By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
And what say ya now? Hansen admits that there is a temperature stand still. Naughty boy.
http://www.thegwpf.org/hansen-admits-global-temperature-standstill-real/
Stu
another of your empty long posts ... and you even seem to get a little emotional over not being taken seriously.
But seriously, what in heaven's sake do you want to be taken seriously for? You finding typos?
Do you really believe that what you are producing here should be called 'engaging'? Do you think you are capable of asking 'relevant questions'?
You've demonstrated that you are completly unfit to handle any answers to questions, relevant or not.
Your best 'function' here is to get the likes of Jeffie and others (who seeminly believe they can discuss science) to lean on the 'support' from trolls like you and the other 'Wows' in his argument.
Jeff procliming 'Stu nailed it' in yet another completely untrue claim was truly hilarious. But that's the method you guys use. Inventing your own 'supporting facts', repeating them and thinking that confirms or strengthens the BS-faith. and being in denial about this too ...
What a joke!
That looked awfully like another empty post from you there, Jonas.
And Pentax, why are you linking to a propagandist site?
Why not go directly to Hansen's report and read it without the intermediary of a dishonest political lobbying effort?
You might see from Hansen's report that we just had the hottest La Nina ever recorded.
Obviously global warming can't have stopped, or the La Nina natural variation would have brought the temperatures down instead of up.
Maybe avoid the crank blog sites like Anthony Watts' WUWT and you will avoid being disinformed.
You know Vince,
The difficulty is that Stu, even if he tries really really hard, cannot come up with anything above that level. The most 'technical' comment he made was about what temporal resolution you can get from a graphic and a given pixel-size. His point was (I think) that one pixel corresponded to so-and-so many years. I didn't follow that discussion. But this might have been a valid point. And is a valid point whenever people on your side start going on about 'unprecedented rate' and look at (often averaged, filtered) proxies
However, the difference is that I have no problem discussing real and relevant issues or the science. Very few on your side will even dare to venture there ...
So, Jonas, when was the last time a La Nina was hotter than the last La Nina we just had?
"Unprecedented", or not?
I asked you to answer specific, topical questions, pointed out your obvious avoidance and a few more of your lies -- so no, the post was not empty. I'm sorry it was so long though, sweetheart. With your grasp of the English language it must have taken you hours to get through.
By the way, you're still not going to answer those questions, are you? Nope, you're not. So your bleating about lack of content in my comments is yet more pathetic, sniveling, hypocritical projection.
Really? You read that into my comment? That's absolutely precious, Jonas. Is your reading comprehension truly so rudimentary that you have to guess at feelings to project into comments of others when they get too long for you?
Christ, you are truly unable to string two coherent sentences together. Asked and answered, Jonas. Go read that long comment again.
I have been addressing your inability to comprehend the simplest things, your inability to communicate, your continuous lying and your avoidance of any questions you don't like.
There are half a dozen that you have been dodging for over a week now. You have been proven to be dense as a post and a lying weasel. Now you do the math on what your judgement on relevance is worth.
On second thought, no, please don't do any math. You're likely to hurt yourself if you try.
How on Earth would you know, Jonas? You don't answer questions. That's kind of the entire problem here. All you have to do to prove this point is to answer some questions. Then we'll see if I'm able to handle them.
Deal?
Now I'm confused. So when Jeff goes to a conference or publishes a paper, he's doing what... needlepoint? And all of this opposed to you, who has no education and hasn't even met a scientist in his entire life?
Either you think 'troll' means 'person who says things I don't like', or you lack even more self-awareness than I thought.
Also, I'm just another Wow? Dang, I thought I'd merit a category all by myself.
He didn't proclime anything, idiot. He proclaimed that I was right about you resenting people with an actual education, probably because of a raging inferiority complex. Since you continuously whine about the education of others without ever being forthcoming about your own, that seems like an entirely reasonable observation to make.
All you have to do to refute that is share your educational credentials and stop your pathetic obsession with mine.
[Citation needed]
The content-free passive-aggressive assertions are getting a little old, Jonas. Get a new shtick.
I love how this addresses absolutely no point made by anyone. Half your comments are excellent exercises in "guess what the doofus really means". So let's see here... I presume you're talking about me mostly addressing your comments on spelling and your reading comprehension?
Very true. I already explained why, but I'm sorry, that was in one of those long comments. You'll have to ask someone who can read to explain it to you. Of course, you won't, so let me try again: it is futile to discuss space exploration with a sea urchin until they at least drag themselves onto land.
So wait. One paragraph ago I was unable to discuss anything above "that" level, and here you say that I did? And that you didn't follow it?
So now I might even have been right, if you could have been bothered to follow the discussion?
Jonas, you ask people to take you seriously but you can't even remain coherent or consistent in two consecutive paragraphs. How does that make sense to you?
That is your dumbest non-sequitur yet. Denialist cuts and pastes irrelevant graph, I explain the irrelevance, you don't follow that discussion, then turn around and say "if that's valid then proxies are wrong".
What. The. Hell.
1) The irrelevance had nothing to do with proxies
2) You don't know what a time scale is
3) You don't know what the climate change literature says about proxies
4) You don't know why proxies are used
5) You can't follow a math problem that uses division
6) ...oh, never mind.
Obvious and stupid lie. You've been dodging topical questions and issues for years on this thread. When you get called on it, or get backed into a corner, you suddenly decide that the science isn't "real", or that the questions are not "relevant", you bob, weave, whine and pretend nothing happened. Or you pretend you addressed something months ago when everyone knows damned well that you did not.
This is not hard to see, Jonas. It's pretty damned obvious. You are childish, arrogant, petulant and avoid the issues like the plague.
Okay, so prove me wrong and let's talk about a real issue, Jonas. One that you just brought up. Show us a climate change paper that uses averaged, filtered proxies and explain why, in your learned opinion, said use is incorrect.
I ventured there, and I double dog dare you to respond.
vincie dear. You deltoid culprits all with one voice claims there is no pause in the warming, using straight lines to try proving your point. Well, now your high priest hansen says there is actually a pause, La Nina or not. Ergo you all must be lying.
Take it as a man, crank.
Jeez, stu, that's a lot of nonsens diarrhea.
Nop, me still no take yo seriously.
Your translator is lying to you PantieZ.
Try reading the original and getting an adult to help you with the long words.
Vince ...
"when was the last time a La Nina was hotter than the last La Nina we just had?"
Your question makes no sense. La Niñas are described by an index. This index is is not a temperature (although it is presented as an 'anomaly' in °C). You can read about it here.
Was it unprecedented or not?
Stu
.. then turn around and say “if that’s valid then proxies are wrong”.
Making up citations now, Stu?
I fully accept that you didn't understand what I was referring to. Not even when you for once had a small point which I acknowledged, the one about temporal resolution.
But one tiny little step further, and petty little Stu loses it completely again. Now making a (this time numbered six-point) list with the silliest inventions of fabricated Jeffie-style facts.
A practice he denied just moments earlier in an equally empty rant.
Stu ... your 'question' is more ill informed than Vince's. Maybe he is able to rephrase to express what he really means. I don't expect you to be though ...
Stu, Joan never says anything, so that when you argue against the point he IMPLIES BUT DOES NOT STATE, he can whine about you making shit up about him.
If you want to stick to answering questions or asking him ones, then don't paraphrase. If what he's said makes no sense or even no point, then ignore it or demand clarification.
Of course, asking him what he means will send him completely hysterical with panic.
Again.
But that's about the only even remotely amusing thing about this retard.
Did you or did you not say
You really don't even understand what you write yourself, do you?
How could you? You said yourself you didn't follow it. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
It's a simple yes-or-no question. Answer it, you pathetic little weasel.
Stu, seriously
What is it you are trying to accomplish with the silly rants and all the nonsense you bring here.
You are not anywhere near any science, real science regarding climate change. You don't have any grasp even of simple basics (physics) needed in real science. Not even when the leeding obvious is pointed out to you and explained in detail.
Still you are posting, over and over again, claims to the effect that you have something relevant to say, or that something I said is invalid.
But that's a total farce. Do you even know what it is you want to convey? For instance: Do you really challange my statement that nobody has ever seen any (by 2007) published science demonstrating that most (in)famous AR4 claim.
You haven't! And still you are shouting gibberish from the sideline ..
Why? Hoping that your shouting somehow wrongs me? What a joke, Stu.
By the way, don't you love how Hansen is to be discarded, is always wrong, not a real scientist, et cetera... but as soon as a political denialist group misquotes him as saying there is a pause, all of a sudden he is the central point of a pathetic argument from authority?
I rarely visit here these days, but this struck me:
Let's rephrase that slightly.
“when was the last time a day was hotter than the last day we just had?”
Your question makes no sense. days are described by Earth's rotation. This is not a temperature . . .
Do you understand why I, for one, am not impressed by your thinking skills?
Stu
We've been there before, and it was really bad for you:
You not understanding what was written.
You imagining that something completely different had been claimed.
You lamenting about it for weeks. And continuing one year later.
You being unable to contextually link two consecutive sentences about sea level, rise and rate ... repeatedly.
And now you are making up quotes. Do you know what a quote is, Stu? And how you indicate that you are quoting somebody?
Richard Simmons
I suggest you let Vince try to be a little more precise. Your repprasing is not very precise either. And there is a false analogy too. Because Hot is indeed described using temperatures.
I have a hunch about what Vince was after, but I'd like to hear from him that that hunch was correct. And if so, I have a ready answer for him.
Meanwhile you are of course free to provide what you think is the correct answer to what you seem to think is a correlcty posed precise question.
And try to impress with your thinking skills. I at least can regognize such ...
;-)
Stu ... I don't think Hansen has been misquoted, not when he has actually been quoted. But then again, we know you have comprehension issues with 'quotes' too ...
Another point about (om of) your previous comments:
I said you had a small valid point (about information contained in a graph). What I did not bother to check is if that point also indeed proves your claim:
Because you saying somthing is wrong almost never has any relation to the correctness of some other claim. Most of the time you don't even understand what it said (cf hand/box/speed).
But as I said, this time I didn't bother to check if your (correct little) point also proved something/somebody else wrong.
What I said is that you noting 'how many years are represented by one pixel' is about the highest level you have reached here. You even called it 'math'. And it was kind of a compliment Stu ... usually you really are much much worse.
And tumble with the Wows at the bottom here ..
By the way Richard S
Regardless of how you interpret Vince's question, or me thinking it is poorly phrased ..
.. you might want to check out the link I provided. And do so before (possibly) try to give an answer yourself.
Funnily, Stu thought his follow up question:
Maybe then: "you understand why I, for one, am not impressed by [his] thinking skills"
Low-brow polemic practice. And to continue to expose your mental illness.
Again, you are not the arbiter of "real" science. You have redefined it to mean "science Jonas likes", as a child would.
We've been over this. You did not and do not understand basic physics, math or English. You have proven this. Can you just quell your inferiority complex on at least that issue and move on?
You never understood my point, and you never will. The "obvious" you were explaining was and is beside the point. In essence, you've been whining about your misinterpretation of a single, simple English sentence for over a year now, and blaming others for it.
You said that "the hand must move faster also" does not imply hand speed is a variable. That is invalid. I'm sorry you are congenitally incapable of admitting fault, in any way, ever -- but that is not my problem.
You are pathetic.
I JUST asked you a single, simple, topical question. Here, let me remind you.
You accuse us of not wanting to "venture" into a real discussion. I posed you a challenge, a simple one. What do you do? You pretend the last year and a half of discussion never happened and rotate back to your original, pathetic, do-my-homework-for-me talking point.
That particular question of yours has been addressed repeatedly, but you did not like the answers... so you just pretend nothing was said, wait a few months and trot it out again. It is now a zombie argument, Jonas. It's gone. Dead. It was childish, intentionally vague and asinine to begin with, but even so -- it was addressed. It's yet more narf, Jonas.
So zoot to that.
Let's move on. Rise to the challenge. Show us that you've read at least one climate paper. You say proxy use in climate change is bad (averaged, filtered, whatever)? Okay, show us one paper and why its proxy use is bad.
If not, you're admitting you just read denialist tripe on proxies and are regurgitating it. Just because you're too slippery to link to your denialist claptrap sources (like pentax does) does not mean we cannot see through your cobbled-together set of talking points, or where they came from.
Show us that intelligence, Jonas. That original thinking. Pick one paper and show us where it is wrong.
From the sideline? Nobody has been engaging you as much as I have been (the others are probably less bored and/or less affected by SIWOTI syndrome). Do you even know what "from the sideline" means? Or are you so blinkered and arrogant that you think you get to define the playing field?
On second thought, you really don't have to answer that.
Shouting? What the hell are you talking about now? What is it with you and projecting feelings? I haven't shouted at you whatsoever. I have addressed you in well-deserved derogatory terms, that's all. I'm not the one who starts posting comments in utter pig-Latin every time I get challenged, Jonas. That's you.
Stu ... at this place, I most definitely am an arbiter of real science ..
You just have to take my word from it though. Since you don't even know what that means.
Ah. Okay, so you're saying these sentences contextually link?
and
Let me help you out, sweetheart. You could have said:
1) rate of sea-level rise
2) that rate
3) this rate
4) the aforementioned rate
5) said rate
6) the rate
7) the above rate
8) et cetera
I'm glad that it was just your inability to write a proper sentence rather than thorazine-induced dropping of entire clauses.
I directly quoted you, and explained to you what your direct quote means when parsed as English. Are you saying it wasn't "real" English?
Again with hoping that nobody notices that you're trying to use a rhetorical device you just learned on the same person you learned it from. Jonas, honey, I explained to you that you were overusing scare-quotes and sounded even denser than usual.
Wait, wait, wait. I'm over-thinking this. Are you actually saying I was not quoting you? Or are you saying that you do not approve of the use of blockquote tags to indicate a quote? Are those not "real" quotes to you?
Yes, you are right. I apologize, there are actual direct quotes in that tripe. Their being used out of context aside, the major issue is that that site (in their case, intentionally) and you (in your case, because of being dumber than a sack of hammers) do not actually understand what is being said.
Again, I might be proven wrong. Jonas, explain to us the difference between "no warming" and "no statistically significant warming". Hey look, another question. Seems relevant and topical, too. I've got $20 that says you will never, ever answer it. Anyone want to bet against me?
You just scare-quoted 'quotes' in there. Holy hakalela you're dense.
Sounds a lot like "I won't answer that question because it would pin me to a stupid position, so I will dodge, bob and weave until I can whine about a detail, wait a week or so and then pretend really hard that I actually addressed it".
I might be wrong about that too, but I doubt it -- it's what you've been doing for ages now, Jonas. Everyone knows it, everyone sees it, everyone derides you for it and nobody takes you seriously precisely because of it.
I sure hope not. Precise "repprasing" sounds like it would hurt. A lot.
I'm sorry, what? Do you even know what an analogy is, Jonas? This is double-take what-the-hell off-your-meds incoherent.
Oh bullpuckey. You expect us to glean meaning from your utterly incoherent drivel and address it, and in return you demand people be precise, so you can give them your already-formed answer?
That's called being a douchy troll, Jonas. Here's what you do. "Hey Vince, if I am to assume that you meant X, my answer is Y." You won't, because you're a weasel.
No, no you can't Jonas. You can't even spell it, for crying out loud.
Stu ..
No you have not been 'engaging' ... you been rambling and ranting mostly complete nonsense about many things ...
You tried to 'enage' while luminous made a complete fool of himself, and not even undertanding where, how, and how bad. And we all know how well that 'engaging' worked out for you.
And oh yes, Stu, I fully understood what 'point' you hoped to score there (hand/box/speed). It just was an utterly stupid and moot point, had there been any point. But there wasn't, Stu.
The claim was perfectly well presented and explained right from the start. Even explicitly that 'faster' referred to 'accelerate'.
As I've told you, my knowledge and education is far better suited for what we are discussing here, than what most others here manage to bring to the table.
And you Stu, bring absolutely nothing to the table. I don't even think you know what 'the table' is.
Typos and occasionally poor syntax is most definitely not the relevant table, although you seem to hope so.
I don't think even Dunning & Kroeger ever met someone quite like you.
No, sorry, I have no idea what "taking your word from it" means. If you meant "taking your word FOR it", I'm sorry, no, I'll stick with those with actual educations and actual scientific credentials over a random Swede with dyslexia, dyspraxia and a Napoleon complex.
(Sometimes you make this too easy, Jonas. Challenge me.)
Stu, one thing you got right.
With you, I always could have explained things in even greater detail and helping you with even more terms, definitions, and understanding of them. (*)
The problem then however, is that every little point would need even even more space and words than presently, and that will be confusing for you too. And we've tried that (almost):
(*) I explained in detail how and when and why luminous went all wrong, and even how it should have been done instead. And that didn't help you either (in spite of some claimed six years of physics studies)
http://basicinstructions.net/basic-instructions/2013/1/20/how-to-handle…
Stu, you totally got me there: You need to take my word for it
;-)
And you really do!
[Narf elided]
No, Jonas, I never tried to "enage". Sounds dirty to me. I asked you then, and ever since, to point out where luminous was wrong.
Still waiting.
Well, I wouldn't want to "undertand" it, that sounds like it hurts.
(Really Jonas, you're just doing this on purpose for my entertainment now, right?)
I will now bet you $20 if you can explain my point. I dare you.
So you understand the point, but there was no point. Wow. You went from contradicting yourself paragraph to paragraph to contradicting yourself in a single sentence. Do the orderlies know you're on the Internet again, Jonas?
Yes, you still don't get the point. Even me saying "bringing up hand speed at all was stupid, because by definition it is the same as that of the box" did not do it. Nothing will. This is just you being ornery, Jonas. Children understand this. You do not.
OH DO SHARE SWEETHEART. What is your knowledge? What is your education? It seems it did not include English, math or physics, so please, please, please tell us what your knowledge and education is.
I will give you $20 if you give us your full education credentials. I dare you.
I know, I know. It's not much.
1) I can spell
2) I can form a coherent sentence
3) I can postulate a basic physics problem
4) I can do basic math
At no point did I claim high-flying scientific credentials, because I don't have any. However, what I have claimed and claim now is true, and has been proven to be true.
It's a yardstick, Jonas. If you can't be bothered to download a free spell-checker for the language you are expressing significant, Earth-shattering scientific breakthroughs in... if you can't be bothered to proof-read your own comments to at least get a semblance of coherence sentence-to-sentence, let alone paragraph-to-paragraph... if you can't be bothered to "follow" a basic division-multiplication math problem... it shows us that you don't give a hoot about accuracy on any level.
I know my idiom, at times, is absolutely piss-poor. I re-read some of my own comments and cringe at my mangled sentence structure, odd sub-clause construction and lack of proper flow. I happily blame being ESL and hammering these suckers out in 5-10 minutes a pop, and I know I am still coherent and comprehensible.
What's your excuse, Jonas?
I would like to note and credit Jonas for actually admitting he was wrong. Credit where credit is due, even if he was glib about it and tried to score points off of his own stupidity.
Nice piece.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9814618/Its-…
Politician sees snow outside, questions global warming.
Well, I'm convinced!
Well, stu, I'm not trying to convince anybody about anything. Just pointing out that more and more people starts to see through your hollow scare "science". The tide has turned, but you foilhats here hasn't discovered that yet. You're in such a deep denial that it's surley gonna take a while.
Ah yes, when all of your cut-and-paste jobs turn out to be vapid claptrap... just jump back on the asinine passive-aggressive high horse. Nobody will notice, right?
Stay classy, pentax.
"...turn out to be vapid claptrap..."
But yes of course, because you say so. Silly me,
Hahaha...... you really are totally disconnected from reality, dumbass.
So Jonas is taking a well-deserved thorazine break, and you feel the need to plumb new depths...
pentax, are you disputing that the past five links you've posted were vapid and/or from obvious political denialist sites and/or obviously wrong?
All of them have been openly refuted on this thread. If you have arguments against those refutations, present them now or concede that you are just whining and avoiding the subject.
Stu, you may not be aware of it, but Murdoch's at the time UK operative Becky Brooks ran a "newspaper" "campaign" in an attempt to get 'Megan's Law' style legislation introduced in the UK.
To do this, she hyped up the ignorati who then attacked the house of a paediatrician (it had a brass plaque on the gatepost), threw rocks at a pedello and stamped on centipedes (two of those may have been invented by alt com Stewart Lee).
Any similarity of the brainless torch and pitchfork brigade to deadheads like Jonarse and PantieZ is entirely their own fault.
stu, are you disputing that most of the deltoidistas posts posted on deltoid is vapid and/or from obvious political, pseudoscientific alarmist culprits/watermelons and obviously wrong?
So darn obvious that your arguments are melting away. Tought in the pseudoscience business these days, stupid?
chek, when it comes to projections and straw man building you really are the maestro. And by the way, GBA does not bother me in slightest. It's truly a sign to when a person doesn't have any sensible arguments left. So by all means, keep on it, stupid.
You anti-science cranks have been saying that for the last 15 years, and yet every year that goes by sees you becoming increasingly marginalised as the novelty and amusement the media derives from your patent idiocy starts to wane.
We've seen the Arctic melt reach unbelievable rates, Antarctic peninsula ice shelves are virtually all gone, sea level rise has tripled, temperature has reached levels never before measured.
You have all the credibility of the buffoons who used to deny the theory of Continental Drift (and perhaps still do, from their nursing homes).
Your audience consists of halfwits and idiots, illiterates and tinfoil-hat-wearing cranks, all egged-on by the dishonest Murdoch media empire and the Energy corporation PR companies.
You have become completely boring. Even that lunatic fantasist Christopher Monckton isn't funny anymore.
"You anti-science cranks have been saying that for the last 15 years, and yet every year that goes by sees you becoming increasingly marginalised as the novelty and amusement the media derives from your patent idiocy starts to wane"
Hahaha....and you foilhats gets funnier and funnier. And more and more pathetic. The fall from your high horses is going to be quite painful and hilarious to watch. Marginalised you say. That's quite correct, but not for the realistic camp. cAGW hacve had it's glory, now it's fading away. Take it like a man, if you can.
And still, there has been no warming the last 16 years. Both Metoffice and your guru hansen, among many others, says so. Deal with it!
Vince
Have you gotten around to clearify (to yourself) what you meant, if anything, by the hottest La Niña?
Stu, have you? Or Richard Simmons?
You all sounded so cocky at first ...
Since you and your hyper-intelligent idol Jonas have yet to refute a single one of them, there are two possibilities:
1) The arguments for climate change are not political, not vapid, scientific and correct
and/or
2) You and Jonas are the most incompetent communicators in known history.
Totally. Us refuting your pathetic cut-and-paste jobs means that OUR arguments are melting away.
Oh yawn. You're just going to refuse to answer the question no matter what, just as you are refusing to answer the other half-dozen questions posed to you.
Pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling?
Once again Stu
You (and many others here) throw out stuff you barely or not at all understand, having found them here and there, mostly on alarmist sites which are who cannot debate without an erase-button. Like SkSc, Tamino etc. (Deltoid is not even among them).
Vince asked something he though was supported by a recent Hansen paper, but bungled it so it didn't make any sense.
You thought it was a concise question when it wasn't.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure what Vince was after (and almost quite as sure that you don't have a clue). And that I then have a ready answer for him (you are allowed to watch and fawn from the sideline).
But Vince needs to get the question right first. As it looks now, it doesn't make any sense at all.
Richard Simmons, who is one of the few who can behave like a grown up, too thought Vince's questions was well posed. And if so, he was wrong too. But I already showed him (and you) were to look, at least for part of the answer.
But from you, Stu, I don't expect you to understand anything of it all. You don't even know why the question was ill posed, or do you Stu?
And what does ya say about this?
http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/1/21_What_Drives_Globa…
Answer the other half-dozen question posed to you, you pathetic little weasel.
(By the way, from pentax's new link):
Sigh.
Stu ..
I take it you have no clue why Vince's question was ill posed.
You too have have asked very ignorantly posed questions before. And never understood why they were, although I explained it (and answered the part that made any sense)
That's your problem Stu. You often make hillariously stupid claims, occasianlly followed by a and ill informed follow-up question (which to you surely must have seemed very Gotcha-clever) ... But since the premise ('claim') is nonsens, the follow-up question (or what you may think is a 'challange') too makes no sense.
And as I on numerous occasions have pointed out how and why and how some combined claim/challange/question has no merits, and you (and others) have been unable even to understand why and rephrase/specify accordingly .. I must assume that you just couldn't.
Here we've had the (meaningless) question (by Vince):
"when was the last time a La Nina was hotter than the last La Nina we just had?"
You chirped in with:
"Was it unprecedented or not?" and "It’s a simple yes-or-no question. Answer it, you pathetic little weasel"
Earlier you got stuck with a 'What percentage of climate scientists .. ' hang-up. Which I answerd (but mayby to Jeff H)
So if there have been some less idiotic questions, or even relevant ones, I probably might have missed them among all the nonsense you spout, Stu.
But many of the idiotic stuff (sometimes with equally idiotic challenging 'questions') I just ignore.Replying to every idiotic detail and mae up stuff and nonsense in your long posts would take even more space. And (as you've demonstrated so aptly and consistently) wouldn't help you the least to improve any of your many wanting (lacks of) skills ..
I vaguely recall that you tried a SkSc-link wrt to the hiatus, and some phrase from the sneaky Met-release. Maybe you think you were clever. But to me it just sounded like Stu once more not really knowing the issue, but having found some internet-thingy you don't understand ...
But if you really think you had some relevant question(s) (which I doubt, though), you need to try to state and phrase them clearly, concisely and correctly, while using the terms and definitions correctly.
Two more pieces of advice: Leave out any of that utter garbage and your fantasies, feelings or whatever causes you to produce a majority of your empty verbage. And also try to convey the impression that you actually want to know what you ask.
Ptretending to 'wanting to know' answers to obvious nonsense questions only shows either a total lack of comprehension or that the purpose is not inquiry (or both).
So Stu. Are you certain I have missed any relevant question regarding anithing we've been discussing wrt climate (or boxes) or any real science discussed here?
As I just admitted, I might have missed it among all the garbage you've tried since day one.
Well!?
Oh Jonas, you'd be funny if you weren't so pretentious and transparent.
Here, let me take care of this for you.
- Was last year's La Nina unprecedented?
- Depends on how you define 2006.
Makes it even weirder how the past decade was the warmest on record, how most of its years were in the top 10 hottest in recorded history, how natural disasters are becoming more frequent, how sea level is rising and how oceans are acidifying.
Anyway. You want questions? From those long comments that are beyond your comprehension?
[Click back, scroll up, OOH! Wow! That only took 20 seconds! Not only dense as a post and delusional, lazy too!]
Here, let's start you off with this simple batch:
1) Did you follow any of the links I posted about Monckton?
2) Do you dispute any of the evidence provided at the links?
3) Do you dispute that Monckton is a habitual and pathological liar?
4) Do you support Monckton’s assertions on climate change 5) in his guest post at WUWT that was referenced earlier by pentax?
6) Have you figured out yet why it’s a 16-year "hiatus"? Not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30?
7) What is the difference between "no warming" and "no statistical warming"?
Eww! I'm producing verbage? That sounds gross. What is it?
Whatever impression you get from anyone is completely irrelevant, and now your third distinct dodging tactic to avoid answering simple, direct questions.
1) I can't find the question
2) I think the question is irrelevant
3) You don't want to know the answer anyway
Children do this, Jonas. Is that why you have no educational background? Are you still working on it, precious?
You are not, nor will ever be the arbiter of what "nonsense" is. Nor "intent", or "inquiry", or "science". Answer the damned questions, you weakling.
If you refuse to answer even now, you might as well start wearing weasel fur out in public. None of these questions are "what you think", they are "what you know". And I even kept the comment short for you.
Stu ...
Your 'let me help you' question is still very badly put. But
Last year's La Niña was not in any way unprecedented (*) ... If that is what you really asked. Asked now. Did you? Because before it was gibberish ..
