plate in front of you you think that its not been done. How do YOU know what real scientists read and calculate and analyze when you cant show anyone that you have ever done anything that resembles science?" To say that when you also say that all they do is make up the attribution confidences is to contradict your claim that you do no assume what motivates others. It also makes a nonsense of your claim that I am putting up a straw man, because my claim is directly on topic.
You claim however IS another straw man. You are really good at that arent you?
Your lack of ability to understand it *would* be a factor. If you are too untrained to be able to understand the work how can you demonstrate that there has been no work done? If you are being mendacious in your claims about what was or was not calculated how can you demonstrate that there has been no work done?
Nothing that you have claimed is a straw man of mine is a straw man. On the other hand you are doing very well in this regard.
Its your prerogative to question it if you feel inclined to. You would be wrong though.
Perhaps if you spoke to real scientists you would know what they discuss and what they agree on and what they accept as current science.
I ask again. Are you a physicist?
But you are not making your case with evidence and you are not looking at the evidence that you have been directed to by others. For instance have you analyzed the papers I referred you to?
In the end this means that all you are doing is shouting from the sidelines as an untrained lay person with no idea what you are saying. Or that you are deliberately trying to create doubt about the science where the scientists themselves have no comparable doubt.
And a number of people have told you that they dont take it on faith that they have read the literature and discussed the work with climatologists. But you haven't shown any inclination to follow up on their responses .... its as though you dont actually want to hear their answers .....
But you dont listen to the answers and you wont show how you have determined that the confidences werent calculated in the first place.
No I am not.
If someone denies that CO2 is a GHG they are a denier. If someone denies that CO2 is a increasing because of human emissions they are a denier. If someone denies that the earth is warming they are a denier.
If someone pretends that they understand science when they have no training in science, and if they believe that they understand science better than real scientists understand it, they are likely to be demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect.
If someone is creationist they are highly likely to have a very distorted and biased response to science and the results of scientific enquiry.
Dismissing the arguments of anyone who uses these words especially when they have a valid reason to do so is to simply be avoiding painful truth.
What, like deniers use the terms "fringe activists", "loony blog commenters", 'experts' in scare-quotes, and "climate scare"?
You cant be serious! If you are you are nuts and you are completely unacquainted with scientists, who are mostly very centrist in their political persuasions. If you really believe your claim then you are probably bordering on being prone to conspiratorial thinking.
Or are you just being ironic?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that no known natural forcing explains warming, and that the known effects of CO2 do. If there are other unknown natural forcings that humans have not discovered how could such a large effect not be recognized? It is inherently contradictory to say that something besides humans is warming the planet but we don't know what that is. If it is extra heat from beyond the earth we should be able to detect it. If it is something originating from earth we should have recognized that too by now. There have been many silly notions presents by climate change DENIERS but each notion is quickly and definitively refuted. If you know of any that haven't please list them here.
It is interesting that you don't answer this question. If you claim that the human caused emissions of CO2 are not responsible for warming the earth THEN WHAT IS? Why cant you answer this question?
Many real scientists would disagree. If you can point to any scientist who says that Skeptical Science is not concerned with science please share. And if you can explain how the science that floods the site is not science please do.
And if you object to my "speaking for others" about the worth of Skeptical Science go and ask some scientists yourself.
The problem here is your interpretation of what I say not what I said. You are trying to twist things so that you never have to answer a question directly because to do so would be to paint yourself into a corner and to end the chatter on this silly board.
There you go again. Another straw man that you seem to think I am prone to.
I didn't say that paleo data ESTABLISH the cause. I said that " They give an empirical method of figuring out the relative sizes of different forcings". AN empirical method .... for your benefit that is a method (but not the only method) of using physical evidence to understand the relative contributions of various factors that affect the climate.
And they do.
It has everything to do with science. You are trying to ignore the science that indicates that CO2 warms the planet. But you dont offer any scientific counter to the physics of GHG warming. In science a central tennet is that a theory is only replaced by another theory that better explains the evidence and data. You are offering NOTHING in your claims that humans are not warming the planet by emitting CO2.
As I said before of all know possible forcings no natural ones explain the warming but GHGs do. For your claim to be correct you have to disprove the physics that says that CO2 is a GHG with a sensitivity of about 3 degrees c per doubling AND you have to find a natural forcing that is greater than just about any other forcing except for the sun itself, which inconveniently for you is in a cool phase.
You are trying to be scientific with your mention of the null hypothesis but doing so leaves you open to completely ignoring scientific parsimony. Your claim requires for there to be a very complicated and highly unlikely series of events occurring- this is not good science and it is not even science at all.
Better than you do I would say.
Which is why I am asking you to explain your theory after having pointed you to some papers that explain what you say is not explained.
Saying it doesn't make it true. You have ignored material that would answer your question and you have provided NOTHING that backs up you claim- either to support your insistance that the work was not done or that there is another forcing that is acting to warm the earth.
You don't have to offer a hypothesis unless you want to be scientific. You are not being scientific. And you are being shown the data but you are choosing to ignore it.
Your original claim is that the ipcc and its climatologists "made up" or "guessed" the attribution confidences. You have been directed to work that shows that there has been a LARGE effort to actually calculate the confidences. So your original claim is wrong. You seem to have tried to avoid this wrongness by claiming then that the scientists did not do the calculations in the right way but you offer no evidence to back this up. That is not being scientific.
They are obvious to most scientists. That you refuse to go into the matter yourself to discover the work only shows that you are not a scientist.
I will ask you again. Are you a physicist? Are you a climatologist? Are you any sort of scientist? Are you an engineer?
Do you talk to real scientists? Do you talk to physicists? Do you ever talk to climatologists?
If you are trying to be scientific why dont you have to produce anything to support your claims when you are asking scientists to support theirs. And why do you refuse to actually discuss the specific material that is out there?
I was told before I posted here that I would be wasting my time. I see now that I was told the truth. Really if this notion that you have borrowed from Judy Curry had any credibility why has she not overturned the whole field of climatology and the ipcc process by now? Why? Because its all a distraction from the truth.
I dont know why I even bothered ....
There aremany
There are so many misconceptions in your post, Wyvern, it is hard to know where to start.
Yes, you do attac and aweful lot of strawmen, while at the same time claiming I erect such when I don't.
And you seem much more eager to tell me a lot about myself, than arguing the case you say is established. It is a bit strange when so many on your side are so obsessed with the persons rather than arguing the science.
But I do give one thing, you've named two papers, and made a claim that they contain said science. That's better than almost all others. And I will check them out. But you need cut back on your many accusations. Frankly some of the are just idiotic (*)
I told you that I in this thread had followed several Stott papers, and suggested one of my own. Because you asked! I have not yet checked if your suggestions are among them since I saw them around midnight. Your: " you refuse to go into the A totally unwarranted (and wrong) accusation. Unfortunately, there were quite many of those.
And yes, I stick to my impression that your socializing with other scientists did not delve into the depth of attribution certainty. And I'll give you my reason for it:
One doesn't bring up the alleged opinion of 'tens of thousands' of scientists, and even less so the alleged 97% consensus (about somthing totally unrelated) if one is arguing the existence of such science, and the intricacies of 'fingerprinting'. Those are appeals to something else (about something else).
And yes, this is how you started here (including my query):
Even giving you some slack for being unfamiliar with exactly what was addressed, or what 'those guys' have said, you claim to speak for (the opinions of) thens of thousands.
Another really really bad strawman(*) was the following:
"your claims that humans are not warming the planet by emitting CO2."
After I had just listed the 4-point Al Gore version of the AGW argument, and pointed out I have no difficulties with accepting that.
You say you are wasting your time, and I partly agree with you. You could have just presented those two references, explained that you think or believe they make or argue the case, even how and why if you want to cinvince.
Instead however, you wasted your time on writing a long essay bout all kinds of other things. About me, and who I really am(*), and many other irrelevant issues. On several occasions you are just wrong, and others I would object (sometimes strongly) on scientific princple and/or matters and details.
(*)The whole 'attac and insult the messenger'-meme escapes me if you want to argue the science (but is extremely common). And your claim to understand "Better than you do I would say" was not so wise after first accusing me for exactly the same. Same goes for all the strawmen and dito-accusations.
Correcting one paragraph:
I told you that I in this thread had followed several Stott papers, and suggested one of my own. Because you asked! I have not yet checked if your suggestions are among them since I saw them around midnight. Your: ” That you refuse to go into the matter yourself .." six (nightly) hours later is nonsense. A totally unwarranted (and wrong) accusation. Unfortunately, there were quite many of those
PS I.ll get back to you on both issues. The Stott papers (but I need to read them first) and the many attacs you tried. Because, I think there was som really bad and wrong arguing in there. And I still have the feeling that you conflate various issues pertaining to the attribution claims. At least your many arguments around them seem to target quite different issues.
Also Wyvern, you allude several times to having been told by others what to think here. I find that slightly odd. As an argument, and even more so if those you talk to claim to have firm opinions, and none of them or of those are presented here.
There have been a few commenters here who have argued rationally and politely, even presenting som papers, or claiming to know and understand such science. But those were very few. And never stayed to argue the actual contents and merits.
I suspect, your many opinions you felt the need to air about me, might have more to do with those interactions, than what I have actually said here . . .
In those cases you you've drawn upon the regular commenters here, you will not get any substance at all ... but lots of the very opposite
"I see what you are doing Jonas. This is the second time that you have repeated the idea that I claimed to “speak for tens of thousands of active scientists” when I did no such thing."
That's Joan's M.O.
Pretend things that they think OUGHT to have happened have actuall happened.
Another one is to change the words and ask "Where did I say $NEW_STATEMENT?".
But that's pretty common for deniers.
"You are trying to twist things so that you never have to answer a question directly because to do so would be to paint yourself into a corner and to end the chatter on this silly board."
Yup, this is the entire Slug Horde's M.O., though.
"Also Wyvern, you allude several times to having been told by others what to think here."
Where does he SAY that?
The money shot of course - Komrades - is:
"There are a lot of (ex-)communists on your side".
The follow up question being, how faithful to Algore are they really?
No! No! My reference to the 'Troll Collective' and 'Wendy Club' was to indicate that it is you and your ilk (GWS, Kraken, OP, DDuff and now drongo drops) who may be afflicted with dyspraxia.
The fact that you did not grasp that is yet more evidence for your affliction as is your continued joist with Wyvern who has done an excellent job of de-constructing your ramblings.
As Anne Robinson might say:
Your ideas are distorted, your reading scant [1], your methodology is bankrupt, your locker is empty, You are the weakest link. Goodbye.
[1] scant, not in the old nautical sense which would make no sense here.
Lionel A
That's how I read it too. The troll collective here .. I never really bothered to find out what you menat by Wnedy club .. but who and which ones are the trolls with sub-zero substance in this 'discussion's is pretty obvious.
I also agree that their reading and methodology. Considering them weak links is almost flattering ...since it implies some strength.
Indeed you haven't ever bothered to find. Those words, of yours, should be your epitaph.
You have just provided another data point on your own personal slope of wilful ignorance from maybe dyspraxia.
Jonas...
- Cannot read
- Cannot spell
- Has no scientific credentials
- Has not read a single climate change paper
- Does not understand physics
- Has delusions of grandeur
So yes, Jonas,
Indeed it is.
Indeed Stu, and you've found other gems inside your head too. Like claims about different speeds between hand and box ...
What else might be found in there, pre-tell ...
Joan, you still haven't managed to explain why GSW was the first to bring up the velocity of the hand.
Wow, it's a lost cause by now. It's been quoted to him verbatim over half a dozen times now. HE JUST DOESN'T GET IT. He is just that stupid.
"What else might be found in there, pre-tell "(sic)
Another boring, pointless, extraneous and wrong avoidance strategy or two, by the looks of it. In other words - your specialty Jonarse!
