By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
Yes Jeff ...
>My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me.
That is exactly what I am saying. And with regard to polar bears, I think there were two points I made:
1.The reason they are used so featured so prominently from the climate scare lobby, is because they make great pictures, because the cubs are cute, and because such pictures are useful for indoctrinating kids and swaying other naïve and gullible suckers with appealing to their emotions. And
2.That among whatever threatens the population(s) of polar bears, the possible anthropogenic signal of any global warming/climate change is pretty far down the list.
Now the first point is not a scientific one, it is about the PR-strategies of the warmists. But the second is an estimation of the orders of magnitude among the various possible/conceivable threats. It is not very scientific, but whatever real science you want to discuss, you need to have a grasp of the magnitudes involved. Otherwise you are just chanting emotions again: âEverything is so bad and there is so much that is bad, so itâs even worse â¦. Bla bla â
I think I made a third point too, also about quantitative assessment (but more in relation to your threatened glaciers). I asked you:
If you now believe that there is a real problem (with glaciers, or polar bears) caused specifically by the A of AGW, by the possible anthropogenic signal in the warming, what are the means and methods, and at what costs (generally speaking, not only $) to achieve something. Something you urged was necessary, as you said âto do something about itâ?
I again brought up the magnitudes of the topics you brought up. I even asked several times. And as far as I remember, you never came back even attempting an answer, or giving any hint that you even understood why these are relevant factors. Instead, you returned with your drivel about yourself.
And yes, there have been other topics pf relevance, where Deltoid regulars engaged in at least some substantial discussion or at least tried, or pretended to (as opposed to you who only managed self adulatory CV drivel and angry emotional rants). And since you have no method at all judging this, I can inform you that those discussions mostly where on a very simple and basic level, like curve fitting, or simpler statistics, laws of motion etc. Most often making mistakes and errors revealing their shallow understanding. But at least âon topicâ if only superficially.
The usual MO would be to throw in some sciency sounding terms, possibly picked up at Skeptical Science (a favorite source among many here, I noticed) and even occasionally an opened paper in their browser, copy pasting some phrases. But usually that was it! When the actual content was discussed, what had actually been done, and what it may have been worth etc, they often were at a loss. First repeating their original claims a bit shriller, followed by name calling and worse (like you). Signifying that they couldnât go beyond repeating phrases and memes, couldnât assess and quantitatively (or at all) evaluate the contents, the arguments the substance. (And consistently, you would side with those who were wrong, badly wrong sometimes, and the ones spouting pure stupidities. And thatâs because you have no method, Jeff. You have no means to approach a scientific, or even simpler science question, you let yourself be lead astray by your angry emotions. And consistently so. Here at least)
And since this was what happened every time there actually was some debate over a relevant topic, I can easily claim that:
> My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me.
I dearly hope that some of the shouters and haters here, do possess skills exceeding mine in other fields. But wrt to what I have pointed out here and was challenged for. No!
Hence, your:
> And its you claiming to know more than anybody else here
is just your usual idi0tic drivel. I nowhere have claimed anything like that. These are the pathetic strawmen you must construct, and you have been doing this in essentially every post for halg a year. As if you just couldnât help yourself. As if your Pavlovian reflexes made you bark nonsense, everytime your âgreatnessâ wasnât accepted, and accepted as an argument. You still do!
You canât even get my name right ⦠you still need to distort everything you only get close to. And you call yourself a scientist!? Gimme a break!Well, here your performance has been totally laughable (and that is the flattering description. If you canât do better when contradicted or not agreed with, you are a case for different kind of institution Jeff. Or are you telling me that you are much much better, more honest, more rigorous, less activistic and blindly guessing, when I canât see you? Are you not yourself here, Jeff?)
Dear Stu #3306
I think I can help you there. What is claimed by me, and others still in possession of their mental capacities is that Jeffâs CV, wonât help him when arguing
1.A multi billion dollar fossil fuel funded denial machine/industry
2.The existence of (so far never seen, by anyone) published (real) science underpinning that prominent AR4 claim
3.Pushing around boxes while violating fundamental laws of physics and scientific principles
4.And much more. Actually almost anything discussed by me.
His CV, whatever it contains, is no argument in any of these instances. And still he brings it up, every second time. His argument is pure crap, and his CV is his âargumentâ.
Wrt to his education: Yes it has failed badly on many counts. His publications I havenât read, but I would not take one statement, one number, one conclusion from him at face value. I have read his hate-speech âreviewâ of Lomborg, and the guy comes off like an unbalanced, angry, spoilt rotten kid, first time somebody refuses to hand him his candy .. It was a disgrace. For him, and for Nature. Nazi-allegations ⦠classes from hell, where he would like to fail everybody. Pathetic. A guy who in half a year cannot muster one balanced argument for his own stance ..
Jeff:
>You think I take your sh*@ seriously? Get real, idiot!!!!!
Seriously. If you were asked yourself: What of everything you have delivered here .. Of all that, what would you want that anybody not blindly sharing your beliefs would take seriously?
What has been your most âto be taken seriouslyâ argument here the last six months? Do you even know?
Pssst: âIdiotâ, is still not an argument.
Those two posts, Jonas, will stand the test of time as epic displays of arrogance, delusion, straw-manning and internal contradictions.
No more is needed, you've laid it all out.
Jonarse, Until you've read population ecology in any way shape or form my advice is to stick at whatever it is you do for a day job. What is that? Postal delivery man? Chimney sweep? Refuse collector? Moreover, the only ones who take you seriously on this thread are the three inane idiots that have been referred to earlier. A far larger sample size thinks you and your three fawning puppies are clowns. Last thing I read was that in a democracy the majority vote holds sway. You lose. Besides, why do you think three of you have been banished by Tim to your own measly personal thread? Because your arguments were so profoundly deep? Olaus humiliated himself with his comedy act suggesting that the Nazi Party was somehow 'left wing'.
The thing is, you can't debate your way out of an old, wet paper bag. You make the Freudian slip of trying to engage in debate about the demographics of polar bears. Since you probably can't tell a mole cricket from a giraffe, that's mighty brave of you. So go ahead. Let rip with your immense wisdom. Please tell about the extinction debt and how this applies more to iteroparous organisms than semelparous organisms. Go on to define why species at the terminal end of the food chain - k selected species in other words - are far more susceptible to even minor perturbations in their habits than more r-selected species further down the food chain. Please expand upon the interplay between biotic and abiotic constraints on the population ecology of species and species interactions. Explain the concept of trophic cascades and how this is integrally linked with the conservation biology of a species under investigation. Place your arguments also within the context of population genetics. Enlighten me as to your immense wisdom on entropy and tipping points in deterministic systems. And then put all of this together and tell me why the rapid loss of Arctic ice does - or does not - represent a profound short-term threat to the survival of polar bears. When doing this. please refer to other examples where habitat loss or fragmentation has or has not negatively impacted the abundance of a certain species. Please tell us all here - we wait with baited breath - examples of species that have been harmed by even small losses of habitat, and those that have not or have even benefitted, then place these findings in a broader ecophysiological and life-history related framework. Tell us why climate change will not be a major driver of extinctions.
OK smarty pants. Let's see how much you know. You claim to know more than me on just about everything in science. So go ahead. By the way, when you are done, I'd be delighted if you could discuss the relative merits and downsides of the neutral hypothesis in biodiversity. How do you think this stacks up against the theory of island biogeography in explaining global and local patterns of species richness?
Dear Jeff (and Stu), like I said, your CV is crap when it comes to explain (and understand) the climate science behind the 90% figure, and its crap when it comes to find proof of the multi-billion right denial machine orchestrated by right wing illuminati.
It doesn't matter how many times you say you are scientist when you can't handle a scientific discussion. Only waving a CV doesn't cut it, OK? The only thing you bring to the table is a dung pile of self idolatrine and an entourage of smelly minions.
Oh, sorry Jeffie, I forgot, your CV isn't an argument for that nazism/fascism is right wing either.
Valid, contextualized, well reasoned facts and non-anachronistic perspectives are, which I served you guys on silver platters â in a polite manner.
Like always you showed up with noting to add except emotional shoutings and smearing.
What. The. Hell. Are. You. Talking. About.
If you're going to build a strawman, could you at least TRY to sound plausible?
And please, before you post another comment, check yourself. Think to yourself "would any of the imagery and batshit-insane analogies in this missive be perceived as loony, creepy or otherwise indicative of serious sexual issues and/or mental instability"?
No, reality is. You lose the argument on corporatism alone.
Oh, wait... I sense tone-trolling ahead...
Ayup. We're just meanies! The WATB award for the day goes to our resident sexually repressed cheerleader.
Sweetheart, you don't win an argument because people are rude to you. Have you considered the possibility that people are rude to you because your "arguments" amount to nothing more than vile, oft-debunked reconstructionist tripe?
Note to self: when bored, create the Olaus Using Creepy Metaphors Omnibus.
By the way, Jonas, who knows more about science than anyone here, has been directly asked
If he does not address this directly in his next comment, he will have conceded the point that he is not as well versed in science and specifically the scientific method as he has been proclaiming, and has, in fact, been lying his behind off for most of this thread.
As I said, Olaus, go back to your artsy sandbox. You don't discuss science because you don't know any, except to rehash the garbage spewed out by non-scientists on the right wing web sites you so much love. But I didn't expect anything more from you, as you've never been near a science class or a lab in your life, much less attended a scientific conference. Your sole function on this site has been to worship anything Jonas says. I have yet to see you take on anything dealing remotely with science here critically. So put up or shut up.
Jonas, to his credit, issued a scientific challenge and I answered it. See if you can. What do you know about ecological tipping points, critical demographic thresholds, genetic viability, and relaxation times towards or beyond stable equilibria? How do you think climate change in higher latitudes might affect species along different trajectories of the r- and K selection continuum? How might different stressors affect the fitness of polar bear populations and how might we interpret declines in ice sea extent as fragmenting existing populations? What previous studies are scientists using as proxies for habitat loss effects on biota in the Arctic and tundra regions? How might warming affect trophic inter-relationships and thus lead to bottom-up versus top-down cascades thus affecting network interaction webs? I am sure that you and Jonas are well up on the literature of May, McCann, Polis, Hubbell, Boscampte, Naeem and others in projecting how habitat fragmentation - caused through a range of anthropogenic threats including climate change - will impact the strength and viability of food webs.
Heck, you wanted science? Jonas appears to claim that he knows more than I do in any scientific field. Having done BSc and PhD degrees as well as having more than 20 years experience in population ecology in your and Jonas' opinion means nothing? I never said I was a climate expert, unlike Jonas who appears to reinvent the wheel with every post. I said that I defer to the vast majority of trained experts in the field who are in broad agreement that humans are the main forcing agent behind the current warming. That every Academy of Science in every nation on on Earth supports this position. So who are the outliers?
What you both appear to be saying is that anyone can pick up a couple of books or surf the internet and presto! Instant expertise! I just wonder why universities are so filled with people who have PhD degrees and long pedigrees in the fields in which they work. You and Jonas appear to think that a relevant education doesn't matter. I am saying that it does. I am also saying that I can wipe the floor with both of you or GSW in any field related to population, systems or evolutionary ecology. It isn't hard. But in climate science I stick with the experts. Not you. Not Jonas, Not GSW. You are all Dunning-Kruger wannabes. That is why you are tucked away in your little safe corner of the blogosphere where nobody who is a somebody knows who the hell you are and the real researchers are out there in universities and scientific institutes and bodies. Not in think tanks or in astroturf lobbying groups. And those people are the ones generating the data and publishing it in peer-reviewed journals. Not on right wing anti-science sites that you clearly glean your worldview from.
The problem with being a clumsy, offensive troll, an easily exposed liar and an anti-intellectual moron (and in your case an unfortunate combination of all three qualities are amazingly on display and quite easily verifiable within the previous dozen posts on this thread alone), is that it all adds up to showing beyond all doubt that you're an unintelligent fool Petri.
Some were courteous enough to respond to your *ahem* arguments on the other thread, but as you already know, your assertions were found to be vacuous and easily disproved, as are the arguments of all fools. If anything Petri, what that episode exposed was your cloying need to distance your whacko right-wing beliefs from their most obvious neighbour which induced an embarrassing cognitive dissonance within you. After that, nobody would be surprised if your hard drive weren't full of pictures of yourself in full chocolate soldier regalia, just like crazy mad Anders. Stupid is as stupid does.
I'd surmise that's how your Jonarse cult works - a form of horse whispering that appeals to the narcissism that those like you, GSW and Pentax end up believing you're as smart as anybody - probably more so. The abundant self-damning evidence to the contrary however shows that's most definitely not the case.
You people are pathetic, all of you.
Jeffie, glad you brought up your credentials again. :-) I'm sure you know plenty about worms and plants, they are very un-valuable in real climate science.
@ Stu, back to singularities are we? :-) And Engels was right wing because he was a capitalist?
Olaus, The only reason I ever mentioned my CV was because Jonas repeatedly said that I wasn't a scientist. So as soon as I proved that I am, he accused me of waving my CV in his face. Bait and switch. And you swallow it hook, line and sinker.
As for 'worms and plants' being 'un-valuable' in climate science, try again. Biotic responses are some of the most important indicators of rapid warming. There are countless examples of poleward and elevational shifts in temperate species that is proof positive of the recent warming.
I also challenged you to comment with some scientific input on the effects of warming on polar bears, citing ecophysiological aspects that are key to the discussion. Trust you to avoid this.
Ianam: I would agree with you but I am tired of being smeared here relentlessly by a bunch of Dunning-Kruger acolytes. I am being constantly baited by this sordid lot of pseudo-intellectuals, so for once I have asked that they put up or shut up. As expected, Olaus took the evasive route, as I would expect from someone who hasn't been in a science class or lab in his life.
Dear Jeffie, your knowledge about bugs isn't disputed. That's something your vulnerable but massive ego has invented all by itself. What's been disputed is the real climate science behind the 90% figure. Like your CV no maggotology will be of any use regarding that topic. Scientific arguments are.
Your effort so far boils down to:
1. CV waving
2. Insults
3. Cursing
4. Fantasies about right-wing conspiracies (and about the people not taking your gibberish for granted)
5. Posturing
And sorry to tell you this Jeffie, but a thermometer is a much better device to detect rapid global warming than bugs. So far the former hasn't revealed any rapid increase in global warming, not to mention a tipping point. ;-)
I'm sure though, that there would be a biotic response to a rapid warming.
Peace? :-)
Jeff ... revising history again?
>The only reason I ever mentioned my CV was because Jonas repeatedly said that I wasn't a scientist
Utter BS! On two counts. You brought it up long before, and as an argument. I even think your opening line here (in the Rick Perry thread) was:
> I am a senior scientist, and ...
And secondly, what I have told you that you aren't **a real** scientist, and I have detailed what that means, what that would entail. And what you compulsively are unable to do.
I even have acknowledged that you have a academic position, and that you go through notions, similar to those that real scientists also do. You write and publish papers, you go to conferences, workshops, you are invited to give talks and seminars, and you have discussions with others in your lunchroom .. etc.
Non of this makes you a real scientist per se. Your actions need to demonstrate that. And they don't. Here, almost in every single comment!
Jeff, I'm sure there will be a biotic response on this rapid change of climate regime:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/australians-just-arent-going-to-k…
*And sorry to tell you this Jeffie, but a thermometer is a much better device to detect rapid global warming than bugs*
What a ridiculous remark. Where to begin dismantling it? First of all, there are thousands of biotic indicators that involve plants, invertebrates and vertebrates... these are vastly superior proxies for responses to warming than thermometers. Biotic responses include range shifts and changes in phenological traits. Biotic responses are vitally important in detecting changes in abiotic processes. That you do not tells me the level of your understanding of environmental science is virtually nil.
I am sure that Jonas, anxious to defend his small coterie of admirers, will agree with Olaus on this absurd point as well. To dismiss biotic responses so flippantly as Olaus does is the epitome of ignorance. To be honest, I don't even think most of the small band of deniers in the scientific community would go this far. That's why 'real scientists' should not waste their time with this thread as I am doing. Ianam: point taken.
Jonas: you are in NO position to define what a 'real' scientist is, since you aren't one yourself. In fact, you clearly aren't any kind of scientist. I have provided important questions above re: climate change, life-histroy traits, polar bear demographics and, as expected, you and Olaus have run scared. This is typical of you: attack others relentlessly, then when you are challenged, return to the usual ad homs. Moreover, telling you that I am a senior scientist is 'not waving my CV'. To do that I'd need to tell you as helluva lot more about my career. The term 'real scientist' is childish anyway. Kid's stuff. The fact that my 110+ research papers and 10+ grants have been successfully peer-reviewed is proof enough of my scientific credentials. I don't need you or Olaus who lack any formal training in any field of science to be able to tell me whether or not I qualify as a scientist. Of course I do. Your beef with me is that I don't bow down to your contrarian views or self-righteous 'wisdom'.