Then you start about 'past decade warmest on record .. ' and either are just rambling off, or trying to derail .. Whatever.
1 through4 ) Monckton? Follow links? Argue with you and other's claims or whatever?
Couldn't care less. The Monckton obsession is entirely on. your side of the trench ...
5) is not a question
6-7) Answered, and explained in detail.
So Stu
There was really nothing was there? Your obsession with Monckton is yours (not mine) The relevant bits and pieces possibly burried in some yof your questions or thoughts, I have addressed many times. So I must ask you Stu:
In which way was any of your 'questions' relevant? For what? Or a part of anything relevant? How was this only not Stu once more blathering in piqued dismay ..
In what way do you even imagine that Monckton is relevant to anything relevant wrt to me?
And besides of course being unable to phrase the questions correctly, starting of with 4 (!) completely irrelevant ones, and silly posturing with some more, you weren't able to hold back the idiotic drivel again:
says Stu who with the other bunch have done nothing but obsess about their own 'impressions' of me. What an owngoal Stu. And what nonsense.
And oh, Stu, I very much am the arbiter (unfortunaly only here) between what's nonsense and what not. And that's long before we get to evaluating real science. Even long before we would discuss how to correctly deal with friction and a hand pushing a box.
(*) irrespective of 2006
Reality passed you by, didn't it Joan.
Oh, I forgot one thing, Stu. In your year long trainwreck failure of 'engaging' you of course missed the principal and most relevant (and by far most frequent) point in your silly litte list 1 to 3. Which is:
Answered, answered in detail, and explained. And repeated. Several times. Further explained trying simpler examples ...
You might recall an instance with a box, and friction ... and how helpful I was trying to show you that nobody ever (except you) ever, ever talked about, or imagined or implied different speeds between hand and box ... and even explicitly and specifically wrote this to help you out of that ... ehrm .. 'misconception' (because, Stu, you did believe that, didn't you? That somebody else apart from you had been arguing different speeds among hand/box, even done so for days/weeks. At least you wrote and claimed that .. or did you not mean what you wrote?)
Wow - are you part of reality? Or is that the version that didn't pass you by?
Sorry guys, I'm still chuckling at the notion that Stu thought that his demands to answer the questions ('you weakling/weasel') were so relevant that I was dodging them ...
Just hilarious ...
Monckton, Monckton, Monckton, Monckton !... And then some bits that had been answered and addressed many times.
That's somehow the most 'relevant' Stu could manage.
What a total and hilarious joke ...
Stu, I'm sorry (just a little) but you are often so pathetic in your silly attempts to 'get me' it is afterall quite cute and even adorable ...
I was (and am) a bit mean to you, and mocking you for all the things you've tried (and failed) so many times now .. A little bit mean and patronizing too ... Sorry Stu. After a while it gets really difficult to take anyting you try and do seriously .. Sorry
;-)
So I repeat my offer: Try to put forward a relevant and clear and precise, well posed question. (Don't forget the 'relevant')
And do so without the gibberish usually making up your posts.
You may reuse one you (imagine to have) asked before, just work a little bit on gettin sufficiently correct so that it makes sense, and asks for something equally sensible ..
And, if you will, you can (seperately) specify why you think it's relevant, and to what.
PS I'm not interested in any posturing, semantics, or rhetorical attempts. But you just need to know what's at the core of your inquiry
And as predicted: avoid, avoid, whine, "not relevant", avoid, whine, narf.
Pathetic. You can pick up your weasel coat on your way out.
As I've already pointed out Stu, the small possibly relevant parts for someone new to the discussion have been answered and adressed many times, and actually to more than one who asked ..
So my offer still stands. Can you phrase one relevant question correctly .. in a comment free from your childish whining
Oh, since I'm tired of it by now, and on the off chance someone new happens upon this thread, allow me to present the canonical version of what Jonas's incoherent whining about "hand-box" is about.
[On an experiment where a hand pushes a box]
GSW: ...if the box moves faster, the hand has to move faster also.
Me: Why did you bring up hand speed? It's irrelevant.
Jonas: It's physics!
Me: You've got the causality wrong: the hand causes the box to move. The hand 'having to move faster also' is nonsensical, even disregarding that it is ALWAYS the same, by the definition of the experiment. What part of 'hand pushing box' are you having trouble with?
Jonas: Hahaha! See, what you don't understand is that this is physics! If the hand pushes the box, and the box moves faster, the hand has to move faster too!
Me: It's the same, by definition. If the hand has a different speed than the box, it is not pushing it. So bringing up what speed the hand moves, what speed the hand has to move, hell, bringing up the hand at all is 'hello, you just failed physics 101'-dumb.
Jonas: Neener! You don't understand physics! The hand has to move faster! I just explained why!
Me: So why not bring up the air in the box? Why not bring up how the watch on the pushing hand needs to move faster also? It's a dependent variable [note: this was a poor translation; what I meant was a variable which is wholly dependent on others by definition, and is therefore completely irrelevant -- like the speed of the watch on the hand, or the speed of the fly on the watch on the hand].
Jonas: You're the one that brought up different speeds! And now you're talking about dependent variables! Haha, I already explained to you why they have to be the same!
Me: That they have to be the same is the point in a way (as in why it should have never been brought up), and it is not (as in your Kindergarten explanations are irrelevant since you missed the basic point).
Jonas: Haha! You brought it up! You don't know physics!
Me: My physics is fairly poor, but I did manage to make it through 6 years of it in high school. By the way, I did not bring it up, GSW did.
Jonas: Haha! You brought it up! You didn't do physics! I am smarter than you! I explained it! Haha! You're the only one who thinks this!
Other person #1: No, we understand what he is saying. He didn't bring it up, Jonas. GSW did.
Other person #2: No, we understand what he is saying. He didn't bring it up, Jonas. GSW did.
Other person #3: No, we understand what he is saying. He didn't bring it up, Jonas. GSW did.
10
Jonas: Haha! He brought it up and he's the only one! I am smarter than you! My education is better than yours!
Me: I did not bring it up, GSW did. Bringing up the hand at all is irrelevant. Hey Jonas, what IS your education?
[Wait two weeks]
GOTO 10
You are a sad, sad little man. You have to pre-emptively give yourself not one but two weasel outs to any question posed to you. "Oh no, that's not relevant." "Oh no, that's not phrased correctly".
You are the most cowardly person I have yet had the distinct displeasure of encountering on the Internet, Jonas.
Okay, here's one. It's simple, it's relevant, and there's only one way to phrase it.
What is your educational background, Jonas?
Stu #5661
No Stu, your brought up the differnet speeds .. nobdy else. Nobody. Not one singe-body-else ..
Big fail. And you still haven't recovered. It's so bad that you now even are lying (or lying to yourself) about it, even imagining that others agree with you, that GSW brought it up. He didn't. There is not one mention of any word 'different' before you. And even after you started, it was pointed out 'move at the same pace' ..
So Stu .. is this how badly it has gone for you? That your life starts revolving around your own lies and incompetence? Is it really that bad Stu?
I mean, I can (given your difficulties with most things here) understand that you for a short time and sloppy reading/thinking/comprehenseion you imagined that GSW might have implied the possibility of different speeds.
I mean, we all know how badly you would like to score at least some point and land a little pinprick hit at someone ..
O can even have empathy with that need (although it is very petty).
But I can not understand why you would, in the blatant face of immedieate clarification go on to claim the opposite for weeks and now years ..
And now you (openly) tell me that you still rather would believe the opposite, and that you need to sice it up with more untruths and lies just to protect that fragile ego?
Is that what you are telling me Stu?
somebody else brought ut and for weeks argued differnet speeds?
Are you that far gone, Stu?
Pleaste tell me it aint so ...
Jonah says:
So, tell us which La Nina was warmer than last year's.
Vince, your question still is extremely poorly and (most likely) ignorantly put ...
But in #5611 there is a link where you can see both the strength and the duration of La Niñas a nd El Niños, they are even coloured for your 'convenience' ..
If your question really was what you asked, there are all the answers. But I might have overestimated you, I thought you would understand the subtle hint (with the link) and do a better job phrasing you question the next time.
I even think that Stu (after some searching) came closer (*) although he still didn't manage to phrase the question properly.And that Vince, is not a compliment ...
;-)
(*) and quickly wanted to change the topic to something entirely different
Jonarse, you are (most likely) an idiot* ...... with moronic tendencies. (*)
(*) who can neither see straight nor think straight.
((*)) and who can't even figure out permalinks.
Obvious and stupid lie, Jonas. I summarized what actually happened and will from now on just link to it (especially since you're still saying the same, easily and oft refuted things</i).
What is your educational background, Jonas?
Tag failure and link failure in one post. Glad the weekend is here. Second attempt.
stu, some more from the same link:
Verifying the prediction skill of the system model from April 2011 to December 2012, the accuracy of the most likely forecast (solid red line) remains at a high level of 75%, and the accuracy relative to prediction uncertainty (pink area) is an exceptional 98%. Given the noise in the data (presumably incomplete set of system variables considered, noise added during measurement and preprocessing of raw observation data, or random events, for example), this clearly confirms the validity of the system model and its forecast."
"The IPCC A1B scenario is derived from a number of million-dollar General Circulation Models (GCMs), which depend on atmospheric CO2 as the major driver for Global Warming. Consequently, the IPCC A1B projection follows the development of CO2 concentration, which - in contrast to observed global temperatures - has only been rising in the past and which will continue to do so for the next future. This IPCC projection currently shows a prediction accuracy of 23% (September 2007 - December 2012, 64 months) and just 7% accuracy for the same forecast horizon as applied for the system model (April 2011 - December 2012, 21 months). "
Looking good for the multimillion dollar GCMs?
"Makes it even weirder how the past decade was the warmest on record, how most of its years were in the top 10 hottest in recorded history, how natural disasters are becoming more frequent, how sea level is rising and how oceans are acidifying."
I agree, how could this be when empirical data shows no such things? Well, if you massage empirical data enough, you get the result you want. The temp the last decade isn't unprecedented in any way, natural disasters are not more frequent today than in any other time, sea levels are rising in the same pace it always has since the last ice age, and the seas are long from acidic, perhaps a microscopic amount less alkaline. But that's hardly the same as "oceans are acidifying". You warmiztas has always lyed and you keep it on. For how long did you think you could fool Earths people with your scam?
So wait, pentax, are you seriously debating the last decade was the warmest on record?
Oh, and this is precious:
Okay, so if you read this back, this makes sense to you?
So Stu ...
You summarized what actually happened? Possibly what happened inside your head. But definitely not outside ..
You were never part of any part of the discussion, Said so yourself; Couldn't see anything wrong ...
But at some point you decided to jump in: With a notion of different speeds hand/box.
Within minutes your misconception was clarified, even spellt out explicity:
This was 14 minutes after you asked, two hours after you firs got 'confuesed' by the same information phrased only slightly different.
And you still aren't over it? Still imaginge others argue different speeds. Repeating your tripe like a raving lunatic ..
Sorry kiddo, you were the idiot then, you are again and still are. Why do you keep tormenting yourself with that intellectual self mutilation? Why Stu?
Nobody. absolutely noboyd (except you) ever argued different speeds. There are no different speeds, as even you know, when pushing a box along a straight line ...
Only you wanted there to be ... still imagining such lunacy.
And your derailing (your initial misconception) doesn't even involve physics .. just comprehension of a simple sentence of a hand pushing a box ..
Look kid ..
Nobody asked you to jump in in a discussion (about simple laws of physics etc), you did so of free will. Obviously, your descinion was prompted by the loony notion of different speeds/hand/box ...
You made a (slight) fool of yourself there, but were kindly guided in the right direction. Apparently your little fragile ego couldn't hande this though. Hence the yearlong derailing ... now trying to thorw in more and more lies to cover up and confuse ...
What a pathetic little man you are Stu. Even more tragic that you openly display this here ...
And, I asked if you could pose a relevant question without your usual childish tripe. Apparently that was too difficult too.
Do you think you are capable to for once behave like an adult? Aks a relevant question (relevant for the main topic here)? Give it a try. And if you are trying with the same question, I would like to know why you believe it is relevant?
Is that too difficult, Stu? Writing one comment with a question properly? Without the nonsense drivel?
Stu #5668 ... linking to your own garbage and outright lies in order to convince yourself?
;-)
That has been your method the entire time. Believing your own nonsense and strenthening that belief by repeating it. Same with Jeff Harvey ... he also invented 'facts' and repeated them.
You guys are such total jokes it is a travesty of delusion ...
And you both of course are staunch believers in the climate catastrophism ... Well at least that figures.
;-)
So let me get this straight. I explain to you -- at length -- why bringing up the hand is dumb, and you reply with...
The reversed causality alone is enough to drive a physics teacher to drink. If the hand moves at a different speed, you're not pushing the box. If you're not pushing the box, you're not doing the experiment as described. By now the lint in my belly-button has figured this out. You're a moron, Jonas.
Also, what is your educational background? You brought it up, answer the question.
Also, what is your educational background?
Like in Tropic Thunder: Full Retard.
Okay, so let's recap for you, Jonas. Let's see what the denialist consensus is.
1) Has the pH in oceans dropped in the past century?
2) Does this or does this not have consequences for living creatures in the ocean?
3) What is the difference between acifidication and loss of alkalinity?
4) What does a 0.1 change on the pH scale mean?
5) Was the past decade the warmest in recorded history or not?
6) How did the past decade rank in record-hottest years all-time?
oh, and of course
7) What is your educational background, Jonas?
stu #75
1 through 6. Totally irrelevant questions. Simply because you first have to prove that it's not due to natural variations, which you of course can't. And second, you have to prove that the human contribution of co2 is the main driver of the climate change, and not natural variations. Which of course you can't. So what's really your case again?
7 is even more irrelevant. I suppose it's not nice to get ones ass spanked. And it must hurt even more if you don't know who the spanker is. But I must admit, it was quite funny to see your asses get spanked. But honestly, it's getting quite silly nowadays. You all are so unbelievable thickheaded and so indoctrinated in you belief that you refuse to consider the possibility that you perhaps are wrong about co2, despite that the evidence against co2 as the main climate driver is piling up right in front of you. Much like when Bagdad Bob refused to accept that Iraq had fallen.
You know, proper science is not about clinging on to a hypothesis with teeths and claws to the bitter end, it's about adjust or even discard it, due to new scientific evidence. If you don't do so, it has become a religion. And it sertanely seems that that's exactly where you deltoids are today.
Really Stu!?
Are you kidding me? 'Causality'!? And again linking to your own dumb-fantasy-nonsense-inventiong-history-revision?
Nobody is interested in what you think is dumb or not ... those thaughts are best left inside your head!
The question was why you you derailed over a imagined speed difference between hand/box .... when nobody (except you) ever was close to anything alike. Why!?
The key words are: Different Speeds between hand and box!
Why would you spend over one year derailing over a by only you invented projection?
The really dumb thing is you obsessing about that, imagining that others were arguing the exact opposite of what they wrote to you explicitly.
And regarding 'causality':
Everything. Every single and every dumb remark and comment wrt this was made by you after this was explained in plain language and thus settled.
Every dumb thing you tried thereafter, including your 'dependent variable' or 'why you thaught the hand speed was dumb' or 'formally introduced equations' and now 'causality' and 'drinking physics teachers' ,,, and of course:
Different Speeds between hand and box
All that and everything, came out the cavity between your ears after your first misconception was settled immedeately. You and you alone!
But in your customary fashion, you need to invent the blame for your dumb year-long derailing ... and say it was somebody else's fault.
But no, Stu. It wasn't! You were the idiot then, and seemingly still want to be really really bad!
I just wonder why!?
And Stu # 5675
It is really too difficult for you to ask a relevant question in a manner as if you were an adult, isn't it?
What would 'denialist consensus' even be? Both those words are used excessively (but seperately) on the CAGW side for lack of better arguments. What do they even mean here? And why would anybody claiming to 'ask relevant questions' invent such dumb terms, or bring them up?
PS Neither do I understand the 'recap' part wrt to many in your list. I have not touched upon several of these topics. And ayway, your list doesn't come across as relevant questions. It looks like the usual petty posturing hoping to land some tiny gotcha-point ... quite stupidly.
Contd. Stu, Re: your #5673 because it is almost surreal how dumb it is:
You think you 'explain' something?
You think because you misunderstand a simple sentence, somebody else must be 'dumb'?
You think it is importoan for others to understand or follow why you derailed over the wordings of a simple sentence?
You think your 'dependent variables' or whatever is 'not needed' is relevant in any ever so minor way?
You, Stu, with your presence here, arguing 'what is not needed'?
After you jump in in a slightly technichal discussion about friction, and badly exectued laws of motion, feedbacks, and other stuff you did not understand the first thing of?
Suddenly, what you think 'is not needed' somehow should divert the world (or only the participants here) to follow your nutty imiginations of what you imagined people meant?
Even then you were going on about different speeds/box/hand for weeks (without anybody else's input) working yourself int o a frenzy. You still haven't recovered from more than a year later.
And you think anybody really really badly needs to know whatever you think is 'dumb' or 'not needed' inside that cavity of yours?
Have you ever thought about how large a portion of your comments is completely and beyond any margins of error (or semantic misconception) dumb, and dumb beyond belief!? Have you?
And here you are telling us about your 'explanation' about the simplest little thing you still managed to misunderstand`? And misunderstand completely!
In a discussion where you couldn't see anything wrong with all the nonsense-physics of luminous.
You really are something else Stu ... you really do belong here, together with so many others.
Oh dear! Denialists once more dismissing questions they don't like as irrelevant! I am shocked!
pentax:
So now you are saying knowing whether the oceans are acidifying, or whether the climate is changing is irrelevant because you'd FIRST have to prove it is anthropogenic. Without quantifying the phenomenon.
Right.
Good thing you're not ideology-driven, right? Do you also still stand by your statement that the oceans are not acidifying, merely becoming less alkaline?
Oh, and me asking Jonas for his educational background is completely relevant, since he has repeatedly asserted it is better for doing "real" science... without telling us what that magical background is. Jonas brought it up, Jonas made it relevant,
Jonas:
No matter how much you whine and bluster, I've summarized the hand-box discussion here. The discussion is over. Take your meds and stop trying to go around in circles, it is pathetic.
Instead, why don't you grow up and answer a question? Let's start with a simple one:
Jonas, what is your educational background?
stu
"don't like" has nothing to do with it, though I don't expect you to understand that. As pointed out to you above, if you can't prove that human co2 is the main driver of the climate cange, and all the other stuff you claim human activity is to blaim for, the questions are indeed irrelevant. How do you know they aren't perfectly natural variations?
"So now you are saying knowing whether the oceans are acidifying"
Correct. When the oceans PH drops below 7, then the correct term is acidifying. To say that a alkaline ocean gets a tiny amount less alkaline "the oceans are acidifying" is just alarmistic bullshit to scare common people.
"or whether the climate is changing is irrelevant because you’d FIRST have to prove it is anthropogenic."
You really are stupid, aren't you? Do you let a doctor treat you befor he has made a diagnosis?
All the historical, empirical data shows nothing at all, not a tiny little bit, that's unpresedented with our current climate change. Unless, of course, massage data untill it shows the result you want to see, like the mann and hansen way.
The AGW hypothesis is dead. Deal with it!
I understand now. If I look at a thermometer and say it is warmer, you will argue it is merely getting less cold.
I ask questions about what you know about ocean acidification, you dismiss those questions as irrelevant because they could be natural variations. Please note that I did not ask you what caused ocean acidification, I asked you what you know about it. Don't bother answering now though -- of the questions, you've already confirmed 1), haven't a clue about 2), don't understand 3) or 4) and will avoid answering 5) and 6) until you are blue in the face.
Braver than Jonas's complete weaseling, but not too bright.
Not a soul is disputing that the Earth has been hotter before, and that there have been higher CO2 concentrations before. Again, the climate we are heading towards is actually very desirable if you are a dinosaur or a large fern.
Are you a large fern, Pentax?
What is unprecedented is the rate of climate change. Evolution does not work on this compressed a time-scale, as is obvious when you look at places like the Great Barrier Reef. If you see nothing wrong with mass extinction, by all means, say so -- but you don't, so you're in denial, and being massively dishonest.
Really? Prove it. Don't wave your hands and whine about averaging proxies like Jonas, pick a specific paper, a specific dataset and show how their numbers are invalid.
Back up your assertions or admit you are lying.
First though, please examine the irony of that allegation coming from someone repeatedly quoting discredited sources who bleat on about an alleged hiatus, without ever noticing why they always use a 16 year time-span. Not 5, not 10, not 20, not 30. Always 16. Do you not understand why they pick 16 years, Pentax? Do you not understand how profoundly dishonest that is? Do you even care?
Says who? Pathological liar Monckton? Incompetent shills Watts and Curry? A few off-their-meds Swedish trolls on this blog?
Why haven't you produced a scientific paper proving it all wrong, Pentax? Why hasn't Jonas? Why hasn't Monckton? Why hasn't Watts? Why hasn't Curry? Why do you all confine yourself to whining on blogs? Wouldn't you love to win a Nobel Prize?
Why haven't you, stu, produced a scientific paper which proves that cAGW is real? Nobody else has managed it, so why don't give it a try?
By the way, I have won a Nobel prize. EU got one a while ago so that means every european citizen is a Nobel prize winner. If mann can, I can also.
Why do you think you've been mobilised to be here when your time would normally be spent being a moron elsewhere?
Did the EU send you a personal certificate thanking you for your contribution to winning the prize? No, I didn't think so either PantieZ.
"Did the EU send you a personal certificate thanking you for your contribution to winning the prize?"
No, nor did they do that to mann. ipcc did that all by them selves. And hou know, that doesn't count.
Mobilized? Hahaha, sorry "pal", I'm here all by my self, just for fun. You know, it's quite funny to watch a bunch zealots with foilhats pretending to be scientific making faceplant after faceplant.
Because I don't have to. This is the same old, lame, tired tactic Jonas started out with.
- Show me a paper that proves it.
- Go look at the IPCC attributions.
- No, I need you to show me a specific paper.
- Why? There's hundreds in there.
- Nuh-huh. Show me one!
- Here's one.
- That's not "real" science!
- Why are you doing this? You're trying to dispute 30+ years of climate science. The burden of proof is on you.
- Nuh-uh! Show me a paper that proves climate change!
- It doesn't work like that. Do you also ask for a paper that proves evolution?
- Narf! You are stupid!
- If you can prove climate science is wrong, why don't you publish a paper how?
- Narf! Show me a paper!
Et cetera.
But hey, you're getting better at this Pentax -- you're bravely running away from your 'becoming less alkaline is something different than acifidication' doozy. There's still hope for you becoming a true full-on whining, evasive, delusional douche-canoe denialist just like Jonas.
Proof is easy to come by.
This does it:
American Journal of Physics -- December 1972 -- Volume 40, Issue 12, pp. 1794
On the Validity of Kirchhoff's Law in a Nonequilibrium Environment
Donald G. Burkhard1, John V. S. Lochhead2, and Claude M. Penchina
But Wow, that's just natural variability! I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO READ THAT UNLESS IT PROVES CLIMATE CHANGE IS ANTHROPOGENIC. Hah!
(And so the circle closes, morons go to sleep without a care in the world, and our ecosystem crumbles.)
Well, I already know what to say to that, but lets not give Joan a free pass, eh?
That paper, though is the proof that AGW is real. Someone with A-level (High School) maths can prove it themselves with a calculator and a book on calculus.
Stu ...
Do you belive the nonsense you wirite?
Do you really believe that there is one (or a few) paper(s) even attempting to establish that infamous AR4 claim?
Just as you believed that anyboude else (but you) imagined different speeds?
What a joke you are, and doubly since you display it here for everybody to see
Stu, I notice that you have accepted the proper level of company here ... sharing ignorance with the likes of Wow must feel comforting for you after having spent 1½ years imagining that your idiocy about 'the hand speed is not needed .... because it implies different speeds' was in any way anyhow relevant to anything here ... apart from the moron brigade proving it is indeed the morn brigade ...
SIx years of allegedly having studied physics ... and the best you can come up with (in the face of luminous weeklong violations) is 'you should not have brought up the hand ...'
And you wonder why I am mocking you? You utter idiotic fool?
You think you have 'engaged' in anything here, Stu?
Even luminous, who most certainly wasn't the sharpest wooden spoon in the drawer did better than you ... and you imagine you have closed a discussion? A discussion you never were part of? But tried to enter with your idiotic different/speed/hand/box nonsenese?
Haven't you not mentioned self awareness too?
;-)
Stu .. are you really wondering why you never were part of anything here? Why I am only mocking you for your stupidities? Why I am pointing out to you that you still only have your own stupid imagination to blame for making an utter fool out of yourself!?
Is it really that hard to understand? Or is it the acceptance that hinders you? Denial in short?
Jonas, I already explained the hand-box thing here. I'm sorry your pathology won't allow you to let it go. It's just sad.
Why don't you get over it and answer a question? Like what your educational background is?
Hahaha...it might just be so that deltoid will be the last CAGW bastion to fall. Unbelievable how thick headed you regulart deltoids are. I reckon the pope is jealous, we would certanely love to have such devotion among hes followers.
Still in denial Stu? Your derailing was somebody else's fault? And you call that 'explaining'? Or whatever you tried 'engaging'?
:-)
What a hoke!
And how is your climate scare belief working for you nowadays?
BTW what part of my previous answers did you not understand?
How does one even begin to explain what education is to someone who claims to have studied six years of physics and not only is on the level you are, but on top of that feels the need trying to show off in an freshman-level example (where he couldn't even see any of the many bad mistakes even after they were pointed out) but felt compelled to jump in with an utterly idiotic:
'Ha you implied different speeds ... No, you even argued different speeds hand/box for weeks'
What idiot would try this, and even defend this nonsense for year?
Ah yes, I forgot! This is Deltoid, Stu, and Wow's your friend ...
:-)
Yes, because any day now, the tin-foil-hat brigade will be recognised as having been right all along.
Any day now...
Vince ...
Do really you believe this? That there is a CAGW coming? That all the dire promises will come true ... just not right now, but eventually? And it's gonna be worse than we ever thought ...
That's what your hoping for?
Jeff Harvey hopes so. He has been promising that we are going over the cliff any time now .. However, not because of climate change itself but because of mankind ... buh-hu .. because the world isn't run according to his loony views
:-)
"Yes, because any day now, the tin-foil-hat brigade will be recognised as having been right all along."
Sorry, but that's not gonna happend. Better if the lot of you actually take of you your foilhats and hide them in a dark place no one ever will find them. Becaus you really look redicolous in them.
Yes, the Carbon Tax will definitely put Whyalla out of business.
What is it with you alarmists and your breathless panicky nonsense?
Good to see Jonas showing his true colors again, his last post suggesting that there are really no serious environmental problems.
But wait - didn't our uneducated Swedish genius once say that his only criticism was against GW science? What gives?
What gives is that Jonas is an anti-environmentalist, that's what. Forget the fact that the scientific community pretty much as a whole agrees that humans are over-exploiting the planet'ecological life support systems. But hey - don't say this is so to the uneducated Swede who has more qualificiations than 99.9% of trained scientists.
Note alos how Jonas reads the other threads. He is not allowed to contribute to them because he has been banned for being such an arrogant, vapid ignoramus. So he snipes away here from his own jail with his cell-mates.
Tampaxz says,
...and I fell out of my chair laughing.
Yes, any day now the whole world will come around to your way of thinking.
Any day now...
I think Jonas is no worse than many of the idiots appearing on the other threads, and better than some, even.
Chameleon, for example - what a vapid, brainless ninny she is. At least Jonas can demonstrate *some* sort of thought process occurring, however deluded and pathologically dishonest it may be...
Vince ...
I agree that there are quite a lot of idiots, or at least individuals who here behave and comment like full blown idiots ...
Some for instance think that bringing up Breivik somehow strengthens their case.