Stu .. so you have found different speeds among hand and box mentioned ... quoted a dozen times. Well, probably true but all quotes have been by you ...
And it's funny. For a year, you were the only one imagining these things. Now Wow has started too, and even chek weighs in ..
And of course, you are all staunch believers in the upcoming climate catastrophy too ..
Not a coincidence, I reckon
;-)
I'll copy the quote you brought up once more. Where you imagined finding different speeds among hand and box. It is so hilarious, it's unbelievable. Here it is (your emphasis)
Stu finds claims of different speeds between hand and box here, even says that everyone can see that.
As I said, lots of interensting things going on on the inside of that skull ... And what's coning out can be just as funny ...
:-)
(Well, all came out bold. Stu highlighted what he though were different speeds between hand and box in that quote. Wow is totally in on it, and chek gives hs support too.. Only Jeffie is missing)
Attempting to unbold</b because Jonas is too dense to understand HTML.
Acknowledging the hilarity of committing a typo in the closing tag there. Edit function, were art thou.
Stu ... I think you say so many utterly stupid things because never get your premises right ...
It would be better if you found anything,anything at all, where you believe that anybody has claimed different speeds among hand and box to start with.
The best quote (fpr your derailment) I have found I have copied many times by now. And there is no 'different speeds' in there ... Still, 2½ weeks derailment last year weren't enough. Here you are still at it, over a year later. And you know, I appreciate it. Now Wow and chek are sideing with you ...
And your attempts at 'physics' are even more hilarious ...
Heck, I'm bored, and I'll be damned if I let our local derp-muffin feed his pathology by thinking he's actually gotten the last word in. Dyspraxia does sound more and more likely.
Several people have now quoted GSW's herpa-derpa mention of hand speed right at you Jonas. You still don't understand what we are trying to tell you.
That means you are stupid, mentally ill or a liar. Take your pick.
Obvious and stupid lie. Others have quoted the same damned thing.
Oh, wait. You mean the quotes are all OF me, right?
You know, Jonas, for someone smarter than anyone here, for the only person who knows what real science is, for someone decades ahead in physics (what the fark does that even mean, Jonas? can we look forward to your refutation of the Standard Model next?), for someone decades ahead in mathematics... your inability to form a correct sentence is really, really glaring.
Far be it from me to make fun of someone's genuine learning disability though. So if you are truly sufficiently dyslexic to still not comprehend what we are trying to tell you (ask any person over 10 in your general vicinity, they'll be able to help), I sincerely apologize.
Mind you, even affording you all of that benefit of the doubt and assuming you meant quotes OF me, it's still not true. I'm just trying to pinpoint your specific pathology now.
No, not really. Not anymore. You are sick in the head, Jonas. I tend not to find mental illness amusing.
Oh, we're past that now, Jonas. You're incapable of comprehending English, writing English, basic physics and basic math. Until you start some serious medication and remedial education, talking about climate change is WAY, WAY out of your league.
Thank you for saving me the trouble. Although I do seem to remember that this type of lack of self-censorship is indicative of serious pathopsychology.
When did you lose the ability to absorb knowledge, Jonas? Are you doing a Memento re-enactment?
No, again, your mental illness is not funny at all.
[GSW's stupidity, snipped to the bare minimum]
Right. At least it only took us pointing it out a few times for you to find the actual quote, Jonas.
Hand speed is mentioned. Which implies it is a variable. Which is stupid. Which I have been attempting to explain to you in dozens of ways for over a year.
And everybody does, Jonas. Everybody except you. Even GSW has the good sense to stay out of this one.
So again, everybody is crazy except for you, right? This seems likely to you? In the dark of night, there are no pangs of "maybe it's me"?
How long have you been off your medication, Jonas?
BOOOM!
Sorry, my new heavy-duty irony meter just exploded.
Hai Jonas, let me explain what a "premise" is.
A premise is something like "the hand is pushing the box".
What follows from that? Well, from that follows that the hand and box will always have the same velocity. If not, you are violating the... wait for it... premise. If the hand and the box do not have the same velocity, the hand is not pushing the box.
Therefore, saying something like "if the box moves faster, the hand has to move faster also" is monumentally stupid. Not only is it causally wrong, it implicitly calls the premise into question.
This is not about me saying the speeds are different, you abject moron. It is about the hand even being mentioned. Only an idiot without a single semester of physics (i.e., you) would either entertain that misconception or not see the stupidity of the original mention.
And for fark's sake, you idiot, download spell-check software. Your increasingly frantic frothing rants are painful enough as is without you misspelling more than one word a sentence on average.
"It would be better if you found anything,anything at all, where you believe that anybody has claimed different speeds among hand and box to start with. "
It would be better to ask why you keep claiming the hand moves at a different speed to the box, Joan.
Your last forty posts have all proclaimed the hand moving at a different speed to the box.
Why do you keep mentioning the hand going faster than the box, Joan?
You keep talking about the hand moving faster than the box.
Why?
"different speeds between hand and box"
Why do you say that, Joan?
Why do you say that there's "different speeds between hand and box"?
Do you want me to find more quotes of you saying that there's "different speeds between the hand and the box", Joan?
POSTERITY:
What we are debating here is GSW's original post, which by simple substitution is
100% equivalent. A year later, Jonas is still defending this statement. And daring people to say who brought up differing car-engine speeds.
Also VERY notable: every time this thread springs back to life, Jonas' cheerleaders swoop in instantly with completely content-free, school yard level support. As soon as Jonas gets called on being dense as a post and/or a liar, they swoop back out. Only to lurk, and hope nobody will notice, until next time, when they will SO have the last word, too.
Stu, try a little bit harder:
For instance, try to replace the 'also' with a synonym like 'too':
Better?
To help you Stu, things were clarified even further, only minutes later:
In your (excellent) analogy that would be instead:
Better still? Did you notice the "keep pace with" this time? Did you notice that another synonym for 'also' is 'as well'?
PS Wow: long sentences, some tricky words as well/too/also....
Yes, Jonas, you still don't get it. The sentence "bringing up the hand at all is stupid" is just too much for you.
The.
Hand.
Is.
Irrelevant.
Therefore, saying
Is stupid. The word HAND is stupid.
Oh, wait. Holy crap. Embarrassing yourself with the synonym gambit is not enough.
JONAS. READ WHAT YOU JUST ACTUALLY WROTE.
The point is THAT THE ENGINE IS BY DEFINITION ATTACHED TO THE CAR.
You have no self-awareness, do you. You complete, utter and pathetic moron.
Here:
Just like when you say "I am pushing this box with my hand", THE HAND IS BY DEFINITION GOING TO MOVE AT THE SAME SPEED. It will, by definition (being a car, hand pushing box) always move at the same speed.
You have now, officially, introduced the speed of the engine as a variable in any equation involving a car. Physics teachers world-wide are looking for rope to hang themselves.
Thats utter rubbish. I do my own thinking based on the best evidence. You are grossly twisting matters as you always seem to do and I challenge you to show where I said that I was told what to think.
On another matter it seems that your poster girl Judy Curry has been caught with her knickers down. Perhaps you should ride to her rescue and present your science -if it actually exists- in her defense. I realize that you claim that Skeptical Science presents no science so now is your chance to improve the level of conversation over there:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/italian-flag-curry.html
Abstract concepts like 'premise' and implicit are beyond Jonarse's comprehension. Instead we're treated to an insight into bizarer-o-world.
In which minute inertial differences must be accounted for in the description. The maximum compression of rubber mounts for example must be applied before the steering column begins moving momentarily later, essentially a discreet object flying in formation.
Or there's the possibility that the bolts securing the engine had been loosened (perhaps by an ex-communist. Who knows?) and produced an equal and opposite reactionwhen forward thrust was applied.
Or as suggested earlier, by the effect horizon of a local singularity pulling the engine off into oblivion without, baffling as it may seem, affecting the car.
To be a true physics is to know and account for these things, every second of everyday.
chek, thanks for the laugh. That was eerily like my professor's introductory lecture on including only sensible things in calculations. This was on the very, very hard-core "materials & strengths" course.
Wyvern
I wouln'td start talking about 'twisting matters' after that Mega strawmen you pulled earlier today.Especially not if it was a product of your 'own thinking' ..
And meybe not the best phrasing, but yes, you several times alluded to what impressions others had given you about what's going on here.
If you think for yourself, why would you feel the need to refer other's opinions to me? Furhter why would you bring up the alleged opinions of tens of thousands of scientists. Or that some that 97% agree on something else.
On the topic of twisting matters: Where did I ever make Curry my poster girl?
Are you just yet another warmist who cannot play by the same rules as he demands that the other side always must? Are you yet another one of those, who is blind to his own argument if it were apllied generally, ie used in both directions? If the answer is 'No', then please stop the silly wordgames. And the childish non-logic deduction attempts.
Iwouln’td] [that Mega strawmen] [meybe] [Furhter] [warmist] [apllied]
Still hell-bent on not being taken seriously I see, Jonas.
Also, why are you trying to talk about climate science again? You're not allowed to. You do not understand the language climate science reports are written in. You do not understand math. You do not understand physics. You are dense as a post. You are a pathological liar.
Fix those things first, and maybe. Just maybe.
chek,
The bizzarro world is one not so bright commenter imagining there were claims about 'difference in speed between hand and box' .. and still does so over a year later!
Even acfer the opposite was explicitly pointed out to him.
Even more bizzaro was his notion that this description ov very simple physics, was about dependet variables, and official equations. The bizzaro world is all the stupid stuff errected upon that nonsense. And even worse bizzarro world is that a bunch more start claiming equally stupid things. Even if the purpose most was about helping a poor guy in dire need of diversion with some of that ...
The poor dork is now screaming it was stupid to explain the obvious to him, because it was so obvious ... and that's why heard the exact opposite to the obvious. Or something like that ...
Please continue Stu, Wow, and welcome chek, to this bizzaro-box-physics of luminous,Stu and Wow. I still hop Jeffie will join you too (and I think he as well sided with luminous in the idiocy-physics that seem popular among warmists here)
I was told before I posted here that I would be wasting my time.
Wyvern, not just Jonas but this entire thread is pathological. Do yourself a favor and quit it.
Stu, I was absolutely serious
Wyvern himself, who hade been quibbing a lot about strawmen, falsly many times, tried a Mega-strawman himself, telling my what my position was, after I just hade told him the opposite.
Very embarrassing (if this was his own thinking) and also embarassing if this built on the false description by someone. else, and he took a swing at it ..
But quite typical.
And it is me explaining the simplest physics to you guys, who have a hard time understanding even the concept of a hand bushing a box, sliding over the floor ..
You (several now) who imagine the most stupid things and have a year long hissy fit over 'hands and box at different speeds' and trying to defend this utter nonsense with even more about dependet variables and official equations, neither ever mentioned or needed for understanding:
The simplest example of a hand pushing a box, sliding over the floor.
Wyvern, I think ianam just said the most sensible thing I've ever seen him saying
This thread is pathological. Explaining things to warmists here is on such a low level it surly must sound stupid to anyone from outside,
Justs think of the fact that it specifically must be pointed out that:
When a hand pushes a box, sliding over the flor, it must have the same speed as the box.!
Just think of this needing to be spelled out in plain text to some here. Who then go on and have a year long (still lasting) hissy fit about:
Hands and box moving at differnet speeds!?
You cant makte tese guys up!
But even for you, I think your best bet would be to leave silently. You declined quite quickly after a (in comparison) reasonable start. Scored a couple of (unchallenged!) own goals, and starting to sound angry and touchy and piling up various unfounded accusations ..
If this is indicative of the strength of your argument ... ianam's advice may be your best option.