Ianam is right, though: you aren't worth a fart in the wind.
I don't see how some assorted anonymous liars and morons' fantasy ideas of what a 'real' scientist is has any bearing on anything or is of any interest to anyone.
What we do know is that Jonarse's idea according to his often demonstrated method relies on assertion (preferably with lots of exclamation marks) rather than citation.
Treating Jonarse and his travelling circus with the contempt they've earned is counted as another negative sign by them, but that's merely how they justify their own ignorance.
Jeff, what is it in the sentence "I'm sure though, that there would be a biotic response to a rapid warming" you don't understand?
I can assure that no-one thinks that inserting a thermometer into a biological orifice reveals much about the biotic response to rapid global warming.
If you weren't so bundled up in narcissism and conspiracy theories you would have seen that I said that a thermometer is way better to detect rapid global warming than bugs. Are you really challenging that?
In sum your beef with me is that your self idolatry and crazy fantasies don't count as valid scientific arguments. Deal with it.
Jeff:
> I am tired of being smeared here relentlessly by a bunch of Dunning-Kruger acolytes
That, and your actions here, thus really read:
>I wanna do the smearing all by myself. And not being contradicted! No, I want recognition even praise for my insults and fabrication of âfactsâ.
That utter stupidity has been your âargumentâ almost from the start. And there has been almost no comment from you, whose punch line and main message has been utterly stupid insults.
Olaus, you write to Jeff:
> your knowledge about bugs isn't disputed
I think that is a bit strong. I would leave it at *âI am not qualified to question his knowledge about bugsâ*, and I donât think you are either. However, as I stated before, I would never take one single statement of fact, any calculation, or any quantification, not one inferred conclusion, not (the alleged contents of) one single cited reference, not one presented result etc, at face value from the guy!
He is a notorious compulsive serial liar/inventor of âfactsâ to support and âconfirmâ a (since long) predetermined narrative and desperate beliefs of almost religious kind. This kid is so obsessed and possessed by his anger and unbalanced emotions, he just canât help himself. To assume that this guy, is a totally and completely different persona once he goes about his day job, than what he (at daytime, from his job) delivers here, is a speculation I would never make.
And yes, Jeff:
I am very much in a position to define what a **real** scientist is. And even more so, what a real scientist is **not**, what (s)he doesnât do. I have defined that many times by now. And (if you really didnât know this yet, Iâll repeat it once more:) academia is littered with fields, disciplines, institutions, characters etc that call them self science/scientists and who pretend to âdo scienceâ (going through similar motions) but whose outcome is not âreal scienceâ.
And no, Jeffie, you have not waved your CV here for real. Never! The phrase is a metaphor for your repeated referral to whatever your CV contains, as a substitute for arguing any of the real and relevant issues. Did you not even know that? (Earlier on, at least you seemed to understand what I/we meant by âyou waiving your CVâ .. is that comprehension gone too now?)
Olaus, I also reacted when Jeffie seemed to claim that biotic indicators are better at recording temperature and temp changes, than thermometers. In true Mannian fashion of proxy-science, Jeffie seems to argue that whenever a biotic indicator change is observed, he can extract the temperature (change) signal from that. And at the same time discard (or filter out) any other conceivable cause and change that also might have an effect on such indicators. The guy is a real tool ⦠Even in his own field it seems
Being constructive for a moment; Jonas point as to what constitutes a "real scientist" is quite well expressed by Feynman also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtMX_0jDsrw
It's hard to watch this and not think of you jeff. Being a scientist is not attitude, which you have in abundance, and the ability to reel off lists of "names of things".
Forgive me jeff, but you haven't demonstrated that you actually have an understanding of anything. Your "names of things" argument isn't actually an argument, neither is your "other people know" for the AR4 attibution claim, it's not an argument. If anything you're more librarian than scientist.
One more from Feynman,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05WS0WN7zMQ
The value of knowing the "name of something".
What should be remembered here is that Jonarse et al's 'arguments' are worthless and ill informed trolling and nothing more.
Consider this. If Jonarse was so offended by Jeff Harvey's 'attack' on Lomborg - and let's not forget the completely independent Danish panel's judgement, he could - if he had the ability - have mounted a scientific defence of Lomborg.
But Jonarse didn't, most likely because he doesn't have the knowledge or ability to even know how or where to start. Therefore Jonarse is a blowhard with nothing. All he has are his layman fantasies of what he believes science should be.
QED and goodnight.
Sorry Che(k), the only thing rememberable here is that you guys can't present the science behind the 90% figure in AR4.
And please don't share if you use the out door thermometer Jeffie style.
Any comments on (or bionic reaction to) the new climate regime of the NSW? ;-)
No Petri, the only totally unremarkable thing here is that your clique of ignoramuses and liars can't understand Chapter 9. You can only lead horses to water, the rest they have to do for themselves.
You and the gang are merely incapable, just as Jonarse is also incapable of making a valid defence of Lomborg that would overturn the DCSD decision.
C'mon Chek, please explain why its raining all over the place in NSW? ;-)
C'mon Petri, why are you under the mistaken impression that you would have to ability to understand anything at all?
No chek, I'm under the impression that you are a hysterical guy that doesn't know what he's mouthing off about.
Please come up with a better bionic response.
Chek
If seen you (occasionally) commenting in other threads. You do not always sound so completely stupid as you do here.
It is quite amazing, you still maintain that there is a (or some) reference(s) in ch 9 to any science underpinning that claim. Although you have never seen nor read it. You even seem to argue that ch 9 in it self should suffice!? That it doesnât even require any real published science?
Truly flabbergasting!
chek, has no clue. Writes so. And maintains he knows it anyway ..
None of you guys has even contradicted what I said about you all:
**You have not seen, read and understood any such science (for that prominent AR4 claim)** (*)
And still you dimwits jump up and down, stamping your little feet, hoping that somebody else knows and has seen it. You pin your entire âargumentâ on blind and desperate faith, and in vain.
(*) Most of you mouthing off here, arenât even capable of reading science, just reading the words, copying or repeating them, and hoping they are the science.
Jonas, GSW, Olaus,
Your responses are all predictable. Basically it comes down to this: "We know bugger all (= nothing) about biotic responses to climate change: in spite of thousands of published papers which are examining this behaviorally, ecologically and physiologically across a very wide range of taxa. So we will do what we do best: ridicule the message and the messenger". Its actually a huge field of research, both theroetically and empirically. I posed for you dumbasses a series of relevant questions and criteria that are integrally involved in this large field. Many ecological and evolutionary parameters are currently being explored. Of course I expected you all to respond with smears, innuendo, and obfuscation. You don't disappoint.
Q: How many of you have read a single published paper on climate change, phenology, trophic interactions and local adapation? Several of these studies are published in the pages of Nature and Science. Let's start there. My guess: you have read none. So, in true D-K fashion, the field will be ridiculed and I can expect sarcastic ripostes about worms, bugs and weed (ignoring the fact that earthworms are important ecosystem engineers).
Finally, what unique qualifications do any of you schmucks have for being able to tell a 'real' scientist from one who is not? Amongst hundreds or thousands of my peers - actual working scientists - across the world I am certainly the former. Amongst a few non-scientist contrarians and right wing pundits I am not. I can live with that.
Finally, GSW, Feynman would turn over in his grave if he were to read the way his views are being soiled and distorted by idiots like you. Were he alive, he would most certainly be opposed to the contrarian drivel you, Jonas and Olaus spew out.
You clowns can stay here in your own little thread of ignorance. Your maxim: don't know something? Ridicule it and the messenger.
Stu #314
Is there any comment you have written that is **not** only empty blathering and wishful thinking about how youâd rather want reality to be?
Any at all that has had any substance, of any kind? Your fantasies are on Jeffie level:
>Jonas ⦠will have conceded the point that he is not as well versed in science and specifically the scientific method as he has been proclaiming, and has, in fact, been lying his behind off for most of this thread.
You really really really wish and hope for an alternate universe, donât you Stu? I guess that also explains why you are so completely off in virtually every comment. Because itâs all about and only about your fantasies. No wonder you never learnt any science or physics in school ..
You telling me about âthe scientific methodâ!? Pah! What a joke
Every scientific academy accepts the fact of the 'A' in AGW, as do almost all working climate scientists. Most reasonable people accept that the scientists are correct.
One Swedish cretin and his moronic libertarian travelling circus don't.
Your ever self-aggrandising, incoherent, lamebrain rants don't even withstand the simplest test of Occam's razor, Jonarse.
Buh-bye Jonas, Olaus and the D-K comedy act.
And watch as the science vanquishes you. Slowly but surely, as it is and will continue doing. And sadly so, as our species continues blindly along its path towards an abyss of its own making.
@Jeff
"Buh-bye Jonas, Olaus and the D-K comedy act."
Is that it Jeff? you off?. A few pompous claims about how "sciencey" you are and you're gone, fair enough.
Remember, you're welcome back on the Science thread Anytime.
;)
Jeff â¦
Early on you clown pretended to speak for âthe scientific communityâ, which of course also was untrue. Now you pretend to speak for Feynman too? Only that you even bring this up shows that you didnât understand what it is he was saying.
> what unique qualifications do any of you schmucks have for being able to tell a 'real' scientist from one who is not?
I have answered that questions many many times. But your learning curve flat lined long ago it seems. Firstly, these are not so very unique. Any kid will realize that a real scientist doesnât get to make up his own âfactsâ so they fit the story he wants to tell. Theyâd certainly also realize that you cannot look at a dataset, or change of an indicator and from that observation also determine what caused that change. There are of course higher levels too, maybe not every kid will realize or understand. But wrt you, those simplest ones will suffice. Since you are patently incapable of even formulating your stance, let alone correctly reading what others say, you simply cannot be a real scientist. Oh yes, you are a sorry ass excuse for an employed academic, and there are many more than only you. But thatâs something very different. And in almost every comment you write, you fantasize up your own âfactsâ.
You who canât get one single thing right. You cannot read even shorter comments here correctly. You regularly side with the most moronic incompetents here, and guided only by your emotions, hoping they got it right and me wrong. This is utterly pathetic, Jeff.
There is not even any proof needed. I could randomly pick any of your comments, select a few sentences, and ask you to demonstrate how you arrived at these claims. And your only answer (if honest) must be, cannot be anything else but:
>I donât know, I just made that up. Because I wanted it to be true!
But honest, you are not Jeff. Instead you make up new stupidities, and repeat old ones. Hoping that repetition will lend them some authority (together with your CV waiving, I presume). Once again demonstrating that you simply are incapable of being a real scientist. Heck, I have both told you and asked you many times. It seems that you are even unaware of what âthe scientific methodâ is.
Yeah, me too.
We'll know when Jonarse & Co.have something other than hot air and a meme when their paper refuting Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) is published, and when their gigantic, more übersciencey than you can shake a stick at defence of Lomborg sees his rehabilitation.
Which will of course be never.
Chek .. donât bring up Occams razor if you have no clue what it means â¦
But you seem to hope that those academies have read that science you havenât, and nobody else has read. Is that what you believe now? Is that why you bring them up? Is that what you are pinning your hopes to?
And have you forgotten what this was about? Although this has been going on for six+ months? It certainly is not about the A in AGW, it is about that AR4 claim of 90% confidence of it being responsible for at least (maybe more) than half the warming in the past 50 years. And that this supposedly is a scientific result. But one where âthe scienceâ is nowhere to be found, which no one has seen.
Must I repeat everything, everytime I bring something up chek?
Or is the reason you are so incoherent the same as with Jeffie? That you all are so emotional about it, that everything is just one huge boiling kettle of wishes, hopes, beliefs, faith, and religion .. and you have no clue about what is what, since it is all is only one big clot of tangled hot emotions?
Jonas, if you are so 'up on science' then answer my two posts about climate change and population ecology... I laid it all out for you in relevant scientific terms. But of course you won't because you have not got a clue. End of story.
You are a waste of useful space.
Jeff, are you telling me you made some normal, relevant comments, asking relevant polite questions, and without adding you bizarre cocktail of concocted âfactsâ?
Sorry, I must have missed that. Which where these? I have certainly not brought up âpopulation ecologyâ as relevant for determining if, and if so, how much that A in AGW might amount to. Iâd say that this would be approaching that question from the wrong end.
Really, Jonas? You and your cronies never whined about polar bears?
Again, you are aware that people can scroll up, right?
Stu,
Yes, what I have said about polar bears is still legible above. What was your point? Do you not remember what I said? Or did you not understand it? I even summarized it just a day ago, in #3307 ..
And I asked you in #3337 if you have made any comment contributing anything else but empty stupid remarks and silly wordplay? Anything that would even require me to think if or whether you had a valid point? (Your opinions and beliefs, I already know.)
Well, Stu .. anything?
Jonas:
Jonas:
Oh yes, semantics, Jonas. You are SO clever. NOBODY could EVER figure out that by reversing the implication, you were still implying the same damned thing but reserved the right to weasel out of it by "coming at it from the wrong end".
Did people laugh at you in debate club, too? Jonas, it's okay. You can tell us. We all know you have major hangups about your education in science in general, and physics and biology specifically. Did they laugh at you, sweetheart? Is that why you are so, so angry?
Oh, by the way, if anyone needs me: after reading
I'll be off to the hardware store to purchase those heavy-duty irony meters, psychotic gibbering of "AR4"! "90"! "REAL science"! in my head all the way.
Kiss kiss, Jonas.
So Stu .. did you ever have a point? Or are those stupid comments all you ever managed?
Semantics? You really don't have the slightest, do you?
As I asked chek too: Is all just a tangled clot of emotions and contradictions you can't resolve in your head for you?
I still don't see that you even are trying to make a point (just like your weeks of hand moving boxes gibberish). No content at all ..
And it was the AR4 SPM which made that claim. I understand that too i a sore spot. People have been trying to get away from that issue since I pointed out to them that they were taking it on pure faith. Angrily so. You too, Stu ..
Projection seems to be all you ever manage
Can't you get it through your head that there's nothing you can do about it? If you're tired of it, then stop reading it.
For once? No, you have done so before, with the same lack of results. They will not put up and they will not shut up. Try to get that through your thick head ... you are powerless against people who have no scruples.
Yes, it's expected. Duh.
Ianam, be gentle with Jeffie's gargantuan ego. He can't help himself. Like you said, he gets like this whenever someone sees through his pompous semi-religious faith or questions his illuminati delusions.
What if a character like that got into office? Scary thoughts. All that evil to bring down for the benefit of the good.
I find it comical that ianam (of all the commenters here) tries to present himself as the more rational among the crowd here.
Jeff has tried repeatedly waiving his CV, follows by insults and fabricated 'facts' for half a year, never tauching upon any relevant issues.
I think ianam, has only tried the insult-road, lacking as much substance as Jeff and the others.
That now, in an awkward way, makes him seem the more rational (in his mind) ... maybe more scrupulous too(using his own words)?
But ianam, you are correct in one way (but it has nothing to do with scrupulous or not): The methods you have tried here (almost all of you) don't work. Repeating your beliefs, and that the should be accepted because many of you believe in the same/similar things, will not convince anybody of anything.
And even less so will the repeated frustrated use of insults and what else you come up with next, when your beliefs aren't accepted.
It's like Jeff said: This is a little enclosure, protected from the outside world, reality, observations, and scientific reasoning. For the remaining hard-line faithers to pat each other's backs and comfort each other when nothing out there is going according to the script anymore. Where you can cling to conspiracy theories, about your 'evil enemies' that are just heartbreaking in their naivete.
I feel a little bit sorry for Tim. But only very little. His blog has been completely disrupted by the fact that one or a few persons point out some areas where your arguments are 'lacking'. The response to that was (mostly) a massive kindergarten attack of outrage and insults. And he let his crowd dig that hole really wide and deep too ..
This is where he's at now. And as ianam says, the best strategy now probably really is to pretend it isn't there, pretend it never happened, hope that others won't notice. (Which of course is a given among the real faithers)
Olaus, I don't think Jeff's ego is that large. He wants it to appear larger (hence the constant CV waiving) and he wants to fit in that larger suit he so desperately tries to depict ..
But we have only his word for him 'being respected' among his peers (as I said: I would not trust one single assertion from the man).
People who behave like this, who constantly must bloat and float their own importance, usually are quite small and insecure minds ..
Similar with Michael Mann, even his peers are aware of Mann's fragile ego and that he (in certain aspects) is beyond help. And wrong on the issues ..
I can imagine that there are some loony lefties like Jeff among his peers, who agree with him and reaffirm his views. But all of them? Even a majority? That would be truly sad.
As you are aware, we had a similar case i Sweden, who determined the 'evilness of the deniers' by looking at their postal address. (And Jeff even claims to have gotten a 'reaffirming' mail from a Swedish ecologist. Maybe a coincidence?)