Jeff ..
Inventing your own nonsense again?
Have I ever said that there are no true environmental problems?
and I've already informed you of my education by far tops yours for every relevant topic I have addressed here. And proven it time and again ..
You on the other hand have blindly, desperately sided with the utter bottom feeders here ... hoping (without any method to find out) that whatever they throw at me somehow is valid.
Jeff Harvey, the fact fabricating, faith-guessing and CV-waiving so called 'scientist' ...
Making own goals again, as in almost every one of his comments. What a joke ... but a perfect match för Deltoid!
Well, Stu, looks like the paper given is accepted by Joan and Tampax as understood and valid.
Plenty of time to say otherwise, but they preferred to play games with you instead.
Good old lying Jonas. He writes this,
"Jeff Harvey hopes so. He has been promising that we are going over the cliff any time now .. However, not because of climate change itself but because of mankind … buh-hu .. because the world isn’t run according to his loony views'
The he writes this:" Have I ever said that there are no true environmental problems?"
Gee, it seems like he says one thing and then another. In keeping with his lack of pedigree. But wait! The he says this:
"and I’ve already informed you of my education by far tops yours for every relevant topic I have addressed here. And proven it time and again .."
With no proof ever provided except for hos own assertion. Does Jonas have a PhD? Well, all signs are that the answer is NO. If he did, this bloated egomaniac would have told the world about it by now. Instead, we get constant self-references to his great wisdom, but no baonafide proof other than he is telling us so. In other words, the debate stule employed by our Swedish meatball is that he is brilliant and knows more than me or anybody else about science because - wait for it - he says so. End of debate. No proof required aside from, 'please look at the last 16 months of posts on the Jonas thread' followed by more self-assertions.
Jonas, you are as mad as a loon. Its a laugh to watch you employ the first party technique of debating. The 'I know I am brilliant because I said so".
As usual, we also get this:
"Jeff Harvey, the fact fabricating, faith-guessing and CV-waiving so called ‘scientist’ …"
Do you ever give up with this nonsense Jonas? You are like a broken record. I know you envy me being a qualified scientist and all, but enough is enough.
Jeffie, a true scientist would know the difference between the enviroment problems and climate. But as we allready know, you are nothing else but a pseudoscientist.
"But as we allready know, you are nothing else but a pseudoscientist"
HA! You are comedy gold, Penty. Who already knows? You and your puppet-master? Omigosh! I feel really threatened! Boo!
panties is a bit like the black night, isn't he.
"No it isn't!"
"What's that then?"
"It's just a flesh wound!"
Jeff H
The existence of environmental probles is not the same as we are racing towards a cliff ans will be going over it ..
Which is what you have argued (quite literally) several times.
Regarding my education Jeff, I have told you many times how things should be done, what arguments are valid and which are not (fabricated facts, for instance, never are).
If anybody has been lying, it is you who in essentially every post (to me) make false assertions and statements and push fabricated 'facts'
Before you start behaving like a scientist and do so consistently, I will remind you of that what you have performed here for over 1½ years is pathetic, and has nothing at all to do with real science. Nothing, Jeff!
You conclude with another instance of your self-affirming invented 'knowledge':
There is really nothing I envy you for Jeff ... I have (and everyone has) seen how much you would like to label yourself and what you do as 'science' ... but everytime I point out where you deviate from arguing like one, you either run away or start derailing about something irrelevant.
Look at yourself Jeff! I don't know what you consider 'proof' in a debate. But you definitely have proven(!) that you are unfit to debate or only read what is debated. Further, you are unable to read the science behind the various climate claims, and apparently have no clue whatsoever what it takes to establish (or only support) a proposed scientific hypothesis.
And still you are yelling and yapping 'Dunning Kruger' and 'Denialist' or 'Anti-Science' like a little schoolboy.
I have no clue to why you've chosen this method but it looks outright stupid (and nothing else) from the outside, and I would say from any professional viewpoint, not only real science (which you apparently aren't familiar with at all)
Real Science: Strictly and consistently adhering to the scientific method!
You have proven here, time and again, that you are unable to do so (even are unaware of what it entails). I on the other hand have shown here, essentially in all the topics I have argued that I can stay on and master the topic, argue the merits. Demonstrated, Jeff, over and over again!
True, those who allegedly spent six years studyin physics, but didn't learn even what was taught freshman year, those of course cannot recognize that. Or those who aren't trained in har science or never practiced any real science.
I guess that all those can do is shout and cuss ... as they indeed do!
BTW Jeff ...
You have several times claimed that I loathe academics! Again, idiotic fabricated fiction emanating from that cavity between your ears.
I don't. On the contrary. And I have never said anyting like that or anything that may be interpreted like that. so where does this particular piece of fabricated nonsens come from Jeff?
Is lying the only way you can argue ... not any relevant issue here, but only ... the position that you have a position here?
What's wrong with all you who compuslively start lying the moment you are out of arguments .. which essentially is right from square one (for most)!?
Is your life that difficult? Are your egos so threatened by someone pointing out facts and expressing opinions contrary to the faith and beliefs you hold?
The loathing, Jeff, I would say is very much on your side, and among those on your side.
Me, I just don't buy bullshit arguments, and false logic. Which apparently is sufficient to send quite a few of you over the deep end ...
Another lie.
Comes easy to Joan. Facts are inconveniently against him.
PS Note how he accepts the paper as proving AGW:
American Journal of Physics — December 1972 — Volume 40, Issue 12, pp. 1794
On the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law in a Nonequilibrium Environment
Donald G. Burkhard, John V. S. Lochhead, and Claude M. Penchina
So Jonas, your answer to me asking what your educational background is that I would not understand the answer?
I ask merely for confirmation.
My meatball comedian gets even funnier:
"Regarding my education Jeff, I have told you many times how things should be done, what arguments are valid and which are not (fabricated facts, for instance, never are)"
This again is your own self-perception. Good grief, you act like a pysychopath. You BELIEVE that your arguments are superior. You BELIEVE that this proves you are correct. But many others here - most in fact - don't BELIEVE you. Education is not what a person thinks about themself, Jonas. ts what has been proven to peers.I have the bonafides in my career record; you have rants on Deltoid. Several of us have repearedly asked you to support your self-aggrandizing confidence with further evidence of your brilliant education. Telling us where you went to university, what you studied, your academic achievements will do. But this relevant area is constantly avoided, ignored, over-ruled. Its always back to the same refrain, "I have proven my brillance on Deltoid".
You know what? Two things. First, you're boring. And second, you're clearly not qualified on paper. If you were, you would have told us what your educational background and qualifications were. Instead, you are back to the same refrain.
You are full of self-valorization. "I am great" you are saying. "I am better educated" that anyopne else on Deltoid you opine. Proof? "Because I say it and have proven it with my wisdom" you retort. Anb that's all we are ever gonna get from you.
The this:
"There is really nothing I envy you for Jeff … I have (and everyone has) seen how much you would like to label yourself and what you do as ‘science’ …"
Who is 'everyone' Jonas? Who? You can't speak for the other commentators on Deltoid. The vast majority don't agree with you or with this statement. Only a couple of equally unhinged Swedes and that is about it. Most here think you're a quack. As Stu said, you constantlay ask us for evidence. For scientific papers. We supply them. Without any kind of scientific appraisal, you summarily dismiss them. All of them. Then you go back to the same point.
Essentially, most of us here believe that there is clearly something wrong with you. Tim thought so too, hence why he sent you over here. Now you will inevitably respond again with the same "I am great, no need to prove it as my words should suffice" gibberish, and then go on to say I am not a 'real 'scientist, I am a liar, I am illogical, hand-waving, CV-waving, ad nauseum. Same stuff as always. You are froever demanding answers from us but when we ask you stuff you spin and weave and avoid.
Stu ...
I asked what part of my previous answers did you not understand?
My education is way above the level I've been trying to explain statistics or simpler physics to some here ...
Way way way above Stu .. and it hasn't even been challenged by anybody. So what was your point?
And you asked about my 'professional background' too. And my response is the same: What part of what I've already answered did you not understand? And I also asked what is the relevance of this (or more precise information) to what is discussed (by me) here?
No Jeff ...
If you had been listening (reading), you would have
1) Learnt somthing,
2) Had the opportunity to answer or dispute things that were actually said or argued, and
3) Hadn't made such a fool of yourself so many times ..
Jeff ...
We have seen (everybody who can read, and understands the meaning of words) that you make unsupported claims about reality wich you have no basis for other than your beliefs ..
So whatever you believe is nothing else than that.
I say, and repeat, that my education is far above and more suitable for everything I have discussed than yours, and in many cases superior to yours also for many other fields.
Just remember the fact that I have to detail for you even some simpler aspects of the scientific method again and again, and you still cant help yourself, still need to fantasize in about half of everyone of your posts ..
And your owngoals are just spectacular Jeff. Read this (your own) sentence slowly to yourself:
You can’t speak for the other commentators on Deltoid. The vast majority don’t agree with you or with this statement.
You don't need to consider that that my answer was promted by you pretending to speak for me: "you envy me being a qualified scientist and all".
You don't even need to consider that what you were trying to contradict, with the imagined (but false) consensus-argument was the following:
YoI have (and everyone has) seen how much you would like to label yourself and what you do as ‘science’ …”
Or are you actually making a full reversal now Jeff, after 1½ years, saying that you indeed not describing yourself as 'a scientist doing science'!?
Which way is it Jeff? (Or was that just one more uncontrolled impulse to start mouthing off before you've read the whole sentence?)
Shorter Jonas:
I am unqualified. What you see is what you get. A raving lunatic with delusions of grandeur.
Boring.
Jeff ... if there is one lunatic amon the two of us, it definitely is not me.
But this is the level you are capable of 'arguing' here. In short: Not at all!
Why am I not surprised?
As I said .. lying is your method Jeff:
Shorter Jonas:
I am unqualified.
The exact opposite is true, and I just informed you of this (again). And 'denial' is your repsonse.
Why am I not surprised?
Me: Jonas, what is your educationsl background? Degrees? University? Expertise?
Jonas: Ha! Jeffie, you are not a real scientist, you are into self-idolatry, and CV waving. Own goal after own goal! One and half years of inferiority! I am better educated than you! I know how science works! Ha!
Me: Oh, well that's all fine and well Jonas, but I only asked you a simple question. Now please, tell us... what is your professional background? Education?
Jonas: I repeat! I am brilliant! I know more than you or anyone else here! I am a genius and you'd better believe it! You can't debate! You don't know anything! All you do is wave your CV about. Look at you! All alone in your simple world! And me? I am everything that you envy! Moreover...
Me (Interrupting): Yes, yes, Jonas, but all I ask is that you tell me and the others on Deltoid what your qualifications are. Professional background, scientific training. Its not a hard question...
Jonas: HA, HA, HA! Everything you say is false, Jeffie! Lies! Making things up! You aren't a real scientist! I know! I know real science! I know everything! I am Jonas! Anyone can see who reads this thread that you, Stu, Vince, Chek, Wow and others cannot rival my intellect!!!!!
Me: (SIghs). OK. If that is the way you are going to be. I guess you don't have any professional expertise in science...
Jonas: HA, HA, HA!!!!!!!! You are a lunatic Jeffie!!! You are afraid of me! Going to hide back in the other threads!
It gets even funnier:
Me: I guess Jonas is saying that he is unqualified.
Jonas: HA!!!!!!! The exact opposite is true, and I just informed you of this (again)!!!!!
Me: You only said that you are brillaint and better than any of your critics, Jonas.All we asked for was your professional background. Its not like we'll find out who you are. Besides, you know who I am...
Jonas: I told you Jeffie!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am smarter than you! I am better educated!!! !Can't you read?!?! Isn't that enough? Do I have to spell it out for you? I-AM-SMARTER-THAN-YOU-BECAUSE-I-SAY-SO. Understand?!
Me: B-but I want to know what your degrees are, universities etc. Its not too much to ask is it?
Jonas: Duh!!!!!!!!!!!! Did you not listen? I say that I am better edeucated! End of story!
I think one gets the gist.
Jeffie ... is that Stu-level you are trying?
Making up, and now even spelling out strawmen statements?
Neither Stu nor you have ever really argued anything where you are challenging me on the merits.
Instead you spent 1½ years inventing strawmen. Why is that Jeff? Why the lying and fabricating? Why the constant misrepresenting, often outright reversing, what I actually say?
Why are so many here at Deltoid som compelled to lie, Jeff?
You need only to answer for yourself, Jeff. Although you cery often claim the opposite, I never believed that you really spoke (or were mandated to speak) for others ...
Well Jeff ... sticking to the truth just isn't your thing, is it?
You have not been asking or guessing politely. You've spent 1½ years telling the answers to questions you didn't ask!
Or at least telling me what you so desperately wanted to be your (quite frankly totally moronic) narrative.
You've made these claims(!) in no uncertain terms in almost every comment at me.
And flilled the rest with equally idiotic and childish attempts to insult.
And this while you have not been able to properly address almost anything I have actually said. Truth is that you mostly don't even understand what I say, or just randomly invent some strawman-position you want (ie hope) that I represent.
Are you now telling me that you made up all this out of your free and frantic fantasy Jeff? If so: Why?
Is this because you hoped that it would lend you some 'authority' here? In matter where you have none, not even proper knowledge?
I still wonder, why do so many here have to lie so much to argue their beliefs? (And as before, you only need to answer for yourself, because that's all you can do at best. And I doub't that you can do even this)
And we are to take this on the word of a proven pathological liar? Why don't you just, oh, I don't know, answer the question?
Perhaps Jonarse isn't too keen on waving his OISM diploma about in public.
*** Interlude ***
For your entertainment: Lord Monckton, totally not an unhinged political hack.
Good one Stu. Incidentally, are Lord Munchkin's 'hard left' what are feared most in the whole wide world by impotent right wingers?
Come on, everybody.
We KNOW why Joan doesn't say.
They don't have any qualifications and are just an idiot troll (as opposed to an insane one). Why they think going "I is smarter than you, so you not unerstanding it, nya!" is of any point whatsoever completely escapes me. The workings of a diseased brain is obscure to even the highest of intelligences.
Please note how both pentax and Jonas are now desperately attempting to argue backwards and hope noone notices.
"I don't have to know anything about ocean acidification, because YOU have to FIRST prove it is man-made!"
"I don't have to give you my educational credentials, because I have already said they are better suited to REAL science!"
This happens a lot in high-school debate club -- it's the elementary mistake of trying so hard to debate a refutation of an argument you feel is iron-clad that you fail to make that argument in the first place. Respectively, pentax does a psychotic dance around whether ocean acidification (or in his world, alkalinity-lessening) is actually happening BECAUSE it has to be proven to him it is man-made first, and Jonas does not have to provide his educational credentials BECAUSE they are so much better than anyone else's here (for bonus irony, scroll back to his attempt at lecturing me about causality).
Stu ... you do not have to take my word for anything ... Not anywhere!
My education is far far above yours, and you yourself have established that by trying to chirp in in a just slightly technical discussion about feedbacks, friction, the laws of motion and genereal physics ...
Your 'contribution' was to imagine utter nonsense, derail about it, blame everybody else for your idiocy, and remain the idiot, remain in denial for 1½ years ... all by yourself. In the face of others trying to help your out of your stupid mistake within minutes. In stark denial in spite of several others guiding you away from in the right direction ...
Nobody, nobody apart from yourself is responsible for why you wnt there. Still isn't.
The word 'lying' has completely lost it's meaning after every stupid thing you've tried. You may draw some comfort from having CV-waving Jeff on your side. But Í view it from the other side:
The fact that Jeff needs to rely on, even draw support from you and your equally stuoid guesses about me (whom you are completely unable to argue any facts with) is embarressing to him, and indicative for you:
Somebody who is totally lost on the simplest descriptions of the laws of motion, hopes to save face by holding hands with someone is even more inept regarding the simplest parts of real sicence ... Someone who derails over 'different speeds among hand/box' all by his own ,,, and for 1½ years!?
Do you even know what luminous was trying to argue to start with? You know, where he quickly started violating most of the basic princples pertaining to simple physics (which you never saw, not even after they were pointed out)?
Not one of any of your feeble ... challanges (for lack of a better word) ... Stu .. have even been on the playing field.
What was you best attempt? Dependent variables? Stu claiming to speak for physics teachers?
What an utter joke!
Instead it is Jeff, who draws support from you, who in turn lean on Wow and chek .. withoiut any at all connection or relevance to anyting discussed here ...
What a total joke ... but then of course: This is Deltoid ... And Jeff thinks that's an argument for his faith!?
What a total joke! And you bozos your stupidity can be saved by rounding up more morons? By repeating your idiocy again? By clinging to Jeff's irrelevant but long-waved CV?
I asked why idiocy and lying are the preferred methods among you CAGW cultists? Even when you demonstrably don't have the slightest clue? When you don't even understand the arguments from your own side? Is it because you think that many morons believing the same stuff unseen, strengthens this belief?
At least this is what is looks like. This looks to be at the core of your belief ... majoirty and uniformed consensus among the ignorant
Your'e still (mis)using many, many words (not to mention your trademark execrable syntax) to say nothing then, Jonarse.
Did you even finish school, kid, or is this some poisonous little PantieZ-level endeavour you've embarked on, hoping nobody is ever gonna be smart enough to scroll back?
Stupid Stu ... whose 'educational credentials' allegedly are six years of studied physics .. is arguing with yet another fake quotation that I should top his idiot claim even when this already has been established beyond any doubt.
And you Jeff, ask for my educational credentials after having sided with the proven lior and moron Stu and his idiocy regarding both what was discussed and education and training. You sided with the idiot, Jeff! And are trying to impress me with your 'education' and your CV!?
After proving that you not only once, but everytime sided with the idiots!?
Probably not even capable to identifying why they were totally wrong ...
Or is it worse than than that Jeff`That you believe that a formal CV makes idocy become true, because of it? Like the Hansen claim of future sea level rises? That's at least what you've argued ...
The problem for you is that this stupidity abound among you and on your side. Deltoid is just one of the more obvious showcases ...
What you don't seem to understand Jonarse, is that you are a nobody who knows nothing. Up against professional, proven scientists.
That wins you nutters like PantieZ, GSW and Olapdog. But only them. Nothing more. You have nothing to offer but your stupidity.
chek ..
Are you trying to say (claim) that you have said anything of substance here!?
Although I don't think you are quite as stupid as Stu or Wow, your contributions here have not been better than theirs.
I have not seen you getting close to any topic at all ... just barking stupid things like Wow and Stu ... and siding with them. Do you think that this impresses anyone any where? Apart from the equally stupid?
How do you think if you indeed think this?
chek ... you here, among the Deltoids are telling me that I am a nobody? You who can't even argue your own stance in a coherent manner?
Professional proven scientists? Like Jeff with his idiotic rants you mean? Or Hansens with his future promises of sea level rise?
There is not even a contest!
But you seem to belive in sheer idiocy ...
So you are saying you are too much of a coward to actually say what your education is, Jonas?
Yes, yes I am, Jonarse.
You've contributed nothing to the world, unlike the aforementioned professional scientists whose work will outlive them in journals and reports for decades to come.
Whereas you. .... have never achieved anything apart from a few non-sequiturial ,poorly worded blog splutterings here and there. But nothing of any consequence to me or anyone else.
chek ..
You have absolutely no clue about what I 'have contributed to this world', none!
You are just talking the same gibbersih as Jeff and many others.
Only here, I have 'contributed' to demonstrating to everybody that the belief in that (in)famous AR4 claim is based ob bothing but faith.
And you are one of the faithers!
Not one single one of you has anything more than pure faith!
And that's just one of the things! Here! What joke, chek ..
Words fail me, moron.
Most (if not all) things have failed you ever since you started, chek
So yes, you are to cowardly to simply state your educational background. You prefer to bleat about how it is OMG SO MUCH BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU.
This is what happens when you avoid answering questions. This is what happens when you whine, bluster and dodge. Sooner or later, you're confined to a corner, left to bleat like the sad little douchecanoe you are.
You are pathetic, Jonas. I will no longer address anything you say until you address a simple, obvious, relevant issue... an issue you brought up, an issue you made relevant. Until you provide your educational background, this thread is dead.
Stu .. I don't need to lie about having studied sic years of physics. But I would say that I am about 20 times ahead of you. And no, it didn't take me 120 years ...
Stu, if you even think you have me in a corner, that shows how lost you are here. And I am not even asking your irrelevant (but possibly interesting) questions, because I know you'll lie about most things, Your lack of understanding of even the simplest physics, you have demonstrated very well completely without my help ..
And nowhere has it been anybody else's fault!
What you deliver here, is essentially what you've got: Different speeds among hand and box ...
On a level where only the Jeffies here side with you ...
.. and only the PantieZ ilk side with you. Game, set and match.
(By the way, how Freudian is "proven lior"?)
So yes, Jonas, you are still too much of a weaselly coward to state your educational background. It's okay, it's not like you brought it up yourself, right?
But hey, do continue squirming. I'm sure you think you are fooling someone out there.
It seems that Jonas N is admitting that he hasn't really studied physics.
"I don’t need to lie about having studied [sic] years of physics.
It seems that Jonas N is admitting that he hasn’t really studied physics."
Someone who's brain is malfuntioning perhaps will made such nonsens up. But who's surprised. It's the deltiod way.
"why is “one of the world’s foremost climate scientists” and “a leading expert on global warming” promoting it? Can he not tell the difference between solid data and green propaganda?"
Why is deltoid regulars promoting it? Can they not tell the difference between solid data and green propaganda?
No, because they themselves are promoting pseudoscience and green propaganda.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/01/25/meet-one-of-the-worlds-foremo…
And yeah, I know, stu and wow, you aren't gonna touch the topics in the blogpost, instead you're gonna ranting about what a shit hole blog nofrackingconsensus is.
"you’re gonna ranting about what a shit hole blog nofrackingconsensus is"
You betcha. Because the proprietor is not a scientist and does not understand the primary literature. Seems like the real 'foil hats', to coin your favorite term, are the people who depend on these wretched sites for their scientific information.
Incorrect.
The answer is None.
You've contributed fuck all to the world.
You have no education.
Stop trying to make up for it by pretending. Either it's necessary and you need to go off and learn, or it isn't and you don't have to keep blathering on about it.
Stu ...
You at some point thought it was a good idea to claim that you've studied physics for six years.
I don't even know what that may or even could meYoan in your world after those few attempts to barge in on a topic ...
You never had any real point regarding anything, at least not that you managed formulate properly,
No, buddy, finding typos is the closest to 'relevance' you've ever been here
It's relevant in that it underlines your sub-standard education, and your inability to think clearly which strongly suggests a lack of ability to understand issues requiring those attributes, particularly in view of your poor grasp of English language.
I realize that I was a bit unfair to Stu in my last comment.
His actual relevance here is more than his clinging to typos and such ,,,
He actually (but inadvertently) does a good job exposing the nutty level found here, and helping others to expose themselves. For instance when Jeff Harvey (who would like to see him self and even more to be seen, as very 'competent') claims 'Stu nailed it' in yet another of his nonsense statements.
The guys here arguing 'support' from one another, even as the core of their argument (at times) really espose the level found here. And Stu is one of the better standard-setting indicators for that
chek ... do you even believe your own drivel? Do you even read your own comments?
What was you most on-topic contribution here? That glaciers are receeding? I think you even thought that threatened fresh water supply for millions ...
:-)
Well if it's any consolation, lots of lots of nutters believed similar things .. just because they had been repeated many times by other nutty believers.
The only recourse for Joan is to close this thread and ban the deluded nutcase.
On topic Jonarse?
From the troll whose main purpose here is to vainly (in both senses) snipe like an ant with a peashooter at the ankles of Jeff H and climate scientists in general?
Do you even comprehend what the majority of your comments are about and how petty and stupid they make you look?
chek ...
"From the troll whose main purpose here is to vainly (in both senses) snipe like an ant with a peashooter at the ankles"
says the troll whose strongest argument spells 'Jonarse'
I might have been mistaken, but I am pretty sure it was you who linked to three images, of steam/smoke and glaciers
Heavy stuff ...
:-)
Jeff is harrangoing on about 'the primary literature' again ..
However, when one asks for it (concerning eg that most prominent AR4 claim) or reading it in the rare event that one of the believers actually claims to have seen such claimed reserach ... he scurries away or even derails over one of his own and many fantasies again.
It's such a joke
CVs of Jonas and me
Name: Jonas N
Nationality: Swedish
Age: I act like I am105 but I am younger
Occupation: Can't say out of embarrassment
Professional Qualifications: None of your business but better than anyone elsé's
Scientific Background: Also none of your business but again I am a genius and know more than anyone else
Me:
Name: Jeff Harvey
Nationality: British-Canadian
Age: 55
Occupation: Senior Scientist
Professional Qualifications: BSc 1991; PhD 1995, 3 Post-docs 1995-1999; Associate Editor Nature 1999; Senior Scientist NIOO-KNAW 2000-present
Scientific Qualifications: 126 peer-reviewed papers; h-factor 31; 2833 citations
I have asked Jonas to fill in the blanks so many times I have lost count. So go ahead and make your comparison above who is the 'real scientist' and who is the wannabe (unless Jonas N proves otherwise).
If I am not a real scientist, then every peer-reviewer of my work, every scientist I have collaborated with etc. must be making a mistake.
As for post # 59, I recall Bernard, Wow, Lionel and others putting more than 200 scientific papers in front of Jonas and not a single one has been discussed by him except to be summarily dismissed. We all know that Jonas is not interested in discussing these articles - he's lazy and expects us to go through them cutting and pasting the required bits for him to ridicule and dismiss. This has been his 'debating' strategy all along, if one can call it that.
Oh, and to ridicule me as having no scientific pedigree until I presented my qualifications to him thereafter being constantly accused of 'CV waving'. Old Jonas forgets how one builds up a CV to 'wave' in the first place. In my case through education and research. Two things he appears to lack.
Yes, Jonas, I took six years of physics in high school. That's all. I'm not claiming that that makes my education better than anyone else's here -- that's you.
You claim you have an education better suited to "real" science than all of us. Put up or shut up. What is your education, Jonas?
Yes Jeff .. once more your CV ..
But it's still not an argument for anything here. And strictly mine isn't either. That's one of the reasons I don't bring it up.
And you (again) need to make up your own facts as you have been since day one. Why is this so central to your 'method' to your argument?
And bringing up the nutters Wow, Bernard and their 'list of twohundred papers' they certainly haven't read is just a farce.
What is it with your nutters here? Copy-pasting a long reference list as a challenge?
What idiocy is that? I was and still am asking if there is one single person who has read and understood that alleged actual science underpinning that most prominent (in)famous AR4 claim.
And nobody has! Only a very few have even claimed that they've seen, read and understood it, prepared to argue its merits. But when put to the task they all faltered, they never came through ..
This has been the case since 2007, and I have asked many believers since shortly after. None! Absolutely none can produce the science that allegedly establishes this 90% certainty claim.
Jeff cheers on the sheer nonsense copy-pasted lists by Wow and Bernard, and says I am the lazy one!? What an utter joke Jeff!
And (again) contrary to your claim, I have read those references when I deemed that they seriously were put forward as dealing with the core of that AR4-claim.
And by 'serious' I mean people who not like Wow, Bernard or your Jeff, disqualify themselves by piling up utter nonsense for days and weeks (now years).
And it may irritate you to the core, but I can and do read those and also quite quickly see if they at all attempt to do what was claimed by those who put it forward.
Again, me doing what I say I do and doing it properly, in your twisted world becomes an accusation!? What a lazy and sloppy argument!
It doesn't work that way, Jeff! If you don't agree with me, you have to argue the case. And since you never do, never can, I must assume that you are just mouthing of as an old bad habit, since there never is any substance behind it when you want to contradict.
And that is very likely also the reason that you all the time want to switch topic to something, and are preoccupied with the silliest things imaginable, most of them sheer fantasy products ..