I can tell you that while ianam was around, he certainly helped me making a similar argument about how these debates usually go. A little bit like Wow now (and Stu and chek too, of course).
But I hope you stick around. :-) Independet of whether you start arguing the facts and their merits, of if it will be more down that road you seem to be headed ...
(3 different spellings of bizarro,which just exploded another irony meter)
[acfer] [dependet] [errected] [warmists] [ov] [hade] [quibbing] [falsly] [hade] [embarassing] [bushing] [dependet] [surly] [Justs] [flor] [differnet] [makte] [tese] [Independet]
Jonas, Sterno is not your friend.
Okay, that was for fun. Let's see if I can figure out what the damned clown shoe was actually trying to say.
Do you even read our attempts at explaining this to you anymore, Jonas? We use small words. We go slow. We go out of our way to leave you graceful ways to extricate yourself from the discussion and maintain at least a token amount of dignity.
When you can't see the sky anymore Jonas... stop digging.
Ah, yes, okay. We can now officially add the word "opposite" to the list of terms you have no concept of. But do derp on Jonas, derp on.
"Official equations"? What the hell are you talking about? Jonas, do the orderlies know you are playing on the Interwebs again? Have you been hiding the thorazine under your tongue?
I'll take Subconscious Cries For Help for $400, Alex.
Yeah, something like that.
Or no, not at all. What the hell, Jonas. My dog makes more sense than you do recently.
Yes, hop on, Jonas. Hop straight to dispensary AND TAKE YOUR DAMNED MEDS.
No, no you weren't. I'm sure you intended to be, but holy hakalela were you not serious. You' were not even close.
Uh-huh. Well, I'm sure he'll get right back on that once he figures out what "falsly quibbing" means.
Hey Jonas. Have you figured out what "spell check" means?
Did you draw one during arts and crafts this morning Jonas? Did the orderlies let you before the meds kicked in?
You, sir, wouldn't recognize physics if it teabagged you for a month.
Again bringing up the hand, again demonstrating that you are incapable of grasping the basic point. Again demonstrating you're clinically insane, and very, very stupid to boot.
I know, Jonas. IT'S EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S CRAZY, right?
Right, Jonas? We're all nuts except for you, right?
Does your room have a view?
Whoa, Jonas. It was weeks, now it's a year? If you're going to lie through your teeth, couldn't you wait at least a page or two? It's a lot less embarrassing that way.
(Do note, there's two r's and two s's in that big word).
I know, right? It's absolutely brain-damaged to bring that up. I'm sure you've privately e-mailed GSW to that effect.
Please stop using terms you do not know the meaning of. You don't know what a dependent variable is. And WHAT THE HELL is an "official equation"? Where did you come up with that, cupcake?
Is "official" equal to "bad"? Is that it? I'm genuinely curious.
And after "pushing", the hand should never, ever be mentioned again. Unless of course you failed every single physics course you ever entered. It's okay Jonas, nobody's perfect. Take me for example: I never made it through any economics classes. They seemed asinine and way too full of wishful thinking and behavioral psychology.
So what was it that flunked you out of physics, Jonas? Couldn't let go of the influence of the Milky Way's central black hole on g?
Sure is. That's why you were explicitly confined to it.
Oh yes, it certainly does. Just not in the way your megalomania makes you think it does.
*boggle* *headdesk* *boggle*
Hey Jonas, that loud whooshing sound? Yes, that is still the point, and yes, it is still way, way over your head.
This can stand alone.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
Wait, Jonas, stop. You're trying to do climate change again, aren't you? You're not allowed to. You're too farking stupid. You don't understand the language, the math or the physics. Stop it. You're making everybody's head hurt.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
IT'S ALL PROJECTION.
You just told him to go. Are you insane, a liar, or both?
Stu
Doesn't matter how much you try. Different speeds among hand and box existed in only yours (and later Wow') imagination.
Only you know why you felt the need to invent so obvious nonsens (even yuou acknowledged how stupid even the idea was: So stupid that even mentioning it was stupid, according to you9.
Still you went on, and still go on about somthing that existed only in your heard.
Also the stuff about 'dependent variables' is silly and only you bring it up.
Why? I don't know. Probably to divert from the above cock-up.
And you didn't (and still don't) see anything wrong with luminous' physics. And claimed you studied physics for six years. But totally lose it already for a simple 1D example (-experiment) about motion. And claim to speak for all others, and even physics teachers.
What a joke you are, Stu.
Stay with your spelling errors, at least there you can find some consolation for all your failures and total lack of substance here.
Sorry, should have said 'relevant substance', after all you do point out spelling errors correctly sometimes ....
No. I am a scientist asking for your evidence just as you ask others for the same thing. You have offered nothing.
No. I question my understanding of the literature all the time and I have colleagues who are very enthusiastic in doing the same thing. That's how science works. You wont participate by putting forward your own evidence so you should not be surprised when people dismiss you as an idiot.
There are no word games. But I can see that you struggle with the English language so it might be that you dont understand what I am saying.
As obvious after a year of failre about the simplest matter, your understanding of language is exceedingly poor (and you are allowed to blame my typus for that, as a get-out ticket)
I hoped Wyvern would stick around, while I too think quietly leaving is his(!) best opition.
You see once again, you imagine contradictions where there aren't any!
Stu, since you asked, the 'offical equations' refer to the nonsense you tried above pretending to speak for 'the physics teachers of the world':
There are no offically introduced equations, Stu (other than in your head). It's about a hand pushing a box, accelerating it as it overcomes friction ..
You should know that by now. And of all the small words you need to understand, 'difference' is the longest. The others are 'hand', 'box' and the term 'bewteen' or 'among them' ..
You still haven't found any such suggested 'differences', only obvious claims to the opposite, after your incredulous question.
OK, Wow, has found the same, i gather he is included in the 'we' you try to imply. Is he? Cause any physics teachers most certainly aren't ...
Wyvern,
If you are a scientist, thats good. Would you then please also start behaving like one, and cut down on the strawmen and dumb accusations? And also the unscientific arguments. Please?
Quit nonsense like "You dont understand metaphors do you? " after you (even wrongly) nitpick wordings like 'speak for tens of thousands of scientists'. Just stop that nonsense and start behaving like a sicentist! Can you?
You demand: "List the straw men that you think I have presented" and I already have. The worst was this Mega-one, about me:
The one you you tried, is my hones opinion:
For instance, the simplest 1D physics example imaginable, the laws of motion. And no Wyvern, it definitely is not me who is making this look stupid.
I'd say that your quite lenthy (albeit complaying about 'wasting your time') rants about others stuff looks more stupid. Ad do you accusations and now, attempted insults.
I will have a look at those two references you menitioned, but you need to up your game considerably, if you don't want me to reply to the meny stupid rants (you've now tried) in kind.
And don't talk about 'treating others and behaving like grown ups' if you cant behave like one. You claimed to be a scientist (others have claimed that too here) .
If that's true, then act like one. Deal with what is claimed, not your imaginations. Rember, this whole business started by me asking for the evidence ...
You have offered some purported evidence (I have not checekd yet), very few others have done so before (and been wrong). And I am a bit worried about your claims too, since you seemd to conflate several different claimed high levels (of 90%).
More specifically, in the on-topic parts (of your lengthy comments) you have been talking as far as I can see, about other things than the certainty of the attribution. But that was just my hunch, could be you just being unfamiliar with the relevant terms ...
Joan, you're talking about there being a "difference between the hand and box" again!!!!
Are you nuts?
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!
Why do you keep posting that statement, that there's a "difference betweenm hand and box"????
YOU'RE DOING IT AGAIN!!!
" Different speeds among hand and box exist"
Why do you say this?
Do you think that a hand moving a box is going at a different speed to the box it is moving???
Are you so insane you don't understand this is wrong????
@Jonas, Wyvern
Just trying to get upto speed. Did Wyvern post links to a couple of papers that were relevant? can someone repost if they know where they are?
TIA
This is truly one of the most pathetic threads I have ever seen. You are all pathetic, trolls and entrolled alike.
Given you detest links, even if they're to Nature's website (which you insist is an alarmist site and not reliable), no links were given, the name of the paper and the author was given.
And, rather than demand we do your work for you, just go and look at Wyvern's posts to find them.
Or are you incapable of that?
No, because that's not what I said, moron. It's a single sentence, and you completely misunderstood it. Par for the course, I guess.
How do you survive? I hope the orderlies keep you away from stairs and sharp objects.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
“There are a lot of (ex-)communists on your side”.
Chek, I called this last week:
" I predict cockroaches by Christmas. :-)"
"Deal with what is claimed, not your imaginations" - Sage words from Jonas. But if he followed his own advice, this thread would only be half as funny.
Enjoy your white wine in the sun, one and all.
Stu .. the only reason you would start nutting about 'officially introduced equeations', about 'independet variables' or 'different speeds' is if you are a total nutcase. If you truly are, or chose to be .. I don't know, nor do I really care.
Typos aside, your command of English idiom is woeful. Jonas, I dare you to say 'start nutting' in public.
Moron.
Also, I did not mention "official equations" in any way, shape or form. That you think so is merely the result of your complete and utter failure at reading comprehension.
Sweetheart, follow along. I'll try to do this slowly.
I said:
Meaning that you have officially (formally, openly) introduced a variable. Let's just put aside the stupidity of doing so in the first place for a second.
In your miserable excuse for a brain, "officially introducing a variable" means "official equations".
Haha, nobody would be THAT damned dense.
Oh, wait.
Jonas, at this point, either I and every sentient being on the planet are nutcases... or you are. Everybody understood what I meant EXCEPT FOR YOU. Either everybody else is stupid, or you are.
Care to give me odds?
By the way:
Respectively very true, and a very obvious and stupid lie.
Stu
When a hand is pushing a box, with a constant force, and it overcomes friction, it starts accelerating ..
Look kid, you claim to have studied six years of physics, but could not spot any of the gross violations of luminous. You derail over the simplest description of an example, start imagining gross stupidities, then blaiming others for your misconceptions, trying to save face by introducing more and more irrelevant things, finally believing to speak for all physics teachers and now the entire world!?
Bacause you imagined different speeds between hand and box?
You are a joke Stu!
I think I've figured it out. Jonas's learning disabilities prevent him from grasping more than two words from any sentence or concept.
For example:
I say "bringing up the hand is stupid, because it implies the hand and box speed can be different".
Gears slowly grind in Jonas' head, until...
"DIFFERENT SPEED! THAT'S STUPID!"
It latches on to that concept and is unable to let go. No, really. Unable to. Even a year later.
Another example:
I say "you have officially introduced a stupid variable into the equation".
Gears grind, and...
"OFFICIAL EQUATION! THAT'S STUPID!"
(Insert "hurr-durr" to taste)
I did not imagine different speeds between hand and box, you moron. GSW implied them. Maybe you can ask one of the friendly orderlies to explain this to you.
Hey Jonas, what does it tell you that not even GSW (who was the one who brought hand speed up), Olaus or any of your other psychotic clowns are standing up for you in this?
Maybe even they see what a dunce you are?
Or do you still think it's EVERYBODY ELSE that's not getting it?
Oh, actually, Jonas, you should simply ask the orderly to nut on your hand and your box. Go on.
Stu,
Yes you say and write a lot of things, all completely irrelevant.
And no, GSW didn't imply different speeds, you imagined this in spite of explicitly being told the opposite. And you are still harping on this more than a year later. And as you said, you say and write all kind of new things attempting to cover up or explain your initial misconception:
'officially introducing variables into equations' is just one of them. Believing to 'speak for the world's physics teachers' is another, and even 'EVERYBODY ELSE'!?
Claim to have studied six years of physics, can't see anything wrong with the many times luminous bungled it badly, imagines different speeds when no such thing is said, even the opposite is pointed out to you within minutes, And can't get over it (or can't even get it alt all) more than a year later.