But really, looking back at all that Jeff has written here; Can you extract a tangible stance from it wrt to AGW and pertinent questions? The closest I can get is:
>We (everybody?) should believe whatever he believes, because he believes that this is what the ones he believes to be the authorities, also believe and actually claim. And that he believes there is 'science' supporting that ..
>Although he seems unaware of the difference between real science and just 'words found in some publication' ...
This is the best I can make of the guy and what he has said (wrt to climate). Essentially nothing. But his rambling about everything else, are entertaining at least, wouldn't you say?
*People who behave like this, who constantly must bloat and float their own importance, usually are quite small and insecure minds*
Jonas, you are one sad, pathetic little man. Who is the one who has said several times here that they know more than anybody else? It's not me. Take a look in the mirror pal. Your arrogance is breathtaking. But it belies your own insecurity. The fact that you are still writing lengthy rants (aimed at who, may I add? Olaus? GSW? Your tiny fan club?) says a lot about you. Desperation.
Am I insecure? Not on your life. I have a good career and I am well respected in the ecological science community. Your comments and those of a couple of other idiots on your own lousy little thread of a weblog only make me more confident - if I am offending worthless right wing trash like you, then I must be doing something right.
Jeff, you just can't help yourself, can you?
>Who is the one who has said several times here that they know more than anybody else?
(Can't really figure out if 'the one' and 'they' refer to the same person, but lets assume you meant me the second time)
The person repeatedly (and erroneously) ascribing such and similar claims to me would be you, Jeff (and I think sometimes echoed by the stupo-support crowd)
I certainly have never claimed anything even close to that. What I did claim though was:
1. I know what I am talking about, and
2. My level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me
You know, Jeff ... when you are secure and confident, when you know what you are talking about, when you actually have done the work, and learnt the lessons, you don't need to make up stuff, fabricate your own 'facts' to support your views. Or to denigrate others ...
That's the difference between you and me. That's why I know what real science is, and can argue such. And you can't ..
BOOOM! Dangit, that was a heavy-duty irony meter, too. Anyone know if they make ones that are strong enough to withstand that?
Jeff,
Just let it go.
Because there is only one thing one needs to know about J0nas: **He is a pathological liar!**
Whatever you say, he is going to lie about it. Because that's all he can do. That's all he has ever done, and all he will ever do. That is all he is.
And behind his mask of lies, he is an empty and substanceless nothing in a void.
If you really want to hurt him: **ignore him!**
End his little moment in this tiny and feeble limelight!
This thread is the greatest intellectual achievement of his life. And it is all about telling lies.
Let him shout and bray here with his little flock of lobotomized sheep, but just ignore him.
Jonas, your last point supports what I said entirely. You THINK you know more than others, but you singularly fail to point out where on Earth you gleaned your wisdom. Are you a professional scientist? Have you been educated to degree level at any university in a scientific field? Have you published your 'brilliant' ideas anywhere in the scientific literature?
We ALL know the answers to these simple questions. No, No, and No. Your supposed 'brilliance' comes from your own illusions and the fawning support of a few people on this thread. Note that none of them are bonafide scientists, either, and that they all share your right wing libertarian views. What a coincidence, eh?
In any scientific field, it is up to others to decide on the abilities and qualifications of their peers. This is generally a very slow process that is accrued on the basis of tenure. Over years, as scientists do more research, publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals, present lectures or seminars at universities, and interact with colleagues at conferences and workshops, their standing generally increases. Over time, they get invitations to present guest lectures at universities, or at conferences, and later still to present keystone lectures or even plenary lectures. At the same time journals may write to them and ask them to edit a special issue of a journal along a specific theme or else contribute as an author. Moreover, they may be invited to act as an Associate Editor of a journal in their field or a related one. I went through all of these steps slowly and over time. The more I gained experience, the more I was able to gauge my abilities and those of others, and to think critically. I also knew when I was stepping over the line into other fields - even in ecology - that are not in my area of expertise. I am an Associate Editor of a well-respected journal at the moment, and I am often asked to oversee articles that do not fit in with my academic background. When this happens, I decline the invitation, and suggest someone else for the assignment.
You, on the other hand are someone akin to a speeding car without brakes. You clearly have no special expertise in climate or any other scientific field or else you would have told us all a million times by now. Why else would you say repeatedly that you 'know what you are talking about' and that your 'level of scientific understanding vastly exceeds anyone here mouthing off at me'? I cannot recall encountering anyone with such utter hubris. If I went to a conference and disagreed with colleagues in a session by repeating your mantra, I would be jeered and laughed out of the hall. As you should be. The reason I brought up my academic qualifications was not, as your simple little mind thinks, to suggest that having a PhD in a different field gives me intellectual superiority in climate science over you. Heck, I admire your interest in the field. The reason I did so was because my education has taught me to be cautious when stepping into other fields well removed from my own. The more one gains scientific expertise in one specialized field, the more they realize how little they know in others. I accept that completely. That is why - as I have said dozens of times - I defer to the opinions of the vast majority of my peers in climate science who are experts and who are doing the actual research. And the vast majority of these 'real' scientists as you call them will disagree with you. The A in AGW is largely settled now on the basis of their tireless research. What we don't yet understand is how significant this warming is likely to be, or its realized effects on natural and managed ecosystems. As Bill Nordhaus said, last week, its time to move on and to deal with the effects that might, in the medium to long-term, be severe.
As I said earlier, there are countless biological indicators that the planet is warming and warming rapidly. We are seeing large scale changes in growing seasons, earlier flowering times amongst plants, large scale latitudinal and elevational range shifts amongst a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate fauna. Also occurring are changes in the dynamics of critical interactions amongst primary producers and consumers. Nature responds. You might be right to question the extent of the A in AGW. But to suggest, as Olaus does, that it isn't warming and that thermometers are better indicators of climate change than plants and animals? That is just plainly ridiculous. Not worthy of a serious response.
I am fed up with being misrepresented on this thread by you and few others. I never said that I knew more than you - that is pure fiction. I did say that you fit the D-K model well. I stick with that. You lack trained expertise in any scientific field and therefore you think you know more than you probably do. I realize what my limitations are and in that regard I go with the prevailing majority of scientists in the field of climate research. I suggest you read the D-K paper. It fits you to a tee.
Don't worry Jeffie, I have called an ambulance. Soon your lost strap-suit will keep you together again. When safely secured, you can ponder on the magnificent delusions your megalomaniac mind creates when on the loose:
"You might be right to question the extent of the A in AGW. But to suggest, as Olaus does, that it isn't warming and that thermometers are better indicators of climate change than plants and animals? That is just plainly ridiculous. Not worthy of a serious response."
This is hilarious Jeffie. Where on earth did you come up with the idea that I deny that the world has been warming? :-) Like Jonas said: fueled by your blind hate you make stuff up as you go along. Amazing.
Equally false is your claim about my stand regarding climate change and the biosphere. What I really said, in the real world, was:
"that a thermometer is way better to detect rapid global warming than bugs. Are you really challenging that?"
Read it slowly, and then read it again Jeff. I'm sure, when reality kicks in, that your errors will materialize before you.
And when they do Jeff, no need to apologize. You are already forgiven.
Stu-Pid-Stu
whose highest accomplishments here have been detecting typos and occasional sytnax errors. Who has been bringing up 'denying dependent variables' or 'hands moving boxes at different speeds' all by his own without anybody ever provoking him (to cover up his poor understanding of the simplest physics) ...
The same Stu still trolls in the thread as if he ever has had one valid point.
You couldn't make these things (or characters) up if you wanted to. Stu has been one of the best proxies available for what stupidity abounds among the climate scare believers (at this site, at least), and some of the (self professed) 'scientists' here even have sided with him, drawn support from his ramblings, when the sod has been absoulutely and manifestally wrong ...
As I said: You couldn't make these things up, And still they exist ... at least her at Deltoid!
Andy S
You should recognize that I was actually commending you for being one of the few who has had vadid points about the topics discussed. Your best one was when you pointed out that
>90% is less than 100%, and that therefore 90% error bars not necessarily must overlap (for different reconstructions of the same metric)
But that point was moot, and I explained in detail why this was so, and what it indeed was worth. And this was long long ago.
Since then you have essentially lost it. If you ask me, what you have come up with since has been sheer stupidity. Dishonest stupidity. You accuse me of lying, although you know that this is a lie in it self. Now you even claim that:
>Whatever you say, he is going to lie about it. Because that's all he can do. That's all he has ever done, and all he will ever do. That is all he is.
Which is so obvious BS, not even the most moronic faither here can truly subscribe to this. Personally, I think this is among the most idiotic things you could have tried. It is fantasizing Jeffie-style, and the only 'reason' I can figure is that you too are so emotionally entrenched in this question, that you just can't help yourself but need to invent utter nonsense to support your narrative and beliefs. Jeffie-style ...
So Andy S, let me hand it to you:
Since your best objection here (90% < 100%) you have not been having any valid points whatsoever. And most of what you've tried since has been utter garbage. And now you have reached a point where you knwoingly have to concoct up the worst lies, so stupid not even you can believe it, and just to stick with your already totally failed narrative.
Truly and utterly pathetic, Andy ... and pathetic on a level which seems to be the norm here.
Jonas, your delusions are spinning out of control. Up your meds.
Wait, you're too stupid do use a spell-checker and get mad at me? What a sad little passive-aggressive jackwagon you are.
And a moron, too.
Obvious and stupid lie. GSW brought it up. You know this.
Which makes your epic whine at 3362 even more deliciously ironic.
The only moron ever to b ring up 'dependent variables' as an argument was you, Stu. And it was an utterly stupid attempt too ..
If you think otherwise, you are delusional! And you can go up thread, and search for who first brought up 'dependent variable' in connection with pushing a box, if you (or others) don't take my word for it!
Once more, fabricated nonsense from the CAGW-faithers .. Why am I so surprised?
Not!
Let me once more repeat my comment, the one Stu thought he'd counter, while inadvertently confirming it:
>Stu-Pid-Stu
>whose highest accomplishments here have been detecting typos and occasional sytnax errors. Who has been bringing up 'denying dependent variables' or 'hands moving boxes at different speeds' all by his own without anybody ever provoking him (to cover up his poor understanding of the simplest physics) ...
>The same Stu still trolls in the thread as if he ever has had one valid point.
>You couldn't make these things (or characters) up if you wanted to.
@Jonas, Olaus,
If you've finished "prodding the proles" ;)
There is rampant 'rabid' behaviour around on many of the blogs at the moment. I don't know if you've been following the Lindzen story over at rc.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation…
If you read thru the comments, I think the CAGW mob have finally gone over the edge, lost the plot. One in particular, Martin Lack with an MA in Environmental Politics, oh dear ;)
http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/author/mlack65/
is working himself up into real frenzy over an error in one of Lindzen's slides. It's quite uncomfortable watching him grapple with the obvious insanity of what he's doing, yet being driven to keep alive some remnant of the "cause".
Do you think they've all finally lost it? given up even pretending to be part of the real world?
It has a sort of "Sean of Dead" feel to it all. As they said in the movie, - Best plan, sit down, nice cup of tea and wait for it all to blow over.
;)
PS. I think you could have pushed the proles too far, they may not want to play anymore, their egos won't take it.
;)
@Andy S
You're spot on, but I'm afraid that, in their own way, Jeff, stu, and chek are as deranged as the Swedes. (Be sure to run the mouse pointer over that iconic comic for the "alt text".) And as they are so deranged, we're wasting our time trying to talk some sense into them ... adios, bozos.
GSW, you are probably right. Ianam is even throwing his former pals (Jeff, stu and chek) under the bus. :-)
It's very understandable though. Anyone reading Jeffie's hate-saturated walls of text (or Stu's and chek's hate speeches) can see that he is fighting sheer fantasies.
I'm sure a lot more deltoids are ashamed of Jeff's lies and poor understanding of what real climate science is.
* Jeffie's hate-saturated walls of text*
My last post was 'hate-saturated'? Olaus, you really are a loon. Read your own posts and tell me that they aren't 'hate-staturated'. And please tell me where I have ' lied'.... amongst you Swedish crazies I am the only one who has been honest and forthright.
Lastly, I'd like you and Jonas to list a few names of 'real climate scientists'. Is Gavin Schmidt one? James Hansen? Kevin Trenbarth? The vast majority of others who defend the A in AGW? And where do you and Jonas fit into the mold? Are you both 'real scientists'?
As for your derisive comment about 'bugs', you ought to know that without 'bugs' (I assume you are referring to insects) humans would head rapidly for extinction. Their pollination services alone sustain agricultural productivity; other services they generate- seed dispersal, pest control etc. - are worth billions of dollars to the global economy. And, to answer your stupid point, they are also outstanding indicators of a warming climate. Given that they are ectotherms, they also respond to warmer conditions. And there are countless examples of range shifts, increased voltinism, and earlier emergence in the spring that are being recorded across a very wide range of insect taxa. If you bothered to read any of the empirical data you'd realize this.
But Ianam's point is taken. He didn't throw us under any metaphoric bus; he just thinks we are crazy for persisting against such profound scientific ignorance as that promulgated by the likes of you and Jonas. And he is right. That is why he has a point. You two epitomize ignorance. If Jonas was as up on the science as he says he is, he'd see that your comments about 'bugs' are totally inane and would 'put you in your place'. But, since you are one of his lone allies on this pathetic little thread, you can spew out whatever crap you like and he will go along with it.
Jeff ..
>We ALL know the answers to these simple questions. No, No, and No.
A perfect example of why and how you cannot be a real scientist: Once more again, you know things because you just know them already! Knowing without knowing, that is your melody Jeff.
>The more I gained experience, the more I was able to gauge my abilities and those of others, and to think critically.
Utter BS, you can't even read simple comments on a blog, without losing it. Without misrepresenting, without making up stuff etc to tell the story you so desperately want to replace the truth with.
>I cannot recall encountering anyone with such utter hubris
Well, I can remember one pompously ranting character here, claiming to speak for 'the scientific community', and when challenged to that, revising it to 'speak for some 95% of the scientific community' (whatever that would be). And no, Jeff, that was not me. That was some other mythomaniac severely disconnected from reality, who thought that his little severely limited and ego-centered perspective of the world was the entire universe.
>If I went to a conference and disagreed with colleagues in a session by repeating your mantra
I have asked you time and time again what that supposedly is, what, as you said, my 'earth shattering views' actually would constitute. And you could never even formulate what supposedly would be viewed as so controversial. Do you even know?
What I have said (with some emphasis) is that I have never seen any real science underpinning that (in)famous AR4 attribution claim, and that nobody I have ever asked/challenged has seen such either. Not even claimed (after some follow-up questions) to have seen it, or to know anybody else who has. That observation still holds. I don't know if this is what you refer to when you (once more, out of the blue) claim that:
>I would be jeered and laughed out of the hall. As you should be.
Among scientists? I very much doubt it. Because it's the easiest thing to challenge: Have you seen it? OK, put up and show it! If you can't, then I was right! And Jeff, I was right here. Everybody who tried to avoid that central issue, confirmed I was.
So Jeff, in an audience of faithers your fantasies what could possibly happen, but that would only show that they aren't interested in the science. And you have your example right here: The behavior you wish for has been amply demonstrated by quite a few, and with some PhD:s among them.
>my education has taught me to be cautious when stepping into other fields well removed from my own
Well, I think you have tried exactly that: Being an 'experert', a remote expert even on almost everything. Particularly, you have pretended to know what those who don't share the climate anxiety or scare, are about. You have even said that you give 'classes' about 'deniers' and their motives, financing etc. WHile obviously you don't have the slightest clue about what the issues are. You can't even read and understand them correctly when put to you in plain language here, repeatedly.
All of this makes you an activist (and a poor one at that), which is the opposite of a scientist. Olaus is quite correct about your anger and even hatred of others with views you don't like (or know, or understand).
Scientific discourse is not about screaming and hating, name calling and all that you've tried. It is not about authority, or consensus, or voting. or supporting or organisations declaring this and that. Unfortunately, very very much of what is presented as arguments for climate anxiety is argued in this way. And every real scientist must instinctively shudder at these 'arguments', even more so now that we know more about what goes on behind the scenes, the practices there. Not to speak of what reality does meanwhile.
And really Jeff!? Why do you bring up Bill Nordhouse as an argument? For what?
Or why would write something so utterly stupid as:
>But to suggest, as Olaus does, that it isn't warming
Or that temperatures are better measured with bugs?
Why! Why?
And yes JEff, I read that D-K paper long ago. I think it says more about them who constantly bring it up believing it is an 'argument' for something, something they often cannot even formulate!
And it is no coincidence that the same people also incessantly shout: 'Denier, denier!'. And youv've been doing plenty of both, Jeff! And so far you haven't even had an argument!
Jonas,
Turning into quite a good dissection of Jeff's personality, and his use of emotional outpourings as a substitute for rational argument, this Jonas. Intriguing to watch.