And you are once more misstating the facts, or have completely forgotten, or are just habitually lying: Your first presentation to me here was:
"As a senior scientist watching from the sideline ..."
No Jeff, as usual you get it wrong. I don't have problem with the existence of your CV. However, it doesn't constitute an arguemt for anything (except its existence). It doesn't impress me, it is not relevant, and is invalid as an argument for anything. Further, people trying invalid arguments don't impress me at all. Rather the opposite, they come off less convincing than others who just honestly can say, they disagree (without arguing why). And someone who for a year and a half angrily waves his CV in most comments quite convicingly to me shows he doesn't have any real arguments regarding the matter. And you don't!
Not even the simplest observations (what total shift vs present conditions it would require for Hansens 'predictions' to come true) can you understand even if they are spelt out for you in front of you. And instead we hear the tired old:
Hansens CV is so long and fine, therefore he must be right and you wrong ..
You really cannot argue anything at all, since you all the time need to return the the silly idea that your CV or others somehow settle things in the real world. In reality, wrt to nature and the laws of physics!
It doesn't work that way, and never did!
And I have asked you much more pertinent questions that you, Stu, and the Wows and Bernards of Deltoid.
I have asked you if you in your day job manage to be less sloppy with facts and logic, if you are an entirely different person when you do what you label as 'science' ...
And you couldn't even affirm the positive ...
Well sorry Jeff, but I must assume that what you are showing here is the real Jeff. And convincing he is not. Most of the time he isn't even trying, just shouting ..
And the really sad thing is that I have to tell you what you aren't allowed to do in science, and what arguments aren't science or scientific, and what logic is false, and what you need to keep your eyes on when arguing a specific points. Simple things pertaining to real science Jeff ..
Obvious and stupid lie. You claimed your education was better suited for "real" science. Jeff provided his, I've provided mine, where is yours?
You made the assertion, weasel. Back it up. What is your education, Jonas?
Stu ...
I guess it's a language thing. People saying that they have studied a discipline for several years ... in my world went to college or university and studied them as an active choice and out of interest.
Someone having classes at highschool, I would describe as someone who went to school. And most of the time highschool kids aren't really into it, into the learing things for real in order to master them, as a professional preparation.
But you are being untruthful again: You have many times tried to tell me what I cannot ... even what topics are 'closed to me'. Which is/was quite amazing given the level you are at.
But yes, what I argue here, what I critcize, the things I put forward .. all of them (apart from the length bickering with the trolls here) are based on professional background, extensive experience, and rock solid education.
All of them!
That doesn't mean that I wont make mistakes. But I have no problem, like any real professional, admitting and correcting errors ...
Too bad only that I have seen almost no professional individuals arguing anything here!
Sad!
well apart from all your pishing about with your claims of how much smarter you are and how Jeff isn't a scientist (which, being something on your CV can be shown a priori to be the case by "waving the CV around".
You know, that argument you keep bringing up.
So, apart from that argument you keep bringing up about how much a scientist everyone is or is not, the CV showing Jeff is by occupation a scientist has nothing to do with any argument here.
So maybe you should stop blathering on about it, hmm?
Stu, Jeff, et al, there's no point asking Joan for his CV, he doesn't have one.
He didn't go to school, didn't learn anything other than what his pappy taught him (and what he picked up at TrollsRUs, teabagger wing).
He has no education.
None.
Which is why you don't need to ask him to show you his. Since it doesn't exist, of course he can't show it.
So don't bother asking.
Just show that you HAVE been educated. Despite his claims to the contrary.
There are two ways out of this for Jonas:
1) He provides his educational background
2) He retracts his statement that his education is better suited for "real" science
Anything else is weaseling.
Face it, neither will happen.
#1 there's nothing there.
#2 he's wedded to the idea he's important.
Which is why he doesn't think he's a weasel.
You'll just have to face it, the boy's an idiot.
stu, who allegedly studied physics for six years. Here's a question for you. Did you actually learn anything during these six years?
And jeffie, if I'm not mistaken, somewhere above you call yourself a "climate scientist". But your impressive (not) CV says your are a biologist. To my knowledge a biologist is hardly the same as a climate scientist. In other words, you're lying. The question is, why?
Stu, that is correct: My education i better suited .. And every time any relevant details actually have been discusssed I have proven this.
Particularly when telling Jeff where he wnt wrong. If you were not able to see or understand this, this might depend on you not having any clue either ,,,
As I said, my education is way above that, way above what I bring up here, and what I ever have been challenged about.
You might know that the only one challengening me has been luninous with his nonsense physics, and a few others who really couldnt argue their case ... and I don't count you among those ..
You asked about my background!? And I have told you long ago that what I have studied is way above attending classes in highschool ... I had to attend for many years without really wanting to learn anything. Way above!
What is your problem there? You aren't even challening that ..
Incredible.
Oh and p.s. PantieZ, Jeff H has been at pains to point out he isn't a climate scientist, but that even with his background he defers to the opinion of climate scientists. Like most sane people do, apart of course from you extreme right wing nutters whose insanity has them gullibly believing it's all a left wing plot.
In other words, you’re lying.
The question is, why?
Don't answer that, because the answer is it's all you've got to serve your corporate masters with. Just like your vague, woolly-minded fuckwit guru there.
pentax:
[Citation seriously needed]
Jonas:
Only in your puny little mind. You don't understand English, physics, math (especially statistics), logic and many, many other things.
You are baldly asserting that your education is better. Are you seriously trying to say that you don't have to back that up by actually sharing what your education is because of your performance in this thread?
I sure hope not. You have been hopelessly wrong about just about every subject you have attempted to address. Of course, you'll close the circle by saying that those topics were not "relevant" in Jonas-land. This is where your pathological delusions achieve full epistemic closure, and this is where I am now drawing the line.
All you've told Jeff is how much it doesn't matter that he is a scientist. If you think that counts, well, that's a Jonas problem.
Ah yes, yet another magical thing only Jonas with his superior intellect and education can understand. See, Jonas, we're just DYING to know what that education is! Maybe, maybe, when we grow up, we can follow in your illustrious footsteps! All we need to know is where you got that marvelous education! I mean, if it is so superior, if it made you THIS smart, why would you not want to share it with the world? All we'd need to do is attend those magical illustrious institutions, and then even us plebes might be able to understand all those magical things you know but are unwilling to share!
Why won't you share, Jonas? Why are you so selfish?
Holy crap. You must have throngs of scientists grovelling at your feet to grab just a nugget of your incomparable wisdom when you deign to impart some. Where is this happening, Jonas?
Amongst which ones, Jonas? So I am not amongst those who cannot argue their case? That must mean that I can, right? Or are you yet again re-inventing the English language, in all your splendorous magnificence?
We know, Jonas. Your background must be absolutely awesome. All I'm asking is for you to share the bounty, the wonder that is the education of Jonas.
So wait, someone made you attend classes, but you didn't want to learn anything? Well, that would explain quite a bit.
But do share, Jonas. Way above! you say? I tremble with anticipation.
I am challenging EXACTLY that, you dimwitted douche-canoe.
What is your educational background, Jonas?
Dear Stu, it goes without saying that Jonas, in certain areas, has knowledge far above yours and Jeffie's. He has proven that over and over again. How could his formal education and diplomas add more credibility to his correct analyses of vital claims in climate scientology?
If you don't understand its probably because you think that your high school education is good enough to understand real science. But hey, why don't you ask Jonas to elborate instead of going fetal? I'm sure you understand that Jonas diplomas can't help you understand what you obviously have no clue about?
Oh, sorry, he already did – many, many times. ;-)
@stu
I've no idea about Jonas educational background, but he did get his physics correct. One of the guys on your team repeatedly tried to equate force (mdv/dt) and momentum (mv), Jonas pointed out that the analysis was just "gibberish", which unfortunately it was. The dimensions were just wrong for one thing, a bit like answering the question,
Q How much do you weigh? A. about quarter of an hour..
You can't express a mass in units of time, not only is the answer wrong it doesn't even make sense!
The surprising thing was the number of CAGWers who then leaped to the defence of the "gibberish", claiming it was correct! Quite distressing to watch. Any claim that Jonas makes about his education being "better suited" has been more than adequately supported by discussions here.
"He has proven that over and over again."
No, he most definitely has not . He's asserted it, which isn't the same thing at all, and it's not a substitute.
"How could his formal education and diplomas add more credibility to his correct analyses of vital claims in climate scientology"
Ah - so he's attacking an imaginary target that you nutters confuse with actual science. That makes much more sense.
"But hey, why don’t you ask Jonas to elborate "
Yeah, why doesn't he "elborate"? Whatever that is. On the other hand he could elaborate - but he won't.
"Oh, sorry, he already did – many, many times".
Not here he didn't. Perhaps you're confusing your nocturnal wet dreams with reality? It wouldn't be the first time would it Olap.
chek ...
You are also one of those believing things on blind faith .. aren't you? And disbelieving when you just want things to be different ..
As I've said many times: Those are absolutely lousy methods to assess almost anything ...
And still you guys try it over and over again ... with the same result. But then again, this is Deltoid ... and there is a reason for you hanging here repeating your faith to one another
The thing is Jonarse, you're mantra goes down well with those of an IQ typical to PantieZ, GSW and Olap but it's a fantasy world you're describing.
There are many areas of the modern world which we cannot have individual expertise in - nobody can, and the sane approach is to respect the opinion of those who do have expertise.
Not everyone thinks that of course, which is why there are so many homeopaths and quack doctors and quack scientists and quack political hacks to exploit that, but the one common factor they have is they're outside the envelope of mainstream opinion. Rather like Climate Scam and all the other astroturf sites promoting quack climate science by self-proclaimed quack climate experts with a thin to non-existent success rate in publishing. You claim to have the expertise, but no evidence for it has ever been produced nor is it the least bit evident in your language or abilities to express.
You say you can't locate attribution certainties anywhere in AR4, and it has been pointed out that the figure is a summation of best opinion based on the list of papers you blithely dismiss. So - as has been pointed out ad nauseam - if you want to challenge the figure, you'll have to take the work supporting it apart paper by paper. Which you're not competent enough to do, which has rather been the point here all along.
Your claims to expertise are meaningless and false bragging no matter how much your fanclub prefers to believe otherwise, and your right wing politics have invalidated nothing. (But on the plus side, they have attracted you a less than flattering cohort of attendant idiots which illustrates the demographic of your appeal well to any interested parties).
Excellent post, Chek. Spot on in every respect. This is what I have been saying for many months now, apparently to a brick wall of denial.
To become an expert in any field, especially Earth and climate science, takes specialized training and many years of research. Gradually, over time, one accrues the necessary expertise to be able to verify the validity of certain theories and hypotheses. I have never, ever claimed here or anywhere that I am a climate scientist, nor that I possess the specialist training and research expertise to be able to confidently enter the field and to criticize the work of specialists in this field. I certainly can (and are) examine the ecological effects of warming, which are certainly being manifested on species, populations and communities. But I wouldn't dare to be so arrogant as to jump head-first into the field of climate science and to belittle and smear people who did their theses and subsequent research in it, and draw conclusions opposite to theirs. Certainly not in a public forum. I would be eaten alive.
Jonas and his acolytes hold no such reservations but only on blogs (an important point that, as they must know that they'd be cut down to size in a scientific arena). I have been merely asking Jonas what is educational qualifications are, and the way he's weaved, dodged and evaded the question would make Barry Sanders look like and average running back.
The reason is simple, and should be obvious by now: he has no relevant scientific background at all. Certainly not in climate science anyway, but likely not in any scientific field. He's constantly pounded his chest in indignation over the question, getting more and more shrill in telling us how utterly brilliant he is, how much he knows more than anybody else about climate on Deltoid (hint: even more than Santer, Trenberth, Mann, Hansen et al. if one reads between the lines) whilst strangely refusing to say why most statued climate scientists would disagree with him were he to venture outside of the blogosphere.
I am fully prepared for him to post a lengthy rebuttal to my post accusing me of lying, hand-waving, creating fantasy scenarios, waving my CV, and other usual stuff. Its all he has left in his arsenal. He positively cannot tell us what special expertise and training he has in a scientific field because he clearly does not have any. He has started saying some pretty bizarre things, like his 'education is way above high school' (what the hell does that mean?) and that he 'had to attend' (what?) for many years 'without really wanting to'. I don't have a clue what this means.
I know how much his loving family here try and defend him, but this McCarthy-esque rambling is starting to unravel under metaphoric challenges from people like Edward R. Murrow. Its no small wonder we constantly evoke the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon. Jonas is a textbook case. And let's be honest here: textbook cases of disorders are loathe to admit it.
Jeff ...
Still trying to convince yourself of your own made-up nonsens my repeating it over and over again?
As I told you; This method does never work. And it looks really stupid!
And you are scoring owngoals en masse ...
I have been merely asking Jonas what is educational qualifications are ..
Which is a boldfaced lie! You have spent 1½ years shouting out what you want the answer to be in almost every comment. Here again!
And you are wrong every time. As I have told you long long ago and many times!
What te heck is wrong with you? You aren't even challenging the things I state, just shouting your nonsense beliefs that it must be wrong because pf your idiotic imaginations about something else! How idotic isn't that?
The only reason I can imagine why so many on your side are so obsessed with precisely everything else but the topic, is that you desperately want to get away from any of the core questions.
Exactly as you predicted Jeff, but also including simple comprehension failures too (simple comprehension leading by logical steps to a place the D-K doesn't want to go).
See Jonas's last comment. He's clearly losing it. Sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.
First this:
Me: I have been merely asking Jonas what his educational qualifications are ..
Jonas: Which is a boldfaced [I think he means bald-faced but we know Jonas has an English translation problem] lie! You have spent 1½ years shouting out what you want the answer to be in almost every comment. Here again!
Me: Check back over the past year. I have many times over (along with Stu) asked Jonas to tell us where he was educated and what his professional qualifications are, esp. those related to the topic of climate science. What do I always get in return? Well, this:
Jonas: "Still trying to convince yourself of your own made-up nonsens my repeating it over and over again? As I told you; This method does never work. And it looks really stupid!
And you are scoring owngoals en masse …"
Me: Make what you will of that feeble little rant, but it does not answer my simple question. Which to repeat is, Jonas, what are your professional qualifications, training, education, whatever. And how do they relate to climate science or indeed any science? Is it really that difficult to answer? For our Swedish genius, apparently it is not only difficult, it is impossible. He must have blacked it out or have a short memory span.
Then we get this final little spiel:
Jonas: "What te heck is wrong with you? You aren’t even challenging the things I state, just shouting your nonsense beliefs that it must be wrong because pf your idiotic imaginations about something else! How idotic isn’t that?
The only reason I can imagine why so many on your side are so obsessed with precisely everything else but the topic, is that you desperately want to get away from any of the core questions.
Me: Not at all Jonas. But I believe that it is important for one to possess specialist training in a field to become an expert at it. I am not from the school that any old Tom, Dick or Harry can get interested in a complex field, read a few books on it and become a master. Otherwise, we might as well do away with universities and degrees and research schools. Certainly doing a degree and going on to do post graduate research in order to embark upon a career would be a waste of a decade or so, if you are to be trusted. I am not alone in saying that qualifications matter. I am much more likely to trust the medical opinion of a trained surgeon than a layman who has read a few books or articles online. It is you who are making bold assertions and attacking some of the world's leading scientists. Not me. You appear supremely confident. So I'd like to know what sources you have used to become the expert that you think you are. Clearly having an education in science would be a major step. Having an educaton in climate science would even be better still.
The fact is that the reason you don't answer this simple question is because the ground on which you stand will collapse under you. Every response you make to me is further proof that you have no formal scientific qualifications. If you did, seeing how arrogant and self-righteous you are, you would have told us at the very beginning, let alone after almost a year and a half. This is why the question Stu and I pose stings you so much and why your answers are bitter, desperate and sarcastic. Just admit it Jonas: your great skills in science are self-taught. That's not hard to say is it? Then tell us that your brilliance and superior intelligence are innate gifts, courtesy of your reading comprehension skills and photographic memory. Tell us that you don't need to have been formally educated in science because you are 'a man apart'.
Until then, you can stew in your own juices. You have been cornered and don't like it.
Jeff
You have been telling me what my qualifications are! In almost every comment! Or more precisely what you wanted them to be. Or even more likely, what you would like others to believe they are. Because even you cannot possibly be that dumb that you really believe all that shite ... that I have no education, traing, skills etc (or can you be that deranged, Jeff? Can you)
Like a raving lunatic, you've repeated your idiocy for 1½ years. And filled the rest with childish attempted insults, and uninformed nonsense rarely ever on topic.
The question rather is why you so desperately want to defy or deny reality? Why this is the 'method' you've chosen to hang on to your beliefs which you cannot even argue (other that that it's faith, and you believe in what you think i authority)
And I haven't even challenged your faith! If this is what you want to believe, feel free. But since I know what real science is, I don't accept faith or claims of or appeals to authority.
And whenever I check any detail ... the substance behind is often weak or speculative or unfoundend .. or worse.
Hence, I don't share your (ungrounded faith). And this drives you crazy. So bad that you are still shouting Jeff ...
And nothing else!
@Jonas
Still educating the heathen Jonas?
;)
@jeff
Come off it jeff, this is the same "ploy" you've used all along. Rather than argue the science, you've taken to passing off the counterfactual bollocks you spout as being worthwhile because you are "a scientist".
The bad news for you is "bollocks is still bollocks" no matter what the source. Your "show me your bonafides" is just a pathetically obvious attempt to establish truth by CV.
Truth is only arrived at thru evidence, nothing else, not by your CV, shoe size, whether you have a high fibre diet or the smoking habits of one's relatives. Evidence jeff, Evidence. Something you have repeatedly demonstrated as being the least capable person here of actually addressing.
GSW
The more intriguing question is why so many on the climate scare side share this treat, why their chosen method is screaming. avoiding all substance and inventing their alternate universe, while continuing to shout.
From failed ex-VEEPs all the way down to the gutter-dwellers here at Deltoid.
Jeff just is a more obvious 'specimen' of that tribe. But the behavior, the (lack of) method, the faith, the appeals to perceived authority, often not even knowing what those do say, the anger over the faith not being shared, the desperate need to levy personal attacs, to mischaracerize, to invent completely loony alternate worlds/narratives ..
.. and also the glaring contempt for facts, logic and the truth, as well as any information not conforming with that faith.
This is what I would expect from extremist polical cult and its followers ... but none of this has any place in science.
But honestly, I don't think even Jeff really believes the shite he's been pedding. Of course he is aware of his side here has not been that .. ehrm .. 'lucky' ... with their arguments, that
the embarrassment has been on his side ... where he actively thought the likes of Wow and Stu and many others strengthened his case. He cannot be that stupid really, can he?
:-)
Sorry GSW, but arguments are more often than not based on experience and expertise which comes from having the proper education and professional qualifications.
You only support Jonas because you share his AGW denial views. Besides, you wouldn't know the science any more than he does, because you also are not a bonafide climate scientist. Of course being trained in an area is important. Otherwise we wouldn't send doctors to medical school or engineers to get the proper training. You are as full of it as he is.
You'll notice that in the political arena very few untrained people are invited to give presentations on relevant scientific areas to government commissions. If that were the case, we'd have quacks like you and Jonas testifying before Congress. Education and professional qualifications matter and always will.
Jonas is cornered and he knows it. Is it such a difficult question to answer where he got his professional expertise in science? It should be a snap. Let him tell us he read some books. Or reads stuff on the internet. Or else went to university the same way that most of the well known climate scientists did. Of course I trust them over Jonas because they have th pedigree to prove it.
You guys are lost. Defeated. Its over. Jonas has - through his refusal to answer the most basic question - proved that he has no bonafides. That being the case, you expect that we have to take at face value that he is an expert from being 'self-trained'. If this is so, then he should tell us.
Please don't waste any more of my valuable time with this nonsense. I went through the proper channels to get where I am and I can tell you that the 7 years it took me to get my BSc and PhD were critical. Any trained scientist will tell you the same thing. So cut the crap and try and pull another one.
Now let me relax and let Iced Earth blast out through my speakers - far more logical than anything you or Jonas say.
Oh, how cute. Jonas gets backed into a corner and POOF goes the bat-signal to his sycophants. A few posts later, they're mostly talking to each other. Anything for Jonas to avoid answering the simple question....
What is your education, Jonas?
"and it has been pointed out that the figure is a summation of best opinion based on the list of papers you blithely dismiss."
"best opinion"?
So that's the "science" the AR4 claim derives from? A guess? And that's what you call "the best science avaliable"? What a joke, what a hilarious stupid joke you are. deltoid, the Foil Hats' association Inc.
jeffie
"You’ll notice that in the political arena very few untrained people are invited to give presentations on relevant scientific areas to government commissions. If that were the case, we’d have quacks like you and Jonas testifying before Congress. Education and professional qualifications matter and always will."
And that of course goes for the high priest al gore as well? Oh wait, no, of course not, he is preaching the holy CAGW gospel, so he's an exception.
@Jonas
"He[jeff] cannot be that stupid really, can he?"
Well yes he can. ;)
" I can tell you that the 7 years it took me to get my BSc and PhD were critical"
It does help if, during those 7yrs, you actually manage to learn something, what science is and is not would have been a start. Standing in the corner saying we are all doomed, because of feelings, prejudices or just general ignorance is not science.
GSW, you write as if you and the Swedish boys hold all the scientific cards. Gee, last time I looked, the vast majority of expert opinion amongst climate science and major scientific bodies was that humans are the major forcing agent behind the recent warming.
You seem to think the outcome of the GW debate hinges over discussions involving not a single climate scientist on Deltoid. Either you are as thick as a brick or naive as hell.
You, Jonas and PentaxZ don't qualify. But by all means keep an eye on Deltoid in case your self-righteous hero needs to be dragged out from the pit in which he has dug himself. And as I said before, we all know the reason why Jonas won't answer a very simple question. Its because in answering it he thinks he will lose whatever pittance of credibility he has on his own thread now. I don't know how that is possible, given his histrionics, but if he was so confident he'd say that he doesn't need a degree or formal education in the field of climate science to be an expert. Heck, in his refusal to answer a simple question whilst telling us over and over how smart he is, he is effectively saying that, isn't he?
You three clowns can stick on your sinking ship. You belong together.
This is where your low IQ and lack of education lets you down PantieZ.
A "guess" is not the same as an informed opinion based on observed data and calculated probabilities, no more than your brain surgeon's "guess" would be that removing a tumour might save your life. And multiple informed opinions also based on those criteria are safer than a single one. Of course the statistics involved in making the call are beyond you (and me) so your understanding is very limited if the extent of your normal guessing is what you might have for dinner tomorrow.
Possessing the knowledge to make the call is important too of course - and you don't get it from reading blogs. Especially not the shit ones you read PantieZ.
Jeff, you utter moron ...
Is there anything you can even read correctly?
How can anybody claim to be a 'scientist' who cannot even read, comprehend and correctly address simple short comments hardly of any technical complexity? Is misinterpretation anad misrepresentation another one of your (anti-) 'scientific' methods?
Is there anything you can manage here Jeff? Anything at all?
I've asked you five times (or more) what you meant my allegedly 'earth shattering views' here, since you've returned to that many times. No answer!
(You probably don't even know what you meant yourself. Just the usual incoherent mouth frothing ... )
Jonas, You are an AGW denier. Or at the very least an AGW down-player. You have attacked scientists with years of experience in the field. That alone takes remarkable hubris. Unless, of course, you are also an esteemed expert in the field.
So, given your confidence in attacking people with scientific pedigree, I simply asked what relevant qualifications you possess.
Apparently, given your immutable self-belief, I'd expect nothing less from you than to be able to answer this extremely simple question. Shock! Horror! You can't! Or, more likely, you won't.
Why not? Don't give that b* that it isn't relevant. That's your get-out-of-jail free card. Of course its relevant. If every person who thought they were experts in various fields was taken seriously, then the world would be in a worse mess than it already is.
chek ... #5777
Your comments have hardly been IQ-appealing or IQ-revealing kind.
But if you are a ware of or have realized that this most pprominent AR4-claim never was based on real science, but rather should be seen as the opinion of a range of individuals who believe that they are expert opiners ...
.. then that would be a huge step forward.
It is (by now) bleeding obvious that those very specific and quantified claims are not (and cannot be viewed as) scientific claims or veryfiable facts. Because there is no science behind it that can be checked and evaluated by others.
And that was my contention the whole time: That this claim isn't based on real science that anybody has seen. That acceptence of the claim is at best faith in the ability of others to guess correctly ..
And you might have what massive derailment this caused at Deltoid! And I didn't even point this out, I just asked if anybody has seen the science behind this, and asked to see it, pointed towards it, preferably by someone who had seen, read, understood it and could argue the merits after I too had read it.
And what followed is history! 1½ years of the silliest shouting game and worst denial you can imagine, even by people who call themselves scientists.
And this of course elucidates the obvious: Not everything said in the name of so called 'climate science' is really science. And I'd say even less is real and proper science.
But you bozos just can't handle the facts. But that's hardly my fault or problem ... is it?
Jonas and his alternative universe:
So O'clever one, what is the 'on' topic here?
Well, to be sure, we sometimes have to get down to your level. Which is unfortunate as you are one of the pigs who likes wrestling in it. How else could this thread keep going?
And as for froth, more than enough evidence of rabid mouthings from you.
BTW Jonas, GSW, Pentax &co. our position comes from understanding it is yours that is based on faith (that you for ever harp on about - keep practising, harp skills may be of some use to you in the future). That is the only possible explanation Occam's Razor and all that.
Jeff
I noted long ago that peole (like yourself) who throw around terms like 'denier' or 'creationist' or 'fossil fuel funded' or 'tobacco lobby' or 'Dunning Kruger' etc ..
.. that they have absolutely zip to contribute in any discussion about the climate. Nothing! The only thing they can do is repeat things they (think they've) hear or read. Often the silliest things you can imagine.
I think you, to date, have been the best demonstration of that observation. And for this I am thankful. The best demonstration, but among very many. And not once has my hypothesis been falsified.
The reason is quite simple, I think: Those who really believe that asking legitimate scientific questions, pointing out that there are huge holes in the argument or hypothesis, bringing up facts and observations that don't confirm or, disagree with or even falsify the 'consensus'- hypothesis, never were trained in real science anyway. Just the fact that they believe a 'consensus' somehow qualifies as a scientific argument is laughable. And when it's a false consensus, even more so.
Another thing you should learn is that questioning and challenging claims made by other scientists is a central part of science. Your eternal demands that things should be just accepted, and on top of that, your interpretations (that would be your beleifs) because the alleged expertise of certain individuals of your choice ... that's just laughable too.
This has absolutely no place in science. None. Science neither deals with beliefs nor with consensus or any other majority decisons. Real science is based on observations, on testing hypotheses, checking if they can be used for consistent predictions, and on falsification. Science actually progresses by falsifying hyptheses that don't hopd up.
But I've told you all this already. But you don't seem to get it. Here you are 1½ years later, still arguing that 'authority' (wich in your case seems to equal CV) is how scientific matters are both debated and settled. Bu they are not! Never were and never will be!
Get this into your head .. because otherwise I will remind you of this, as of course every real scientist around you would do anyway, wouldn't they Jeff?
;-)
Lionel A
I seem to recall that you adamantly argued that (at least a part of Sandy) could positively be attributed to human activities, ans more specifically CO2 emissions.
And you now say that your position 'comes from understanding'!?
If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that signature 'chek' here, whose strongest argument so far spelt 'Jonarse' actually said something sensible. Incidentally something sensible I said here alreadyu 1½ years ago. Namely:
That this prominent AR4 claim about attribution certainty is not a scientifically established and quantified statement, but it should be viewed as an expression of opinion, and opinion of those who some say should be regardes as the finest opiners on the matter ...
But nevertheless an opinion.
And I agree. And this was by far the most sensible thing chek has said, at least in my presence.