You are a joke Stu, and only that. Go back to writing inanities like 'cupcake' or 'sweetheart' and use your spell checker ...
By bringing up the hand speed, he did. We KNOW you're too stupid to understand that, Jonas. Let it go.
Ah, you've backed off "official equations". You know, if I didn't know better I'd say there's hope for you.
And I didn't introduce variables, officially or otherwise. GSW did originally, and you're still doing it. What does it tell you that GSW is staying out of this?
Name one or admit you're a liar.
I don't need one, you dolt. You do.
A total joke, Stu ... nothing else!
Thank you for conceding, Jonas. Until next time, when you hope nobody is paying attention and you try to get the last word in.
@stu
Sorry stu, I agree with Jonas, you're a total joke!
;)
What you have to remember Stu, is that Griselda's "judgement" amounts to cheering and hugging a snotty rag chock-full of discarded ,moronic, snotty, denier bogies called 'janama' on another thread. Our Griselda even gives the current 16 year denier 'lie-du-jour'[ the nod through. Just as that equal moron Jonarse tried to do.
Also note how the Weasel avoids any eye contact with hands or boxes before skedaddling prior to anyone noticing.
Another water tight proof of the existance of a right wing fossil fuel illuminati obstructing climate science:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/22/too-funny-i-send-mike-mann-a-free…
;-)
Hyuck! Hyuck! Because it's not like - dur Hyuck! Hyuck! - that anymore than four people Hyuck! Hyuck! will see the T-shirt as produced and promoted by williwatts.
I mean wow - a wholeJosh cartoon calendar. Presumably twelve attempts (please God not 365) by Josh to be 'funny'. But, regardless, you hapless deniers are expected to find the unfunny, piss-poor cartoon artist 'Josh', funny. By order!
That many - including me - would rather receive a Christmas greeting card from a life-serving paedophile than Wiili Watts and his pop-culture grifters is neither here nor there with regard to connections with right wing front groups, so much as an ebola-type dread of the creeping stupidity involved in the whole process.
Hate to tell you this chek, but the funny thing is that Mann believes that the calendar was a proof of a well funded conspiracy.. ;-)
And Josh is funny, because he makes fun of you, ergo an unscientific cult.
I wasn't expecting comprehension from you, Putrid.
chek, thank you for siding with Stu's nuttery ..
Who imagined different speeds among hand/box, even years after his nonsense was pointed out
Who couldn't see anythin wrong with luminous physics,
Who couldn't even find where I pointed those out
Who claimed to have studied physics for six years
And who spends his time at inventing more of the same nuttery
What an utter joke ...
Obvious and stupid lie,
Neither could you.
Oh do tell Jonas. Where?
Are you now so desperately jealous of this that you are questioning it out of general principle, you fool?
I both saw them, pointed them out, and explained how it should be done .. you Stu, missed all of this and are still
Nothing but an poor laughable joke ... totally irrelevant
So Jonarse, I think we can all agree at this juncture that your * ahem * career trial on the English language denier gravy train circuit hasn't gone well. Deary me no, not well at all.
But if ever you need a character reference detailing your achievements in stupidity, arrogance, willingness to hitch to any old denier bandwagon no matter how ephemeral and of course your stubbornness, well this thread will always be here.
Yes chek
These are your assertions, and this while you consequently have been siding with the most stupid comments and commenter here, failing almost every time to even address the pertinent issues.
And you are just one of them, chek.
I reckon, you too were totally unable to identify anything wrong with the many attempts various others have tried? Even cheering them on while they made complete and utter fools out of themselves ..
But you probably take comfort in 'knowing, for certain' that the human caused climate catastrophy is stadily on its way, don't you!?
:-)
Jonarse, it has probably escaped your attention that you've been attempting (and failing) to argue science without having any science.
There is your complete and utter fool, in the mirror looking back at you. Stadily.
chek, whatever you've been doing here has been so far from science, it's funny you even bring this up. Generally, you people have been doing everything but keep on topic even on the simpler matters. Very few have even approached discussing any science ..
And I think whatever you have tried is about the best you can muster ...
I love the smell of schizophrenia in the morning.
Oh, I must have missed that. What page is that on again?
How would you know, Jonas? What are your scientific credentials? So far, all you've demonstrated that you don't grasp English, math or physics. Why do you even think you are qualified to begin to discuss science?
Stu
Of course you missed them. That would be right there where you started halucinating about different speeds among hand and box, and the pages before and after. You where right there, Stu, cluelessly puffing the usual inanities. Of course you missed all that ...
.. in spite of 'having studied physics for six years'!?
A claim likely as accurate as all your others, Stu. What an utter joke ...
GSW, sorry for a bit late answer
Wyvern named two references, but checking them, they were actually three:
Stott et al:
Observational Constraints on Past Attributable Warming and Predictions of Future
Global Warming, and
Allen and Stott
Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, part I: theory, and
<a href="Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal fingerprinting, part II: application to general circulation models
If he returns, I would first ask him if he really has read the references he put up here, and really understood them.
His debating very quickly approached the usual warmist MO, attacking and distracting from the topic, also with the usual pseudo-arguments of appeals to authority and majority, demands for 'a better explanation' and unfortunaly the typic deafness to what is actually said.
And I'm really curious about why he so much needed to refer to what others (in some detail must have) told him about me and the debate here. (I think his many owngoals and strawmen partly were due to his strange preconcpetions)
But these where the papers he pushed for, at least ..
Confused, paranoid, shallow and projecting like a lighthouse. But through sheer repetition you've come up with a good epitaph for the Jonarse thread epitomising denial at its most uninformed and obtuse.
"What a joke"
It's perfect.
And very early on, chek, I said that those who feel the need to talk about 'deniers' and such never have anything at all to contribute ... and nobody has so far faulted that observation.
More funny is that so many really have tried their hardest to donfirm it, although that wasn't their intention.
@Jonas
Sorry Jonas, bit pushed for time at the moment. A belated Merry Christmas to you!. I've looked thru the papers, quite interesting I though, don't know if wyvern (was it ihim) has read them.
Step in the right direction at least, (rather than abuse) something actually quoted. Will go back and have a re read.
Perhaps in the meantime, Wyvern could have a little think about what they actually say, why they are relevant etc, we could have some fun in the New Year.
Best wishes to you again Jonas!
Yes, GSW, for a while Wyvern tried to give the impression that his interest in the matter was the actual science. However, this impression started to erode quickly after he displayed the very usual MO of the warmist believers, trying to attack the messenger and quickly switching to even insults.
There were many gaping holes and scientifically questionable statements in his arguments. And even ignoring them, he seemed to mean that a 'climate sensitivity' of ~3 simply had to be accepted since so many publications (seemingly) argue those levels, even empirically he said!?
And that both (relative) forcings and feedbacks could be established by paleontologists!?
But upon rereading, I noted that Wyvern never claimed to have read those papers, just asked if I had. And another very strange thing was his repeated reference to that others (and in some detail) had told him what 'I was about' and that he more seemed to take a swing at something like a mental picture of one of those here not capable of arguing their case or dealing with and answering simple and justifie questions.
As he said in his last comment, he said he will prove me wrong on every instance (where he attacked strawmen), but was not as certain to return....
:-)
Best wishes too ..
Oh dear, step back -- Jonas is going to do science again.
Spot on and something for all the alarmistic culprits on Deltoid to try to get a grasp of.
”I would say that the qualities that make a good scientist are, in no particular order:
• An undying curiosity about how the world works in all of its aspects.
• A broad scientific education, formal and/or informal, covering a range of fields.
• A willingness to be shown to be one hundred percent wrong in the full glare of the scientific public eye.
• A trust in your own gut scientific instincts, even (particularly?) when they do not agree with revealed scientific wisdom.
• What I can only describe as a “nose for bad numbers”.
• A willingness to render another person’s life work entirely worthless.
• A mistrust of anyone’s calculations, particularly your own, combined with a willingness to do the grunt work necessary to replicate or falsify anyone’s calculations.
• The ability to quickly research and assimilate new data, facts, and evidence, particularly when they are contrary to your own cherished ideas.
• A willingness to be surprised, whether in public or not.
• A mistrust of the established experts and the consensus view.
• An ability to infer unsuspected connections between what seem to be unconnected facts.
• A certain blind stubbornness and perseverance that gets you through the inevitable errors, bad roads, and barren periods.”
W. Eschenbach
"I both saw them, pointed them out, and explained how it should be done .. you Stu, missed all of this and are still"
Another evidence-less claim by Joan.
So sad.
Well roger me sideways. PantieZ is now quoting WilliWatts' resident male massuer - chapter and verse, if you please - as an 'authority' on the scientific.
And then they wonder why they're not taken seriously.
chek, now, be a good little boy and read my post again. And then again. And then yet again for so many times untill you understand what it really means. Then, maybe, you will understand what real science is all about. And perhaps, which I doubt, you will understand that real, proper science hasn't a squat to do with arm waving, aka concensus, nor with pal review. It doesn't matter the least if 100000 scientists with 100000 pal reviewed papers have reached a concensus that says all of swans in the world are white. It takes only one black swan to demolish the white swan hypotesis.
It's unbelievable to have to point out such basics to the so called scientific chreme de la chreme here on deltoid.
16 years without any increase in average temperature. Deal with it!
Oh boy oh boy, Eschenbach? The guy that wrote this?
*headdesk* *headdesk* *headdesk*
Strapping in.
As opposed to "we don't know anything" or "I've read somewhere it's been like this before" or "we can't do anything about it anyway?" I totally agree. Don't really think it supports the denialist cause though.
I'm sure Jonas will let us know about his credentials ANY DAY now. As will GSW. And pentaxZ. And Olaus. I'm sure it'll all be very impressive.
I present: this thread. I actually commend the deniers for their willingness to be shown to be spectacularly wrong out in the open. Over and over again. Takes a lot of guts.
Or heaping helpings of delusion, but hey. Let's call it guts, right? I mean, they're quoting ESCHENBACH now. I mean, someone who is so rigorous as to write
Ahem. Moving on.
Okay, anyone who even utters the term "gut scientific instincts" does not know what science is. Anyone who does science "by their gut" is liable to sound a lot like Jonas.
Ah, yes, the pathetic "we'll be proven right someday" "you're just all against me" faux-Galileo martyr claptrap.
When you go against established science ("revealed scientific wisdom" is again, a big hint that the writer has NO FARKING CLUE WHAT SCIENCE IS), you'd better bring the goods. As in: "here is where you are all wrong". Specifically. With backup. And data. Reproducible data. Tilting a graph, or saying you really don't like papers does not count.
Jonas, are you listening? Just because you don't like something does not make it true.
Math is not done by the nose. Science is not done by peanut gallery. You either have evidence or you do not. This is exactly the kind of claptrap that allows people incapable of math or physics to delude themselves into thinking they have found something profound. Ask any math or physics professor how many proofs of perpetuum mobilae they receive a year.
Willingness is useless. Ability is what counts. Ability, as a matter of fact, is what gets you a Nobel prize. I have oodles of willingness to do lots of things, but I am sufficiently grounded in reality to see that most of those are out of my reach.
(Pathetic snark attempt pre-emption: that does not include seeing through your pathetic spiel, Jonas -- sentient slugs can do that).
BOOM!
Yes, this was posted on WUWT. Yes, I need yet another irony meter. Luckily, I buy them in bulk whenever I wade into this quagmire.
Awesome. My boy, whenever you and Anthony get around to doing anything of the sort, let us know.
BOOM!
Glad I got a 12-pack this time.
BOOM!
Hope I make it through the entire thing before I run out.
Anyway.
Totally. I mean, it's not like denialists kept going after a Koch brothers-sponsored study showed that global temperatures are going up just like all the warmist conspiracy peoples said they were, right?