Jonas,
Get this through your thick head. I know that you donât understand a thing about the link between abiotic stresses and biotic responses, but let me give you a primer. There are more than 2 million species of insects on Earth â ecologist Terry L. Irwin, based on his working in the neotropics, estimates that there may be many as 30 million species in the tropical regions of the planet alone. I assume that by his infantile and derisive use of the word âbugsâ Olaus was, infact referring to INSECTS. Bugs â in the Order Hemiptera â constitute only one of 30 Orders are are certainly not the most species-rich. By any accounts, insects dominate terrestrial ecosystems across the planet. They are also vitally important in sustaining the health of both natural and managed ecosystems through the services they provide: pollination, pest control and nutrient cycling. As ecologist Edward O. Wilson has pointed out, if insects were to disappear then human extinction would soon follow. Through the critical ecosystem services they generate, insects help to ensure the health and viability of ecosystems. Without them primary production would collapse.
Insects are also very susceptible to changes in the abiotic environment because they are ectotherms and rely on external heat for metabolism. There is a large and growing body of studies showing that insects across a range of taxa and with quite different phylogenies are responding to recent warming. Thermophilic species are being discovered in areas far to the north (or south in the southern hemisphere) of their normal ranges, and there is lttle doubt that the ranges of well-studied groups such as butterflies are showing polewards advances. However, a major problem for these insects is that many are specialized feeders, and rely for food on plants producing specific allelochemicals. Therefore, specialist insect herbivores are appearing to decline as their co-evolved food plants are (not suprisingly) not expanding their ranges as fast as the insects. On the other hand, generalist herbivores are moving polewards, as well as generalist insect predators. Here in Holland we have recently recorded â for the first time â populations of argiope spiders, aculeate wasps and ground beetles that were formerly only found well to the south. In Europe, a highly injurious moth, Spodoptera littoralis, has moved from its native African range into Italy and Spain, and it is continuing to survive further north. There is no doubt whatsoever that these species are advancing north as a result of milder winters and warmer summers. Populations of a wide diversity of insects in northern Europe are emrging earlier in the spring than they did just 20 years ago. This is all proof of warmer springs, more frost-free days and longer growing seasons.
So yes, âbugsâ â or more specifically, insects â are excellent indicators of warming. On the Web of Science if you type the words âinsectâ and âclimate changeâ you get 1691 hits. Last year these studies were cited more than 7,000 times.
If you claim to be interested in science and that I have not put up an argument, then you are full of it. The comment that Olaus made was profoundly ignorant, as in keeping with someone whose worldview comes from WUWT. And trust you to defend his ignorance to the end. You want to talk science, then stop the bullshit and do so.
Really GSW? Please enlighten me as to where you, Jonas or Olaus have addressed a single recent scientific argument that I have made re: biotic indicators of climate change. Itâs a major area of contemporary research. Yet what crap do I get? Olaus calls insects, âbugsâ. Thatâs the extent of it. Then he and Jonas, who clearly have never read anything on the field of invertebrate physiology in their lives, ridicule their use as proxies in measuring recent climate warming. I guess I can understand why the three of you are thereby forced into making tireless rants about my âmental stateâ. If the science is inconvenient and out of your depth, then obfuscate, avoid, and smear.
Lastly, my guess is that only you and Olaus find anything Jonas says remotely âintriguingâ. Perhaps that says more about your mental state.
Awesome. You still don't know what it means, then. No wonder you're so insecure about your education.
So Stu, now you are trying to convince yourself of that I don't know what a dependent variable is?
Is that the delusion you are feeding yourself? Just laughable, kid ..
I repeat what I said, it is still true to every letter:
>The only moron ever to bring up 'dependent variables' as an argument was you, Stu.
And I explain it in even more detail:
You made the claim that GSW was arguing different speeds between hand/box. He wasn't! And since this was obvious to about everybody (except obvioulsy you) who had read what he said (even specifically responding to you), you started to blather about 'dependet variables' to defend your utterly laughable claim. Hence:
>The only moron ever to bring up 'dependent variables' as an argument was you, Stu.
Did you get it this time?
Moron!
Jeff, what is wrong with you!? I mean seriously, what the f*ck is wrong with you?
Why do you keep repeating that the biosphere responds to changes? Why! And why do you feel the need to pound on about that âinsects are importantâ!?
I mean really, do you think this is some divine insight you have, that nobody else knew of?
Both Olaus and I have separately, and many times said that such responses to changing conditions are to be expected, not the least controversial!
The discussion here is about **climate change** (which it always does) and more specifically, how large **a possible anthropogenic signal** is in there. Once you start talking about regional climate, ie relevant for habitat, changes locally are both faster, with larger variation, and more erratic than global changes. And attribution of some specific regional change to the A in AGW is essentially impossible. And the IPCC does specifically not claim to be able to resolve climate predictions to the regional level!
You sound like youâve read the latest tabloid headline, claiming that the latest storm or drought or whatever, is due to AGW. Citing some brainless âscientistâ saying that this is **consistent with** what the models say. Brrr â¦
Why are you so obsessed with telling us that climate (locally) does change, Jeff!? Do you think anybody ever questioned that?
But no, temperature changes are **recorded** using thermometer, not proxies dependent on a multitude of factors. Nobody ever doubted that also insect behavior/changes **indicate**, ie respond to temp changes.
The second relevant issue (partly discussed) here is what measures are feasible to accomplish certain goals. If say glacier shrinkage was decided to cause stress on [â¦], what would be a method to address this, and with what likelihood of achieving anything, and with what other consequences, and at what costs? Every time such issues were up, you left Walk Over. And instead continued with your rants.
>If you claim to be interested in science and that I have not put up an argument, then you are full of it. The comment that Olaus made was profoundly ignorant, as in keeping with someone whose worldview comes from WUWT. And trust you to defend his ignorance to the end. You want to talk science, then stop the bullshit and do so.
As I said Jeff, what is it with you? I would say, that mouthing off at Olaus was profoundly ignorant! Your only excuse would (once more) be that you didnât actually read what he said, and/or didnât understand it. And just went off on one of your tangents again.
Lastly:
>my guess is that only you and Olaus find anything Jonas says remotely âintriguingâ. Perhaps that says more about your mental state.
Here you seem to pretend to speak for (not only (maybe 95% of the) âscientific communityâ, but for) the entire world population, save three persons. Is that really what you want to claim, Jeff? That nobody except two more, thinks that I have anything worthwhile to contribute? Is this the kind of delusions you feed yourself with Jeff, to convince yourself? Is that really what âyou guessâ!? Or is it once more what you would want to be true (in a different universe)?
Yes, Jonas, the current discussion is about the extent of the anthropogenic signal and the vast majority of climate scientists (>95%) are in agreement that the A is very real. You are in the minority. The tiny minority. At most scientific conferences, either dealing with the causes of GW or the biotic responses, the human fingerprint is taken as GIVEN. Read any of the huge literature based I cited in my last post and pretty well every author talks about AGW. Not GW but AGW. And the responses I am talking about are NOT local. How do you define local? As a biologist, I would call a range expansion of a few hundred km in < 30 years as significant, and moreover these responses have been observed in locations across much of the biosphere. So they bloody well ARE NOT local.
Olaus derided âbugsâ when neither of you probably can tell a mole cricket from a giraffe. And he claimed that thermometers were better signals for warming than responses than âbugsâ (again derisively referring to insects). This is pure and utter crap. No scientist would agree with this: real or imagined.
You are an imbecile. No wonder you never studied science at a university. What must really irk you is that, because I have done the work, I get invites to conferences and workshops and I do speak to many scientists. You are stuck in your little anemic corner of the blogosphere. You are a big man is a very tiny cup. But out there? You, Jonas N, are a nothing.
Jeff, what is wrong with you!? I mean seriously, what the f*ck is wrong with you?
Why do you waste so much time on these trolls? They don't care about what you say, and hardly anybody else is going to read this thread.
Jeff, forgot to answer one of your questions:
Trenberth and Hansen are not real scientists. Al least not any longer (if they were in earlier life).
In Trenberthâs case, it suffices to point at his attempted âreversal of the null hypothesisâ and he can be written off.
In Hansenâs case, it is his prophecies about reaching future âtipping pointsâ, his claim to know the location and degree of bifurcations in a dynamical, non-linear chaotic system, and that in uncharted territory! And that he even claims that we now are in âovershoot-modeâ that disqualifies him from being a real scientist.
Both these guys have abandoned real science and are now propagandists, activists for a cause and operate on the political arena!
(Unfortunately, I feel it is necessary to specifically point out to you that: This does **not** mean that everything they say about science is wrong, or untrue, or slanted. But you cannot switch back and forth between being an activist and a real scientist, and have expect people to take your word for the science and what it shows. Especially, not when youâve already shown to often mix up those roles)
Gavin Schmidt? Harder to say, I think he is quite smart and knowledgeable (about IPPCstyle climate science). I know he is very careful to not be caught in outright falsehoods and lies. But the guy is slimy and a weasel. He comes across more like a used care salesman (and maybe that is an apt despcription of what heâs trying to peddle). Essentially everything he utters has an agenda, to further on very particular view. Thatâs why he moderates RC the way he does. To give a carefully tailored impression. I donât think he is particularly interested in finding out true answers about the climate, feedbacks, clouds etc. But that is more an impression.
Iâll have to pass on Gavin. But an honest debater, he is not
I think my work is done here. I've trolled the troll off the deep end into complete insanity.
Indeed Stu, although the sheer, inane banality of [Jonarse @ 3379](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-6239874) is a wonder to behold. Cutting edge, first class science is all about perceived personality traits as seen after mediation by septic blogs! Who knew?
Maybe the IPCC's old traditional, but now superceded method of relying on published scientific papers should be disbanded and replaced by competing lead authors with good hair, teeth and winning personalities appearing on Climate Idol.
I expect Grima 'Suckass' Wormtongue and Petri Culture will happen along with some sickeningly obsequious supplementary agreement with Jonarse' devastating critiques shortly.
Ok Jeffie, I think I understand the full gravity of my felony now. What you really wanted to tell me (while lying through your teeth about what I actually said and claimed) was that I was disrespectful to insects by calling them "bugs". Well, guilty as charged.
But that's all you got. Promise, I will never do it gain in your presence. But I have to join AndyS and Jonas in their wonderings: What the f*ck is wrong with you Jeff? How can anybody loose it so completely because someone calls insects "bugs"? Judging by your ferocious tirades death penalty wouldn't suffice as punishment.
You seriously need to ask yourself why you hate so much and why you need to invent enemies and evil agendas. And, of course, why you can't handle a scientific discussion. For some odd reason I believe these â the hate, the fantasies, and the scientific incompetence â are connected with one-another.
Stu, are you bragging about 'your work' here now? Similarly to how you've bragged about 'your studies' before? And bragged about what you've accomplished? Taken together, methinks it all makes sense ..
Pssst: Except you, nobody ever **ever** argued, about box and hand at different speeds ... You however, got stuck there for months. Probably still are! ;-)
I agree, 'your work' here is done! You've accomplished exactly as much as you possibly can. And for that I am grateful. Especially for getting Jeff, chek and some more to side with you!
Hansen is not a 'real scientist' Neither is Trenberth. Schmidt is borderline. And I am certainly not. So says the self-proclaimed prophet of wisdom, who, though clearly not a scientist, is a REAL scientist.. Geddit? Make sense?
Ianan and Andy are correct. I AM crazy to persist here. I do need my head examined. You guys are right! This thread is insanity!!!!! Going...going... gone.
Olaus
You don't need to apologize. And you are wrong! You did **not** label insects as 'bugs'. You made the perfectly correct observation (in #3320) that:
>a thermometer is a much better device to detect rapid global warming than bugs
Nowhere did you indicate that you meant all insects. And I think nobody (save some nutcases here, like Stu and Jeff) even would think of not understanding what you where trying to say. And that 'bugs' here was used a bit metaphorically and as an example of a biotic indicator ..
Further, I notice (had overlooked this before) that you were actually saying that:
>a thermometer is a much better device to detect rapid **global** warming than bugs
which makes Jeff's objection even more laughable. Because he would need bugs (or even insects, if you want to generously give him a wider set of his temperature proxies) from all over the world (land, sea, tropics, polar regions etc) to monitor changes and from those back out a rapid **global** temperature signal. (Which I don't think he can, BTW)
No Olaus, if Jeff wanted to nitpick futilities (at your perfectly reasonable and understandable observation) he should have pointed out that **a** (one) thermometer will not do it, you too need (many) thermometer**s** from all over world. (However you described it as 'a device', so even that futility would have been futile)
The guy really is something else ...
Jeff ... I didn't expect you to understand my objections to the scientific(ally sounding, but indeed completely unscientific) statements made by Hansen and Trenberth ..
I specifically did not expect you to understand them, since you are patently not a real scientist, because those things that are paramount to, which are absolutely necessary to the conduct of real science ..
.. you are totally oblivious to. Because you don't even know what the null hypothesis is nor understand its meaning (not even after having read the Wikipedia entry three times). Because you don't know what the scientific method and adherence to it entails and mandates.
Once more I offer detailed explanation for what I say. And you have absolutely nothing to object there. Instead you claim the contrary, without any argument other than that your emotions are so inclined ...
Specifically (and although you, once more erroneously claimed the opposite), I did not argue my position and base it on either of:
1. My superior wisdom
2. My self proclaimed prophethood
3. Me being a real scientist
Instead, I put forward the observable basis for my offered conclusion. As it also needs to be done i real science. And once more you guys lose it ...
Bye Jeff!
;)
I've been following this thread for a while. Jonas, Olaus et al. make my head physically hurt. It really is impossible to distinguish between them being trolls or just plain stupid.
The novelty of seeing them snap around the ankles of smarter people does wear after a while though...
I notice that Jeff Harvey [tries to convince himself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comm…) of 'sanity' being the state where he is not contradicted and does not have his misconceptions, falsehoods, many contradictions, own goals and other errors pointed out to him.
And still, this loopy loon links to a recent [talk by James Hansen](http://www.ted.com/talks/james_hansen_why_i_must_speak_out_about_climat…) exactly confirming what I said about Hansen above (in #3379):
Hansen tells us not only what he 'knows' about the future, but also what dramatic and horrific changes will happen in it. He just knows the existence, location and severity of future 'tipping points'.
He 'knows' that sea level rise which has been a benign ~3mm/year, will accelerate immensely and on average(!) more than(!) triple in the next hundred years. And that't his lower estimate. A 15-fold increase in sea level rise rates is possible, Hansen claims.
He said that a number of recent weather events were caused by global warming.
And that's just a starter, in his mostly political radical urge that others get as crazed as him ... to alarm the 'world leaders' to compel them to mandate various 'rain dances' to conjure the climate ..
Another remarkable thing I noticed was that he claimed such nonsense as:
>"Infrared radiation .. is heat" (!)
From a layman, such a misconception would be forgivable. But from somebody who has this as i central filed of claimed expertise!?
Nelthon (a completely new signature to this thread/issue)
So you claim that you can detect the 'smartness' of people here. Especially of those who get it spectacularly wrong? Not onlye once, but time and time again?
You know, I doubt that you can. And I don't think you even can fault me with anything less mundane than spelling and syntax errors.
Sorry to hear about your pain and headaches, though. I know the nonsense promulgated here is hard to cope with. (Or if you've bought in to it, the awakening process)
Shorter Jonas N:
"Please somebody, take my bait!"
Dear Nelthon, sharing your feelings aren't arguments. Please elaborate, but don't do it Jeffie style, ergo battling pure fantasies while speaking in tourette tongue. We have already heard plenty of that kind of nonsense talk.
I'm sure you are aware of Jeffie's latest pathetic attempts to safe face in the Open thread. The little worm and ant collector can't handle the fact that he is/was out of his depth, and now he tries to hide the fact that the only thing he brings/brought to climate science is/was pure hate and pure faith.
Andy S,
Your most valid point was in August 2011 when you (correctly) noted that 90% is less than 100% ..
Since then you've been spouting sheer nonsense. Unprovoked ...
And I think you were one of the smarter (ie less stupid) Deltoids. I still think that. And I think that your latest contributions have been extremely stupid!
@Jonas, Olaus,
I'm somewhat speechless. I've just had a comment on RC un-boreholed. It went into the borehole for a couple of hours, then came out with in-line comments from eric. By RC standards, the in-line comment was pretty reasonable too.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation…
We live in strange times.
'Please elaborate': no, I won't, thanks. Feel free to keep playing in your own special sandpit. Alone. :-)
Jonas's resident sychophant, GS Weasel rushes back from RC to inform his fellow trolls that he has been noticed at the big house
and
and
and what's more someone responded to him. Wow. This is obviously what passes for excitement in the life of a troll.
Of course he omits to mention that the thread is about Lindzen being caught lying with graphs.