Yawn, yes Jonarse, the problem is that your lowly level of intelligence doesn't permit you to comprehend what that actually means. Nor can you say how climate science doesn't meet those criteria. Your idiocy is critically limiting your ability to think clearly, all of which is only compounded by your lack of education. .
Jonas, you claimed your education is superior. Back up that assertion or retract it, you pathetic coward.
What is your education?
chek ..
Of course I know what it means. It means that you cannot make claims like the one in the AR4 SPM and say it's based on science.
And as I have told you guys more than once. My educations is more than sufficient. Heck, I have been telling you guys how it's done, and more importantly how it isn't. How it never must be done.
And it is cute how many of you seem utterly obsessed with my intelligence and the minute details of my education. And spend months and years guessing, speculating and trying to conjure up an alternate reality ...
How is that working for you? And do you eve know why?
An authoritarian mind like Jeffie's is gullible. Its predisposition for "direct action" makes it prone to embrace without question anything that sounds "good". As long as there is something evil around, no questions asked! True to form Jeffie also invents something "evil" that lies in the way for his "utopia". This obstable, in turn, justifies and enhance his strong and hateful lithanies. I'm sure Adorno would have had a field day with the him and the rest of the deltoid pack. ;-)
The result of Jeffie's "thought process" resemblence very much the outcome of the commie way of pointing out enemies. The commies see something good far, far away, but something really, really bad is blocking the path: The evil blood sucking superstructure of capitalism (bourgoisie and banking) which exploits and opress the good proletariat.
But they don't only hate only "capitalists" (whatever that is). Its worse than that. Since the definition of "superstructure" is an abstraction of the historically constructed quality ot the Jew, they don't flinch when there fight agianst the "superstructure" takes ethnic shape – pogroms.
Have you ever considered admitting yourself to psychiatric care, Olap? Your thought processes are all over the place.
Dear Chek, my thought process is very clear and on target, thank you. Antything wrong with it? Or are you just angry with me again for not mentioning your name?
Chek,
Agreed.
Look at the last posting by Olaus. Pure drivel. Says nothing. But hardly surprising that a whackjob like this is on the side of Jonas. Par for the course.
Ah, a new book written by a warmist. And what does Dieter Helm say?
"Well, disaster? Is climate change really the threat that many people say it is? Helm notes that the public has become more sceptical in this regard – or more fatalistic, with the same effect. To his credit, he does not blame the “climate sceptics” or ExxonMobil for this. On the contrary, ‘green’ NGO’s and climate scientists deserve a lot of the blame, as they are frequently guilty of alarmist predictions and pretending to be certain about inherently uncertain things.”
Read that again, "...pretending to be certain about inherently uncertain things"
http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/30/wave-of-climate-science-criticism-di…
Pentax linking to another outrageously crappy denier web site.
Get a life, P. Is this all you do? Surf through the denier sites all day to feed your ignorance?
It's their faith against all the evidence that the deniers are correct, even when it's plain what the denier sites do to present that conclusion. Creating your own reality has become the psychosis of the right wing, which is why it attracts such headcases.
Oh, the irony....
Wait, what? You're the one carping about how superior it all is. All you need to do to prove that is share, Jonas.
What is your education?
Umm Olaus:
You are saying that this strikes you as a coherent and sane sentence?
And yet another posting from a bad site. My guess, no one from the regulars will touch the topic:
"The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?"
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/
More:
"There doesn’t necessarily need to be a conspiracy. It doesn’t require any centrally coordinated deceit or covert instructions to operate. Instead it’s the lack of funding for the alternatives that leaves a vacuum and creates a systemic failure. The force of monopolistic funding works like a ratchet mechanism on science. Results can move in both directions, but the funding means that only results from one side of the equation get “traction”.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html
"If carbon is a minor player in the global climate as the lack of evidence suggests, the
“Climate Change Science Program” (CCSP), “Climate Change Technology Program” (CCTP), and some of the green incentives and tax breaks would have less, little, or no reason to exist. While forecasting the weather and climate is critical, and there are other good reasons to develop alternative energy sources—no one can argue that the thousands of players who received these billions of dollars have any real incentive to “announce” the discovery of the insignificance of carbon’s role."
Stu
Whenever there is somebody who is actually discussing, debating or challenging various relevant on-topic issues here ..
.. I not only back up that assertion, I demonstrate it and what it's worth.
At one point you were standing right next to it, even dared to chirp in on a corner (about a hand pushing a box etc).
I showed there and then exactly what it was worth, and effortlessly so. And everybody was allowed to see it. Live and first hand. I also demonstrated (indirectly) various holes and gaps, and lack of understanding among a few others by making them 'show their hand' .. you were there too.
That most certainly is not all I can do, but it is nevertheless important. Because if you want to do science (or only discuss it) you need to be exactly as meticulous and rigorous with the details as I was (and others weren't).
Point is: If you are sloppy like that on one detail, when your are doing or arguing science, the whole endevour loses all its value and essentially becomes meaningless.
Sorry Stu, my hand was pushing a box. I'm sure you know how it is. ;-)
And Imelda Harvey keeps on living inhis own little world. :-)
Jonas, I already explained the hand-box thing here. I’m sorry your pathology won’t allow you to let it go. It’s just sad.
Why don’t you get over it and answer a question? Like what your educational background is?
Pentax, do you know what false equivalence is?
Stu, I'll help you out of your misery. Read after me: "Sorry Jonas, I was way out of line with the hand-box thing. My understanding of physics wasn't up to par and I made a fool out of myself. Can we please stop talking about it?"
There! :-)
"And Imelda Harvey keeps on living inhis own little world"
Its a lot bigger than yours, pal...
Please stop bragging about your shoe rack Imelda! ;-)
stu, do you know what science is?
Oooops. Does anybody think that this finding will remain in the ground? An abundance of fresh hydrocarbons just waiting to be used. Jummy!
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-gas-extraction-methods-al…
Olaus, I already explained the hand-box thing here. I'm sorry you are unable to understand it. But do tell us more about pogroms, it was fascinating.
pentax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_hydraulic_fracturi…
Nope Stu ... but I'll gladly remind you again:
You carefully avoided the core part, the one were you imagined that others argued different speeds among hand/box. And why you kept claiming they did, when in fact the'd told you the exact opposite within minutes.
You still are in denial about this one (too). Trying to blame others for your own nonsense.
Further Stu, in order to explain something you need to both know and understand, but also master it well. Regarding physics and math, there is no discussion at all. But it seems that you don't even master your own thought processes, since you are unable to explain even your own 'arguments' ...
But that's OK, Stu. It is not very difficult to accept the notion that you don't really know and understand your own thoughts. Rather, it makes more sense reading your many comments keeping that in mind.
For instance: I not onlyu answered your questions, I demonstrated the veracity several times, in your presence even (partly) directed at you.
The one where you couldn't see anything wrong ...
It's funny (but understandable given your predicament) that you really were completely unable to see anything wrong, even after it was pointed out in detail ...
Maybe it's no wonder you imagine all kinds of stuff where understanding even the simpler terms and preconditions only are vague and nebulous words and phrases ..
Such a complete lack of self awareness and comprehension would also explain why someone like you even thinks he can tell me anything at all in a slightly technical discussion here ...
Without some deficiency of that (or simila) kind, any rational being would stop making such fools out of themselves, if not after a few attempts.
Even our own Jeffie here is very careful never to go near any topics. And he for one thinks that CVs and formal dimplomas etc not only are important, but settle scientific matters and decide what are 'facts' ...
But then Jeffie, who thinks that a formal education and a displayed CV are so important, without hesitation proclaimed:
Stu nailed it !
When our Stu here, pulled yet another nonsense statement out of his (thinfoil?) hat ..
It's just hilarious! But then again, being consistent in almost any of 'arguments' being pulled up here ... is asking for a little too much.
No wonder you guys landed where you did ... Deltoid is the right place for you ...
:-)
"But then Jeffie, who thinks that a formal education and a displayed CV are so important, "
Give it a rest Jonarse. You are the one proclaiming having a superior education that somehow magically allows you to discount the science underlying AGW.
The only problem here is that your claim is not believable.
Doubling down and relying on your moron army echo chamber to agree with you is fooling nobody. You're treated as an incompetent nutter idiot because that's what the actual existing evidence provided by thousands of your own words clearly describes.
I also consider you in light of your constant evasion to be a liar and your education (as has been readily apparent from the start) is way, way less than the 'superior' that YOU constantly claim it to be. Therefore it's not unreasonable to ask in what way. Not that you claiming some unprovable and outlandish CV will make the slightest bit of difference to your previous poorly expressed gibberish.
Pentax quoting from another NoValue site:
WTF! As opposed to this Shocker? Psychotic Billionaires Fund Climate Denial which is not news to most of us which is not news with the only quibble I have with the title element being Shocker?' - probably used as irony, and is only one source of the funding.
Also what do you think keeps the Science and Public Policy lying hounds in business?
You lot really are ignorant simpletons.
Yawn, stu. You're so 2012. No different enviromental issue with fracking than with conventional energy sources. CAGW propaganda is what it is. You seriously believe America won't use shale oil? Dumbass.
Sorry lionel, but one can't rely only in scs or rc for news and information. They only serve CAGW propaganda. But hey, pseudoscienceblogs do just that.
"They only serve CAGW propaganda scientific research. But hey, strike>pseudoscienceblogs blog posts by world renowned research scientists do just that!.
FTFY PantieZ.
Way to go - stating the bleedin' obvious, once the denier filter is removed.
“They only serve CAGW propaganda scientific research. But hey, pseudoscienceblogs blog posts by world renowned research scientists do just that!.
FTFY PantieZ.
Way to go – stating the bleedin’ obvious, once the denier filter is removed.
Third time lucky....
“They only serve CAGW propaganda scientific research. But hey, pseudoscienceblogs blog posts by world renowned research scientists do just that!.
FTFY PantieZ.
Way to go – stating the bleedin’ obvious, once the denier filter is removed..... and not something your pal Jonarse will ever be able to claim in a million years.
Hahaha....guys, your panic is shining through.
"...by world renowned cheating research scientists."
Closer to the truth.
That's a slander you love to believe in because you'e a wingnut moron. But it's impossible for you to prove, because it's not true.
That's the fantasy world you're living in, PantieZ.
James Annan:
”The list of pollees in the Zickfeld paper are largely the self-same people responsible for the largely bogus analyses that I’ve criticised over recent years, and which even if they were valid then, are certainly outdated now. Interestingly, one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action”
Says a lot, doesn't it?
I told you lads, and now Joan has said it: he doesn't HAVE any education.
The boy is simply an idiot.
James Annan continues:
"Of course, there may be others who lie in the other direction, which is why it seems bizarre that the IPCC appeared to rely so heavily on this paper to justify their choice, rather than relying on published quantitative analyses of observational data. Since the IPCC can no longer defend their old analyses in any meaningful manner, it seems they have to resort to an unsupported ”this is what we think, because we asked our pals”. It’s essentially the Lindzen strategy in reverse: having firmly wedded themselves to their politically convenient long tail of high values, their response to new evidence is little more than sticking their fingers in their ears and singing ”la la la I can’t hear you”.
"Says a lot, doesn’t it?"
Yes - it says that science is self correcting.
Wow - yes, 'formal' is the giveaway.
Proper science that is. Not "science" the Team style.
S'funny - I thought James Annan was on 'the team'.
in other words, panties says ”la la la I can’t hear you”.
you define proper science as "that which you like".
Extremely stupid.
chek ...
Again, you are holding the mirror upside down, and missing the plot.
I am not the one obsessing about having to show my CV as apart of the argument. That would be one of the faith-shouters.
And the point was that the same shouter immedeately jumped on the assertion of one of the other demonstrably uneducated shouters, with: "Stu nailed it .."
And you are lie up with Wow here, who is (if possible) even more behind the curve.
That 'belief' is what you go by, however, does make all the sense. You have been writing all kinds of nutty idiotic beliefs you somehow want to be accurate. But I doubt you even believe it yourself. People just aren't that crazy as almot all your comments indicate. If you did worry about idiotic rantings, You would most certainly not bring up Wow as your argument ...
But inconsequential own goals is what you can perform here .. and silly childish attempts at insults.
For instance, look at Jeff. He has been trying that silly Dunning-Kruger stuff almost since day one. And if there wever were any DK-candidates, those would be luminous and Stu. Whol tried and tried and tried arguing stuff they had no grasp of ..
And Jeff jumps right in with them ... DK-ranting Jeff ... It's just hilarious what you guys manage.
Nad you guys somehow think you can judge real science? And determin what is relevant and not? Guessing and believing ... and cussing and shouting. Like little children ...
Lionel
You claimed to 'understand' things, and even tried to be cocky about (whatever you think is and you call) your 'understanding'
But you quote Peter Sinclair and his ClimateCrocks? (You've tried SkSc and other similar activist sites too).
No wonder you are so far off the mark, and are unable to argue deal with almost any issue, and only refer back such sources ... That's like refering to Deltoid as an authoritative source for anything about real science ...
You argue that your education is superior. You refuse to prove it. That makes you a coward, a liar, and most likely both.
Better than a yokel who is too dumb for basic physics and cannot spell, yes.
Hey Jonas, you pathetic little coward, what is your education?
Holding the mirror upside down doesn't change what it shows.
Holding the mirror upside down doesn’t change what it shows.
If optics were covered by physics, I'm sure Jonarse superior edubecatedness would have known that already.
this thread:
http://www.xkcd.com/1166/
Wow: it will if it is a "real" mirror! So there! I dun proved it!
That's the danger, Stu.
You're beginning to think like Joan.
Joan, being a damn fool, won't notice (or deign to notice) the irony.
I guess whilst Tim is slacking off on his part, I guess you have to find a way to do what you can to counter his pestillential "reasoning".
Since Joan is down to, for several months now, merely ridiculous insanity, bollixing up whatever this thread is about by posting inane stuff and demanding an answer from the idiot-in-residence and then propounding even more ridiculous claims toward his insanity may just have a chance of making the poor little fucker pop his clogs in an aneurism.
It may be the only hope this site has got left, really.
It's okay. Soon, Jonas will stop being a sniveling coward and give us his educational credentials OR retract his assertion that his education is superior to that of everyone here, so that the discussion can move forward.
check
"S’funny – I thought James Annan was on ‘the team’."
Exactly, stupid. A team member says that the team are lying and cheating. What does that tell you?
Stu ...
In case you haven't noticed, or in case you were incapable of noticing: I have proved it it superior to everyone who even thought of challenigning me ..
And yes, I can judge real science, and of course also simpler physics, and you cannot. You've already have provend that!
The more intriguing thing is that you thought you had anything to contribute, when you were totally lost, and that Jeffie too though that he would score betting on you, Stu. What morons you must be .. or DK-afflicties, using Jeffie-terminology, only doing it properly!
:-)
chek ... are you trying to be smart with 'holding a mirror'? I think that's more like what you can actually accomplish ...
You guys are just desperate to hold on to your (ofeten) deranged faith .. It really must suck to be there. Especially since you've had all the help you would have needed to get our of your misery ..
Now you even argue that James Annans latest proclamations somehow prove that you alarmist activists have been right all along ... It can hardly get more surreal!
"Exactly, stupid. A team member says that the team are lying and cheating. What does that tell you?"
That either one person is lying or thousands.
"chek … are you trying to be smart with ‘holding a mirror’? I think that’s more like what you can actually accomplish … "
Yeah, see if you know how a bloody mirror works, then you're "trying to be smart".
Really, he's as much a problem because of Tim's cowardice as his one psychopathy.
"Exactly, stupid. A team member says that the team are lying and cheating. What does that tell you?"
That science is self correcting, as it always must be. Which is the exact opposite of the pseudo-science that's sold to paranoid nutters like you.
I have proved it it superior to everyone who even thought of challenigning me ..
You’ve already have provend that!
To save you the trouble Stu.
There are few things more amusing (in a demeaning kinda way) than being lectured by an incoherent moron wannabee idiot nutter with no edubecation..
Oh dear, truth really hurts, doesn't it?
"That either one person is lying or thousands."
Or that enough is enough. Annan isn't the first, and he certainly won't be the last.
The plug has been removed and the CAGW-ship is sinking. You better get your lifejackets on, tinfoil doesn't floate very well.
"incoherent moron wannabee idiot nutter"
Heavy arguments, really.
Heavy arguments, really.
And accurate.
Sure, for someone who has no real arguments such kindergarten arguments propably seems valid.
chek, did you really think you were 'helping' Stu (or luminous) with this remark:
You really have no clue what you are talking abou, do you? Especially if you (really?) think that your comments are both 'heavy and accurate'.
You know, in some (other thread's) comments you gave the impression that you at least had an education (albeit not relevant to climate and nataural sciences and physics etc). But here you jump in, pretend (or even think?) you can distinguish knowledge from the lack of it and side with the likes of Stu and Wow!? Like Jeff, you too reveal how helpless you are here ... Showing that whatever 'education' you recieved, didn't help you the least.
No, I'm quite certain: For most of you shouters, knowledge, education and understanding are just words you think are useful in a brawl. None of you shouters has shown any cognitive skills here ..
Siding with luminos and the Wows and Stus of this site ... just because you wanted their nonsense to be right!
Priceless, chek! I can ask you the same (relevant) thing as I've asked Jeff: Are you as inaccurate in everything in your day job too, as you are here?
chek
With your "S’funny – I thought James Annan was on ‘the team’" you clearly state what you on the alarmistic side consider important, that it's more important who says something rather than what they say, in other words, in your world authority is more important that facts. No wonder your worldview is so fucked up.
in other words, in your world authority expertise is more important that (sic) facts ignorance".
FTFY.
Alec Rawls:
"This is anti-scientific in its own way. Scientists are supposed to be smart. They aren’t supposed to think that you have to slowly turn up the flame under a pot of water in order to heat it. You could collect every imbecile in the world together and not a one of them would ever come up with the idea that they have to turn the heat up slowly. It’s beyond stupid. It’s like, insanely stupid. And multiple chapter-writing teams are proclaiming the same nonsense? Fruitcakes.
Okay, I guess that means I’m ready to wrap up. Y’all have taken all these tens of billions in research money and used it perpetrate a fraud. As I have documented above, you have perpetrated the grandest and most blatant example of omitted variable fraud in history, but so far only the skeptic half the world knows it. You still have a shot, before global cooling is an established fact, to make a rapid turn around and save some shred of your reputations. But if AR5 comes out insisting that CO2 is a dominant warming influence just as global cooling is proving that the dominant climate driver is our now-quiet sun, then you all are finished on the spot. You’ll still have your filthy lucre, but the tap is going to turn off, and your reputations will be destroyed forever.”
Copied from the worlds leading blog on climate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evide…
Jeff #2024
I see that you must be in your own protected zone when continuing to lie about almost everything, me in particular, and ask for Tim removing people when this is pointed out.
But you never were able to argue any position in the face of educated, informed and even only mild opposition.
Regarding your (inital) points:
1) Not true. I said that I was not convinced by the claims of high positive CO2 feedbacks claimed (but not observed) by the models. II am (for very good reasons) skeptical of such but never asserted anything I cannot support. You are once more making up your own straman.
Further I did not attack people for having views different from mine, but repeatedly poited out factual errors, poor logic, and other fallacys (like your appeal to false 'consensus' or 'authority')
2) Not true. I never brought up my education as any argument here. You (I think) were the one who kept harping on about this. Making one outrageous claim (about my education) after the other. Out of the (insane) blue.!My education still is not the argument. (But it sure helps exposing the lack of knowledge among you empty shouters).
And I have answered the pertinent question. Those things I comment upon, I am well qualified to deal with. I can't say the same about the (eg your) opposition.
3) Irrelecant, and I am pretty certain that it is you (and others on your side) who constantly bring up ideology and even conspiracies.
Further you are distinctly wrong on the 'scientific' part. I am telling you, even only the easier parts of what is required by doing real science, by 'scientific method', and you constantly fail to do so yourself, even to recognize what it is. You are unfit for real science in the hard physical sciences. Unfit!
4) Nobody has denied you your beliefs in what you believe are the 'authoritative experts' and whata you believe they are actually saying. Those are your personal beliefs, and thus your own. However, all you've ever argued here (wrt climate) is that others should not only accept your (own version of your) beliefs, but demanded that they do and shut up, and spent 1½ years insulting them if they don't comply. And I've noticed that this is what you try with everyone. And you are unqualified to assert what is wisdom and what is only consensus or opinion in this field.
5) Ah, yes, your CV again. Irrelevant. Here, and even for any other scientific dispute. Real science never argues a stance based on CV or even previous accomplishments. A CV describes something very different.
6) I have not seen any qualifications at all from you on any relevant issue or topic brought up here. And you fantasies about the (lack of) of qualifications of others are still just that. BTW the climate hasn't been "rapidly warming" for quite some time now ..
And you conclude once mor by just inventing your 'facts' which of course aren't facts, only you own stupid projections and hopes.
#2041
1) Refering papers you/they haven't read!? Do you seriously think this is an argument for your your beliefs not being based on faith and faith alone? And the consensus appeal which is neither based on polling their constituency, or even managed to define what they are 'agreeing' about (mostly just echoing the IPCC-SPM).
And BTW, I already pointed out where I think the IPCC is wrong: When they claim that that prominent AR4 claim has any base in proper and published science.
29 Not true again. You keep on harping about my education (of which you know nothing, aren't even able to reocognize when I display parts of it). Further, you are just shamelessly lying when you say that I haven't been reading and going through references. Blatantly lying! On the contrary, I have been checking those references whenever anyboyd only appearing halfway serious about his claims, who said that the foundation for that AR4 claim is to be found in it. And it never was! And the one referring me to it, usually 'disapperared' after me checking it. Like here! One even was one of those 'climate scientists' (according to his name)
3) Again Jeffie-projection, non-sequitor, and irrelevant (if true which it is not). I 'attack' poor arguments, poor science, poor logic and lack of eveidence or empirical support. And I specify my criticisms, I point out where I think, am convinceed they are wrong, and specify why. Jeff resonds with taling about their CV:s. The reason I criticize specifics is because I understand what is required by science. The reason Jeffs 'responds' with appeals to CV is that he doesn't.
4) Ah, the CV spiel once more. And it still is not an argument! You being buzy with other stuf might be an excuse for being as uninformed as you are. But not for anything else you 'produce' here. And still (and in defience of anything I've ever claimed): I don't claim to be an expert on everything or smarter than everybody, or having any answers I have not. However, I do say that the arguments and evidence presented for the climate scare case have not been convincing, and the lack of proper science behinde the most promient IPCC AR4 claim is one pretty darn strong demonstration of this!
And not one single one believer has even come close to even trying to make a case to the opposite.
5) You have been blowing fumes here, wrt to about every topic I ever touched upon. Not landed one singe hit. I haven't even seen aiming at any topic. Just the incoherent irrelevant shouting. And siding with (but not restricted to) the proven DK-showcases like luminous and Stu ...
PS Tanks GSW and Olaus for your support, I think it is a bit overly flattering. But the lack of substance from the other side, compensates for that. I post this here first, because the shouters will certainly demand that Jeff shoud be allowed to spout his lies without opposition in his padded protection, and that all opposition should be banned. But hey, they already have. They really want to believe and are correspondlingly afraid of anything else ... I post this ihere too and then under the Ridely thread. Where it probably won't last very long. Jeffie needs the censor butten when he spouts his lies ... Thats probaly why he detests reality! Because out there he would be nothing ..
Sorry if htis is not obvious, my above comment was in reference to Jeff 'CV-waving' Harvey's continued lying in his padded protection about me.
The guy just cannot help himself, everything he claims is either a lie, a total fabrication, or at best a distortion of reality and the facts beyond recognition.
And he seems to believe his own nonsens, or otherwise have dug himself in so deeply that there is no way out of his delusion, that all he can see now are the walls of his self-dug and deep hole ...
Tell us about your CV/education Jonarse.
I'm dying to see what 'superior' looks like, if you'd be so kind as to spell it out. (not sarcasm).
It looks like this:
Born.
Not dead yet.
OK folks listen up: Bernard J's challenge is now active.
I suggest if by post 75 on this thread Jonarse has still achieved no meaningful answer to BJ, he forfeits whatever (minus) credibility is left and graciously admits defeat as the lying arsehole of humanitry that he is.
So no further off topic posts, no hard-to-resist pops at the protagonist and no chewing gum!
Cue wails from the vanguard of fanbois, but the post counter is clicking away.... Until post 75 is hit, the floor's all yours, morons.
Bernard J's challenge
chek ...
like the others (Jeff, Bernard, and all the Stus etc) you are once again, and nothing but trying to construct a backawards and nonsense-argument for why you should have 'won' the argument.
But that's what little children do in the playground. And that's really all you've been trying.
"No further of -topic posts .. "
demands chek, who has not had one relevant on topic post for 1½ years. Oh the irony ...
What <a load of uninformed BS, Bernard J
It seems that you still, 1½ years later aren't even aware of what that AR4 claim actually claimed. (Pssst: It's not the existence of 'attribution studies')
And it seems my suscpicion of where 'Wyvern' came from where correct. He certainly sounded like someone who had ben 'prepped' by one of the ignorant shouters here. And he and his 'arguments' deteriorated quite quickly once I pointed out how inconsistent his comments were.
Well no surprise there. And BTW he never claimed to have read the papers he forwarded either. As is the case with most of you trying to drown out your nagging fear that I might have been correct the entire time.
I certainly have been correct in pointing out to all of you that none of you has ever seen any real science establishing that AR4 claim. (But admittedly, most of you are unable to read and understand such science and what it would take. Hence, all the noise and no substance)
I also like to point out that (unscientific) Bernard J, believs that the arctic ice is "the most obvious near-term indication of rapid (human-caused) global warming"
This guy really doesn't even know what attribution is. And still he talks (ignorantly) about it, dropping some names ... hoping that this impresses som of the other Deltoids.
The above comment was also posted in reply to Bernard J's BS in the appropriate thread. But will likely disappear as soon the henhouse starts to cackle again ..
The funny thing is that Bernard J says he doesn't read here. However he was familiar with one Wyvern trying his luck here before new year, and also telling us about his colleagues reading here (on his computer)
And the sheer stupidity of the argument is just amazing.
Bernard posts a long list of actions he demands I have to go through .... before I should be allowed to ask for the reference(s) which positively establish that prominent AR4 claim.
And this is from a guy who (allegedly) works with science, but still hasn't understood that this IPCC AR4 claim is something else than just various attempts at trying to support attribution by running GCMs ..
Gosh! Well Deltoid certainly is the place for people like him with his stupid fantasies about 'leagally binding wagers' if I don't respond. What a good example of the non-science found here ...
Two comments directed at fact-fabricator Jeff Harvey (in another thread, where Jeff already cries for help):
Jonas N
Jeff: “Help! The patient has escaped! He’s on the loose! Send out an APB!”
Poor Jeffe … you don’t need to be afraid of me. I am just putting letters on a screen for you to see. I know you are afraid of words, and sentences that have a meaning … That’s why you produce so much of the opposite.
But I promise, they won’t hurt you for real. Just your fragile ego that has sepent years building a padded wall around it by just inventing it and what it want the rest of the world to be.
Inside that padded cell, you can proclaim: “Stu nailed it!” And insider it, this will probably remain to be believed true. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the ouside world. You can’t stand reality, that is why you need to shield yourself from it with your own inventions.
Poor thing!
#81
Jonas N
February 4, 2013 But Jeff .. I can even give you a tiny tiny bit of praise:
You (and later even chek) seem to have become aware of, psossibly even realized that this AR4 claim is not a scientific claim, that the numers should not be interpreted as a result from proper and meticulously performed (real) science, but rather should be viewd as expert opinions.
Your friend Bernard J does not have quite understood that this is what you are saying. And your other friends Stu and Wow … well … let’s not mention them. They rarely understand even what their own words mean.