Right?
Obvious and stupid lie. It's a well-documented fact that this specific type of pathological delusion DETESTS surprise, DETESTS information and DETESTS re-adjusting its position. Every single quality being anathema to actual science.
Eschenback HATS surprises. So does Watts.
Oh, this is lame. Now the clown is just padding the list. You did the faux-Galileo gambit already, knock it off.
Read: "an ability to come up with conspiracy theories".
No, really. Same damned thing. I'm shocked, I tell you.
I love this flash of self-awareness. You can almost hear the last remnants of cogent thinking crying out for help. Reminds me of Jonas' binge-drinking rants, really. Some of this always seems to leak out.
I think it's a cry for help.
You cannot possibly be serious. That is just abjectly pathetic even for you. Do you actually stand by this?
Awesome. Did I just write
Yes, yes I did. Time to feed my cows, methinks.
Stu, still only a complete and utter joke ... now jumping up and down ranting and halucinating again. What's new?
Oh hi Jonas. Have you found a climate paper you have read yet? Do you have a critique for it yet? Are you ready to tell us your scientific credentials yet? Are you ready to tell us what "real science" is yet? Are you ready to tell us what percentage of climate scientists are "real scientists" yet?
No Jonarse, they weren't ranting hullucinations - those were flashes of rationality trying to spark through whatever remains of your intellect.
But of course a crank like you can only empathise with a fellow-travelling crank like Eschenbach, not only but especially after their mendacious, self-serving crankdom is self-revealed in their own worthless words.
So stu and chek, after all that ranting and arm waving, the conclusion is that you don't understand a rats ass about:
• An undying curiosity about how the world works in all of its aspects.
• A broad scientific education, formal and/or informal, covering a range of fields.
• A willingness to be shown to be one hundred percent wrong in the full glare of the scientific public eye.
• A trust in your own gut scientific instincts, even (particularly?) when they do not agree with revealed scientific wisdom.
• What I can only describe as a “nose for bad numbers”.
• A willingness to render another person’s life work entirely worthless.
• A mistrust of anyone’s calculations, particularly your own, combined with a willingness to do the grunt work necessary to replicate or falsify anyone’s calculations.
• The ability to quickly research and assimilate new data, facts, and evidence, particularly when they are contrary to your own cherished ideas.
• A willingness to be surprised, whether in public or not.
• A mistrust of the established experts and the consensus view.
• An ability to infer unsuspected connections between what seem to be unconnected facts.
• A certain blind stubbornness and perseverance that gets you through the inevitable errors, bad roads, and barren periods
No news there, to not understand what science is is symptomatic for warmists like you.
stu, what does this pic tell you:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Fig1.png
Do you wish to take a swing at HADCruts temp data? Where do ýou se accelerating warming?
No, I'm not joking. You dooms day prophets are big jokes.
chek ..
Nope! What Stu has produced here has been inane drivel anda uniformed blathering. Nothing else! And on a level which is beyond ignorance bordering pathological stupidity and/or dishonesty.
The guy claims to have studied physics for six years! Doesn't see anything wrong with the many and sometimes bad violations by luminous. And on top of this claims not to have seen were I pointed these out!
Your comments, chek, are about just as bad although I believe you are slightly better educated (albeit in an irrelevant field).
But as I said, I appreciate the presence and comments of both of you since you empathisize with each other's stupidities, and even draw out more know-nothings to side with you and even confirm them .. Keep it on!
Joan, have you missed every time I have shown where you are being a moron?
Are you in denial of the fact that you have, many times, been proven moronically wrong?
"stu, what does this pic tell you:"
That you pimp out people who have already decided what the science will say and will cherry pick to ensure this is so.
Shameless lie.
wow, pleas tell us, where do you se any cherry picking? In your head perhaps?
sceptic, and what do you hope a bunch of straight lines will prove?
Straight trend lines is of course a favourite among alarmist wannabees, simply because it will show you zealots what you want to see. However, the actual temp data (you know, real readings from thermometers in the real world) tells a completely different story.
"what do you hope a bunch of straight lines will prove?"
Well, like the guy said: that you were lying.
The temperature trend is upward.
Remember, YOU were the one saying "16 years without any increase in average temperature" but finding a trend over 16 years shows that there HAS been an increase in average temperature.
As recorded by real thermometers in the real world over the last 16 years.
"pleas tell us, where do you se any cherry picking?"
First of all it's "please".
Secondly the beginning of that graph was cherry picked.
Wow, if there is one thing you have shown, it is that you are incapable of having a debate on any level. To me you come across like somebody who can put together three-word-sentences and agree with them or not. And someone who spouts endless amounts of sheer nonsense ..
I am happy you suport Jeff, chel, Stu and the others .. and they you!
Joan, to you anyone who doesn't immediately agree with you that AGW is false is considered incapable.
All your claims have been merely personal preference and has exactly fuck all to do with science or even reality.
Joan, after all your "evidence" and effort in retrieving Stu's quotes (out of order, of course, and selected to pretend to support yourself), you seem still incapable of finding any link or evidence of where you claim to have shown luminous wrong.
This is because you have done no such thing.
Hahaha....your'e really funny, wow. Sorry to dissapoint you, but it's HADCrut data speaking, not me. You obviously like drawing straight lines and clame that they prove something. Sorry pal, they don't. Data proves things, not straight lines. Well, in your and your likes heads perhaps, but not in the real world. So so, back to your crib and sweet dreams, wow and let the grown ups talk about inportant things.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/08/new-hadcrut-data-indicate-huge-co2-e…
So why do you think all of these graphs of yours choose to go back 15-16 years, pentax? Why not 10? Why not 30?
Don't worry, we'll wait while you think about it.
ah, problem: it doesn't know how to think.
tampax, the HADCRUT temperature graphs don't speak. They are a collection of data.
And they go back a lot further.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
That's right: it goes back to 1860.
stew, why don't go back 100000 years? Or why not 1000000? Think about THAT!
The actual climate scientists do, penny.
But you can't use the calibrated thermometer before it was invented.
Oh, wow. That's impressive. Not.
What about unfiddled aka unaltered ice core data from Greenland?
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/gr%C3%B6nlandst…
Or perhaps some tree ring data?
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html
Hm, don't looks good for the "help-we-are-going-to-die-in-flames-gang. Cosy in your heads?
"But you can’t use the calibrated thermometer before it was invented."
With calibrated you of course mean fiddled with the cAGW style, meaning that all of the early measurments are calibrated down and all the new are calibrated upwards. And you foilhats call that science? Hillarious!
No, I mean calibrated.
Problem is you are convinced everyone in the world is like you.
Luckily for the human race, people as full of bile and spite are fairly rare, if noisy.
"What about unfiddled aka unaltered ice core data from Greenland?
http://www.theclimatescam"
Really, you are expecting unaltered and unfiddled data from a website called "the climate scam"???? I note they don't say how they get their values and do not explain the odd gaps in their data set.
And as to the orbital forcings, seeing as the current deviaton is far higher than those forcings and moreover we are expected to be cooler than the 20th Century average if that were the sole driver, I fail to see how you thought that link would help your case.
Or didn't you know that coupled general circulation models included a CO2 effect and are the reason why we are pretty certain that the warming in the late 20th C is due to human actions?
Everyone in the thread is now dumber for having read that.
[GISP2 temperature]
Congratulations, you have proven no significant warming before 1855.
[Tree rings]
I love how all the trend lines stop around 1900.
Good stuff, pentax, good stuff.
Totally! THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!
Mommy, the trolls are broken again. Can we please have new ones?
e.g.
Yes, really, wow. Of course, when you lack argument, then bite the messenger. Here is another pic from TCS. Perhaps you recognize it? You know, where something is posted doesn't have a squat to do with where it is produced. But i suppose you're a bit to juvenile to grasp that.
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Figur-1.jpg
Oh, man, the models are spot on, aren't they? The crib is warm and cosy, why don't you go back there and cuddle with your pillow until you grow up, dear? Perhaps you will have nice, pink dreams about the CO2 monster and feedback angels.
skeptic, your point?
Straight lines proves nothing. A trend is just a maybe possible trend, not a proof. But since you like these lines so much, here is one specially for you. Enjoy!
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/bilder_presse/09_geo_tree_ring_northern_eur…
Its origin:
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php
Straight lines prove your assertion that there has been no increase in temperatures wrong.
But you have a problem with being wrong, don't you. You just won't entertain the idea at all. It's reality that's wrong in preference to you being wrong.
"Yes, really, wow. Of course, when you lack argument, then bite the messenger"
Do you think this proves me wrong?
If so, since your entire arguments are solely this, why do you do it?
Someone who calls their site climate scam is already predicated toward an answer. A truth you cannot handle therefore you assert that this is merely something "proving" me wrong.
"You know, where something is posted doesn’t have a squat to do with where it is produced."
You don't know about editorialising and cherry picking, though, do you.
And you don't know where that diagram or its data (funny how you complain "Data proves things, not straight lines" but then provide a link to something that has straight lines and appear to think this proves something) is from.
The current GISS anomaly is 0.5 with two previous values over 0.6 but YOUR pic shows less than 0.4.
It also has a spurious and unphysical discontinuity early on.
Apparently this idiot is fitting a second order polynomial then, when it no longer fits, changing to a second second order polynomial. And is patently ridiculous since it has cooling from Pinatubo from BEFORE PINATUBO ERUPTED!
I.e. no data, just curve fitting.
Absolutely no scientific content.
Why is it so very different from this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCC_FAR_Since_1880.png
which IS taken from the FAR.
Ah yes, straight lines prove something when it's a (cherry-picked) cooling trend and nothing when it's a warming trend.
Everything is clear now.
Wow
Still, 1½ years after the fact, you guys are swinging at your phantom picture of a 'denier' .. No wonder you never get anywhere.
And it seems that some of you still cherish the dream of luminous getting his physics correct. Some among you even claim to have 'studied physics for six years' and start halucinataing about different speeds among hand and box ..
What a bunch of jokes you guys are ..
It seems that you take quite a lot of your beliefs on blind and incompetent faith and dito guessing
Still, 1½ years after the fact, you are still pretending nobody has answered.
Tell me, you haven't yet shown where Luminous was wrong.
Not once.
Not in well over a year.
wow, dear:
"Do you think this proves me wrong?"
You provide the answer yourself:
"Someone who calls their site climate scam is already predicated toward an answer." I could say something similar about a site that call themselves sceptical without knowing the meaning of the word. But I won't.
That's a nice pic. Funny, not a straight line to be found. And you believe in it. Perhaps there is, how ever doubtful, a hope for you.
“Someone who calls their site climate scam is already predicated toward an answer.”
that isn't proving anything. You think stating nothing yet again in the same way is somehow making proof???
"I could say something similar about a site that call themselves sceptical without knowing the meaning of the word."
Uh, you have to show that they don't know the meaning of the word first.
Then you need to work out how "skeptical science" predicates a response bias.
It's pretty easy to see how "climate scam" is going to lead you do a specific manufactured answer: they are hardly going to prove that AGW isn't a scam, are they.
I guess that's why you merely repeated yourself and hoped like hell it would mean something the second time said.
It didn't.
Oh yes, I have shown it. All of the many cock-ups. But you need to know the simplest things about physics to understand it. Those who couldn't see this, not even after I pointed it out, lack even the most basic understanding of natural sciencens ...
Even more peculiar are those who publicly defend such stupidities they obviously don't understand ...
Nope you've shown nothing despite months and months of badgering you have shown NOWHERE where you show Luminous incorrect.
Sorry, nothing.
Even now all you have is "Nuh, uh, I did. I just can't find where..."
Go on, show us where all this evidence is.
Saying "it exists" isn't evidence.
So hey, pentax, have you figured out why all of your graphs go back 15-16 years yet?