BTW this is just a drive-by. I am out of here so fume and rant to your heart's content.
Dear Nelthon, you won't because you can't. Very simple. Keep on watching in silencium.
@Jonas,
I think you are going to have some difficulty getting anyone to take you on now Jonas. Your 'analysis' of Jeff has left him a jibbering wreck by all accounts. You do have a knack of seeing thru to the truth of an issue.
The Undefeated Swede fights on!
Nelthon - I didn't think you'd have anything 'smarter' to say ...
MikeH - You and many more here use the word 'lying' in the way little kids use it. About almost anything you don't want to hear ..
And you think RC is a big house? Well, Jeff goes to Joe Romm for his pepping, others to SkSc .. and the result is thereafter.
GSW - RC deletes comments they can't handle. As does SkSc, and every other known pro climate scare forum. With the kiddie-speech used here, they are 'lying' whenever they try to tell a story .. And now, apparently, they want to fault Lindzen with the stuff they'd been at since their conception.
But I noticed that the activity at RC is very low, the level of what they try to post about is petty ... but who can blame them?
This thread is without a doubt correctly called the Jonas thread. 627 posts out of 3399 are from Jonas N.
Other main offenders in this thread of despair are:
Posted by: Stu
294 occurences found
Posted by: Chek
291 occurences found
Posted by: PentaxZ
290 occurences found
Posted by: Olaus Petri
236 occurences found
Posted by: GSW
232 occurences found
Posted by: Jeff Harvey
171 occurences found
Nelthon's post in 3388 would have been an appropriate final post for this, before this Jersey Shore version of a discussion about science could be closed, sealed and never referred to again. Alas, a missed opportunity.
Thanks for the laugh, precious.
Jonas,
"GSW - RC deletes comments they can't handle. As does SkSc, and every other known pro climate scare forum. With the kiddie-speech used here, they are 'lying' whenever they try to tell a story .. And now, apparently, they want to fault Lindzen with the stuff they'd been at since their conception."
Yes, it does have a "ministry of truth" feel about. It is worrying that the same guys who police "the borehole" are also part of the peer review "cabal".
As I'm writing this I have one comment in moderation for ~12hrs and just posted another.
In true "minstry of truth" style they describe "The borehole" as
"A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations."
The sensible conversation at the moment includes someone that has "cut and paste" multiple definitions of dishonest, truthful, true, honest etc. You can't get a much more sensible conversation than that, unless of course you happen to be over the age of 10. The general point being does Lindzen fit the criteria?
My second post is about the Lindzen apology. Others have requested that the apology to GISS be posted as an update. It hasn't appeared yet.
It has however been posted on the RepealTheAct.org.uk website. The apology appears sincere, but they are suggesting it was a result of wrongly labelled filenames on the GISS server. I've asked RC/GISS to comment.
My comment is in moderation at the moment, but it's really a question of whether it will be boreholed or deleted altogether. Mustn't judge too early though, ever the optimist!
Have you has similar experiences Jonas?
Jonas,
It made it thru! with a response from gavin.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/misrepresentation…
GSW
You need only to look at the commenters RC lets through, in combination with their declared 'moderation policy' and being aware that perfectly sensible comments don't make it or are held up for many hours, to conclude what they are about.
That the story, the message is product. Not ever science or discussion of such, but the IPCC party line version of it.
Usually they would allow a sceptic thorugh if it was innocent, if it was easily rebuffed, and would make him look a bit stupid or ignorant (Gavin is good at that). Follow-up comments, or even pointing out that their argument/logic fails, are never let trough. It is all about telling a story.
But giving a similar shouting crowd of haters and scientific illiterates as here (same names and characters too) a free pass was a PR-mistake in my opinion. Because it gives it a way almost immediately, I think.
As long as they could maintain the notion of:
'There is no debate, here is how you should report and understand it ..'
a gullible churnolist might read their postings and buy into that. But the moment, one becomes aware of that consensus is only claimed, and vigorously so, from one side (as a shut-up-argumnet), the moment it is obvious that there is a debate and interpretations are disputed, and someone reads the comments, it becomes very obvious, what they are about.
But as I said, it worked as intended for a few years. Nowadays, their traffic is very low, and their postings are more about damage control, covering up for shifting and regrouping positions. And keeping the pretense up.
It is a bit ironic that they go on about Lindzen making (what seems to be an honest and corrected) mistake, when all what they do is everything else but honestly representing their opponents versions. And when indeed GISS has a very poor record of data integrity ... and has been caught out more than once in
more than dubious 'adjustments'
And you are correct, the same guys, when acting as 'scientists' and reviewing other's manuscripts, are doing the very same thing. Only, now, totally behind the scenes. And by now we know how dirty they play .. And wee too know how shoddy some of the 'science' they're trying to peddle is.
Have you btw read about Michael Mann's new book? How it is soaring on Amazon sales (not!), how accurately he describes what has gone on with and about his hockey stick?
But I'd say most reasonable climate scientists would want to distance themselves from Mann, from RC and the team. You just won't read that in the Guardian or hear it from MSM.
Jonas,
"You need only to look at the commenters RC lets through, in combination with their declared 'moderation policy' and being aware that perfectly sensible comments don't make it or are held up for many hours, to conclude what they are about.
That the story, the message is product. Not ever science or discussion of such, but the IPCC party line version of it."
The commenters they let thru are 'odd', more activist than someone interested in the science. A few years ago, there did actualy seem to be some relatively clued up people posting there (at least that was the impression I had), but I think only the "loons" are left.
You're right, the moderation policy, snarky putdowns, intolerance and general 'Outrage'(about not very much), I'm sure must turn people off rather than bring them to the "cause". I wonder if they see it like that. It's all very stressed at an rate.
If you compare the behaviour on WUWT with sks and RC, you can see why they're losing the 'people' argument.
I assume you've noticed, but it always gives me a laugh, on WUWT on the right handside, there is a blog roll. Headings; "Pro Agw views", "Skeptic views", and a special category of "Unreliable" just for sks. The simple pleasures are the best.
"But giving a similar shouting crowd of haters and scientific illiterates as here (same names and characters too) a free pass was a PR-mistake in my opinion. Because it gives it a way almost immediately"
Agreed. If your best argument is shouting, everyone stops listening.
;)
GSW
Here, the angry shouters and haters are all the rage. Introduce one scientific point, and they (almost?) all go bonkers .. and the hating and insults go through the roof. And they lose it, making it even worse.
I have a really hard time seeing that anybody who went through collage (in a relevant/related field) understanding what (s)he was taught, can be impressed with what the faithers here come up with.
But I never believed that (C)AGW was for the ones who learnt something .. it was directed at the ignorant, the swayable, the activist, and the shouters and haters. We've seen this here in the last months:
Not even one single argument did the try to challenge. Only angry shouting. They are still at it, only in another thread.
Jonas,
If you mean Jeff, he hasn't learnt anything has he?
Can you see anything in Jeff's post that actually addresses what "Out of ammo" says?
OOA's points are water record, temp record and cyclone records.
Jeff having descended into "indulgent greenie wank" (OOA's phrase) and being asked refrain from "indulgent greenie wank", follows up with a post that is even more "indulgent greenie wank".
As far as the greenie w*nk goes, Jeff is shooting for quantity rather than quality.
;)
OOA doesn't seem the kind of chap that will be swayed by talk of foodwebs or the fact that jeff thinks himself a scientist.
If you rummage thru what jeff is saying, it doesn't actually say anything - quite remarkable.
If you had to sum up in one sentence jeffs argument what would it be?
;)
I am genuinely curious: how do you guys think this back-and-forth over the last few comments looks to outsiders? You are aware of the existence of that new-fangled thing called "e-mail", right?
To calm your curiosity I guess I can fill the role as the outsider.
Looking back at your 300 comments covering all from box moving hands, merits such as 6 years of physics studies, one infantile posting where you were pretending to be the father of an 8 year child(thrust me.., no one can imagine you older than 18) + some 200 posting with incoherend nonsense mixed with insults.. Those latest postings come out as pure poetry in comparison.
GSW #3407
No, I meant all of them. But yes, watching Jeff is fun. Although he doesnât dare to post here anymore, he still wants to spew his insults in this direction.
I also noted that he has upped the level of spouting scientific absolute nonsense (*).
It is almost as if he is now letting out what he (under severe self restraint) accumulated and kept within, since there was some scientific literacy in the room, which constantly pointed out how bad he got things, and where his facts and logic failed him. He took a beating also for most of whatever else he tried here. Proclaiming that he could âcrushâ his enemies, or that they indeed had been âcrushedâ. If it (he) werenât so funny, it would be rather tragic ..
(*) That decadal variationas are caused by AGW. That Hansen's nonsense claims (about the future) must be true (because his so 'respected'). That the number of keyword hits in his searches somehow establish the AGW component and even causation etc. And that his fear for being contradicted, or just having to explain his stance, its support, and argue his case .. that that somehow is what makes **him** the scientist. He ineed is a tragic case. (Unfortunately not the only one)
PS Claes, I think Stu might be over 18. His mental maturity however, still seems prevent him from the realization that people less clueless than him can read what he has actually said and tried. And draw their conclusions. So far, I'm pretty confident that we can rue out any 'genuine curiosity' about almost anything discussed. Confirmation of his prejudices (often confused with 'thinking'), and feeble such attempts at that, is the main motivator.
Jonas,
"Although he [jeff] doesnât dare to post here anymore"
I know, every time he does, he ends up making a complete arse of himself. Your name in the recent comments list will be enough to give him a panic attack. ;)
"That Hansen's nonsense claims (about the future) must be true (because his so 'respected')"
Like Flannery, he just can't help making ridiculous over-statements (without context) about what 'could' happen in the future- 2 to 4 degrees warming (over the last decade,Ha!), 75m sea level rise from warming this century! - I guess the more 'respected' you are, the more bizarre you're expected to make your claims.
It's a sort of competition, who can say the most alarming thing that someone will believe whilst keeping a straight face.
Deltoids try to "out gullible" each other. The less real evidence there is the better (an act of faith). They percieve themselves as somehow holier, and therefore more worthy, the more they can switch off their brains and ignore reality.
"That the number of keyword hits in his [jeff] searches somehow establish the AGW component and even causation etc"
Yes jeff does this a lot. As long as there are thousands of papers about something, whether relevant to the discussion or not, irrespective of what they actually say, jeff takes it as some sort of 'proof' that he is right.
Do you think he even realised that OOA was taking the michael out of him with his 7 million and 27 million google search hits?
[OOA's google search](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comm…)
At least OOA's search was on topic, i.e jeff.
"Proclaiming that he could âcrushâ his enemies"
Yes, made me laugh that, try this youtube clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1uDpVeG8Cw
Nice to end on a bit of metal. Enjoy!
I see Jeff Harvey dares to mouth off again, but only from within his protected asylum. And he gets it really wrong again too. As so often when he tries to bolster his misdirected attempts of sounding cocky:
He still uses words as '**denier**' or '**idiot**' or pretends to speak for a '**scientific community**'(!?). He still thinks that the **numbers** here (!) in various threads confirm that his beliefs somehow also have any bearing on reality.
He then goes on to again(!) bring up **number of keyword-search-hits**, as an argument for what he believs that those references contain. In the same breath he even thinks that '**causation**' (a concept, and what it entails he is alarmingly ignorant of) is demonstrated by the '**acceptance**' of others and their number (again, he speculates about the beliefs of others. In the 'scientific community'). He even brings up how '**respected**' his search enginge is as and 'argument'.
And he doesn't stop there. He claims (beleives) that the climate change attribution, to its many various causative drivers and variations is over. That 'the science' (!) had moved on. Moved 'well on' for a vast majority of 'the scientific community'.
Probably he refers to him self, and others who have no clue about climate, or climate science. Because climate science most definitely has not moved on, or claims that the issues are settled, magnitudes determined, uncertainties removed etc. Only in an ecoa zealot's narrow minded and confined little world, such beliefs are possibly held.
He also goes on about local variations, and repeats that they confirm his aboive belief. Apparently still not being aware of (or capable of undestanding that) local variations and changes are far far harder to attribute to any causation than globally recorded averages. The guy is a mess ...
In a flollowing post, he expresses hop that march 2012 somehow will give him confirmation (or the revision of the HAD-Cru3 dataset), '**Evidence**' he calls it. But then again, he would call everything evidence if it only agrees with his beliefs.
The guy is a joke. A messy joke, that is
Hehe...Looks like Jeffie can't let go after all. :-) And his MO is surely over the top even for a guy as megalomanic as he is? What a paragon of science! Instead of facing up to his adversary he now stomps his feet and barks behind the barbed wired fence that was put up to save his pathetic giga-ego. Truly a spectacular win â not. :-)
Ah, hardly surprisingly Paris Hilton's dog chek keeps on mounting Jeffie's ankles. Can't he leave the poor sod alone with his demons? In t/his time of despair I'm sure Jeff doesn't need that kind of support. A beaten man should be left alone, me thinks.
More to the point: The glue that keeps the CAGW-cult together isn't science, its anger, faith and hate.
@Jonas, Olaus
Olaus, you're back! I missed the dry (hopefully) humping cracks - chek the yappy little dog going about his business, while jeff talks about how special and important jeff is.
Have either of you been following the "warm March" in the US stories? via a link on the open thread, someone has claimed that [Jeff Masters](http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2056) has been trying to pass it off as CO2/Global warming phenomenom. I don't know if he's backtracked on that, but his latest explanation is just an unusual "blocking event", go figure.
"Why the record early-season warmth?
The unusual warmth is due to a loop in the jet stream that has created a large upper-level ridge of high pressure that is stuck in place over the Eastern U.S.--a phenomenon known as a "blocking pattern." Since the jet stream acts as the boundary between cold air to the north and warm air to the south, and the large loop in the jet places its axis far to the north of the eastern U.S., summer-like warmth has developed over the eastern half of the U.S. Conversely, colder than average temperatures have developed over the western third of the U.S. behind the southwards-dipping loop of the jet stream."
I thought we'd got past all this, a patch of a few cold/warm weeks in a region has no import at all. Global temperatures are unimpressive either way.
Surely the CAGW lot can't be that desparate, or stupid (what am I saying), to get their hopes up over this. Some wet themselves with excitement every time they hear the words "unprecedented" or "incredible" associated with a bit of weather - The Gods have spoken, It's a sign!
Jonas, Olaus, either of you seen any equally daft things out and about?
;)
Jeffie once more is trying to counter punch from afar, while pretending to ignore. Probably trying to convince himself that he has won decisive arguments and crushed his opponents.
Itâs all quite comical. As is chek ranting about making fact-free comments, Bernard is once more pleading for a total ban, as has Jeff, repeatedly.
But letâs get back to Jeff umpteenth attempt to score an intellectual point (Pssst: it didnât work this time either). Here we go:
>He's really bitter now to learn that thousands of scientists working on climate-related effects on biodiversity take AGW as a 'given'.
On the contrary, Jeff. That was what I pointed out. That these 1000s of references donât do squat to establish any causation, or any magnitude of any possible A-signal in GW.
>The authors are investigating the potential consequences on AGW, and not its causes
As I just said: Not the causes of AGW (sic!)
>Because as far as the vast majority of scientists are concerned (me included), science has moved on.
As I just said. You donât know, you think you know, you believe and want to believe. Conveniently (for the time being) you assume, ie hope, somebody else âknowsâ what you only believe.
>Humans are the primary culprit. Just as we are the pirmary culprit for a range of processes affecting ecological communities and ecosystems across the biosphere
The primare culprit for AGW, yes. By definition. And you still don't know how large that signal is. If it even is detectable above natural noise. We are talking about the climate, particularly the A in GW, attribution, detection, signal, strength of it. But notice the shift in focus? Jeffie seems to rather want to reframe it to something else.
>Only in the mindset of a very small subset of the scientific community is there any controversy whatsoever with respect to the causes of the current warming
Firstly, once more he pretends to speak for âthe scientific communityâ, although he is incapable of communicating with almost anyone not agreeing with him. How, can this guy possibly make any such assessment reliably. He who still invents his own âfactsâ to support his belief system. Secondly he seems to suggest that all of the GW-warming is A. Not even the IPCC and the more dogmatic 'climate scientists' make such claims scientifically. Some (Hanses etc) sure wanna believe that. But their belief is definitely not science. Often it is pure gibberish as we saw in one of Jeff's loopy I-know-the-future-cause-I-ve-seen-it-videos.
> I challenged the moron-who-must-not-be-named to discuss and debate ecophysiological aspects in space and time as this relates to declining biodiversity, with emphasis on polar bear demographics
Firstly âmoronâ is still not an argument for anything. It just makes you look stupid. Besides being so obviously inappropriate here, where real scientifically literate people are present in the room. Secondly the claim is factually wrong, I told you that: Locally, it is even more difficult to identify any A-signal in GW. And that this possible signal (if detectable) is pretty far down the list of threats to polar bears.