But regarding ‘expert opinion’, that is of course what you can get at every talkshow and panel in TV. Some of it might even be good and interesting, and prove to be correct later. But opinion is not and never was science.
And that the IPCC presents its most prominent claim (made in the AR4) and feeds it to the press and policy makers, but somehow ‘forgets’ to mention that this never was any real science, just a bunch of selfselcted ‘experts’ opining …
I find that rather peculiar. Or indicative. However, on your side there seems to be sheer desperation even if this only is pointed out by some indivduals ..
And I still wonder: What is it you are so darn afraid of? The world notcoming to an end soon?
Obvious and stupid lie. You said it was superior. Prove it.
What is your education, Jonas?
Stu, you are so boring.
My education covers those fields I have brought up and discussed. With a wide margin. As I've said before.
ANd no, I never brought this up as an argument. This is in reply to those of you who cannot argue anything properly, who constantly are looking for an excuse, for a diversion, for some imagined way out ...
And I have proven that it is superior! By not making stupid claims and unspportable assertions. And arguing my case properly. And pointing out the flaws and fallacies of others.
It seems that you (among many other here) are completely unaware of them. And also make up your own 'alternate logic' and even 'facts' ..
I hope this never was part of your education, but rather you guys not being able to learn even what was taught there and then ...
Response to Jeff Harvey, who most often needs to make his 'arguments' at me from threads where he demands that my responses are erased (which they then are):
Jeff, you say:
Well, I would take issues with that, and even point out that it is in stark contrast to many of your own claims about 'importance'. But let's leave the poor execution and phrasing of your claims aside for a moment, and stick with the general tenor (which at least seems reasonable even if not as strict as you want to describe it.
So just take that statement, and give it some (here) relevant context. Like:
Because so far I am kind of with you here. Opinions, especially, if their origin is not even presented, should weigh lightly. Or not at all when it comes to real science.
Most certainly:
Again, I tend to agree with you there. But here is the problem:
Quite a lot of people who have thought that this claim indeed was (not an opinion, but) based on properly vetted and executed real science, establishing those levels ..
.. lots of people, in academia, at universities and in reserach labs, and purporting to be involved in science, seem to be unable to live up to those high standars you just described.
Meaning, they seem unable to let go of the belief that these things are properly established by real science, in spite of them being opinions in non-peer reviewed summaries of a political bureaucracy.
In fact, at every pro-climatescare site I have ever visited, all the proponents of the AGW- and CAGW-memes have done the exact opposite of what you now claim would be the proper response to such and (un-published) claim.
And you might forgive them for initally having believed there was proper and published science behind those claim. But when this was challenged, when it became obvious that they never had even seen any such science making these claims ..
.. again, they didn't take the position you indicated ("they mean diddly squat"), and most often the exact opposite happened.
You have seen this first hand here at Deltoid, you even were part of it. And I can promise you, the same thing happens at every pro-CAGW-site if you point this out!
So what does this tell you, Jeff Harvey? Do you need to think a moment about it?
And I am sorry, Jeff, but those you (erroneously) call 'deniers' and all kind of other things, generally are much better informed, better at the details and keeping their heads straight and arguing the substance ... rather than their beliefs and projections.
As you know, almost none here (on your side) has even gone close to the things I brought up and pointed out.
Lots and lots of completely different, irrelevant, stupid and even worse things, yes! But challenging me (with substance) on what I've actually said about the matter, has been very thin ...
@Jonas
Sure you've seen this already Jonas ;)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/03/josh-on-lying-for-the-cause/
A bit off topic perhaps, the value of "expert opinion" on Climate Sensitivity, rather than the "expert opinion" nature of the AR4 attribution claim that you have some concerns about. Makes you think though doesn't it?
So, #75 passed and not a peep from Joan to answer.
Just petulance.
And irrelevancies.
But these are the only tools of Joan the Denier.
"Makes you think though doesn’t it?"
Providing you have the apparatus to think. Which is quite a different activity to reflexively chewing on the scrapettes Watts throws down.
@chek
"Makes you think though doesn’t it?”
It certainly does chek. Imagine if the IPCC was chocka full of Greenpeace and WWF activists treading the thin line between scientific honesty and the needs of their "political motivations". God knows what they would come up with, doesn't bear thinking about.
;)
GSW
Yes, I had seen that and it was truly entertaining. I think it was chek who tried to label this, either the exposition of 'scientists' lying for a political cause, or the cessation of covering up for the lying of others, or just the admission that one previously was exaggerating the scare a little because it was expected from him, and a more honest assessment of the situation wouldn't have been well received ..
.. I think chek called this 'the self corretion of science'.
And I think this was honestly meant. Lying is OK, if it furthers a cause. And stopping to lie, admitting that other were lying, admitting that one self was playing along too ... is considered 'science self correcting' ..
... by those claiming to be on the side of science. And I think chek meant exactly that. This is 'the science' he has been rooting for and still is defending.
And while skeptics were saying the same things, this was called 'denialism' ....
I don't think all of them can blame incompetence and ignorance for what they sided with.
Jonas N February 4, 2013
Getting better by the minute ..
Now Jeff is disputing the recent temperature record
So you won't list your education, Jonas?
Why? Is it really that pathetic?
Not only did I list it, I demonstrated it. Just not more than is necessary here at this place Stu ...
A cake walk thus far ..
I.e. the same place he "listed" them before: in the nonexistent aether.
Because, like the aether, his education is a myth.
Stu, chek, Jeffie, Ian, Linoel and all others ..
Let me rub this in your face:
Wow is on your side here, He thinks that you are doing great, and (som of you) think that his support really means something ..
Like a soft, freshly washed blanket.
So you're not listing it because you are a coward. Okay, gotcha.
Jonas, please let us know when you gather up sufficient courage to share what your superior education consists of.
Until then, you pathetic little weasel.
Stu ..I already did, just not all of it. And you of course missed it. That is a generic problem with not being able to read and learn ... and explains quite a bit. For instance those six years spent .. without leaving a mark.
Nope, you were told to put it before comment 75.
It isn't there.
Doesn't exist.
Your education, that is.
Wow .. and you really think I do things just because the nutters here demand I do it?
Did you not even notice that chek's 'demand' was for an answer to Bernard J's so called 'challenge' and his 'demands'!?
Ghoad you guys are really something else ..
Now, a whole lot of you are trying to convince yourself of yet another nonsense-claim!? Do you guys ever stop digging at the bottom of that ill-informed hole?
No, we think you do things because you're nuts.
Good job, Wow ...
You think the things you think, because you think I am nuts ... and think you speak for many
Good job!
In response to Bernard J's drivel (in another thread):
February 5, 2013 Bernard J
Have you (or anybody else) seen, read and understood any science establishing that (in-)famous AR4 claim?
It’s a Yes/No question. And I think in your case the answer is pretty obvious, although you (and others) have spent 1½ years trying to make it about something completely different.
And no, I never claimed to know who made up that attribution claim. Quite a few individuals were involved, not all of them listed as authors.
And my ‘grievance’ is and has been (since 2007) the absence of any (by then) published science establishing or even just making that claim. The issue is the claimed very high certainty of such an attribution(*).
And you know that! And your attempts to point at the existence of ‘atrtibution studies’ are just feeble (or uniformed). As are the attempts att ‘drowning’ me with papers you haven’t read. Or the ‘ideology’-drivel. But that’s what you have to resort to.
As for the trolls, those who either write utter gibberish, invent nonsense, throw around invectives and cannot deal with the issues? Yes, those are quite a few. None of you seem very bothered by them, and the amount of irrelevant nonsense they produce. So the played ‘indignation’ here looks more like posturing than convincing ..
(*) If there had been, I could and would have scrutinized such work, to see if it really holds water
No, that you managed to read that from a sentence that in the real world said "No, we think you do things because you’re nuts." is merely proof of your insanity.
Yes Wow, you are displaying your own thoughts. Nothing more, there is not even a 'we' there. And you most certainly look like you believe you can establish facts by just imagining them.
Wow things so, ergo Wow thinks it is therefor a fact.
But thanks for demonstrating that once more again. (If anybody ever doubted that before. You excluded of course :-) )
Sorry, is that how you explain explanations now?
@Jonas
You've been busy ;)
Are you looking forward to the annual realclimate "Turd Polishing" (aka How are the models doing?) It must be about due.
The conclusion, as always, will be "They are doing Brilliantly!"
The entertainment is not in that, rather the plethora of excuses (some old, some new) for what could otherwise be viewed as a"Dismal Showing". Last year, the lack of warming solicited an appearance of the Rahmstorf adjusted temperature index - it's like a normal global temp series, but has bits taken out and warmer bits added and has nothing to do with the real world at all. It's the preferred metric for the Climate modelling community for benchmarking their work.
In an otherwise unremarkable year, expect arctic ice to get more than a passing mention, also the fact it was a bit hotter in the part of world that gavin inhabits (the US), colder in other places I would imagine but interested to see if they get the same sort of coverage.
Well it's something to look forward to at least, the BBC's Comic Relief is a few months away yet.
;)
Wow .. you have never been near any 'explanation' here. Ever ...
Nope, you're still full of bullshit, Joan.
And GSW keeps packing that fudge in for you...
And now you're going to come back with some sort of insane dribble...
You're too predictable.
The moronic are.
Oh hai, Jonas. Since you've been telling us that your education is superior to anyone else's here...
What is it?
Share your educational background, Jonas. You brought it up, you used it as an argument. Put up or shut up. Share or admit you are a lying weasel.
Stu, there is only one person tp blame for you being stung both both by the claim to 'have studied physics for six years', having a fit over 'different speeds among hand/box' and siding with lominous who beyond any doubt demonstrated that he was incompetent ...
And you (only) value here is that it gets others here, who pretend to speak for the science, or even claim they are involved doing science themselves, to side with you, Wow, the cheks, and each other.
Personally I can't understand why people knowingly are willing to demonstrate such an ignorance, and even showing how immensely immature they are at the same time, by throwing around stupid names and childish insults.
But this is Deltoid for you, The know-nothings gather and shout and if anybody mentions som inconveninet fact or only opinion, the henhouse cackle errupts ... and people like you are happy to join in not knowing your foot from your mouth.
Well, I see chek (in the Matt Ridley thread) is getting cocky, claiming I don't dare to reply to Bernard J's drivel ...
.. but first after Tim erased my answer.
And that my comments even here are held up 'in moderation'. Well I reckon that's the level here, those guys need all the help they can get, to look as if they had some valid points.
GWS, one reason why I rarely ever read at Real Climate is because they there need the exact same help for the home team, by erasing relevant and pointed questions, 'inconvenient' facts etc. They are not interested in (or capable of) a rational informed debate, only the appearence of quick shot-downs they can convey with tailored and erased comments, trying to make others look stupid.
The fascinating thing is that there are those who really believe(?) or pretend that they are then 'winning' a debate.
What a joke ... comments held 'in moderation' for 24 hours. Other responses to direct questions and challenges are erased so that the regulars here (afterwards) can claim I 'ran away'. When was the last time any of them even tried to argue rationally?
Most of them don't even know what their own side's position is ...
The question is not what you think, Jonas. You're too stupid to spell, too stupid to read and too stupid to comprehend math and physics.
I asked you a very simple question. It would take you about a minute to answer it. The only reason you wouldn't is because you are a liar, a coward, or both.
What is your educational background, Jonas?
(Oh, and by the way, yes, you are a coward for not replying to Bernard's challenges, Jonas. He offered you a good-faith bet about a year ago that you've done everything in your power to ignore. If you truly believed in your viewpoint you would have taken that bet, but you did not. I'm glad you brought up "dare", cupcake. It once again proves what a chicken-sh*t weasel you really are.)
Oh come on Jonarse. You knew you were fucking Tim over by breaking your curfew - but thanks for doing so as it demonstrated how shallow your made-up "knowledge" actually is to everyone folowing this blog and not just aficionados of this thread.
Now, you were saying about how you responded to Bernard J's challenge? Your response should be safe enough here in your own little blog shitbucket.
Stu .. so you think you can tell me anyting, anything at all regarding math and physics?
You the guy, who attended highschool, who imagined different speeds between hand/box, who never saw anything wrong with luminous drivel ... You who think two sentences after one another are two difficult to comprehend?
Sorry kiddo, I really have not seen any challenge at all from you. Not even an attempt. (Unless you want to label your 'different-speed-hand-box'-idiocy a challenge. And look how stupid that made you look)
So what do you guys have left? You can't even argue without Tim's delete button.The guys there don't even know how the extra (AGW-) greenhouse effect is supposed to work. Rehashing Gore-level descriptions by seveal of you, it's jsut amazing how shallow your understanding is.
Have you even read what Wow says? Or Stu? Or chek or Jeff ... or Bernard? Some even seem to think that Bernad had a point! What point? Bernard has absolutely no clue about anything relevant to what I aksed/pointed out. And the lot here was equally clueless, and just blindly chose an equally stupid side. I don't even know why! Unless none of you know what you are talking about,
OK, with Stu, Jeff and Wow this is already established (in slightly different ways). Chek's best argument is spelt 'Jonarse' which he repeats over and over again. Then there are the Vince, Lotharson, and a bunch of others on the same level.
Well, if 'learning' is reading and rehashing whatever you guys find at SkSc, then it makes sense. And is a good indication of the stupidity of much of the CAGW-crowd ..
No wonder you never venture out of your protected zones ...
Well, I called it.
Nostradamus, eat your heart out!
Tim's delete button? Ah yes, nothing like a good persecution complex.
Jonas, here's a challenge. Prove that your education is superior, by actually listing what it is.
It's no good whining about how everybody else just isn't smart enough to know anything and/or recognise your greatness. Nobody forced you to come here with your God complex and play the big man. That was your strategy, but it hasn't worked.
You're a small fish from a little denier piss pond called Climatescam and that's what you always will be, along with Olap and PantieZ and Griselda. Hopefully their level of stupid will be a burden on you for years to come.
Stu .. I backed up that assertion, quite a number of times. You just weren't capable of understanding it. Wich is no surprise given what you've managed here ...
Jumping in, thinking that hand and box move at the same speed when pushing .. somhow is proof of profound understanding you have ... and (as you imagined) others lack ..
Just amazing Stu .. still is!
:-)
chek: At least Jonas has the good sense not to quote Monckton... pentax can't seem to help but cut and paste him.
@Jonas
Agree with you about realclimate, the only thing worth reading is "the bore hole" - always interesting to what is "en vogue" in heretical views. ;)
gavin's yearly "turd polishing" has become something of an event for me I'm afraid. The travesty of the "lack of warming" is becoming something of an embarrassment, and after gavin's recent communique with Revkin, definitely worth tuning in to.
Hope you are well Jonas!
;)
Yes, it must be awful for you having to confront a blog that honestly reproduces competent science and analysis.
GSW .. Sorry, but TIm's (?) latest strategy is to keep my comments waitíng for some 24h så that any rational debate or discussion becomes extremely slow. And gives the Wows, Stus and cheks of this site the helping hand they really really need (to not being contradicted)
I don't know about hte borehole. I don't think they send erased comments there. Just some.Others never make it at all. And you can see by what they let through (from their side) what the real level is. Like here.
No integrity at all .. At least not from anyone of the regulars ..
Vince ...
I think the problem much more is that the believers and faithers here have some severe issues with non conforming beliefs, facts and even opinions.
I have not seen any real scientific arguments presented to counter the points I have made. But very much shouting (and some opining). I have not seen much honesty either, or reproduction of science (whatever that is on a blog).
And you are mistaken about the 'aweful' too. I am perfectly aware of where I am, however it seems that quite a few find my presence and what I say about the issues very very aweful. So aweful that they demand Tim helps them to protect their fragile feelings ...
Stu, you seem to think that education is a piece of paper, with some letters written on it. Or the time spent to receive that paper piece. It's neither! The education is what you actually learnt and what you can do with that knowledge.
Look here for instance, Jeff and some more I believe have PhDs, and some even feel cocky about having such a diploma. But look what they can do with that piece of paper here! Although angrily shaking that CV at me, he sounds as stupid as Wow and you most of the time, his comments are as relevant as yours (ie completely irrelevant). Or chek, his strongest argument spells 'Jonarse' which he repeats time and again ..
I mean, so far (and thats 1½ years now) there has hardly been any contest. A very few have managed to argue their points lik adults ... very very few.
So did you have a valid point? About anything I've said, Stu? Your most 'valid' contribution thus far was realizing that a hand pushing a box is in contact with it while pushing. However, you seemed to believe that was some very deep and profound insight you hade to convey to others, even feel cocky about!
But claims like your: "You’re too stupid .. to comprehend math and physics" still only are immensly stupid since they are so utterly wrong that 'clueless' is far too kind a descpription. So why would even a cluless bystander like yourself knowlingly make an idiot out of one self by trying such nonsense?
Maybe in the hope of getting a pat on the head from equally clueless Jeff ... like "Stu nailed it ..", I don't know.
But as I said, I appreciate also you guys, primarily because you make the (formally) eduvated show their hand too when they actively side with you ... and it's always a good laugh. Like "Stu nailed it .. " when you both were just desperately guessing and hoping in utter darkness ..
:-)
Hey you regulars, why do you think the goracle don't dare to take the debate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gRFh8KdgKg
@Jonas
"GSW .. Sorry, but TIm’s (?) latest strategy is to keep my comments waitíng for some 24h så that any rational debate or discussion becomes extremely slow."
Understood.
" I don’t think they send erased comments there. Just some.Others never make it at all."
Yes I've had both, very much depends on who's moderating at the time. gavin is actually one of the better ones (Bore hole rather than erase).
"No integrity at all .. At least not from anyone of the regulars .."
Assume you mean at realclimate (although it applies equally here). Commenter profile has changed over time; used to be alot of "I used to be a denier, now I've seen the light" evangelical /temperance meeting type people - that seems to have gone now thank heavens, always a bit creepy anyway.
Now it's evolved into a different type of loonie. Those seeking confirmation of their own personal bizarre "theories"; "Yes, I've always wondered about sub saharan farming practices affecting lower tropospheric humidity levels and the knock on effect that this would no doubtedly have on summer arctic ice melt" or "Alpine glacier response is the canary in the coalmine for the decade on decade trend for a delayed East Asian summer monsoon" i.e. Unmitigated Bollocks!
realclimate's kind of quiet these days, not the force it once was. Sks have taken up the baton here, the realclimate lot still think they are scientists and there is a limit to how far they can go, even for the cause. Sks just doesn't care.
Enjoy Jonas!
;)
Naw GSW ..
Regarding the non-integrity, I meant all those here, who cannot help themselves but need to make iditioc claims and assertions and (very likely, knowingly) tell untruths ... Or who linke papers they haven't read, and make far reaching claims about the contents.
Not every one of the can be an adolescent teenager not able to keep hormones and frustrations at bay .. But grown ups, with PhDs, even claiming to work with science. It is really hard to fathom.
And no, I had never seen RC comments like: "I used to be a denier, now I’ve seen the light", and if so this smells really fishy, nobody really labels themself as 'denier'
Yes SkSc is a travesty ... as is Lewandowsky ... Here i Sweden, the most know climate-faith site just tried to push for Lewandoswky's latest, 'plugging' his 'results' as 'science'. But very few care and even less comment there ..
"realclimate’s kind of quiet these days"
Yeah, they're busy doing real work, unlike you.
I wonder why Tim put a hold on your comments, Jonas. You haven't been a naughty boy by breaking your quarantine, have you?
By the way Jonas, what is your education?
Un.
His education is Uneducated.
Stu
The banning, the erasing, the holding up 'in moderation', and also the editing, the 'answering' in mid-comment, the selectively and randomly applied 'moderation rules', and in some cases even 'revising' of skeptical comments etc ..
All which in various degree occur at essentially all activist blogs and sites are done for the puropse to 'help' the home team: They are (deemed) necessary in order to tell the 'right story' or give the right appearance. It is considered necessary to shape the world more towards how they want it to be, rather than how it actually is.
Which is completely in line with both the climate scare alarmism, and some of the 'science' said to support the same alarmism.
The childish 'rules' and demands to comply with them are just subterfuge and pretext to avoid dealing with the context, and hiding its substance and concealing thw weakness of the own position.
It is perfectly visible here. For someone with an education and who is capable of using it, that is, Stu ..
You have been confined to this thread and thrown in moderation by default. All the other things you mention are figments of your fevered imagination, and things that happen at denialist sites -- not here. But why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good martyr complex, right?
So you're saying you have an education, Jonas? What is it?
Stu ...
Contrary to you, I am very capable of dealing with facts and knowledge. And the reasons why such must be confined, 'moderated', delayed and hidden at sites like this are exactly the ones I detailed.
It is possible that you truly are unable to see that (although it is bleeding obvious) but you were never part of any discussion here. Just think of the fact that you for more than a year tried to convince yourslef(?) that you could teach me anything about math or physics ... You, Stu! What were you thinking, kid?
With what were your thinking?
;-)
Yes, again, why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good martyr complex, right?
But hey, speaking of someone teaching you math and physics, who tried? What is your education, Jonas?
Stu, you say:
And that is true for most things you and others bring up here. They are totally disconnected from anything relevant and most often also from any reality. You, the Wows, cheks and Jeffies are making all kinds of things up from your imagination because reality is too dofficult to handle for you. And whatever beliefs you have picked up, it seems they origin from 'denier sites' like SkSc, Desmog and the like ..
And wrt to 'a perfectly good martyr complex' it is you guys here who both feel sorry for yourselves, demand more 'protection', that people are banned, and whine about all kinds of things that happen in the real world.
And as I say, your fragile egos can't handle if problems and errors are pointed out with your pet-scare-theory-turned-unsupported-faith. Many here start derailing and screaming the moment one only utters some 'heresy' ..
You need to remember that it is I who come here, and you guys hardly ever daring to comment at sites where the erase button is not used as the core part of the argument.
Heck even here, in the proteced zone, Jeff and others start yapping for 'help' if comments get too 'problematic' for them.
And yes, it is comic beyon belief that you who (according to your own account) could not see anything wrong with all the bad physics of luminous, not even after they were repeatedly detailed, and still beleived you could land a hit. (We all know how that turned out for you, and you seemingly still mentally are licking your wounds, and denying that it really happened)
What were you thinking (with) Stu?
Well, you obviously lack the education I assumed that a freshman or sophomore student receives in most natural science educations (and should remember, once reminded). And that's OK Stu. I just wondered why you for more than a year felt obliged to pretend some cockiness over your lack of knowledge and understanding. Even wanting to 'speak for' the (assumingly highschool-) teachers of the world. What were you thinking (with)?
You guys mostly can't even argue your own side of the argument properly. I know your arguments better than you (who often don't even understand what it's supposed to mean: 'Unprecedented warm La Niña' for instance. You didn't know wither, just yapping along ... )
Why not just quit the pretence Jonarse? You're a word merchant - and a pretty poor one at that - who gets ripped apart like a wet paper bag full of unset jelly anytime you encounter a real (i.e. professional) scientist.
You don't have what's needed, never did and never will. I'd advise asking the Oregon Institute (home schooling dept.) for the money back and cut your losses.
Tell you what for free though - the 'I sees no attribution' schtick was quite a good one if your aim is to collect a dozen or so PantieZ clones together. Sticking to your schtick could have easily doubled that in a few years (Although how you'd stand two dozen fawning knuckle-draggers would be your problem).
But no - where you blew it was joining in with all the passing denier memes you felt compelled to offer your support and fealty to, just like PantieZ and his unquestioning adoptance of Goddardscience. Anyone with half a brain could see they were desperate, shit-grade sewage, but you had to go along You didn't have the background or discrimination to know they were weapons-grade stupid just passing through.
But then if deniers weren't specious, under-educated, badly informed dunderheads, they might conceivably be more than a minor annoyance and a stark reminder of humanity's self-inflicted stupidity. They might work their way up to butt pimple status.
Bye then Jonarse. I hope becoming a PantieZ-grade cultivator constitutes an episode in your life that haunts you for years to come.
chek
You capability to assess and process information has never impressed me, Neither has anything else.
The wordsmiths are on your side, and most of you are pretty lousy at that too, They try 'Jonarse', 'denialist' and 'fuckwit' etc. Maybe that is what you mean by "gets ripped apart like a wet paper bag", but as noted for 1½ years now, your words are just the frustrated ramblings of somebody who wants but cannot ..
There has hardly been anybody here arguing against me in the manner of a professional scientist. Mostly it has bee uninformed and unchecked(*) appeal to perceived authority. Only a few have behaved like professionals, and at least managed to formulate their own stance and interpretation without derailing. Some have argued (in a civil manner) that IPCC authority should be accepted, but could not respond to the specific criticsim I had on some of the assertions.
But mostly, people here just sound like you and Jeff, and have essentially no contact at all with any relevant issues. Just the uninformed screeching and repetition of SkSc- and Desmog-memes. (I noticed your completely uneducated 'assessment' of McIntyres chriticism in some other thread. Again, things you only believe and are incapable of assessing. And you even go the Deep Climate storry wrong, And there was the glacier-freshwater meme too)
As I've noted from early on, and said many times. People like you, Jeff, Bernard and all the others, who feel that they need to throuw around terms like 'denier' etc, never have anything to contribute to a discussion, mainly because they have no clue what it is about. And this place has shown many ample examples of that.
As I've said, and some (but not all finally) have understood, my education and professional training, expertiese and experience make me very well suited to argue the things I actually argue. And you guys mostly just want to avoid these things more than anything else ...
One particurly cute incident was when I gave a longer reply to Bernards ramblings, visible for quite som time. And only after Tim erased it, you popped up and claimed I didn't dare to reply. That is the your level chek, you need all the help you can get, and even then mostly are clueless ...
(*) As you /by now) know: That prominent AR4-claim
Yes, Jonas, narf narf narf.
What is your education?
Stu ... It is all that I claimed it is, and more ...
Have you had a point so far? Like:
What is the warmest La Niña ever?
;-)
Jonas reckons he has arguments against the IPCC.
When will you publish those arguments and thus add your knowledge to the common body of climate-related understanding?
Or is there some reason why your arguments can only ever appear on blog comments?
So again, Jonas, you are too ashamed of your education to share it with us.
I'm sorry sweetheart. It must REALLY, REALLY suck.
Vince ..
How is your 'warmest La Niña ever' coming for you? :-) Stu thought you really had a point there ..
The arguments against the IPCC and the claims they make are plenty, and made by many more than me. On all kinds of topics, aspects and details.
Here for instance, the non-existence of published science supporting, let alone establishing, that most prominent AR4 claim is one thing I pointed out.
It seems you 'argue' that such an observations needs to be 'published', ie published that something else was not published, first before guys like you (who never ever have seen that allgeged science) dare to get near this fact.
Well, that's my point too: It all is very bizzare in Deltoid-land, where everything else can be brought up, just not änything of substance that deals with actual topic
Stu #5935
As I said, the Deltoid-hangarounds have a propensity to make up stuff they rather want to be true, by just imagining it. And in many cases, I'm sure, they don't even believe what they wish, but they wish it so badly anyway. Or even bacause ...
I see your education did not include being coherent. Poor Jonas.
Stu ..
I don't even need to remind you of what 'your education' led you to believe about a hand pushing a box ... And I'm not even talkning about the physics you never learned. Just comprehension of the words when someone pushes a box.
But I won't hold it against you if you don't understand what Vinces said, and I thereafter explained what that meant in in context. I don't expect this from you. I only find it peculiar that someone on your level tries to be cocky about his own nonsensical rants here
Have you made a coherent argument yet Stu? What was that?
Jonas, I already accurately summarized and explained the hand-box thing here. I’m sorry your pathology won’t allow you to let it go. It’s just sad.
In the end, it's probably just too complicated for you. Something must be lacking in your education.
Speaking of which, you pathetic lying little weasel, what IS your education?
Stu
I would not use the word 'accurately' in connection with any statement of yours about any issue here. You really still seem to be in denial about what a fool you made of yourself back then.