Oh wait, I missed this Classic Jonas Nugget:
I didn't know there was competence to be had in faith, Jonas. And please do let us know what "dito" means so we can properly make fun of it as well.
Stu, have you yet found anyone imagining different speeds among hand and box (exept you)?
Or any of luminous' many cock-ups regarding his 'physics'
Or only some instances where I pointed them out?
Or did 'six years of physics studies' not even get you past getting your units correct?
Well, nobody will then expect much progress in only !½ years. But you managed to imagine more stuff meanwhile. Seemingly you thought blathering about officially introduced dependet variables and equations would somehow conjure up different speeds where none ever where.
And all that nonsense, and egg in your face is your own doing, Stu. Even luminous realized (after some time, and diversion attempts) that his was a lost cause. But was wise enough to withdraw his egg-covered face.
You still don't know it was egg ... neither in his nor your own. Only Wow seems to share you beliefs, although he rarely knows what he means.
Hint: That should indicate something to you. But probably doesn't.
Wow .. of course you can't find any of them. Stu couldn't either. And instead derailed about different speeds and offically introduced dependet variables in equations .. And still doesn't have the slightest clue.
Isn't even aware of that some basic skills vastly improves even the guesses you have to make, when you don't know. Or at least helps you to avoid the most stupid and obvious embarrassments. But of course, without even those, you wouldn't even have a clue of why and how badly it's embarrassing
You are a good example too. But hey, that's why Deltoid is the place for you ....
:-)
skeptic
You do understand english, don't you? How can you then not understand:
"Straight lines proves nothing. A trend is just a maybe possible trend, not a proof. But since you like these lines so much, here is one specially for you. Enjoy!"
"But since you like these lines so much..."
What's your problem?
And about cherrypicking, When a city accidently has some warm weather in december, like Hambug, warmistas screams it's GLOBAL WAAAARMING!! At the same time it's -60ºC in large areas in Russia and
wow
"“Yes, really, wow. Of course, when you lack argument, then bite the messenger”
Do you think this proves me wrong?"
The usual cause for using ad homs and "kill the messenger" is the lack of valid arguments. So yes, it proves you wrong BIG TIMES.
Your logic is somewhat messed up. If one were to point to a link to a pic at, for example, IPCC then you propably would think it would be a valid argument, But if ones link points at the same pic, with the only difference that it is at a sceptical site, then you start rambling about "denier site" and other rubbish, without a singel comment about the pic itself. That kind of behaviour is very warmistas specific. Where is the actual argument?
"The usual cause for using ad homs and “kill the messenger” is the lack of valid arguments. "
Except it isn't an ad hom. However you are incapable of knowing what an ad hom is since you only use it as a crutch when you have nothing else to say.
"climate scam" says that the site will look to PROVE a climate scam.
This is no more ad hom than noting that the defence lawyer is looking to get their client off the charges.
The site name shows you need to see more carefully what it says and that it WILL undergo cherry picking.
And with a very small amount of skepticism you can see this is true.
However, you don't do skeptic, you do denial.
" When a city accidently has some warm weather in december, like Hambug, warmistas screams it’s GLOBAL WAAAARMING!"
Prove it was accidental.
Did god "accidentally" spill some warm on Hamburg?
What do you think will happen in Hamburg if Global warming was real?
Do you think if Global Warming was real that Hamburg would get hotter and break temperature records?
If not, why not?
Seems the only screaming you do is when your ideology gets reamed by the truth.
Weird arseholes these deniers.
The cry and moan about some real world evidence of global warming and then when given one go all pissy and scream "warmistas screams its global warming".
Really, they demand evidence and then when given it say that it is alarmism or some shite.
You don't want evidence do you. Because evidence can only show you are wrong.
"Prove it was accidental."
Why should I? You claim It's proof for AGW, not I. You have the burden of proof, not I. In fact, I don't make any claim at all about it being out of the ordinary, you do. And what about the -60ºC in Russia? Some 200+ dead people because of the cold and no comment from you?
"What do you think will happen in Hamburg if Global warming was real?"
Pretty much nothing alarming at all. Earlier spring and later autum. None has died because it's 20ºC in december. In fact, I would suppose accidents due to slippery roads and sidewalks should have decreased significantly. What's the alarm? You can't blame one single death on the 20ºC in december. On the other hand, what -60ºC does for the death rate is indisputable. 200+ dead so far.
I persoanlly hope for a warmer world. A warmer world is a better world. In all aspects. Unfortunately all signs are pointing at the opposite direction. The CAGW church is pretty much out in the cold, exept for some minor places like this site. And although it's nice that your side is losing, it's not a good thing for the world in general.
"The site name shows you need to see more carefully what it says and that it WILL undergo cherry picking."
There is a BIG difference between alarmistic and (true) sceptic sites. You know what it is? I have not yet come across a alarmistic site where censorship is the main tool for "winning" debates, under the presumption to keep the debate "scientific". Anyone questioning the cause is censored. The sceptic sites allow anyone to speak their mind. Of course they too have some moderation, but that's mainly to keep the language civilised and avoid ad homs. No one hardly ever screams out that a person should be banned because of their arguments, wich regularely is the case at alarimistic sites. How long did it for example take you nutcases to scream to Tim to ban Jonas from Deltoid? He simply asked a question to which you didn't have a relevant answer. Easier then just to ban him. That's the losers way.
"“Prove it was accidental.”
Why should I?"
Because you're saying it was accidental.
Or don't you do proof, just assertion?
Ok, where does your proof of
come from?
"You claim It’s proof for AGW, not I"
Nope, I don't claim it is proof for AGW.
I claim that AGW will cause Hamburg to have hotter weather.
What do you think? (or, indeed, do you think at all?)
You claim it's alarmism.
Prove your case.
You claim it is accidental.
Prove your case.
You claim you haven't said anything.
I see proof of that.
You also claim that Hambourg is resistant to warming.
Prove your case.
skeptic, does thermometer readings ring a bell?
They don't measure trends, though.
wow, lying and making things up again? You are welcome to point out where I claim Hamburgs december temperature is "accidental". Which part of " I don’t make any claim at all about it being out of the ordinary" do you not understand?
"Nope, I don’t claim it is proof for AGW.
I claim that AGW will cause Hamburg to have hotter weather."
Wow, that's a difference. Trouble with your thinking process? You blame Hamburgs weather on AGW, therefore, naturally in the grown up world, you have the burden of proof since you say it's not normal. And you want me to prove you wrong? For real? But of course, at sites like this all normal things are upside down.
And still, not a word about the -60ºC and 200+ dead in Russia? I wonder why that is? Oh wait, it's not compatible with the CAGW hypothesis. That's it.
"They don’t measure trends, though."
Of course they don't, has anyone clamed that?
The fact is that the worlds average temperature hasn't risen the past 16 years. The last 7-8 it has even descended a bit. That's what the thermometers show. That's empirical data. But of course, a long enough straight line will make the hiatus to vanish. That.s of course the reason why warmistas love those straight lines. For you it's the magic wand which makes the inconvenient truth to go away.
"Of course they don’t, has anyone clamed that? "
Yes.
You.
"You are welcome to point out where I claim Hamburgs december temperature is “accidental”."
I didn't know you weren't reading your own posts, nor that I needed permission to show you it.
But here you are:
” When a city accidently has some warm weather in december, like Hambug, warmistas screams it’s GLOBAL WAAAARMING!”
"You blame Hamburgs weather on AGW"
No I didn't.
But you can't read. Not even your own posts. So what's the suprise?
I blame the CHANGE in Hamburg's climate with CLIMATE CHANGE.
And when Hamburg is getting a warmer climate, it is the natural consequence of a GLOMALLY WARMING CLIMATE.
"The fact is that the worlds average temperature hasn’t risen the past 16 years."
Wrong. It's changed every year in the past 16 years.
So lying and making things up again, wow?
"Hamburgs december temperature is “accidental" has hardly the same meaning as "When a city accidently has some warm weather in december". You really have problems with your reading comprehension.
"I blame the CHANGE in Hamburg’s climate with CLIMATE CHANGE.
And when Hamburg is getting a warmer climate, it is the natural consequence of a GLOMALLY WARMING CLIMATE."
In other words, you blame AGW for the weater in Hamburg. Your'e really look desperate. And yet again, no comment on The Russian cold?
How many people have died in Hamburg due to the warm december weather/climate? How many have died in Russia due to the weather/climate?
"... it is the natural consequence of a GLOMALLY WARMING CLIMATE". And of course, you know this for a fact? Based on what, some very expensive computer games and straight lines? What a clown you are.
"Wrong. It’s changed every year in the past 16 years."
Like it always do. But not in the direction you have wet dreams about.
Which thermometer readings would these be? Citations please.
Tell me, what is that has "direction"?
"“Wrong. It’s changed every year in the past 16 years.”
Like it always do."
So when you claimed there was no temperature change over the past 16 years you now admit you were lying?
"“Hamburgs december temperature is “accidental” has hardly the same meaning as “When a city accidently has some warm weather in december”"
So hamburg isn't a city?
Why did you bring up Hamburg if you weren't talking about it?
Do you have any reason for anything you say, or is it all just bollocks?
"In other words, you blame AGW for the weater in Hamburg. "
In other words, you don't understand anyone or anything.
No.
AGW is CLIMATE CHANGE.
The change in Hamburg's weather is due to CHANGING CLIMATE.
Wow, it seems that you are unaware of what the temperature hiatius for now some 16 years does to the hypothesis if CAGW and the imagined (and wished for) high positive feedbacks allegedly controlled by CO2 ..
But that is hardly a surprise. On the contrary, I would have expected that ...
No, Joan, you seem to be unaware that you don't get a temperature haitus from such a short period.
Math is not your strong point: even if you pretend it means only one sum.
i.e. warming trend, but not statistically significant, in an out of date record.
So where, pray tell, is the 16 year (statistically significant) cooling period? These seem to have gone out of fashion in the 1950s.
"The change in Hamburg’s weather is due to CHANGING CLIMATE.'
Then, what is Russias -60°? Weather or climate change?
skeptic, dear, the covariance between temperature and CO2 isn't the same as causality. Ther just happend to covary for some decaades, but that's hardly proof for anything since the covariance through earths history alwasys has been sporadic at best. Take another look att the pic and study it closly. Perhaps you will get it this time, however I doubt that.
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Fig1.png
"i.e. warming trend, but not statistically significant, in an out of date record."
I wonder what excuse you will use 2029, when the real world temperature will differ yet more from the computer game "scenarios"? My guess is that you are so deep in denial that even then a abdicate won't be a option for you.
Skeptic
As I noted above: Many warmists don't seem to understand why the hiatius is a real (and growing) poblem for their beloved belief in a climate scare ..
Reala skeptics don't have that problem. And neither do make definite claims about what the future will be like ..
"Many warmists don’t seem to understand why the hiatius is a real (and growing) poblem"
That's because unlike you, they know statistics.
they also know, unlike you deniers, that the climate is affected by many things of which CO2 is a big player.
Joan, tampax, all other deniers.
Here is a question about your morality.
If, for sake of argument, the IPCC is correct and we are in an AGW situation.
That means that not reducing CO2 production will cause more and more warming.
Even if your haitus is true, this will be the case,
So instead of being able to use this "haitus" to knuckle down and remove the problem before it really hits, you have us sitting around arguing about whether AGW is really happening at all.
Then this "haitus" stops and we continue. Since this "haitus" is due to a cooler than normal sun, that means all that cooling will be undone and reversed by a sun returning to the opposite end of its cycle.
At that point, we will be fucked because we will be getting very fast warming.
How do you deniers square your morality with this scenario?
Jonas N calls out PentaxZ as a fake sceptic? Awesome! This thread just keeps on giving...
wow, Russia? Why dodging the question?