>GSW and you-know-you write as if the Arctic is in stasis
>For them the world is static
Pure invention. Once more a good example of Jeff inventing-strawmen-strategy, or even worse: lack of cognitive capabilities. Arctic ice has been varying all the time. Has been both more and less. As have been temperatures. Only during this interglacial.
Then little Jeffie goes off telling us how bad the future will be-boo! Especially if all the ifs and buts he dreams about are far mor true than his other inventions. But there is nothing about any A of any GW in there. Still he concludes:
>This is what the deniers conveniently leave out
He gets that thing totally wrong too. It is the sceptics who constantly remind people of change being the natural state of things. And non of them needs to debunk any of Jeffs future-fantasies to argue their points. Jeff, just doesn't understand what the debate is about. Still not. Still rantning completely different and unrelated things.
His conclusion is quite funny (and revealing) too:
> The final point is that I know I am on the right track when I am verbally abused by the likes
He 'knows' his rantings must be right! Because of the verbal abuse! Little angry shouting insult-spewing insecure Jeff. Knows! He is Right! Because of the insults! Jeffie-style logic in his arguments all over again!
He cannot address one single argument correctly, probably doesn't even understand them, neither the factual objections nor why these are relevant.
And this sorry-ass joke of an (pseudo-)scientist, goes on about " D-K intellectual wannabes"!? What a joke
100 own goals just isn't enough for him. He still tries exactly the same method as in August last year. No wonder the kid never has not learnt anything ...
GSW
Yes, I noted that someone (was it Jeffie?) hinged his hopes on march 2012 to finally prove that it was man all along. And threw in the latest HADCru revision/adjustment too.
How can anybody be so utterly inept about what science is? It's just flabbergasting.
But to be honest, sites like this one, and everywhere are not really getting any traction or hits any more. Only the blind, raving and committed faithers sound like this nowadays.
In Sweden, the most propped-up climate scare blogg hardly posts anything relevant anymore, and also there only attracts a few, and half the comments are from its own devote members. And we've seen some of them here too. Making ... well ... not so bright comments.
Michael Mann, albeit quite some media support, is hardly selling any books, and among the the few copies sold, I would be very surprised if there were any larger percentage being paid with people's own money.
It's all a conspiracy, you know. It's them evil fossil industries making people so poor, in order to prevent them from buying and reading the scientific truth!
PS Jeffie, if you are reading this (which I know you are), I put in one more piece of irony in the last sentence than you realize just now. It is directed especially at you. I think it is extra difficult for you to note it, given your poor scientific acumen. Can you spot it?
After once more having been taken to the laundromat and gotten a proper tumbling for his incoherent ramblings, Jeffie now grasps at straws (remnants from his many shattered strawmen): He thinks I misrepresented his position! And calls it a strwaman!
Did you get that!? This clown fabulist (after half a years fantasizing up his won 'facts') laments about someone else not properly expressing his stance. What an absolute farce.
The guy is so full of incoherent BS claims, he does not need anybody else to misrepresent him. Just let him ramble on his own for a while, and he will have ensnared him self in mutually inconsistent statements. Many of them! Throw in a few pointed interjections, and the results will be spectacular!
But stil, he gets it wrong also this time. What I said about him was:
>he **seems to suggest** that all of the GW-warming is A
Firstly, the statement is about how Jeffie's position **seems** to look. Secondly, the 'all of the warming'-meme (even more than all), certainly has been on the table here. Don't remember if Jeffie endorsed exactly that, but he certainly endorsed essentially every position opposing me, even elevating them to 'wisdom and knowledge' (the Jeffie version, that is).
And after that desperate nit picking at and overlooking of individual words, he goes on to make definite claims about arctic sea ice for the entire interglacial.
The guy just can't get one single thing right. Not even if you hold his hand and spoonfeed him with the bits in the right order ...
And he has another go with the CV-waiving, poor thing.
And as so many other incompetent lefties, he demands that daddy/state force/TimL shut his opponents up and throw them out.
One wonders why there are still people who don't understand why things go down the drain when you leave the loopy left ideologues in charge of things in the real world.
But those are of course the same people who always have demanded that somebody else pays for whatever they do and happen to ruin. Blaming others for not providing an even better world for them. And the ideologues are of course the worst among them. The demand being paid for the ruining and for their endless insults ..
[Marco](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#c624…) (in the thread where Jeffie still dares to post) tries at least a fairly balanced comment, [linking something](http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-2/public-review-draft/sa…) what he means **supports** Jeffies wild eyed assertions about former arctic sea ice extent.
He points at figure 8.13 which shows that since the little ice age, arctic ice apparently has shrunk. Quite possible ...
But in the preceding figures 8.10 and 8.12, ice extent proxies for the present holocene (which was the topic at hand) are shown, both clearly indicating that the amount of ice has been increasing since the early holocene. Ie having been notably lower earlier, which was suggested by me and GSW.
So Marco, no: On the contrary, your link shows that there is good support (which you provided) that Jeffie once more was making wild unsupported (very likely very false) claims just because he so desperately wanted them to be true.
And your snide remark to GSW came right back at you. Sorry ..
And in comes chek, the sideline cheerer for sideline faither Jeffie, and jumps right down the hole that Marco (inadvertently) dug for both of them.
Isn't it quite wonderful how predictable Deltoids can be?
:-)
Now we only wait for Jeffie, making the same jump (before having seen what it actually means)
And in comes Jeff â¦
And what does he do/say? Itâs not quite conclusive (is it ever with this guy?). I can see two possibilities:
1.He shouts and blusters and openly claims that he refuses to take in any information that could harm his deranged view and understanding of the physical world (we know that this method he has practiced generously through his âcareerâ, landing him completely without orientation, method and knowledge to cope with reality, or with others who do). Or
2.He has actually gone here, seen that Marcoâs link conclusively underpins what I/GSW said, and makes Jeff once more looking like the butt end of an ass (or at least that I have, and now point out the figures which do). If so, he is trying to prevent his fellow faither-Deltoid-travelers to go here and see that once more he has been taken to the cleaners. And looks a like a fool with all his own eggs in his face again. If so, he is now trying to deceive his own supporters too. And he really really does not want anybody to see it: *âWARNING GSW's link takes you to the asylum: the Jonas thread. Nobody in his right mind wants to go thereâ* he shouts, in advance insulting possibly less rabid, and more balanced and interested parties.
Which one it is? Canât say for sure. But I would expect Jeff to lie about exactly everything before admitting that he got it wrong. Before publicly correcting one single wrong statement or invented âfactâ he has tried.
One more think about the arctic ice, a point I didnât specify clearly enough before. Jeff claimed about arctic ice cover (during the present intergacial):
> But it hasn't changed at the rate it is doing now. Not even close. The loss of Arctic ice in the space of less than a century is unprecedented.
That too is once more an utter BS statement. Again it claims to know details about ice cover with a time resolution of single decades, for a time span covering 12 millennia. No real scientists would pull such claims out of his hat. Only the nutcase version that has spent months inventing âmuch neededâ(!) âfactsâ like this ..
But all sensible intelligent readers already know this. And among the remainder, even Jeffieâs devote supporters seem faltering ..
Jeff both tries to tell himself that he ignores whatever adverse facts are pointed out to him, or the many flaws in his reasoning, not to mention the endless fabrications of âfactsâ he would need. He says that anybody who does âcanât be in their right mindâ. But he still claims that he has âengagedâ but now is âtoo importantâ to continue. Today at least. Hard to imagine what he may mean by âengageâ. He has been constantly running away from essentially everything (trying to shift focus things completely unrelated to establishing any A-signal in GW, even ignoring questions what methods âto do something about itâ he considers feasible for GW-mitigation).
And although he does âengageâ while claiming the opposite, he is scared sh*tless to do so face to face, but choses(!) to do so from behind a fence (he demanded) making two threads difficult to follow. (Well, if it was a sign of intelligence, that he doesnât want others to see him, to follow his incoherent constantly shifting and new fabricated âargumentsâ, that would at least be understandable). But cheating his own supporters and/or havocing the blogs of others does not seem to bother him. Instead he (and quite some more) accuse others of exactly what they are guilty of themselves. Again and again.
And, in case anybody had forgotten: The guy is patently incapable of arguing anything resembling real science!
Jeff just can't help himself scoring more and more own goals. And seems to be complete devoud of any selfawarness. He writes:
>FYI: check out the one who is begging his readers to believe him, who is making all the insults, false innuendoes, whilst claining that somehow the vast majority of contributors to Deltoid actually support him. One guess, people. He's nuts. Hence why I won't go there again.
Apart from his claims 'never to go there again or not to engage any more' obviously have been untrue every previous time, it is just amazing that Jeff who has pouring insults from day one, making fals claims fabricating 'facts' and endless innuendo for seven months running ...
.. has the gall to whine about when people to his face tell him how abysmally poor his behaviour and his arguments are.
A guy who has been waving his CV for months exactly to 'convince' others to side with him. He now even explicitly writes about arguing the merits of a position
>But that doesn't count. Letters and titles after your name do. And these guys don't have any.
Can this joke make himself more spectacular?
And Marco now goes into either denial of what his own link showed. Or participates in trying to deceive those he wants to help.
Poor state of things ...
And another of [Jeff's own goals](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comm…).
GSW, says, quite flatteringly:
>Jonas, get's to the "core" of issue immediately
probably referring to that I identify the core hypothsis and claims, that I understand what is needed for (and under what preconditions) such a claim can be supported. That I am aware of what the proffered arguments imply wrt the needed support support. And also that I quickly identify the weak parts, the omitted links, and when faulty logic is used as 'evidence' for the offered conclusion.
Especially, I do this when I see that the propsed claim is cannot be argued on the basis of the presented facts, arguments, logic, and observations. When the **core** of the issue doesn't hold water.
To this, Jeff replies:
>Yeh, too bad the core is rotten
As if he once more missed the meaning of what was said. Because, for once I tend to agree with Jeff. When I question, or point out poor support or basis, or faulty logic, I say almost the same thing:
'Rotten' is more Jeff's kind of language, but *'poor, insufficient, not good enough, not logical'* are descriptions that often fit what I criticise.
But Jeff, almost every time is unaware of what is being discussed. So you may forgive him for saying (in even stronger language) what I have been saying to him (and others) the moment before .. He just is a very angry guy!
Dear lord, there seems to be no bottom in the Deltoid pit of pseudoscience. Now some of the altar boys are accusing GSW for doing forbidden things, ergo referring to the real Science thread. :-) And all this while Jeffradamus tries to patch up his bleeding ego with lies, more lies and hate speeches about what Jonas is writing in the very same thread. On top of it they invokes Tim to help them out of their misery.
Well, it can't get more absurd can it? :-)
@Jonas,
When did this thread become verboten (as Ianam claims), Jonas? I think they are pretending that they obey some higher authority, but in reality it's just an excuse to hide. How can so much ideological fear be generated with a few truthful words?
;)
@Olaus,
"Jeffradamus"
Has anyone looked to see if Nostradamus made any prophecies that could be misinterpreted as impending CO2 biodiversity armageddon? Perhaps they could have a whole chapter in AR5 dedicated to it.
That's a joke obviously, but a WG2 does read a little like that.
;)
Guys
When did you last see one sensible comment. Addressing the facts, as they are presented. Or the stated position of and what is offered in support for it?
Just calmly reading what is said, and trying to formulate what they accept and what they disagree with?
Marco (~7 months back) had some reasonable points and comments. But now seemingly, he officially declares denial: *'I don't want to see it, look at it. Not even if it was my own point/link'*
Jeff in spite of his length posts just seems incapable of connecting to the real side of the debate. And ianam, Bernard, bill, chek, Stu, Andy S and Wow .. they never even understood which program they weren't with.
Funnily, in retrospect, I must give some credit to luminous, who after all tried for a while there in the middle. Although both after and before trying to bluff himself through with sciency words he didn't master.
In the end they all felt compelled to start lying when the edges of their belief system started to crackle and give in. Either openly to all, or to themselves ..
But it't true as Jeff also thinks: Among them, a majority is still on his side. He must do **something** right if he gets so much so spectacularly so wrong and they don't mind nor care.
@Jonas
I know what you mean, they are universally disappointing. Some behave quite reasonably at times, give the impression of sifting thru the evidence objectively, more for show than anything else I've concluded, or for those few with some science background a distantly remembered obligation that that is what you are supposed to do.
There is an abrubt change however when the realisation dawns that CAGW theory is all smoke and mirrors, little if any substance. Take your example here, the 90%-95% attribution claim, I think it came as a bit of shock to some, if not all, that there was no science to this, opinion is not science. Science is Numbers and those numbers came from nowhere, more a quantification of how some people felt about something.
The whole thing is very much cargo cult, the external trappings of science, but non of the required rigour. Jeff's the poster child for this, "Of course I'm a real scientist, I go to conferences and everything" - Going to conferences in Jeffs eyes is being a scientist, it's what scientists do - he must have seen a film about one once. Nothing in there about it being a way of thinking, an approach to a problem, a caution about what you can and cannot say based on evidence.
Luminous, yes I had high hopes for Luminous - he did get things wrong, but he was making progress working it out for himself (can't argue with that), and he did achieve an "understanding" in the end I think. so worth the effort ;)
The others, well, shouters, abusers, ideologues, push a little bit and they all degenerate into the same unpleasant persona, eyes closed, hands over their ears, and shouting at the tops of their voices "I can't Hear You".
;)
Take care Jonas!
Keep going, guys! Very impressed with the substantive discourse here.
Stu there is another thread for those afraid of debate, afraid of real science, afraid of discussing such, afraid of reading what it actually done in the publications, what it shows, even in the ones they link.
Instead there is a lot (proclaimed) 'expertise' in CV-waiving, in repeating various signal-terms such as 'denialists' 'Dunning Kruger' 'morons' 'idiots' and a lot more of the same stuff.
You'd probably find it 'substantive', Stu .. But then again, compared to you, almost anything is.
I see that Jeffie is **demanding** 'answers' to his ill posed challenge, and tries to declare victory and even **proof** of his fantasies if his demands aren't met.
He is doing this in another thread, complaining about answers not being given here. Where he often has promised never to go again (even chastised those who do).
Again, a very good example of what mess Jeffie-style-science-logic is. Being only a little bit consistent, even if only about the simplest things is just overwhelmingly hard for some ...
Well, as usual he desperately tries to get away from the only core issue ever really on the table: The possible A-signal in any GW.
And although this has been pointed out to him time and again (dozens), and to keep his eyes on that ball, he avoids it like poison. He so desperately wants to talk about something else.
To get away from the (possible, and if so detectable) A-signal in GW, he employs the following tactics(*):
1. Conflate all warming with anthropogenically caused warming
2. Do so even with changes in temperature, variations
3. Bring up something that is affected by a temperature change. Or just may be in the future. Or can be constructed to be. Possibly at least. Pound it as 'proof' for AGW or alarm
4. Bring up anything else that also may affect it. Anything. Possibly. Or in the future, or if the 'ifs' are true. Throw in an 'has been projected'. Pound the 'its much worse'-meme. Repeat till 'causes' are exhausted.
5. Throw in 'human' and 'caused by' in as many of the other factors too. Again extrapolate! As far as possible.
6. Play the non-linear card: If all 'ifs', possibilities, future projections, causes, stresses, etc are combined, it may be much worse still. Here: bring up 'tipping points', 'escalate'. Use extingction, even extinction rate. Also 'accelerate' is useful. Ie 'Much worse worse than we ever thought'.
6. Return to temperatures (implying the possible A in GW, and particularly, local temperatures, but its changes!). Imply this is what might set it all off. Start the boulder rolling, the escalating chain of events. Use 'inevitable', irreversible, permanent etc.
7. Rounding up: Planet is so fragile, every part of it, everywhere. In so many ways. Changes causes other changes. Stresses exist and together there might be consequences, worse than taken separately. Ergo: Changes are bad! Temperatures have changed. Now too. Bad! Say Climate change and AGW again, a couple of times. Got it no? It is all connected. Climate change affects everything. Is part of every consequence, everywhere. Somehow. Probably worse than we know.
8. Finally, the desired conclusion: 'We must do **something** about it. Yes! Lets try to control the global climate. Lets try to do that by singling out one possible minor factor. Yes, start creating enormous bureaucracies. And fake markets. And yes! Lets levy taxes! At everything! Especially at those everything which is bad and we dislike anyway. Yes, we'll need that money to save the world. And we have ti have careers too. Where we don't have to earn our salaries. Yes, lets stifle free speech too. It is dangerous and only delays urgent and necessary action. Does any of this even has a chance to abate temperature changes? Don't know. Doesn't matter really. It has so many other desirable effects too. Saving the planet is our major concern. From what? Well, almost anything. We make that up as we go. Heck we are learning more and more about all threats all the time! Just as we projected.