And given you lack of understanding about even simpler matters, that may be understandable.
However, what is less understandable is your (only displayed?) pretence of knowing things wrt to physics, math, education, climate or science in general. That part is absolutely laughable ..
Regarding my education, I've already answered every relevant aspect of that question repeatedly. And still, kid, you don't know the first thing what to do with that.
You probably still have no clue where luminous (repeatedly) lost it completely. Which only underlines that 'education' is not really your thing. You missed it even when it was pointed out ... couldn't see a think.
Poor kid
:-)
Not only you Stu, but most of the regulars here are not having a good year (once again). Nothing really is going the alarmists' way nowadays. And the sputtering of the believers here over absolutely ridiculous things is tragical and big comedy at the same time.
I see that BBD, who some year ago still tried to follow a reasoned debate, now hangs here and tries his (often very) uniformed appeals to authority, and what he believes those say. In more open debate fora, he was taken apart quite easily, and only very few near-nutters sided with him. Here, at least the regulars cheer him on. Even more uninformed!
But hey, if you don't know anything about the natural hard sciences, if you don't even know what the scientific methods means, not even the simpler parts of it, that's where you are left ..
You must keep guessing in utter dark, and occasionally go bonkers over a hand pushing a box ... believing you've landed a major hit. Again guessing this in utter darkness ...
Not only you Stu, but most of the regulars here are not having a good year (once again). Nothing really is going the alarmists' way nowadays. And the sputtering of the believers here over absolutely ridiculous things is tragical and big comedy at the same time.
I see that BBD, who some year ago still tried to follow a reasoned debate, now hangs here and tries his (often very) uniformed appeals to authority, and what he believes those say. In more open debate fora, he was taken apart quite easily, and only very few near-nutters sided with him. Here, at least the regulars cheer him on. Even more uninformed!
But hey, if you don't know anything about the natural hard sciences, if you don't even know what the scientific methods means, not even the simpler parts of it, that's where you are left ..
You must keep guessing in utter dark, and occasionally go bonkers over a hand pushing a box ... believing you've landed a major hit. Again guessing this in utter darkness ...
Poor kids
:-)
This practice of trying to 'contain' real discussions, and worthwile debates with better informed people, but in specific and seperate threads ..
.. must have a reason.
As must the practice of delaying comments for a day or so ...
I wonder what Occam would have thought the simplest possible explanation would be ...
.:-)
Yes Jonas, I can't see a "think". Christ on a crutch you're a moron.
You have not answered what your education actually is. You've said it is better. Cupcake, that is an argument by assertion. Everyone knows this. Everyone sees this. You're a sad, sad little man. If your education is superior, all you need to do is...
LIST IT. What is your education, Jonas? I mean, really? How bad can it be?
Jonas, did you even make it out of high school, sweetheart?
'sfunny: no chubby asking Joan why so coy...
Stu ... not only only answered, but even demonstrated ... with you watching right there. Don't you remember? It was what caused you go bananas over a hand pushing a box. And you could see nothing wrong. Nothing at all before losing it, Stu ..
There is no challenge there. I don't even need to take my hands out of my pockets. Whatever you think is 'education' is not even on the map Stu.
Still, and in spite of your 1½ year of trying, You haven't had e point yet. None. You noted that a hand needs to push the box. And thought you contriubuted with some hefty insight there. But you didn't. You made a total fool out of yourself.
And you keep on harping about 'education'. Although you wouldn't even know what that is. Look, Jeff the moron has a degree. And he is mighty proud of it. And here with me his 'educations' still is worth nothing because he didn't learn the crucial things. Approaching 60 and still incapable of handling relevant knowledge. Even thinking 'Stu nailed it' .. what a moron. And you were the moron who made him say this!
:-)
Now we are only waiting for somebody proclaiming that 'Wow nailed it' and all of you are in the same box ...
Answered? You listed your educational credentials?
Provide a link or admit you are lying.
Joan is "hiding the education".
Stu ...
Are you calling other a moron? :-) After imagining that somebody argued different hand/box speeds and kept harping on about it for more than a year?
As I've told you many times by now: My education made me address everything that was discussed back then correctly, and even show you guys how it should be done. It seems, demonstrated by both you and luminous that you educations were so far behind, that both of you were unable to see where and how badly it went wrong, not even after I pointed it out.
Now, it is true that it doesn't take that much education and only understanding of what has been taught to be far ahead of you guys.
And there were others too, joining in on the luminous-side. Not having the slightest clue either.
So, no I definitely have not needed to use 'all my education' to keep you at bay here. There was never any challange wrt that (or physics in general). Only a loony moron who hade a year long hissy-fit over a hand pushing a box where he imagined he had somethig profound and insigtful to contribute. What a total joke ...
But yes Stu, so far there has not been any challenge about any of the topics I addressed ..
That's probably why so many of you so desperately want to talk about other stuff instead.
I'm starting to think his education is distinctly hockey stick-shaped.
With a droop at the end...
Stu ...
How is it, have you yet managed to fault me on anything? Or are you possible so ignorant that you don't have the slightest clue what is correct, and what is not, that you don't even kniow when you are merely guessing?
You have (like many others here) spent 1½ years off trying to contradict me or hoping to land a blow (better than whining about typos but never managing, and just getting more frustrated, and hence increasing the noise-level (decreasing level of substance is unfortunately not possible for you)
Do you really think you've managed one syllable of relevant substance here Stu?
PS I'm still hoping that one of the others jumpes in and claims "Wow nailed it!" ... That would top the previous idiotic support here ... :-)
I was actually thinking more of the dents and brain damage left by being beaten over the head with one.
Stu ...
Yes, quite a lot here have been 'beaten over the head' with my knowledge (and what I learned during my education).
It's funny (but not unexpected) that you, Wow, Jeffie and quite some more are in denial over that too, and once again try to revise history ... Or even worse, if you truly believe what you are imagining.
But hey, this is Deltoid, and this is exactly the right place for the likes of you ... I just hope some of the others triuphantly claims: 'Wow nailed it' ...
That would top it for me ...
;-)
What education, Jonas? You haven't provided what that education is. So you were lying about answering.
Also, nice job on reading comprehension. You truly are as dumb as a sack of hammers.
Joan, do you think, in any conceivable universe, that that trick would or could ever work?
Wow, I'm sure it works in his corner bar. Brad seems of the same caliber.
Actually, I'm certain they both know it doesn't work. Their cause is so lost, they can't do anything for it. So they're just shitting in the food pot.
Joan has NEVER, NOT ONCE stated what education it has. It merely continues to scream so as to ensure nobody else can do something constructive.
Stu ...
It is really just too difficult for you, isn't it?
I have told you what education and training is needed for the discussion I had with luminous, and the only time you (disasterously!) you tried to engage (Remember, when you imagined that others for weeks argued different speeds among hand/box when pushing it? I think you even argued the same years later. All by your loony own)
What you are whining about is that I have not listed(!?) all my credentials. Which is true. But I have (repeatedly) given you more than a subtle hint of what it's about. And how it compares to some of the other CV-obsessed here.
You on the other hand cannot do one single thing with this, or without it.
Further, I know that both you, Wow, and even the 'educated' here are not the sharpest knifes in the box ... But still, I have a very hard time believing that you yourself really believe all those assertiosn you so desperately want to make. I mean, it is hard to be so stupid to believe for instance, that you Stu can teach me anything about math or physics.
After all those silly attempts. Same goes for Jeff .. he (I'm pretty certain) knows that his many assertions about me are total hogwash ... but backtracking would cause him to lose face even worse.
Wow ... if Stu or you or Jeff would have had anything constructive to say, I am certain you/they would have done so ny now, 1½ years later ...
Or do you really believe that you have said anything at all worth even discussing? Really? What?
It's no conincidence that you guys constantly want to talk about something, anything else ... Your beliefs must be very fragile ..
Jonas, I already accurately summarized and explained the hand-box thing here. I’m sorry your pathology won’t allow you to let it go. It’s just sad.
So yes, Jonas, your education is so pathetic you are afraid to list it here. We know, cupcake.
The only reason I'm still here is to watch you squirm like the deluded child you are, doing everything, saying anything to avoid answering that one simple question:
What is your education, Jonas? You really want to stop hinting, because so far the only hints you've given is that you don't know math or physics from a hole in the ground.
What is your education? It's a simple question. The only reason you're avoiding it is because you're afraid. You know it, I know it, dogs know it, trees know it.
Of course, you could prove me wrong very easily.
Sorry Stu
I hadn't 'answered' the latest of your stupid rants. Which incidentally someone thinks need to be delayed further to protect you and others here for a day or so ... in order to protect you from reality or whatever it is you are shunning.
But you are wrong: I cannot prove anything to you on a blog. All I can do is to type words and and numbers in small comments.
I did of course prove to those who have sufficient knowledge that I did master what was discussed, and that luminous was the waffler.
But even that fairly simple discussion I reckon was way over the head of quite a lot here.
I still chuckle at the comment by Jeff Harvey who believs that his CV is an argument for anything here, when he said: "Stu nailed it ... "
It so succinctly demonstrates, even proves that you guys here just are wishful hopeful believers and completely incapable of navigating real knowledge ... and seem eager to invent almost anything in order to convince yourself that this is somebody else's responsibility.
What a bunch of jokes ...
Jonas, what is your education?
Stu ...
Yes, and I told you all you need to know about it already a year ago, or so. Here Stu, what you would have needed is a freshmen class in elementary physics and dit natural sciences. Just a basic grasp of what science (the real variety) is about.
I have no clue why you would even consider trying nonsense like:
"You’re .. too stupid to comprehend math and physics"
when you (and many others) have proven this to be true, but for yourselves. Even demonstrating that you are completely unable to understand even the simple things with proper help and guidance. Not capable of seeing the glaring inconsistencies and violations even when they are pointed out.
And instead writing embarrassments like the above, or googling 'passive mass' an believing to understand anything ...
What an utter joke, Stu. Do you even know why you are trying this? You have tried similiarly inane stuff for 1½ years, without ever having a relevant point. Hey, you don't even learn from your mistakes ...
No wonder you are hanging here, here at least you are in company with quite a few more in the same situation
No you did not. You did not answer this simple, straight-forward question.
Jonas, what is your education?
Joan is too stupid to answer that question with a list of their education Stu.
Too stupid? Naah. Too cowardly.
No, too stupid AND a coward.
No Stu, I just answered what is/was relevant for the very low level of participation by you (luminous, Jeff, and a few others).
And even that is way more than sufficient to deal with the hands, the pushing, the boxes and the different speeds. (You remembet, the simple things yo derailed over with a year-long hissy-fit?)
But if you had been paying attention (and posessed some basic understanding) you would have noticed moore. But since you don't even know what you need that information for, or how it possibly could be relevant to you ... there is no need to be more specific. You already know (and I've already proven) that it is more than sufficient ... and covers those issues I have adressed.
That you are incapable of recognizing even this is unfortunate (for you) but also clearly shows that you essentially must take anything in discussions like this on faith. Including whatever I would present here on this blog.
And that's not all. You have felt (like so many of your fellow travelser here) the need to be disingenuous about the claims you make too. Repeatedly. Either inventing your own facts, or just claiming things you know nothing about. Just like Jeff.
You even fraternise with the Wow-troll and his ilk here whose degree oc cluelessness are even worse than the rest.
Have you ever given any though to what (if anything at all) you would like to be taken seriously for? Not that stupid harping which has been 95% of your ramblings I hope ... or maybe not.
Wow - see the above. Or not. You couldn't even see where I told lumunous he got it wrong. The only hope I have for you is that Jeff or some other poser here writes "Wow nailed it .."'
That would be pure gold!
:-)
Poor things ...
First another attempted hockestick ... already broken .. and now the same saga for the third time ...
So you chose not to answer. That's okay, Jonas. It must be scary to share your pathetic education with the world.
Kiss kiss.
Stu
Not only did I answer the relevant parts, I demonstrated it! That you (albeit six years of alleged studies) cannot recognize any of this is hardly my fault.
What have you ever demonstrated here? Some profound understanding that that a hand pushing a box actually must push it!? And on top of that believning that this insight would be a revalation to others? Seriously!?
Other than that year-long embarrassment, there have only been inanities and ill-informed wishful thinking like the last of your posts.
Because you're being truthful here, aren't you? You really really would like to hope that there is anything pathetic about my education ...
Well, that's Deltoid for you. Critters like you and Jeff, desperately hoing that the world is something entirely different than it is.
No, he doesn't choose not to answer, Stu, he is not capable of it.
Absolutely not able to understand what education is or how to list it.
Stu, he's had NO EDUCATION.
Not even scarily pathetic education.
NO EDUCATION AT ALL.
"Not only did I answer the relevant parts, I demonstrated it! "
No you haven't joan.
NOWHERE on this page have you demonstrated it, let alone answered.
No
Where.
"What have you ever demonstrated here? Some profound understanding that that a hand pushing a box actually must push it!?"
It took you six months to understand that, so as far as your intelligence is concerned, that is a profound understanding, just like you say.
I noticed that Jeffie H is back hailing Grist's David Roberts absolute nonsense extremely important about scale which (Jeff claims) only 'the scientifically literate' can understand.
What absolute nonsense! It's the other way around. Only the scientifically illiterate can be duped by the tripe delivered by Roberts. And we know that Jeff wants to be duped with this kind of baloney more than anything else ..
I think this time Jeffie finally blew himself away, proving beyond any shred of a doubt that he has no place at all discussing anything to do with real science ..
(Well, he had shown that many times before, but David Roberts with his runaway temperatures)
If there ever was a good example of DK-syndrom, it was David Roberts 'explaining climate science' in 15 minutes. And Jeff buying in to that utter nonsense, believing it was 'science' ..
Unbelievable!
Stu
You can see Wow's four latest comments. They are really descpriptive of the level here. Just consider the claims made by this clown:
or
or
He even believes that you had some profound insight in 'a hand pushing a box'.
He is just like you stu, just hoping for things to be completely different than they are. By repeating them. OK, your language is at times a bit better. But it's still the same lousy 'method'.
And most likely do you need to lie to yourself too, in order to stick with it.
Poor things!
Yup, you have no education at all joan.
None.
Not a jot.
You've demonstrated this on this thread. Nowhere on this thread have you shown your education. You just keep pratting about for other people's education.
Wow ...
Still in denial? Or delusion? Or desperation?
Poor thing. And you sooo much dooo believe in the climate scare. It all makes sense!
:-)
Denying what?
Nowhere on this thread have you shown your education.
That is a stone cold fact.
Nowhere on this link have I instructed where people with alleged six years of studied physics got it completely wrong. Wow. And nowhere have you seen or even found anywhere where I pointed out how (badly) luminous was wrong, and also told him how it should have been done instead.
But that's just because you are uncapable of even having simple superficial dialogs about simple things Wow. I pity you for this, and can assure you:
You are at the absolute right place for people like you. Some of the others have a slightly better language, but their 'method' is exactly the same as yours. And this is the kind of holes you end up in ...
The Grimm brothers and the Deltoids priests like tell the same kind of stories. :-)
The Scandinavian Dullard Collective pops up again to say nothing whatsoever. Although Jonarse does have a furtive little spurt of his usual content-free wankery at JH the professional scientist's expense, which is pretty much all he's done from the very start.
Still it's good to know that the Swedish right-wing backlash is safe in the hands of such ignorant, petty-minded, ineffectual clowns.
Ah chek ..
Who has not been able to contribute one single relevant comment, only mouth frothing gibberish, chimes in to defend Jeff, another utter incompetent who has no business at all in the field of any real science .. What an utter joke.
I didn't think Jeff could sink much lower than believing James Hansens idiotic claims about future sea levels must be valid since he has such an 'impressive' CV.
But Jeff exceeds even that stupidity, by hailing David Roberts absolut gibberish about 'climate change' as not only being relevant and worth listening to, but even of such dignity that 'scientifically literate' people must accept such tosh ..
What an absolute joke. and not only joke in the tragical sense. What absolute and utter idiocy to even considering taking this seriously only for a second.
If there ever was a good example of Dunning-Kruger, David Roberts is one perfect illustration. And Jeff Harvey for totally buying in to this.
And chek (Wow, Stu and all others). This is nowhere open for discussion. Believing Roberts has anything of substance to say, is beyond idotic. It borders clinically insane.
And Jeff's year-long idiotic rants about almost everything (irrelevant) sure have indicated that 'all the horses aren't at home' anymore. But hailing Roberts and even just mentioning 'scientifically literate' in the same sentence, proves this beyond doubt.
What a total farce, chek. And this is what you hope passes as 'professional' in science!? What a joke!
Nowhere on this thread have you shown your education.
It's a fact that not even you deny, Joan, preferring to go prattling on about something completely different.
Nowhere Wow?
How would you know? You couldn't even find the many numerous instances where I told luminous how he got it completely wrong. And how, and also how it should have been done.
You are nothing but a poor emulation of a poorly programmed spam-bot.
But you have shown a lot of other things too, Wow. Nothing I would be proud of displaying. And you were not the only one.
Prattling? I would say the entire blog is about prattling pratts like yourself ... some even boast with their education, which they cannot put to any use judging from what they write.
Jonas, did I miss something? Did you list your education?
Nah - you missed nothing Stu.
Just the usual poor excuse for the quality of the Swedish education system proclaiming some esoteric mystery (that exists only in his own head) as revelatory.
A classic, information-lite delusional, in other words.
"Nowhere Wow?
How would you know?"
The same way you know something that isn't there is not there, Joan.
Stu, have you missed something, you asked!?
Well, the more pertinent question would have been: Did you ever get something?
I Wow's case, even that question is moot. And chekie has tried and tried and still hopes that his frothing-from-the-mouth anger somehow would score him some points he can't get arguing the facts.
But no, guys. It doesn't work that way. You are still only hoping that the year-long blind guessing and desperate wishful fantasizing replaces reality if you only repeat it.
If you'd had a valid point, I am certain you would have made it by now. But no! You are still hoping that Mann got his nonsense right and that IPCC spin is based on proper science. And that DK-Jeffie is arguing 'science' ...
While the whole climate scare edifice is crumbling ...
Poos kids
I notice that it (at times) takes about two full days before my comments appear ...
I take it it is for your protection, that this is deemed 'necessary'. Also the practice of confining non-believers to separate threads is for your protection. And yes, protection most certainly is what you need, however not from me or others who can evaluate real science.
The real threat is almost entirely on your own side(*). The worst 'we' (reasonable competent) commenters can inflict upon you is a little ridicule. And also that is dispensed in moderate doses ..
(*) Mann, Jeffie, Hansen, Marcott, Lewandowsky, Roberts, Tamino and many many more
No, the avoiding the answer would be to ask a different question.
Politicians do that all the time.
I know that it hasn't been shown for the same reason I know that elvis hasn't posted on here.
Because there is nothing here posted from elvis.
Wow ... I would say that all relevant points you've ever made here have been inadvertent, and about you ..
I demonstrated that I know. You demonstrated a lot about what you cannot and do not know ...
Please keep it coming. I am still hoping for Jeff (or even Stu) to write:
'Wow nailed it ... '
That would top it off for me!
:-)
Yes, you would say that. Empty of evidence is entirely your forte.
You haven't anywhere on this thread demonstrated anything.
Proof? Show me wrong. If it exists, you can show it.
Since it doesn't exist, you can't.
And you don't for precisely that reason: it doesn't exist.
"You couldn’t even find the many numerous instances where I told luminous how he got it completely wrong"
Because, like all your claims of multitudinous proof, they don't exist.
Can't find something that doesn't exist.
Jonas is just jealous because David Roberts was invited to give a prestigious TED lecture whereas ohe can't even get an invite to a drunken piss-up in a bar.
Oh, the politics of envy.
... and Jonarse is also reduced to the 'AGW will fall... any day now'..... without a scintilla of ...anything at all except the vacant crowing he's indulged in for almost two years now.
I really wish I had a GBP for every time the desperate old (and it got old a long, long time ago) 'final nail' or variation thereof was uttered by some crank or other.
I can only presume it's not for the benefit of the rational, but only aimed at his ever more meat headed posse.
Wow
it is certainly true that you have not seen any proof of any eduction I have. But that is because you don't have the slightlest clue about what knowledge actually is, and how educated knowledge is used. As you said yourself:
It was spelled out in detail right under your nose. And every time you failed to see it.
And yes, my dear Wow .. what I have produced here, when someone actually tried to argue som minor scientific points, is exactly that: Proof of that I master the things I am talking about.
What you have proven ... Well, rather not go there!
;-)
chek ..
I think you have been hanging here much longer than that. And not even been close to addressing any relevant issues.
But seriously, why is it that (almost all of) you regulars here are so patently incapable of comprehending what is actually argued (by others)? Why is that? Why is almost every comment from you regulars nothing but a long parade of strawmen, invented idiocy and mouth frothing but childish attempts at insults?
Are you (all) real as incapable of arguing one single point properly as you (all) demonstrate here?
I think the closest you've ever been to any relevant substance was when you argued that indeed many people live in Bangladesh and India plains ..
Yes they do, but that doesn't make glacial melt their fresh water supply. Which was the idiotic AGW-scare you tried to argue or support back then.
But I do believe that you "really wish [you] had a GBP for every time ..". That seems more like your general method, wishing for things ... and being angry because they ain't so ..
Ah Jeff ...
Maybe you missed it, and thus I repeat it once more. If there ever was a good example of DK, David Roberts 'explaining climate science in 15 minutes' was one of the better displays.
As were you, when you hailed his absolute nonsense and even claimed that your 'understanding' of this was due to your claimed 'scientifif literacy'.
The exact opposite is true, my dear Jeff. Roberts many claims were absolute hogwash, they were the atithesis of scientific literacy, and only complete fools or ignorants would by into his claimed 'future assertions', especially based on the arguments he delivered.
And that one of those even and explicity claimed that only the 'scientifically illiterate' would fail to be swayed by his 'arguments' was the killer ...
Man Oh man ... if there ever was a DK-syndrome posterboy, or if one would like invent a charicature of one, that would be it Jeff. That would be you, hailing David Robers future-predictions and even claiming this was real science ...
You nailed it Jeff, you really did!
:-)
Just as when you wrote that "Stu nailed it", you proved beyond any doubt that you are completely incapable of judging anything relevant to real science ...
Another funny example of your complete lack of selfawareness was when accused someone (don't remember who) of resorting to insults when he ran out of arguments. You Jeff!
You accused others of resorting to insults for lack of better arguments! Again, you nailed it, Jeff. absolutely priceless.
But actually, I don't think Dunning and Kruger really were envisioning you and your problems when they wrote that paper. Your affliction seems to be something way beyond only not understanding what knowledge it is you don't have.
"it is certainly true that you have not seen any proof of any eduction I have."
Yes, the cause of which is you never having put any of it on here.
"It was spelled out in detail right under your nose."
Nope, it was never put in ANY detail on this thread.
"And every time you failed to see it. "
Yes, imaginary postings are not seen by those not hallucinating.
Exactly Wow ...
You are completely incapable here, failing already at the first doorstep, unable to even see the posts where points are made.
No surprise there. I just hope that Jeffie (or somebody else who ignorantly pretends to speak for 'the science') comes and proclaims: 'Wow nailed it!'
It happened for Stu, and I'll remind him and Jeff about it ... until they take their nonsense back. Which in all likelihood is never!
Yes, exactly.
Something you never wrote can never be seen, therefore my inability to see invisible writings is not my problem.
We already see that you cannot see, you see
Again .. simple comments held up for 24+ hours ...
I guess it's for the 'protection' of the sensitive souls here ..
OK ... it was for more than three days! Those poor Deltoids must need som serious protection. And I kinda agree ..
Yes, not seeing something not there is fine.
Seeing something that is not there is a sign of mental instability.
Medication, Jonas. Take it. Good God you are delusional. And knock it off with your pathetic persecution complex, you pathetic little liar.
Stu ... according to the resident nonsense-inventor 'you nailed it'! When yo too made invented absolute nonsense-claims. That's because both you and Jeffie so desperately want to believe in an alternate universe. I think Wow is too delusional to know which one is which. Seemingly both his fantasy and the one he resides in are the same
I see you are coming to the rescue or at least support of Wow here .. Why don't you proclaim that Wow nailed it, Stu?
He says all kinds of things that you too would say (and then some). You three (and there are more) could easily form a 'consensus' which you could use to even further bolster your beliefs in its veracity!
After all, that'w what you are all about: Believing things without evidence!
:-)
Wow ... Stu couldn't see anything wrong with luminous' ramblings. You couldn't even see where I told him he was wrong.
I believe you. You are exactly that kinda guy ... unable to see things out there in plain view .. The idea that you would understand any of the finer points discussed here or anywhere else ...
Well that's plainly laughable. And you don't. And no, one shouldn't laugh at your predicament. I am just hoping that one of the others comes along and claims: "Wow nailed it!"
That would top it off for me!
:-)
Again .. it 'took' trhee days for those last two post to 'appear' ... You poor deltoids really need to be fed it slowly ...
;-)
Joan, we're not saying anything about Luminous.
We're saying YOU have never shown anything wrong with Luminous' posts.
So stop changing the topic and show us your proof.
Wow ..
I totally believe that you never saw anythiong wrong with whatever luminous wrote, that you didn't even could see where I pointed out his many errors.
You are just way too dumb too being capable of anything lika that. But I am still hoping that some of the others 'endorses' your idotic rantings and claims 'Wow nailed it!' just like Jeffie, the DK-loonie hoped that 'Stu nailed it!'
You ar such a pathetic bunch of know-nothings it defies belief! But them you believe in every syllable of the CAGW-scare too. And think you are a vast majority ...
There are clinical terms for such beliefs ...
Who cares?
What you haven't done is actually shown anything wrong with whatever luminous wrote.
And you know this, which is why you keep changing the topic.
Wow .. Oh no!
I showed to everybody who only has a basic understanding and knowledge of elementary physics how and why luminous was wrong.
I never expected you to be among those. Never! But as you inform us, you weren't even capable of identifying where I pointed out his many mistakes.
That is a record even by Deltoid-standards! :-) Your Stu-buddy at least tried to challange some of the instances, and spent a year lamenting about different speeds. (Because hes deluded mind imagined others argued such).
I hope Tim, Stu, Jeff, Bernard, chek are proud of your presence here.
@wow
"Who cares?"
Not you obviously wow. School level physics isn't your strong point (or anything else for that matter), weak on everything, hence the rants in defence of apocalyptic global warming soothsaying. Science matters wow, the fact you don't give a jot explains a lot of what you post here.
How are things with you Jonas?
;)
"@wow
“Who cares?”
Not you obviously wow."
Well, duh.
That's what "Who cares?" means. I KNOW that you're really really proud that you've managed to read a sentence of two whole words, but that's not, in the real world, much of an achievement.
Who cares that you've managed to understand a sentence?
Wow ..
"you’ve managed to read a sentence of two whole words, but that’s not, in the real world, much of an achievement.
Who cares that you’ve managed to understand a sentence?"
But as you've told us, you haven't even seen the sentences at hand. That indeed is an achievment Deltoid-style even in the real world!
GSW, I'm fin thanks. In the real world climate hysteria and dito politics, and also alarmist climate science is taking a beating, or quietly trying to sneak out the backdoor ..
Although I wouldn't expect the few remnants of that belief system really noticing.
And Tim is keeping my comments in quarantine for some 2-3 days before Wow, Stu and the others are deemed ready to handle a response ... And for obvious reasons.
BTW have you noticed that Jeffie, is trying the same uniformed spiel with others too? I guess the strategy of keeping every sound voice in a separate thread is another method of keeping up the pretence ...
"But as you’ve told us, you haven’t even seen the sentences at hand"
Yes I have. “Who cares?” was the sentence at hand. I said it. I totally saw I said it, saw it was read and responded with not only a re-affirmation of saying it (twice now) but a quote showing I said it (twice again).