Oh, wait, it's called cherry picking.
" the covariance between temperature and CO2 isn’t the same as causality"
But the vibrotational energy levels of CO2 being in the same energy as the approximately 15um IR wavelengths and nowhere near the 500nm Vis wavelengths IS the causality.
But you see, you wanted PROOF of the effect.
And that requires you show the effect.
Which YOU then turn around and claim is correlation.
This is because you're a lying fuckwit who doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything other than your religious faith in the free market.
Who suddenly started talking about causality? I wonder why z switched the subject.
Promises, promises. No answers though.
I'm sure there are plenty of warmists who understand that there is a hiatus of statistical significance in an out-of-date temperature series.
Since when is an out-of-date data series a problem for anything?
Looks like no-one will tell me what happened to the (statistically significant) cooling periods.
"Looks like no-one will tell me what happened to the (statistically significant) cooling periods."
Ah, you must mean the last ice age? Well, it had nothing to do with CO2, that's for sure.
wow, very, very lot of ranting. But yet not a single word about the devastating cold in Russia. Why, why I wonder.
"Ah, you must mean the last ice age?"
You think that the last ice age was in the 1970's?!?!?!!?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
tampax, when crying about "ranting" you should have ensured that your entire schtick wasn't insane ranting.
Because your whining complaints come across as hollow.
" the devastating cold in Russia. Why, why I wonder."
It's winter and Russia is temperate continental.
PS prove the cold in russia is devastating. You're just being alarmist.
Which is something else you incessantly whinge on about too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Russia_by_average_winter…
And deaths are what you get when it gets to -60C.
However, without global warming the temperature could have been -70C or lower.
Source of tampax's current whining shitting:
"Winter temperatures in Russia have gone extreme. The air in some regions of the republic of Yakutia (Siberia) has cooled down to -50 degrees "
Yet from the Russians history:
The coldest inhabited place on Earth is located in Oymyakon, a tiny village in Yakutia, Russian Far East with population of slightly above 500. The lowest temperature registered there was −71.2 °C (−96.2 °F) in 1924.
And in any case, isn't this just you going "Moscow is cold THEREFORE GLOBAL COOLING!!!!"?
Seems that version is all right for you.
Finally, wow. Did it hurt?
"PS prove the cold in russia is devastating" Well, more than 200 people has died due to the cold.
Your turn, how many have died in Hamburg due to the warm weather?
"However, without global warming the temperature could have been -70C or lower."
Yeah right, and that's a fact. Or is it made up in your disillusioned mind, I wonder. You know, something isn't fact just because you want it to be.
Sorry frankd, Jonas hasn't called me here. I just drop in from time to time to check how your alarmists is getting your asses spanked by Jonas. Between this rare occasions I actually live in the real world, you know, outside computer games, straight line drawings and pseudoscientific places like deltoid. And you know, the world is doing pretty good despite the horrible AGW.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/8789981/glad-tiding…
"“PS prove the cold in russia is devastating” Well, more than 200 people has died due to the cold."
More than that die from car accidents.
Oh, and please stop lying. Only 45 deaths.
"“However, without global warming the temperature could have been -70C or lower.”
Yeah right, and that’s a fact. "
Yeah, reading is a bit beyond you, isn't it tampax?
“Winter temperatures in Russia have gone extreme. The air in some regions of the republic of Yakutia (Siberia) has cooled down to -50 degrees ”
Yet from the Russians history:
The coldest inhabited place on Earth is located in Oymyakon, a tiny village in Yakutia, Russian Far East with population of slightly above 500. The lowest temperature registered there was −71.2 °C (−96.2 °F) in 1924.
If you want to claim the climate is cooling, you need to show evidence of it.
"More than that die from car accidents." Comprehension problems, have you? The question was: "Your turn, how many have died in Hamburg due to the warm weather?"
"Only 45 deaths." Ok, you are of course in title to your opinion, but it doesn't make it fact.
"If you want to claim the climate is cooling, you need to show evidence of it." No, I don't. I say there is nothing unusual about either the weather or the climate. You foilhats clames there is "unprecedented warming" , ergo you have to prove all realists wrong. And so far, no evidence of that kind has been presented. And no, computer games, straight lines, arm waving, foot stomping, data massaging, hide the decline, lying and pal revieewing are valid as proof. Of course warmistas want to think it is, but that's just not the case.
Earth hasn't warmed the last 16 years, deal with it!
"Ok, you are of course in title to your opinion,"
English.
Learn it.
"Earth hasn’t warmed the last 16 years, deal with it!"
It's warmed manu times in the last 16 years.
You even agreed once.
But you can't deal with it.
many
Some enjoyable reading for you. "Manu" articles to read. If you dare.
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/OSGWD.htm
And again, wow, is the extreme temperatures in Russia weather or climate?
"But here again, one of the essential pillars of alarmism appears to be crumbling. Two Canadian researchers have produced the most devastating evidence to date that the hockey stick is bad science. Before I describe their work, I want to make a prediction: the alarmists will cry foul, saying this critique is part of an industry-funded conspiracy. And true to form, they will avoid discussion of substance and engage in personal attacks. "
"Remember, the hockey stick shows a relatively stable climate over 900 years, and then a dramatic spike in temperature about 1900, the inference being that man-made emissions are the cause of rising temperatures. So why is the bristlecone pine important? That bristlecone experienced a growth pulse in the Western United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, this growth pulse, as the specialist literature has confirmed, was not attributed to temperature. So using those pines, and only those pines, as a proxy for temperature during this period is questionable at best. Even Mann’s co-author has stated that the bristlecone growth pulse is a “mystery.” Because of these obvious problems, McIntyre and McKitrick appropriately excluded the bristlecone data from their calculations. What did they find? Not the Mann hockey stick, to be sure, but a confirmation of the Medieval Warm Period, which Mann’s work had erased. As the CENSORED folder revealed, Mann and his colleagues never reported results obtained from calculations that excluded the bristlecone data. This appears to be a case of selectively using data—that is, if you don’t like the result, remove the offending data until you get the answer you want. As McIntyre and McKitrick explained, “Imagine the irony of this discovery…Mann accused us of selectively deleting North American proxy series. Now it appeared that he had results that were exactly the same as ours, stuffed away in a folder labeled CENSORED.”
Very interresting indeed.
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=236307
Another goodie from the same link:
"What did McKitrick and McIntyre find? In essence, they discovered that Dr. Mann misused an established statistical method called principal components analysis (PCA). As they explained, Mann created a program that “effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.” In other words, no matter what kind of data one uses, even if it is random and totally meaningless, the Mann method always produces a hockey stick. After conducting some 10,000 data simulations, the result was nearly always the same. “In over 99 percent of cases,” McIntyre and McKitrick wrote, “it produced a hockey stick shaped PCI series.” Statistician Francis Zwiers of Environment Canada, a government agency, says he agrees that Dr. Mann’s statistical method “preferentially produces hockey sticks when there are none in the data.” Even to a non-statistician, this looks extremely troubling. But that statistical error is just the beginning. On a public web site where Dr. Mann filed data, McIntyre and McKitrick discovered an intriguing folder titled “BACKTO_1400-CENSORED.” What McIntyre and McKitrick found in the folder was disturbing: Mann’s hockey stick blade was based on a certain type of tree—a bristlecone pine—that, in effect, helped to manufacture the hockey stick."
Alarmistic science at it's best.
"In essence, they discovered that Dr. Mann misused an established statistical method called principal components analysis (PCA)."
One which made no difference to the result.
Moreover the PCA analysis M&M used boiled down to using 7 measurements.
Pathetic.
But they're not writing for scientists, they're writing for the credulous idiot.
I.e. you, tampax.
"And again, wow, is the extreme temperatures in Russia weather or climate?"
Weather.
No, I mean what I had already said:
Perhaps you have a memory or reading problem. So, can you tell me? Where, pray tell, is the 16 year (statistically significant) cooling period? These seem to have gone out of fashion in the 1950s. Perhaps you didn't comprehend what "cooling period" means. Just look at that graph for a while and you might get the idea.
These seem to have gone out of fashion in the 1950s.
In case z still doesn't get it, that period, 1941 to 1957, was, I believe, the last statistically significant 16 year cooling period.
skeptic, how come a period between 1941 to 1957 can be statistically significant? Normally you dooms day preachers demands at least 30 years before you dare to draw a straight line. But of course, almost forgot, when it comes to proving AGW, then exeptions from the rules is ok.
wow
"One which made no difference to the result."
But of course, when you conduct science like mann:
"Mann created a program that “effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.” In other words, no matter what kind of data one uses, even if it is random and totally meaningless, the Mann method always produces a hockey stick. After conducting some 10,000 data simulations, the result was nearly always the same. “In over 99 percent of cases,
"“And again, wow, is the extreme temperatures in Russia weather or climate?”
Weather."
And do you blame this weather on AGW or not?
Here's something for you believers. Point four specially for skeptic:
"4)After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. "
http://m.climaterealists.com/?id=10842
I'm aware that you're an ignoramus extraordinaire but I'm using "statistically significant" in its common or garden sense like Phil Jones did, i.e. less than 2.5% likely that the cooling was caused by random variation.
Now, can you answer the question: why have there been no statistically significant 16-year cooling periods since the 1950s? (As opposed to the statistically significant warming periods which have occupied most of the time since then.)
Statistically insignificant.
"Now, can you answer the question: why have there been no statistically significant 16-year cooling periods since the 1950s?"
"Statistically insignificant."
It all depends on how long lines you draw and careful cherry picking of the starting point. Your point being?
The fact is: the co2 level has risensteadily the last 16 years while the temperature hasn't risen the least. Deal with it!
"It all depends on how long lines you draw and careful cherry picking of the starting point. "
Nope, the length of the line and picking the starting point doesn't make a statistically significant cooling period.
Our point is that you don't know stats.
The fact is CO2 causes warming just like the climate scientsts say.
Deal with it.
"“One which made no difference to the result.”
But of course, when you conduct science like mann:"
Indeed.
Whe you do science correctly like mann does but those two sweeties M&M didn't, you get reliable results.
Glad you agree.
“Mann created a program that “effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.”
Nope, you made that up.
You do that when you don't have any facts on your side.
“*Wegman* created a program that “effectively mines a data set for hockey stick patterns.”
That may have been the man you were thinking of.
Remember?
Ran 100 simulations with noise and picked out the most "hockey stick" like trends and then used that to "prove" Mann had just gotten random data.
Additionally, you DO realise that you're showing the lie to many deniers here by denying any warming has taken place.
"And do you blame this weather on AGW or not?"
AGW is to blame for the weather produced by climate that has been changed by AGW.
Do you think that climate and weather are completely orthogonal???
tampax, are you claiming that russia being cold recently is because of global cooling?
Skeptic, as I noted several times before.
Your response confirmed (explicitly) that you are one of them. That Wow belongs there was obvious almost from the first time I saw him commenting (anything)
As others have pointed out, when the hiatius is mentioned (even without pointing out the more severe problems it implies for the belief system) the usual warmist-response is to start talking about 'the trend' and prefereably longer trends. And thereafter frantically pointing at the trend line instead of the actual temperature data, repeating: 'Look, look, it's sloping uppwards ..'
As I said, most warmist don't even know what their own side's argument is, and just randomly fire off phrases and talking points they've found in the hope it has some substance content. And that too is probably the reason why so many among you lose it almost immedeately when your phrases are countered by those who understand what skeptical evaluation of scientific claims actually means ...
Don't you know what the word "no" means? It means it doesn't depend on any cherry-pick. There is no 16-year period since the 1950s with a statistically significant cooling period. You can cherry-pick all you like, you will not find one.
The world used to have both warming and cooling periods of 16 years with statistical significance until the 1950s. Since the 1950s, the only thing we've had are statistically significant warming periods or periods without statistically significant trend. Why has there been this change?