Well, that was more generic, but Jeff fits right in the middle of it!
Shorter Jonas: Don't regulate the corporations! I says there ain't no science so there ain't, and you can't prove nuttin'!
Chek
Actually, I was saying something very different. I was describing how quite a few of those who have absolutely nothing to say/contribute to the issue go about making âclimate changeâ somehow their vehicle for whatever they believe in and want. Possibly the âregulate corporationsâ is in there among the desired âoutcomeâ of the exercise. To accomplish ⦠well, yes taxation and regulation, and support for whatever charitable cause (themselves usually) they might harbor. Not very interested in what is accomplished in the physical world, in reality.
That no science is needed to support those âdesired concusionsâ and what/if they migh accomplish anything at all, has been very amply demonstrated here. Not one single comment has even gone close to what might be accomplished, or even how, and at what costs, and side effects. Complete disinterest. In spite of the over emotional, mouth frothing anger tantrums and rants from so many during so many months now.
Q: Problem?
A: Yes, yes **Yes!!** Very much! Vey many! Countless problems! Absolute certainty!
Q: Solving them? How?
A: Shut the f*ck up. Science says weâre right. That there is a huge problem. In the future! Donât ruin our day!
It looks like Jeffie has improved his game, now taking down Watts while working under pseudonym:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/22/letters-i-get-letters/#more-59917
:-)
Are you Scandinavian deadshits still here? Get a life boys.
As noted many times before: Jeff Harvey (who pretends to be, or rather really really badly wants to be (seen as) a **real** scientist) cannot help himself. So eager to âcrushâ anybody not sharing his faith, he scores own goal after own goal, for everybody (interested) to see. Among his recent posts (last two days), four fall in the category:
**Weather is Not Climate**
In his [latest](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comm…) comment, he tried the *âweather is not climateâ*-meme, to do away with the fact that **global** temperatures havenât risen for 10 to 15 years, and that this is a real problem (increasing further for each year, widening the gap) both for the doomsayers, the predictions, the models, and those who claimed high confidence in attribution. To this Jeff responds:
> This is kindergarten-level science ⦠this ignores short term perterbations that can transiently mask the longer term effects. Its akin to saying that one week in one year is warmer in **March** than in May
Which is funny, because this âweatherâ (that isnât climate) is the **global** averaged(**!**) weather, that hasnât played along for well over a decade. Funny too is that he brings up a warm March in his âdebunkingâ. Because in three earlier posts, it is the very **local** and warm March (weather) that is his core argument for AGW: In [comment 283](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comm…). He wites:
> March 2012 is going to go down in the history books as an incredibly exceptional month. There has been a prolonged heat wave over the entire mid-west that is, by any standards, incredible and unprecedented ⦠its been a devastating week for the deniers. The **evidence** is swamping them, and they are now resorting to desperate smears
He reiterates that in [# 330](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comm…), saying and predicting the future (again):
> and to top if off is the heatwave across the midwestern USA that is now reaching the east. Its **unbelieveable** by any stretch of the **imagination** ⦠This is certainly a sign of things to come.
And boy do we know how strechable Jeff's imagination can be.
And to the observation, that there are cold spells and snowstorms in other parts of the US, he first tries to deride one site (WUWT) where these observations **too** mentioned(!?), and repeats [in #336](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comm…), again making predictions about the future:
>Check the ratio of warm-cold weather records in the US. More than 3500 of the former against 18 of the latter. And warm records are not only being broken, but .. smashed to pieces. Like it or not, these conditions are well outside of any normal variance. ⦠Like the heat wave that hammered Russia in 2010, we are seeing a broader pattern of exceptional conditions occurring over more of the globe that are probably unprecedented in a long, long time. And its almsot certain to get worse.
All these are weather events, and they are local. He is both arguing **extremely unlikely** events (occurring somwhere, locally) **and** that they are going to be not only common, but worse! And his last point is that bringing up âweatherâ (even if its averaged, and over a decade) *âThis is kindergarten-level science. To be ignoredâ*!, and once more âconcludingâ (=fantasizing) desperately about his opponents lack of education and training.
He is just spectacular, this Jeff Harvey, ainât he not? Everytime, and in almost every comment he tries, he reveals how exceptionally poor a âscientistâ he is, how he is patently incapable of even getting even his own arguments right. How he within hours blows gigantic holes in his own (just delivered) assertions about both AGW (again, conflating GW-warmth with any possible A-component) and not using local, and shorter term observations to make that case. And of course riddled with his usual insults (all blowing up in his own face)
**Just spectacular !**
PS I had another comment earlier (before the warm March own goal) that didnât make it through, a little bit more detailed. I might repost it later. And there are some interesting points to be made about Hasis (#339) and his calculation with both sigma and probabilities. Way over Jeffieâs little head. I might get back to them too.
Two comments now, held up!?
But maybe this was automated? Since I linked to the Jeff's comments who nowadys is too afraid to comment here where his assertions are actually read. And can get a scientific answer.
Sign 'A Lurker' - You are a good example of the commenters who thrive and seem to be welcome here. I guess you can call that 'a life' ...
@Jonas
I assumed "A Lurker" was jeff!
;)
First:
Yes, it is automated. As has been explained to you and your cohorts a dozen times already.
Anyway.
Okay, I'll really have to dig in to address all those substantive issues you set forth there, Jonas. But let me try:
1. Strawman.
2. Strawman.
3. Strawman.
4. Strawman.
5. Strawman.
6. Strawman.
7. Strawman.
8. Strawman.
9. Strawman.
Man, that was tiring. I'll have to go lie down now.
Stu, you never were that bright were you? My comments have been dissapearing and held up manually too.
Regarding your strawmen:
It is the easiest thing to pick (from various threads/forums on AGW) countless examples for every one of those practices of in the AGW-proxy-support tactics(*), I won't even bother. But you seem in denial there too?
In response I would simply note:
1-9 Own goal
Every one of them. And it didn't take any effort at all.
(*)I forgot in the previous post (#3431) a caveat: The term 'tactics' implies some cognitive intelligence, a puprose or goal, and a thought-out means to get there. I didn't really want to claim that such is present everytime, as eg here in the case of Jeff. It might very well be instinctive, emotional, and pure Pavlovian reflexes. Glad to mention these qualifying distinctions. But the end effect is ireespective of that, and often fits my points 1-9 quite well. Stu, isn't even up there, trying to link two consecutive points by using logic. (Hands/boxes at different speed, tried the opposite)
Liar.
Show me one. Just one.
Precious Stu is as predictable as Jeffie and his little waggling dogs Chek and wow. At the glimpse of anything scientific (wrt climate change) they instantly pivot into fetus position mode. Fascinating behavior. Wonder what Sir David Attenborough would make of it. :-)
By the way, Jonas:
Posting drunk is not helping your cause. At least try to form complete sentences.
@stu,
"Posting drunk is not helping your cause."
What's your excuse stu?
;)
@Jonas,
I seem to be filling up the Bolehole over at RC all on my own today. I think this is an example of what stu was asking for in #3440. How can a few, very polite, simple words cause such offence? CAGW theory must be stronger than that surely? maybe not. Just pointing out the 100yrs cold event in china 2008 is apparently verboten over at the ministry for truth. I'm sure if it got out, the religion would crumble. Why don't they put more faith in the goldfish?
You having moderation issues yourself at the moment Jonas?
;)
@Jonas,
Interested in your view, this is currently in moderation over at RC. It's obviously not been written by a 'Believer', but is there anything there that should not be said or should be censored? Intellectual Orthodoxy has never been compatible with science.
[RETRY - 2nd Time]
@John,
Thanks for the response again. I understand your point, but I think many here are overstating the significance of an anomaly lasting only a few weeks, context or not. The Weather is not Climate argument.
If you present anomalous âWarmâ events as âevidenceâ, then you must also accept anomalous âColdâ events as contrary to the same degree. Not to do so is simply âSpecial Pleadingâ.
Iâd argue that these short term anomalies are not good indicators either way. This current event is unlikely to make any perceptable difference to the Global temperature anomaly for the month, which will be unremarkable, let alone the year.
An example of an anamolous âColdâ event in China, 2008. Special Pleading?
[China 2008](http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/02/04/idUKPEK161570._CH_.242020080204)
@Jonas,
Yup, boreholed.
;)
Stu ...
Wow above, said he couldn't find one single instance where I told luminous he was wrong.
You apparently tell me you can't find (don't know of) one single instance where my 9 points above, generically describe how various AGW-groupies go about arguing that AGW somehow also is extremely important for their cause or ideas.
That would indeed be quite remarkable. Even coming from you ..
But then again, you are a quite remarkable guy aren't your. I mean:
Six years of physics studied, and hand/box moving at different speeds while ranting 'dependent variable, dependent variable'
Quite remarkable, as I said!
;-)
GSW #3444
Nah .. religions don't crumble that easily. By definition!
They are religions and based on faith. Every man of the cloth knows that the pure and unsoiled faith has to be accepted by divine insight, ie blindly. Whereupon follows salvation and the revelations of seeing the light. He also knows that the commoners have not reached that level and are torn between temptations, doubt and the word from the holy script.
More importantly, he also knows that he too will be tempted and that the lord will test his faith by allowing him to harbor doubt. And also that Satan will try to sow and exploit any such doubt as best he can. And couple of cold spells in China, or a decade without warming are just the kind of tricks Satan would try to sway you with. I fact, his tricks are a confirmation of that your path is the righteous one, and not faltering is proof of that the lord is on your side.
My question to you GSW: Why are you posting at RC? You know, that they will moderate you as they please, to maintain the narrative, and make you look uninformed. They will never let you get away with making them look foolish or uninformed. Regardless of how right or reasonable you and your posts are.
@Jonas,
"My question to you GSW: Why are you posting at RC?"
It's a good question Jonas. There's not much "Trade" on Deltoid, just the usual crowd with weak one line remarks, no imagination, and we've done jeff haven't we ;)
The think the biggest disappointment is that jeff doesn't actually seem to be that "expert" in his own field, doesn't know the stuff at any rate, can barely regurgitate the words properly, a cut, paste, and jumbler of wikipedia articles at best. A peddler of IGW, as OOA put it, to the proles - those without the intellect to comprehend what's been discussed, but happy to cheer for the cause nonetheless.
I do pop over to RC every now and then, gavin is probably the closest thing the alarmists have to an intellectual (IMO). gavin + eric(?) are better on the moderation policy, the chap today Jim(?) is an ideological moron. There were quite a few comments on the current US warm event, accompanied by a jubilant "dancing round the teepees" in relief at there being some "good news" at last.
It's all totally bogus of course, so I thought I'd try and get some comments from the climate scientists themselves on the relevance of the "event" - they were very quite, perhaps they do know better after all.
;)
It is just hilarious, isn't it. Jeff once more brakes his own oft repeated promise to never go here again. He, by his own account, describes his own behavior as:
> Nobody in his right mind wants to go there
Or
>Not a single person with any scientific credibility will go there
Well, he goes here all the time. And his scared sh*tless to respond properly to anything here. And instead tries doing this from inside his (by Tim) protected asylum building entire armies of strawmen. He even uses 'asylum' to describe the outside world where he would need to face reality and people who are scientifically literate and way more capable than he his. Frantically waiving his CV, as if it somehow strengthens his points.
One scientifically literate person in this thread alone here suffices to make him go bonkers ..
He even and again sides with ÃberStu-pid's nonsense commenting. Or look at this 'argument:
>[They] Make unsubstantiated comments off the tops of their heads
Oh the irony! Jeff after fabricating claim after claim for half a year. But this one is even better:
>Note that in 7 months since Jonas entered Deltoid, there have been no more than half a dozen people who have written to support his arguments. At the same time, 30 or more think he's a loon
Wow, he crushed' me by 30 to 6! :-)
I'd actually say the opposite: If anyone really thinks that I am just a loon, this guy, definitely belongs here. Not even Jeff thinks that I am one. He desperately wants to know, and tries whatever he can to find out. Because arguing the AGW case, he wants to avoid at all costs. Personal smear is what he tries. And then whines when he is not adored for it .. Pathetic!
He has spent 7 months now arguing AGW and its severity, never getting close to any issue were the (C)AGW-position is criticized. But is still screeching that he should be 'respected' for it. Based on his .. well, total lack of self awareness. And his CV.
By the way, have you noticed that he never boasts about any accomplishments. Science where he actually accomplished something? Only the length of his CV?
Well well, in the end he as usual claimas to speak for 'the scientific community' (this little screeching guy, incapable of having a civil conversation or arguing anything when contradicted).
And he tries the (same) appeal to authority once more:
>every Academy of Science in every country on Earth agrees that humans are dangerously influencing climate patterns over the biosphere. These prestigious bodies **do not reach these conclusions lightly**. They are based on **input from a large sector of their membership** including experts in the field.
I have asked him about exactly this before. Several times. How they go about it. No answer whatsoever. The little liar just has no clue! Instead (his own words) he:
>Make[a] unsubstantiated comments off the tops of [his] heads
Jeffie, scientists don't lie to reach their results. The don't even make up convenient 'facts' for that purpose when such are missing ...
Stop calling yourself a scientist before you manage to behave like one!
Fellas, will there be good news on the science is settled front this summer? A Nasa scientist believed not in 2007:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.h…
:-)
How is it going?
I see Jeff again tried to bolster his self esteem, or whatever that should be labeled, wrt to the A-signal in GW by writing unrelated and nonsensical stuff.
And it is somewhat surprising that no one in his surrounding points out to him how badly he bungles his arguments most of the time. Or maybe they do, and Jeff doesnât understand it. Or they tried, Jeff threw another temper tantrum and the ignored him. In any case, itâs remarkable that someone like this runs lose in any filed claiming to conduct science.
The guy quotes a Wikipedia entry stating that (self selected) climate scientists **believe** that humans are causing the warming! Did everybody hear that! They really believe it! Wow!
What an crushing takedown of all the skeptics, of which many are real scientists, and donât believe in *âbelieving what natures is likeâ*.
Jeffie till goes on to pretend to talk for âthe scientific communityâ. This time even âthe **strongly united** scientific communityâ
Further he once more tries the âall the academiesâ appeal, flat out claiming that their statements are based on polling their membership. The argument this times seems to be âprestigiousâ, and he claims to know what everybody will attest to. I am absolutely certain, that Jeff has absolutely no clue how (if!) the membership was polled, and what questions they were asked. Jeffie probably doesnât even know what questions those oft repeated 97% agreeing âclimate scientistsâ actually do agree on. He just fills his big black holes of utter ignorance with his fantasies. As we have seen here for half a year.
He once more tells us about the length of his CV. And thinks others donât have any!? I donât even want to start thinking what that can possibly mean.
By the way Jeff, have you yet managed to figure out what âsomethingâ you wanted to do about the fact that glacier size changes? You were adamant about âdoing something about itâ â¦
Hehe...little Jeffie keeps reading the Science thread to swagger off to safe ground playing tough guy. Taxi Driver and Vicky Pollard vibes for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mpMEnxcVkA
:-)
@Olaus
;)
Do you watch "Little Britain" over in Sweden? Vicky's all attitude and mouth, there's definitely words in there too, but they never seem to amount to very much. mmm.......
;)
Little Britain is very popular in Sweden. And now it's new shows every day here at Deltoid. What about "the only scientist in the village"? ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrlzaBNgz-M
@Olaus,
Climate Models - [Computer says no!](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNRGCPKhJFE&feature=related)
;)
PS In the middle of watching BBC Horizon - Global Weirding.
;)
@Olaus,
Watched the Daffyd clip ;), ends with,
"That's exactly the kind anti-scientific attitude I've come to expect on this blog, Good Day!"
You know he'll be back though, quite a final riposte! (again)
;)
Little Britain got Daffyd, we got Jeffyd. :-)
Computer says Yes! :-)
What about "science fighters"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmiH7pD3-Zs
More good news coming up, and this time dressed up as an IPCC-report. :-)
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.se/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disas…
I notice that Jeff Harvey calls me 'shithead' (after having used similar ohter labelling attempts for more than six months). And on top of that he whines about not beeing treated with (enough) respect! What a sissy!
It is funny, because this guy really cannot argue one single point as a grown up. If I'm a 'shithead', what does that say about the contents of his?
Recently he has tried Wikipedia and some Reuters article to bolster/reinforce his beliefs. And he has repeatedly brought up all these 'national acadamies' as 'support' for them. Although he neither knows how(if) they polled their constituency, nor what the indeed asked, or what their statements actually claim to support. He just thinks that somehow, his personal and twisted beliefs, which he can't even formulate', also are shared or even endorsed by a list of academies.
Because he so much wants to believe this!
And he tells us that he is unaware of any real scientists not sharing his beliefs (whatever they are?)?