So the sentence at hand HAS been seen by me.
How on earth can you come to a conclusion I haven't seen me post my own sentence???
The krauts have a hard time with global warming:
http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/27/germany-now-recording-coldest-spring…
Is it a scale thingie again wow? ;-)
Indeed it is Olapdog.
After repeated entreaties not to confuse climate (+30 year trends) with weather (transient) you continue to do so.
As a result,. your previous double-digit IQ reckoning has now slipped down through single figures and slid off the scale. In much the same way as Jonarse the Pointless here.
Don't say you weren't warned.
@Jonas
Glad you are ok Jonas. The extended comments in moderation, doesn't really help things move along. It's a bit like the attitude to CAGW as a whole for the believers; dispense with "honest endeavours" (long ago) and keep your thumb on the scales when weighing the truth. It's the outcome that's important apparently, so imposing ad hoc rules as to who is, and who is not, allowed to express a view has become the norm.
A Consensus wouldn't build itself afterall, not without the marginalising of dissenters ;)
Yes, jeff has reverted to type, still very impressed with himself, others are obviously less so, hence the constant reminding.
@Olaus
Nice post Olaus, liked the "Climate experts running out of arguments", perhaps they should take a leaf of Jeff's book and start telling people about their CV and that they go to conferences and everything.
Thanks both!
;)
"“honest endeavours”
Ain't no such thing in denierworld Griselda.
Lying and shilling is all there is for you and your 'content providers'.
chek ...
We have seen plenty of dishonesty in this thread, and in other ones (sometimes indistinguishable from pathological mythomania).
My take on this is that your preferred 'religion' is falling apart, and can only be patched by more and more untruths and outright lying ...
Look fellows, you have still and now six years after the fact, not come to terms with the IPCC essentially lying you all of you, and the press all over the world about what was based on science, and what hopeful and shoddy opining about certainties.
Some people (quite a few!) are still in denial over this, on a level comparable to 'different-speeds-among-hand-box).
I understand that it sucks to have been played and to have been the sucker ... but attempting to redefine history won't change any of that!
From the very beginging (and long before I got my 'own' thread hear, where Tim still thinks I am too dangerous for the rest of you) I noted that people who use 'denier' as a central part of their argument have absoultely nothing to contribute. They are just rehashing memes and talking points they've picked up elsewhere.
You and Jeff are perfect examples of that. And asked directly what your best arguments would be ... the only 'answer' is more of the idiotic Jonarse- och DK-sniveling.
Deltoid is the perfect place four sissies like you. Because in a scientific discussion you guys have absolutely nothing but such idiotic shouting. Most often not even knwoing what position you would argue ...
It is truly pathetic, but then again, your number is shrinking and even the politicians have realized that the feast is over soon and ar moving on to new scare stories ..
Haha ... Hilarious chek
I see that your drivel-buddy Jeff Harvey is lying through is teeth in other threads, and again making completely false claims about me and what I've said!
The guy is propably a clinical mythomaniac, making up stuff he 'needs' as he goes.
And you charge others with 'lying'!? Really!?
:-)
What a joke!
Jeff, who still does not know (of?) the scientific method, claims I demanded his credentials! What a twisted sick little man he must be ...
Deltoid is certainly the place for him. And I wouldn't be surprised if he lies about everything else too. He certainly needs an alternate universe to fit his fantasies.
Between your sense of self-importance and your martyr complex it's no wonder you're left gnashing thin air and proclaiming victory 'any day now', as you deniers have been doing moronically for year after year now.
In reality it's your meme which has shrivelled and died only ever having gained any traction with your idiot denier clique that accompanies you.
If you'd had any substance, you would have published multiple papers by now. As it is, you haven't because your little meme (being merely an appeal to ignorance) doesn't make the grade and all you can do is bitch away on the sidelines of other peoples' blogs getting nowhere. Which is all you can do, and all you'll ever do.
Yup, you definitely managed to do all that.
Ever thought of NOT being dishonest? I know it's devastating to your perception of self, but give it a thought, if poss.
Jonas, I already accurately summarized and explained the hand-box thing here. I’m sorry your pathology won’t allow you to let it go. It’s just sad.
In the end, it’s probably just too complicated for you. Something must be lacking in your education.
Speaking of which, you pathetic lying little weasel, what IS your education?
Stu, yes you tried that. And it still doesn't change any single tiny bit of your fiasco ...
And you too couldn't see anything wrong with luminous drivel, albeit of attending highschool for six years :-)
But of course, that's way ahead of Wow who couldn't even find the instances where I pointed out his multiple failures. You only tried to challange one of them (well actually GSWs) in the most moronic way.
BTW What is it with you climate scare faithers? Are all of you really as incapable of adhering to the truth? (Well, I guess thats what it takes to swallow so much garbage in blind faith .. and creating a fair amount all by your self in the process)
My education? You really are a slow learner! I master the things I've told you here without effort. But then again, I am up against highschool-physics keyboard cursaders .. who didn't even get their highschool-physics right.
Or agains angry CV-shaking lying mythomaniacs ...
Do you think DK-suspect Jeffie has a diploma showing he's such an 'expert'? Of course, you wouldn't even have the slightest clue what the scientific method means ... But Jeffie, in spite of being as clueless as you, wants to call himself a 'scientist' ...
A guy patently incapable of behaving like an adult. And need I remind you that Wow is one of you here?
;-)
And even Tim thinks you need 'protection' from my words. Somtimes for up to three days! Sensitive souls, these climate scare faithers ... aren't they?
In the other threads, the remnant Deltoid commenters are falling over their heads and screaming:
'Because I said so', 'because the consenus is' ' you are not allowed to question the consensus' and of course 'because nobody else has any formal education ...' 'because I said so!'
It sure looks like an asylum, and surely hasn't improved.
Well at least, I can proud my self of having elevated the level (substance and scientifically) at least for some time and some topics ...
But the ceowed here really rather wants to be ranting at the bottom, just look at them in the threads and those who are encouraged to post ...
What fiasco, Joan?
You've made an awful lot of alarmist and hysterical CLAIMS of a fiasco or error in others but nowhere have you shown that they exist outside your brain.
Nowhere.
‘ you are not allowed to question the consensus’
Uh, another made up quote. Just like the rest of your insane ranting. Sad.
Wow ... arguing facts just isn't your thing, is it?
FYI quotes are marked with quotation marks, parapharasing the rantings of you and the others is something else.
And yes, you lot (who seem patently incapable of arguing even the simplest things) do a lot of ranting about 'insane' 'idiot' 'mentally ill' 'deranged' etc.
Alongside with you hardly ever getting any arguments of substance right. That's what I'm heckling you for ..
And you say you haven't seen Stu's fiasco either!? Well Wow, you both described it correct and entirely wrong when hoping to support him.
But I don't know if 'sad' is the correct description.
Have you forgotten that you brought up monsoon-patterns by Pielke as your 'science' backing that famous AR4 claim? Or hare you incapavble of seeing your own fiascos too?
....But Jeffie, in spite of being as clueless as you, wants to call himself a ‘scientist’ … "
I don't want to do any such think you brainless idiot. That is what I am, whether you like it or not. Or does the view of a single twerp (meaning you, Jonas) alone trump what thousands of my colleagues with similar degrees acknowledge? I guess all of those universities to which I have been invited to present lectures, all of the conferences at which I have spoken, all of the journals that have published my work, and the scientists that have reviewed my papers have been somehow 'duped'. Or are scientists only real when you alone declare them to be properly 'qualified'? Its hilarious that your small band of slavish admirers forever berate me for being 'self idolatrous' and 'CV waving' when IMHO and that of most others here the most self-righteous arrogant prick on Deltoid is you, Jonas.
And who discovered this 'fraud' of me being not a 'real 'scientist? Was it some scientific committee, who adjudicated over my qualifications and degree? Was it an expert in my field of research? NO! Insteead it is a lonely Swedish meatball who refuses to tell everyone what his illustrious qualifications are, even though he has told us all many times how much smarter he is than everybody else on Deltoid (an assertion reinforced, of course, his small band of cult-like worshippers).
And then he chides in with a comment about acting like an adult?!?!?!?!?! And it gets even more bizarre: he tries to turn the Dunning-Kruger study about arse-face to give the impression that it wasn't intended to describe people like him who claim to know it all whilst possesing no formal qualifications in any field of science (so what exactly IS your professional background, Jonas?) but scientists like me who bothered to spend years at universities studying for higher degrees. We've asked Jonas a million times what unqiue scientific background Jonas possesses with only snide retorts avoiding the question.
You know what I think Jonas? In my opinion you're a top level fruitcake. You can jump into a lake and take your stunning brilliance with you.
yup, Jonas, and you can 'proud yourself' [sic] all you like while doing it...
Jeff ...
Yet another rant about your CV?
What is the strongest argument you've ever made here in any discussion about the science? wrt climate change
It most certaingly is not your CV. It is not the term 'denier' or 'idiot' och 'fruitcake'. Neither is it 'Dunning Kruger' or anything else of the kind. And it is not any othe other irrelevant ranting and wishful fabrication of alternate 'facts' inside your head. Most definitely not!
So, if we subtract all of that idiotic (Yes, Jeff, idiotic!) ranting of yours here for the last two years. What remains?
Well, there are som things you've said that sounded reasonable, even a few where I agreed. But those where not really in contention. Mostly I even detailed where we were in agreement (and at times you couldn't handle that either)
So I ask you again: What has been your most valid (scientific) argument here where you challenge my 'world shattering views'!?
I have about a dozen times asked you what those alleged views were, and you could never specify them. Oh yes, you have accused me of all kinds of views I don't hold, and many times explicitly stated the opposite. That hasn't kept you fram your mothfrothing nonsense.
Well, if you allow me to present your 'best argument' you've managed at least to half-assedly formulate, it would be your statement that you don't have a clue, that you realize that, and that you hence defer to others whom you believe are 'experts' on various things you understand equally poorly, and that you therefor chose to believe what some others claim.
And I granted you that, but it has nothing to do with science. It is an argument based on ignorance. It is a statement of belief or in alleged authority which you are unable to confirm. Heck you even admit that your belief is based on the affirmation of others whom you are equally unfit to assess your self.
And that where you are, Jeff. Have been for the last two years. Believing things, and throwing fits if anybody in the room says that and why he doesn't agree with your beliefs.
That's where you still are. And it is not a crime to be ignorant, or poorly educated, or clueless when it comes to hard sciences.
But being unaware of this, while angrily bearing the irrelevant CV-drum, wanting to be listened to because of your self-labelling as a 'scientists' but never being able to make any scientific argument or even displaying a hint of such an attitude ..
.. undboubtedly makes you look a little foolish, and definitely does instill any any more confidence or give the impression of a sharp mind with scientific skills. Or that he is capable of contributing any intelligable substance to the topic.
Because you aren't Jeff. You don't even know what the debate is about! Not in general, and most certainly not in the more technical details.
Stupid, idiotic, mostly childish insults, that is content of your entire (non-) 'scientific toolbox here, Jeff. And what a tool you are ...
PS I haven't accused you of fraud Jeff. I noted early on that whatever skills you might posess, it most certainly does not have to do with the hard sciences, and that you most certainly are not a real scientist. Partly because you so obviously are completely oblivious to even what 'the scientific method' is. But partly too because your rantings are nothing but incoherent loony drivel mostly emanating from only your fantasies. As I pointed out above, the signal-to-noise-ratio is exceedingly low. And whatever little signal there has been, it has not been relevant or contentuous.
@Jeff
You're an ACTIVIST not a Scientist! You're no more a Scientist than the creature with Big Eyes and Big Teeth that Red Riding Hood ventured across was her grandmother (hopefully the children's story analogy will mean chek and wow are with us so far ;) )
You're an ACTIVIST in grandmother clothing!
That's why whenever the debate touches on something in the least bit relevant, unable to cope, you high-tail it back to your safety zone- the dreamy world, defending yourself with your "trappings" (the very definition of the pseudoscientific endeavour).
You don't/can't read any of the Climate Science papers, just rely on the unreliable prejudices of your bizarre politics. It may work for you, but to the rest of us you just come across as an unpleasant, uneducated, loon.
Anyway, Enjoy!
;)
Why are scientists and activists mutually exclusive, Gitter?
Indeed, how the hell are either perjorative?
And you claim that there's been *something* relevant on this thread, yet are completely unable to point out what that might be.
Why is that?
Because you can't see anything relevant either, but have to find a complaint somewhere, like the whining little pre-teen brat you are?
@wow
Don't normally bother but,
"Why are scientists and activists mutually exclusive, Gitter?"
Its a bit like making Steve Mcclaren England manager, if you know what I mean. To quote Forrest Gump
"Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."
Well, sometimes the end result is not that much of a surprise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZnoP4sUV90
Born in York, (Yorkshire,England) Apparently he can speak English fluently as long as there are Cue cards.
;)
"It may work for you, but to the rest of us you just come across as an unpleasant, uneducated, loon"
Um, Rest of us. Who is gormless referring to? A small band of semi-literate (being kind) climate change deniers, none of whom has published anything remotely scientific in their lives, but as anonymous entities on weblogs never hesitate routinely smear statured scientists like Mann, Hansen, Santer, Trenberth et al.
The truth is that the 'rest of us' in the gormless lexicon actually is a very small number. In reality, the 'rest of us', at least in terms of deltoid contributors, and certainly in science, support me and most of the 'rest of us' who have relevant degrees certainly agree that humans are the main drivers of climate change. The fact that gormless writes, 'rest of us' on the basis of a few outliers shows what a clot he is.
Gitter, you shouldn't have bothered.
Really.
No, honestly, you really weren't done well by that effort.
No it isn't.
It's like having a hobby and a job.
You know, like normal human beings.
Well, that's a PERFECT example of why you shouldn't have bothered. It had NOTHING to do with your statement, therefore displaying that you quote things that are irrelevant and have nothing to do with the conversation, as if you're really unable to think for more than half a sentence before your ADHD kicks in and you squeal "Look! Monkeys!!!"
Griselda quoting The Stupidest Man in the Room is entirely fitting.
As far as I can tell, the implied paraphrase is " Add 'x' ppm of CO2, you never know what you're gonna get". Which is true according to Griselda's protected World of Numpties, Shills, Corporate Interests and Fellow Travellers.
Unfortunately, in the real world where people make it their business to obtain and calculate actual data, it is known.
And being known, must be acted upon. By activists.
OK .. Two thins: Tim feels he needs to hold my comments in desper... ehrm ... moderation for several days to 'help' the crowd with whatever stance they still might be climing to.
And Jeff Harvey is once more lying through his teeth when referring to others as 'climate change deniers'
I still wonder why any grown up might make so stupid counterfactual claims. It seems that he, like an obnoxious child that has been snubbed, just cannot help himself anymore. And thus wants to proclaim an alternate 'truth' that fits his contorted hopes.
Again he makes his nonsens claims which i just pulled out of that deep black hole which is his fantasyworld.
And chek too wants to 'reframe' the discussion where he, Jeff and many others never really were able to step up to the table ..
He postures about "obtain and calculate actual data " ... in a thread where his crowd has been running like scared chicken for some two years now, avoiding any real data ... partly because of none of them (either!) ever having seen such - that infamous AR4-claim, remember?
@Jeff #48
I think there's a concensus building around the "you [jeff] just come across as an unpleasant, uneducated, loon” assessment. Only one dissenter so far, the " unpleasant, uneducated, loon" himself.
;)
@Jonas
The moderation thing is pretty bad, and again, very CAGW crowd like.They don't welcome debate of any kind, Gore and Hansen are asked all the time and just refuse to be on the same platform as a "denier". You'd think men of such conviction would have more faith in the cases they make, but no, head for the nearest exit as soon as someone approaches with a different view.
I'm guessing Tim's plan is to sneak your comments in unnoticed, your not banned or anything, that would be wrong, just effectively muted.
You've had your own thread for some time now, and Deltiod's not the place it once was. Do you think you've done some damage here? I think your efforts have certainly contributed to it ;) The longest running "Denier" dominated thread ever - "Jonas, the undefeated Swede"
There's an expression in English, it may be the same everywhere I don't know.
"All over bar the shouting"
It's certainly appropriate for CAGW, and the regular Deltoids can be relied on to provide the finale shouting. Twas ever thus ;)
Take care!
Aaawwww, come on gitters, we ALL know you don't think, so stop pretending.
Heh - and now Griselda presents this week's edition of the final nail etc.. Part 865,422 of a series.
Without realising that he's projecting again and that the Cult of Half-Wit Deniers and Numpties was always going to fade away once their attention span expired, or their lips got tired from all the reading.
"Only one dissenter so far"....
.. and only one supporter you idiot. Besides, most sensible people don't venture into this den of stupidity. They clearly realize a lot cause for what it is: soon it will be down to you adn Jonarse and you will then claim that, on the basis of n = 2 that you corner the wisdom market.
What sad, pathetic losers you and your hero are.
"...you brainless idiot." Gosh, that's really mature, jeffie.
A question jeffie, is it totally impossible for you to write a post without CV waving? Are you even able to try to make a point without it? And without namecalling? In other words, behave like a true, adult scientist?
'sfunny how you don't care about the childishness of your mates here, panties.
Your disgust is fake, and you're merely concern trolling because you've nothing left.
Pathetic.
Well well Jeffie ...
So you declare vicotry over the 'losers' without ever daring to engage or even just addressing what is actually said. How typical and predictable.
Have you even started to address your deep-rooted problem of making up your won facts to at all have anything to say or attack?
You can hardlyclaim that it's just been an occasional slip of the tounge or fingers. On the contrary, it is the very rare comments where you do not just fantasize up your own facts, that are the exception.
Do you have any idea why you are patently incapable of arguing like a grwon up man? It baffles me that you even dare to speak of 'science' to me as long as lying and fantasizing is the only method you have while debating others (who don't rely on blind faith)
And do I need to remind you that you claimed " Stu nailed it" when he was trying to get the the eggs of his face claiming (too) that he won any argument?
Why is it Jeff, that you team up with total losers here, and even make their numbers a central part of your 'argument'?
Are you getting anywhere?
wowie, jeffie claims to be a scientist and (I suppose) an adult. He's behaviour here is hardly worthy an employee at a university. Well, not in the civilized world anyway. And about you and the rest of the regular zealots here, namecalling is all you have left. There is nothing left, there is no catastrophe. 17 years and counting. There is no " worse than predicted, in ten years bla bla bla..." Grow up and deal with the hard facts.
panties, your butthurt is entirely fictitious and your petulant whining merely a smokescreen. They are entirely products of your inability to argue your case, therefore you play the martyr and moral guardian (tm) instead
Your complaint is meaningless and affects absolutely nothing.
Which is why you don't see anyone else complaining about the ill breeding of you deniers on this thread: it is irrelevant to the case, merely proof of your own hypocrisy.
17 years wowie, 17 years. And the co2 level rising like never before. Ooops, did I just swore in the CAGW church? Sorry.
17 years and the temperature trend is 0.2C positive.
17 years and despite the sun being far less active than it was 17 years ago, the trend is still 0.2C positive.
17 years and the trend is still easily within the IPCC projections.
17 years and still deniers have fuck all to say.
PS the CO2 is still rising, but at a lower rate than it has done previously.
What a fucking moron you are, panties.
PantieZ does his impression of the drowning man bragging between waves. There's no problem that he can see.
Until the next wave hits. And he and his coterie are too dumb to know that there's always another wave coming, and another and another..
"17 years and the trend is still easily within the IPCC projections."
Hahahahahahaha....you have a serious problem dealing with reality.
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP5-73-models…
And some straight lines, I know you love them:
http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CMIP-73.jpg
Now, where do you see the actual temperature readings being within the projections?
Why not let phil jones speak on the matter?
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
—–
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
—–
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
“I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
—–
Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
I wonder, worried about what?
That dimwits like you and your kind will do exactly what you're doing now.
GISS dataset shows a 0.2C increase over 17 years.
There is no statistically significant pause over the last 17 years.
But you're clueless, aren't you panties.
"Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005"
Yup, the trend is positive and statistically significant over the 17 years previous to 2005.
"Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009"
Yup, the previous 17 years trend is positive and statistically significant over the 17 years previous to 2009.
"Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
The trend is a warming trend.”
Agreeing with me.
"Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
[Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
[A] “Yes, but only just”.
And nothing there about the TREND, just the statistical significance of it, panties. The trend at that time was +0.17C per decade.
The last 17 years shows no statistically significant pause.
And you're demonstrating how dumb you are, panties, when you insist that ONLY CO2 can have an effect on the earth's temperature.
YOU FORGOT ABOUT THE SUN, DUMBASS!!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/pmod_v_acrim.gif
Haha, so now, finally, you zealots admit that the sun have something to do with earths temperature! That's about time.
Now, how is it, is the real world data and the plethora of model scenarios in sync or not?
So you are now admitting that you know nothing about the IPCC reports, and that you get all your info from twisted denier comics and liars.
It comes as no surprise at all.
Hahaha! So you denier idiots FINALLY recognise that "it's been flat!" is
a) wrong
b) no disproof of AGW
but you still try desperately to find a "reason" to make it someone else's fault.
Because YOU being a fuckwitted idiot is just *unpossible*, right?
So lets recap.
panties now admits they were wrong to claim that the temperature trend is zero for the past 17 years and admits that even if it were true, that does not disprove AGW if some other important factor has reduced.
I see that once more Jeffie feels he needs to lie ying and rewrite history (in the June 13 open thread):
However, here is Jeff's very first comment to me. Already there he was going on about his CV and asking for mine:
Already in his second comment, he completely lost it (and started to fabricate his fantasy drivel). And described his own actions as "TRYING TO WIN A PISSING MATCH"
And now almost two years later, he's still waving his CV, hoping that it somehow (I have no clue how, though) 'validates' his rantings. And this while lying about his own CV-waving ...
You can't make this guy up ... even if you tried!
Addition RE: Jeffie's CV-waving:
And I think there is (in more than one way) something pathological, meaning not quite sound, with Jeff Harveys compulsive lying and fabricating 'facts'
Because I have seen him trying the exact same spiel (with his CV) towards others as too. Telling them to shut up, and/or believe/accept the faith because of his CV.
My interpretation is that the guy just cannot help himself.
And still there's no warming the last 17 years. And the CO2 levels are rising as usual, 400ppm now. Hello armageddon, where are thou?
So you're saying that the sun has no effect on the climate, panties?
What a moron!
PantieZ hasn't noticed that the squiggly lines on graphs can go up and down whilst simultaneously rising inexorably. But then again he's already told us he doesn't understand lines.
400 ppm CO2 and rising but no rise in temperature for 17 years. That's the facts. Comment on that?
I wonder woowie, who claimed that the sun is the main climate driver and responsible for variations in climate, a year ago or so, you or I? But of course, it's exactly the same when alarmists call it weather when it get cold and climate change when it get warm. The way of the zealot.
So you're saying that the sun has no effect on the climate, panties?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/pmod_v_acrim.gif
Hahahahahaha! You deniers are SUCH idiots!!!!
panties, I wonder who it was who thinks that only CO2 effects the climate?
OH, THAT'S RIGHT: IT'S YOU!!!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/pmod_v_acrim.gif
Because that would mean that CO2 going up has stopped the climate cooling as fast.
Note, though, the average temperatures have risen a little over 0.2C. That's NOT flat.
Panties.
So bunched.
Hey, panties, if you have a cooling trend from the sun and a warming trend from the CO2, what does a warming trend of over 0.2C over those 17 years tell you about the relative strengths of those factors?
PantieZ is confused because he doesn't know what a single report from the IPCC actually says.
He only knows what shills and liars have told him to think. And so he does, without question.
The funny thing is, all those reports are only three clicks away, but it's much, much easier - if you've the type of barely functioning brain like PantieZ-head here, to just go along with what you've been told.
And still, no warming in 17 years despite rising CO2 levels. It doesn't matter how oftwn and how far you move the goalposts, facts is still facts. Hey, Armageddon, where are thou?
Around +0.22C of warming is not "no warming", you innumerate plonker.
Despite 17 years of a cooling sun, the temperatures are going up faster than ever before mankind was around.
Because we're pumping out more and more CO2.
For you, PantieZ, although I'm not convinced you're capable of even the simple arithmetic for seven year olds required to explode your stupid '17 year' meme in your stupid face.
You can read more here if your lips aren't too tired yet.
@Jonas #76 #77
Not been following much lately, but has Jeff been claiming that CV waiving has not been his only argument? I thought we'd established that beyond reasonable doubt for anyone ages ago. ;)
Usual MO goes like this; imploding foodwebs.. misrepresent every current ecological concern as being due to CO2.. back off when challenged with references to the "primary literature", as he calls it, "it's a stressor" (ie.He can't back the claims up).. whine incessantly about "transnational elites" out to destroy everything.. his political views are even more bizarre than the man himself.. oh yes and finally "the end is nigh", just in case a summary was required for the simple folk, chek and wow.
Now all this drivel is bad enough, but he then tries to justify all the crap by claiming "he's a scientist", he goes to conferences and everything. "Forget evidence, just look at my CV!" If Jeff's CV is evidence of anything, it's the deplorable state of what passes for an education in the "Sciences" (at least in some fields.)
Glad you are still going Jonas!
;)
Heh - it seems the troll collective's climatescam home is dying a slow death.
Gitter, you seem to have joan mixed up with jeff there.
After all, Joan is the only one saying "You must believe I am right because I'm far more scientist than everyone else".
But your confusion is very understandable: you're a moron after all.
Just had to congratulate you on perfectly capturing Jonarse's spectacularly uneducated syntax there, Wow.
GSW
Jeffie has (several times) made the claim that his CV-waiving only as been in response to others questioning its existence(!), which (as almost everything he spouts) total hogwash ... shown in some links abowe to be total BS.
And he tries similiar appeals to his own 'authority' (meaning CV-length) with most newcomers here, shortly whereafter he starts fabricating 'facts' about others and all that they don't are/know.
The MO you describe usually comes far later, and could (streneously) be regarded as 'argument', however not for anything relevant to the climate change discussion. There he has nothing at all to say (except stating his beliefs, usually in the CV-length of some notorious climate loudmouth).
No, the guy doesn't know anything about real and hard sciences. Doesn't even know what those are when told, doesn't know what quantification means or the laws of (simple physics) and how they cannot be cheated with. He doesn't even know what the scientific method means, not even in it's weaker forms.
It is indeed very difficult to extract what at all he might be trying to say and accomplish here. It looks mostly just like frustrated angry barking at a world he does not understand.
And the last sentence is the key pharse here:
He does not understand major parts of the world, of reality, of why people don't share his utopian nonsense fantasies about neither world, politics, nor other people. He does not know what (real) science is, how it works and how it may accomplish advancement, and what such may be.
I think that is why he is shouting so much, and here. Where most of the others are in the same situation. Meaning (amonst others) totally incapable of articulating and argument worth listening to ...
And now, let's see what real scientists say:
"Surely a few more years of cooling will leave only the true believers in their misanthropic ideology, and the truly idiotic"
"“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead."
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/06/15/forget-the-temperature-plateau-e…
I know, a lot to read for you small minded, but give it a go.
Panties, we already know that you are wrong on what a real scientist says.
Linking to climate depot and calling curry-favour's *opinion* as if it were scientifically valid indicates that nicely.
Hell even your fellow deniers don't think that is her SCIENTIFIC conclusion:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/06/01/june-2013-open-thread/commen…
I knew it, to much text for the zealots to comprehend.
Too little factually based bullshit for any sane human to comprehend.
Then again, incomprehensibility is how you roll, isn't it, panties. Because if you make a statement that makes NO SENSE then it either goes unanswered ("CAN'T ANSWER, HUH???") or it has to be inferred what you meant ("I NEVER SAID THAT!!!!").
And post 97 contains too little content to comprehend.
To echo PantieZ @ #97, anybody would have known that old Pants would be totally unable to think through what #90 means due to the shortcomings described in #98..