You keep asserting this but you never provide a citation. Deal with providing a citation!
I don't care what "the usual warmist-response" is. I just want to know why an out-of-date data series (HADCRUT3) is a problem for anything? (which is what you're implying).
The irony.
As I said, you have no clue why it is a problem and what it is ..
Do you even know why you try using another series and just one of them, and hope to argue that this makes the problem go away? If you don't have a clue what it is to begin with?
"when the hiatius (sic) is mentioned the usual warmist-response is to start talking about ‘the trend’ and prefereably longer trends. And thereafter frantically pointing at the trend line instead of the actual temperature data, repeating : ‘Look, look, it’s sloping uppwards .(sic)."
Ah yes, the good ol' "hiatius" the new dog whistle word for cranks, liars and deniers everywhere.
A word, which contrary to what the aforementioned cranks, liars'n'deniers (who've never, ever used it before in their long, long cranky, lying, denying lives) think it means, actually means you're a single dataset cherrypicking crank, liar'n'denier' who's unable to understand the relevance of a 'trend' in a time series analysis. Indeed calculating a trend now becomes evidence of warmist hocus-pocus, in moronworld. And to be fair, to those like Jonarse (despite his pretensions), Griselda, PantiesizeZ and Olap it all goes over their heads in much the same way.
But you then have to explain how your 'hiatius' (what a meme-repeating moron you are, Jonarse) manufactured this year's record Arctic melt, and even Joe Public has heard of that and understands it requires h-e-a-t., not a 'hiatius'.
haitus: temporary halt to a progression.
Seems the deniers know that AGW is real but want us to do nothing with any serendipitous pause in the catastrophe.
Anyone know what moral precepts are necessary to make that the "correct moral choice"?
The only one I have is "I'm all right, jack, fuck you others!!!!".
Which isn't really morality unless you ascribe to Alistair Crowley's Satanism...
"Skeptic, as I noted several times before."
And as we've all noted several times before, you were wrong all those times as well.
Do you think that "wrong" wears off if you repeat the same bollocks enough times?
"Your turn, how many have died in Hamburg due to the warm weather?"
30,000 died in europe in the heatwave in 2003.
chek, ad homs and name calling, a true losers trademarks. Big mouths with small ears attached to a brain in the size of a peanut. Keep the spirit up, by all means.
And that's why you always use them.
Along with the continual stream of lies and false accusation that you use to hide the naked truth.
Nope, wow, I don't make anything up. You just don't see the facts because you religious beliefs in the AGW. McIntyre and McKitrick discovered manns unscientific humbug. And I certainly think they have more science in a pinky nail than you have in your whole body. I understand that it must hurt when one of your prophets is caught with his pants at his ankles. But facts is facts.
"AGW is to blame for the weather produced by climate that has been changed by AGW."
Are you sure? Couldn't AGW be to blame for the weather to blame for the AGW to blame for the climate to blame for the CO2 to blame for the spaghettimonster at the bottom of the sea to blame for the weather to blame for the AGW to blame for the flying tea pot orbiting Jupiter? I'm sure you have heard about Ockhams razor, but do you understand what it means?
And there still hasn't been any golbal warming for the last 16 years. Deal with it.
"tampax, are you claiming that russia being cold recently is because of global cooling?"
No, I call it normal weather variations. Both in Hamburg and in Russia. And in the rest of the whole world. And if I understand you correct it's climate change when it is a little bit warmer somewhere, and weather when it's a little bit cooler somewhere else. All in the name of the Holy Cause! Defend the CO2-is-the-main-forcing-hypothesis (it isn't even a theory) to the last drop of blood. Amen!
"And that’s why you always use them.
Along with the continual stream of lies and false accusation that you use to hide the naked truth."
Owngoal big time! Hillarious! =)
wow, you have a brown belt in name calling, chek has the black belt, the undisputed champion. I honestly hasn't comed across somebody who produce so much word poo with so little actual content. He's even worse than bernard.
PantieZ, your moron contingent is out of its depth and as usual using words not understood e.g Jonarse and his "hiatius". Perhaps it affects his cranial "hiernia".
Best stick to what you know like Climatemoron, and climate4stupids and climateconspiracies and the sort of rank intellectual destitution that makes you comfortable with would-be attacks by McIntyre and McKittrick.
Of course you were told M&M had a valid argument, and you're thick enough to not know that they don't, and also stupid enough to believe anything you've been told by your preferred source on faith. And after all, all your fellow blogmorons say so.
"Nope, wow, I don’t make anything up."
You make plenty up.
But maybe most of your idiocies are merely you parroting someone else's bilge.
"Owngoal big time! Hillarious! =)"
Really?
You didn't read your own post, then, did you.
"“AGW is to blame for the weather produced by climate that has been changed by AGW.”
Are you sure? "
Yup.
"And there still hasn’t been any golbal warming for the last 16 years. Deal with it."
And that still doesn't mean AGW is not happening. Deal with it.
You would say that, wouldn't you?
The irony.
Anyone who knows anything knows that starting a trend with a record and unusually warm year will lack statistically significant warming for quite a few years into the future. So you can keep playing your childish games for a long time but sooner or later you will be out on your arse. I can predict your game for you. i.e. no datasets currently show statistically significant warming since the beginning of 1998. This will most likely continue after this year, 2013, but will most likely end with the passing of 2014.
So enjoy your childish (and intellectually dishonest) distraction campaign wile it lasts. You've got perhaps 2 years.
z seems to think this means you choose not the simplest, but no explanation for the past 40 years warming.
I still haven't received any citation for no "golbal warming for the last 16 years", specifically one that doesn't involve a "straight line". I'm beginning to think he's making it up.
check, escaped from the crib again? Perhaps lost your bite? Have you got anything substantial at all to put forvard other than your ordinary cli-fi rantings?
skeptic
"no datasets currently show statistically significant warming since the beginning of 1998"
So there it is. Did it hur much to admit that?
"This will most likely continue after this year, 2013, but will most likely end with the passing of 2014."
Of course, because you have seen this happend in your crystal ball. Or?
"I’m sure you have heard about Ockhams razor, but do you understand what it means?
z seems to think this means you choose not the simplest, but no explanation for the past 40 years warming."
Yeah sure. The most probable and simplest explanation. And that's of course spells natural variation. No cAGW church needed, nor any cli-fi crap.
"but will most likely end with the passing of 2014.”
I would really hope so, for the sake of mankind. You hope it because it may perhaps save your precious computer games, which so far hasn't got anything at all right.
The propability for that to come tru is however very slim.
z subtracts 1998 from 2013 and gets 16.
Braindead.
Big difference. I do recall someone telling me that careful selection of the starting point wasn't a big deal.
Wonder who's the braindead here.
The truth is simple, the lie complicated. Of all of the anthropogenic CO2 we have released into the atmpsphere from 1750, a third has ben released the last 16 years. And yet, during this 16 year period, we have no warming what so ever. One must be a really, really hard core believer in the cAGW church to not see the non existing cause-and-effect between CO2 and AGW. Cli-Fi is what it is.
There hasn't been any warming the last 16 years. Deal with it!
chek
you are just frothing from the mouth ... and to no avail. Screaming and even repeating 'liar'n'denier' etc will not reduce the problem for you. And probably not help you in any other way either.
And you pathetic attempts to keep your own phantom image of the 'liar'n'denier' is just that. Pathetic!
And it's hilarious that you chek, who have not been able to properly formulate any relevant argument at all, especially not any qhich requires quantified comparisions, think you can properly evaluate Michael Manns 'reconstructions' and dismiss criticism.
To me this shows who is in real denial. Or rather navigating in blind faith, hop and emotion ...
Skeptic
It seems that you too are desperately trying to work your way around the observed hiatus, and what it implies for your pet-hypthesis.
You try using one dataset, diskissing others, try a different interval, calculate a non-neagtive trend and cling to the sign, try different wordings of similar arguments ..
And the hiatus is still the very same problem. Apparently on wich you aren't even aware of or understand. I've explained it in some detail more than once. But the only responses were of the mothfrothing kind like chek and wow can produce. Or completely avoiding the issue and going on about something else (usually home made straw-fantasies)
No Jonarse, what's actually funny is you liars'n'deniers warbling about your carefully constructed 'hiatius' in the face of greater Arctic melt year on year until this year's record low.
chek ...
No, it is not carefully constructed ... it is a growing problem for you guys and your pet-scare-hypothesis. And as I just told 'skeptic' here, it is the same problem regardless of how you slice or dice it. And as it looks, you don't even know how or why.
But you want to talk about arctic sea ice instad. Of course ...
"it is a growing problem for you guys and your pet-scare-hypothesis."
But it just happens to accord with YOUR pet-scare-hypothesis.
Oddly unskeptical of this "convenient" manufactured problem, aren;t you.
Anyway, this is all old hat and your assertions were made in the 15 years since 1998. Indeed such idiocy could have been managed many many times in the past by any credulous idiot that wished to pretend that there was no problem.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif
Wow ... even if I wrote my hypothesis about what is discussed many times again, you wouldn't know what my stance is or what I hypothesize about regarding the various issues ..
Understanding what is claimed just istn't your thing.
And you don't have the slightest clue what this (non-) "manufactured problem" is for your pet-scare, Not even after I have explained it several times. As I said:
Understanding just isn't your thing ...
And you post a SkSc graph drawing exactly that long straight upward sloping line I already mentioned before is the preferred warmist diversion.
Let me even point out to you that it the hiatus extends for another decade, SkSc could make a similar graph, and drawing one long straight red line through all the data, and this line would still slope upwards (just slightly less) and you would/could still point at it and say: 'But but! The trend is upwards .. '
Still failing to see what your problem is (meaning 'your problems are'!)
The problem here Jonarse is that you've suddenly decided (for the benefit of your meme du jour and your accompanying circus troupe only) that you don't like trends and have decided that they'll be abolished once Moronworld is established.
PantiesizeZ may well believe that 'drawing one long straight red line through all the data' is how it's done. But of course that's not what is done - as illustrated here
But thanks for clarifying that you're just as much of a moron as PantieZ, and you're continuing to avoid where all that arctic ice melting heat magically appeared from in the (chuckle) sixteenth year of your 'hiatius'. And all those nose diving previous years, of course.
wow, so now we are discussing arctic sea ise. Well, take a peak at this animation and tell us what you see:
http://www.polarisen.se/klimat/is/isutbredning
And by all means, don't forget Greenland and Antarctica:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/greenland-ends-the-year-w…
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/01/antarctic-sea-area-ice-ab…
PantiesizeZ is quoting steven goddard as as "authority".
What a gimp! And PantieZ is worse!
So you hope there will be statistically significant warming from 1998 to 2014 inclusive for the sake of mankind because of what? That psychopaths like you will stop whining that there's no warming?
And removing your beloved trend line gives you? Well, no warming in sight.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996/to:2012/plot/gist…
Absolute nonsense chek .. as always
What I say is that when the temperature doesn't follow the predictions of the pet-scare-hypothesis, the warmists start pointing at the trend instead .. for obvious reasons. Not knowing or understanding the significance of what they are saying (or avoiding). Not even after this is pointed out (usually)
Nowhere have I said that trends should be abolished, and why would I even say such a thing. No, the difference is that I know what value can be extracted from a calculated trend. And seemingly many others don't. And instead attempt to derive substance from a calculated trend which is not justified by the real data.
But that wasn't even my point here. Rather this was that many of you aren't even aware of how and why the hiatus poses a real (and growing) problem for the scare you so eagerly want to believe in. Not even after I repeatedly explained it ..
I'm glad you admit your "16 years" was a lie. No doubt you'll refrain from saying "16 years" from now on, if you're honest that is.