Well, he probably doesn't even know what his own beliefs are. For six months he has not been capable of which of my views supposedly are so 'earth shattering' that nobody could agree with them or realize they are reasonable objections. And how could he? He lives in a fantasy land, where he makes up his own 'facts' and 'explanations' as he needs them. A guy who can't argue any point scientifically, and instead thinks 'shithead' 'idiot' 'DK aflictee' etc are substitutes for knowledge and arguments.
So let's just focus on the IPCC claims and their purported 'consensus' ...
For six months he (and everybody else here) has been informed of that there is no real science behind the most prominent AR4-claim. Echoed all over the world.
And Jeff believes that no real scientist has noted that? That they all just accept the IPCCs word for it. Or that any/all of the other overstated claims also are just accepted as 'facts'? Or that real scientists accept simulations as confirmations for what the simulations are supposed to prove!? This guy really has no clue at all about what real science is. None!
And he doesn't know that there has been fierce oppopsition to the sweeping (C)AGW-endorsements from within many of those academies, particularly those involving real sience!? He doesn't know any scientists who doesn't share/accept the IPCC narrative, or thinks there aren't any more other hypothesis to be investigated. He really does not know anything worth knowing, does he?
No wonder, if he lives in a bubble shielded from the real outside world, where real scientists ask the real and relevant questions. All those are incomprehensible to Jeff residing there inside his bubble. Whithin which he even must run and hide (and seek 'protection' from Tim) for his infantile yapping, and where he can pretend that this is angry and scary barking from a heavy hitter. What a joke.
What would be an appropriate labell for him? (I think 'shithead' is far too juvenile, and doesn't really capture all what has flown by him, whithout him knowing what it was, or why he needs to understand it).
He just is a bubble-dweller in hysteric denial of the real world outside. And he fills the inside of this bubble (which is the confinment of his own distorted fantasy) with all the shit he can conjure up ..
Well, maybe 'shithead' wasn't that bad after all.
But civil as I always am, I will settle for Bubble-Dweller-Jeff!Where he lives with all the stupidities and nonsens he created for himself, and with which he tries to shield off the real world. Which is oh so frightening.
It's not a pretty sight. But it's our bubble-dweller ..
Hehehe...again Jeff demonstrates that he can't handle a civil debate regarding climate science. As soon as Jonas illuminates the many stupidities and lies that rules every inch of Jeffie's understanding of reality, Jeff looses the control of his lower sphincters. However, that doesn't stop him from sneaking over to the Real science thread and read â in silencium â to run off to his gated community starting major drama crying for help and support.
Olaus ... didn't you know? There is indeed a Wikipedia entry stating the 'Scientific Consensus on Climate Change' ..
.. by those who do agree (believe)!
In the world (ie bubble) of Jeffie-science that settles it! And more generally, he thinks that if gets printed, then it should be accepted, if it's printed in a journal, then it's science.
And now he is again appealing to Tim! It seems his bubble still isn't shielded well enough.
What I find most amusing is that he really seems totally and completely unaware of how his 'performance' here has been. What he has tried, stated, 'argued' and with what means ...
Like a petulant spoilt-rotten child unable to cope with reality and the surrounding world as it ... ehrm .. *gets older* ...
('grows up' isn't really appropriate here ...)
@Jonas,
Hi Jonas! I think we should lay off Jeff on his special day (1st April), he is probably out celebrating somewhere. Normal service can resume tomorrow.
Did you follow the Planet Under Pressure conference last week? it was streamed for those interested. It was pretty dull, nothing worth reporting, just a bunch of people repeating extreme left wing views to each other with half hearted applause playing in the background.
Highlight of the week was the twitter feed - One chap was pissed off that having paid £50 for a meal, waited inline for an hour, only to find that all the options were vegetarian!
They're not exactly selling it are they, the brave new world, four carrots and a pea for £50.
Emission reductions don't get a mention, or CO2, perhaps they've moved on, or realised finally that the narrative has no legs. As karen pointed out, "Global Governance" is the new mantra - If we can't control your lives with carbon, then how about a new "World Government", run for the greater good presumably by the NGO's. These people a seriously "Off Planet".
Your thoughts Jonas?
;)
Big blow to the CAGW. No global warming for the past 15 years, says hadCRUT. Something to joy about, wouldn´t you say, CAGW foilhats?
http://thegwpf.org/press-releases/5360-no-global-warming-for-15-years.h…
Jeff is trying to re-inflate his self esteem using two methods (both indicative of Jeffieâs so called âscientific acumenâ, a word he seems very fond of:
Firstly, by using various invectives to label everybody he is incapable of having a debate with or arguing against (only the last few hours it was âJonarseâ âidiotâ âCurry speaking through her buttâ, and it has been like that from day one). Notably he hardly ever engages in anything of what is actually on the table, addresses the issues, criticizes what he thinks are invalid arguments. Just shouts and cusses like a spoilt-rotten child.
The second method is to just claim various things he desperately wants to be true, and repeating them. Like:
> Jonarse couldn't debate his way out of a soaked paper bag. I've met better debaters in primary school
I mean really, really? If Jeffie thinks that I am a poorer debater than youâll find in primary school. And I wipe the floor with him every time he tries? What does that make Jeff then? ï A debater on âretarded toddlerâ âlevel? On top of that, someone who describes himself as a âreal scientistâ!?
Bernard J, unintended of course, came up with a fairly accurate observation about Jeff, someone whose nonsense has been refuted countless times: âonce a fuckwit, always a fuckwitâ.
And of course, that observation holds for quite a few more here.
Personally, I expect people to be or get it wrong occasionally and learn from it, improve, become more knowledgeable, less ignorant, better informed etc. But not all, of course. In quite a few cases, the effect of being wrong, and having things explained to them have been quite the opposite. Jeffie probably is the worst among them here. Screeching about âideologyâ all the time, when he cannot argue his own beliefs, or they are blatantly wrong on the face of the facts.
I donât know about you others, but is there anybody who truly believes that Jeffieâs self esteem can be repaired, mended using the tools he has tried for six+ months? Somebody whose mind is so entrenched with ideological prejudice and who is patently incapable of keeping that apart from what(-ever?) he thinks is science? I certainly donât. And essentially everything Jeffie writes shows how badly itâs gotten there inside his little bubble he has filled all by himself with all that [â¦] he has conjured up-
GSW
No, I didnât follow the âPlanet under Pressureâ spectacle. It was pretty obvious from the start where this was going to land. I did, however, eye through the âState of the Planet â Declarationâ you linked. Apparently it was written by the organizers (only) and partly before the meeting was finished. It was a pretty dreadful read. And it is no surprise that the âexpertsâ attending where acquaintances of Jeff, and of the Jeff-style variety of âscientistsâ: Assertions of how the future will be by method of seclusion and mutually agreeing.
And as demonstrated by the supporters in the April-thread, they canât even read what it says. Itâs meaning is in itself a âconspiracyâ by those actually reading it. It was all quite funny! As was the âweather-is-no-climate-unless-Jeff-needs-it-to-beâ and even more so when NOAA mutated into Judith Curryâs butt .. and Jeffie trying to wiggle out of it ï
Jeff Harvey, I know you are a terribly slow learner (if you learn at all?). And that you most often think you âknowâ something which you donât. But which you have heard, or imagined to have heard previously, and which suited you prejudices and fit well on the bubble inside. Which means you need to purge yourself of quite some garbage before you can progress (in the right direction, meaning learning something meaningful, gaining new insights etc)
Here are two things I am addressing. You said:
> But I won't go there - he seems to have a fanatic obsession and hatred for a large sector of the scientific community
First, you open with a bold faced lie! Easily checkable! And the second claim is also a gross and untrue misrepresentation of my position. On the contrary: I respect scientists, those who do real science, who adhere to the scientific method, and are meticulous about reporting what they have done and how (You of course wouldnât know about such, since you are not one of them). Secondly you write:
> Saying that Trenberth and Hansen aren't 'real scientists' is beyond the pale. This coming from someone who has refused categorically to say what their day job is
Here you get at least some part partly right. I have said that Hansen and Trenberth are not (any longer) any real scientists (if they ever were in earlier life). And I explicitly explained why and how that is. (And not one single part of that explanation requires my CV or knowledge of my day job. Youâve been informed sufficiently many times that I know what I am talking about. And you never engaging with anything I actually say, only your own fantasies and fabrications, are a good clue to how much you are competent to challenge).
But Iâll repeat explicitly why I say that Hansen and Trenberth arenât (any longer) any real scientists:
1.Trenberthâs attempted reversion of the null-hypothesis shows that he has abandoned science and is now an activist.
2.Hansenâs âpredictionsâ of a 3 to 15- fold increase of **average**sea level rise rates for the next 100 years. Real science cannot predict anything like that. Because it cannot predict alien nuclear attacks on the ice-sheets either.
Now you, dear Jeffie, were the one to both bring up Hansens Ted-talk, and hail it even after me pointing out (only its worst) flaws. And you claimed that Hansenâs predictions must be reality, because (you claimed) he was such an âesteemed and respectedâ scientists. Well, Jeff, thatâs where you get it completely wrong once more. And once more reveal that you really donât understand what science is: It is not, not ever, the words spoken out of a personâs mouth. Or the words printed in a publication. Especially not predictions of vast changes to come in the near future defying the known laws of physics. You may also want to recall his prophecies about âboiling oceansâ!? That too was nonsense, but activists arenât really concerned with accuracy, getting their facts right, addressing the real issues etc. Instead, they think that such petty details only are in the way obscuring âthe bigger pictureâ. And it is exactly that which makes them unsuitable as scientists. As you so amply have demonstrated for many months now ..
Of course, you went nowhere near any of those things I said about Trenberth or Hansen. Presumably because you have no clue about neither the scientific method nor what it would take to actually support either of their statements. Scientifically, that is. Instead you repeat that they are fine scientists, merely because you want to believe what they say ⦠and that is kinda my point too regarding you, Jeff.
I see that Bernard J is making claims about population ecologists, and that they *âare still far and away better able to assess the veracity of their climatological colleagues' researchâ*
This is funny indeed, because we have seen absolutely zero of any assessment of research veracity for half a year here. Particularly not by the âpopulation ecologistâ who is only capable of shouting and spewing sheer nonsense .. But I reckon, in those quarters belief is an adequate substitute for knowing or mastering any facts ..
And Bernard is begging for others to guess about his guesses about the future. As if it were somehow very relevant? Funny thing is that he many times has equated what has been discussed here (by the scientifically more literate) with having made claims about future arctic ice content. I wonder how one could arrive at such twisted beliefs!? But then again, believing things blindly is the preferred method among this bunch ⦠who just love their name-calling and think it makes them feel and/or look smarter.
Jeffie is still at it. In full denial of reality. Clinging to and boldly yapping from his protected zone here, how right his beliefs must be albeit neither understanding nor even knowing what they say or address. He is still clinging to his âall the academiesâ meme, having longwinded arguments with himself for why similar proclamations should replace proper science. Most of these (by some so much revered) proclamations are merely echoing the claims of that political UN-body, the IPCC, which used to claim to be based on the âbest science availableâ, and endorsed by some 2500 of the finest experts. Well, by now we know how much that is/was worth.
Further, the APS-statement Jeff got so excited about is from 2007, the same year as the (latest AR4) IPCC release and five years old by now. And although Jeff is in denial of essentially everything, there has been quite some fierce opposition from within the APS-membership to the blatantly political statements, overconfidence in politicized pseudo science, and unvalidated climate models. Those responsible have tried essentially everything to maintain the (idiotic and untrue) consensus-narrative, and the later additions/commentary reflect both that and the backpedalling necessary not to look completely stupid. A similar uprising occurred in the Royal Society, which also had to revise its stated opinion (nota bene!) considerably.
Anyway, as even Jeff will (grudgingly) admit, opining and agreeing does not constitute any science or confirmation at all. And falsely claiming to speak for a large membership, and/or making far reaching proclamations about suitable policies is advocacy that has no place in real science. However it is a common tactics among activists to just claim to speak for a large number or entity, and to claim that everybody nor fiercely opposing them indeed agrees. It the kind of stupidity sold by Gore or Oreskes and the IPCC (whose activists additionally takes measures to keep opposing voices silent and out).
And Jeff too has many many times demanded that dissent should be banned, now he is showing even more of his true fascist colors when he canât handle open and honest debate: âThey are like annoying gnats that need to be swattedâ. He really must fear knowledge, science, competence facts and honest debate, this little intellectual dwarf, who likes to compare himself with a pissing skunk contest. We have heard these notions before, incidentally also by those claiming too care for nature and the future of our children â¦
Dishonest science is not science. It is just dishonest. And Jeff once more repeats (and desperately wants to believe) that only non-scientists are skeptical of the IPCC-consensus!? How does this intellectual dwarf-giant arrive at that conclusion? By closing his eyes and wanting to believe it, by denying reality. He even argues that one shouldnât know how these academy-proclamations are arrived at! What they asked? If they asked anything. Again the non-scientists Jeff Harvey demands that beliefs should be taken at faith! And even complains about the âlevel of intellectual discourse with which we are dealingâ! Can this guy make it any clearer? He does not what to know! He does not want anybody else to ask and know either. Everything he believes (and cannot even formulate properly) should be taken at faith and on unsubstantiated authority! No wonder he is so completely ignorant.
You think Iâm joking? Iâm not. Here is vehemently [arguing that authorities and their claims are not to be questioned, not even to be examined for what they are worth]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comm…)! He even says that trying to evaluate the substance of made claims: âthis is crazy, mad, ridiculous, plainly nutty, but this is what our little band of fecal deniers doesâ. This is self proclaimed (but nowhere) âreal scientistâ Jeff Harveyâs response to those asking to see the basis for scientific (and similar) claims. We have seen the same attitude about that (in)famous most prominent IPCC AR4 claim: Donât you ever dare to question it, or to see the basis. Even if itâs false. You should believe it anyway. As should everybody else! I am not joking, he repeatedly and vehemently argues for actively choosing ignorance, for not asking how those proclamations were arrived at! And thatâs why asking to see the data, the code, the measurements, the original temp-records, the science etc, is so dangerous. Why such questions and those who keep asking them âlike annoying gnats ⦠need to be swattedâ
What an absolute farce this is, calling himself a scientist! And as others completely correctly point out, a âscientistâ that doesnât even do numbers, one that consistently gets almost every basic fact or issue totally wrong. No wonder he demands protection from reality. And that reality is kept away from everybody else too..
PS And the guy is still lying about not reading here. And gives it away again in the simplest manner. And demands we should accept and trust his beliefs solely because he demands we should trust him.
@Jonas,
Apologies, I didn't revisit the thread for a couple of days and missed your posts. Have you noticed them on the Recent Comments list as you post them? I only saw your last post.
Will have a read.
GSW, yes my posts are visible among the 'recent comments'. It's fun how Jeffie both tries to reply to them and pretend he never reads them. I guess lying comes natural to him. Even in his 'science'.
It would be fun to dissect one of his alarmistic publications only to see if he is as dishonest as here when referencing others and restating their claims. Just to check if he even can reference the work of others honestly.
I have the absolutely lowest expectations. But then it would still be fun to see how bad it is ..
Generally, those proclaiming to be 'experts on the future' are considered as charlatans, trying to sell you something of little or no value, for payment now, and (rightfully) have the same standing as snake-oil-salesmen. And Jeff H fits that description perfectly. (Have you seen his promises about future polar bear populations?)
But I wouldn't be surprised if he even needs to cheat with (today) checkable facts to paint his pictures of the coming future ..
@Jonas
"But I wouldn't be surprised if he even needs to cheat with (today) checkable facts to paint his pictures of the coming future .."
Jeff doesn't do facts jonas, just stories, we know that. If you push him - "it's in thousands of papers" (about something else usually), inconvenient facts can be dismissed, because the chap reporting them - his father may have been a ['chain smoker'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comm…)? and even that 'fact' he got wrong.
"It would be fun to dissect one of his alarmistic publications"
I agree. Play "How do you know? What evidence do you have?" with every assumed 'truth'. Science Journals don't usually accept the 'Hand waving' arguments jeff presents here, the environmental journals that take jeff's papers may be different- Who knows.
GSW have you noticed that Tim Lambert isn't really pushing the CAGW narrative as hard any more? Two consecutive threads, one month apart (March and April) with only the usual suspects making the same old noise?
In a way, I feel sorry for him, his blog. But on the other hand, this is the kind of crowd he attracted, supported, cheered on and whose behavior he encouraged actively by banning saner and more knowledgeable participants.
And maybe, just maybe, he is starting to learn a little more about what the issues are. Not just swallowing every piece of junk fed to him from stupid activists claiming to speak for 'the science' or even 'the scientific community' .. But I won't hold my breath!
;-)
I see that the (self proclaimed) 'top rooster' on the pile of incompetents here yet again thinks he has found a URL-link to the future, confirming and proving his promises.
A NGO link which incidentally tries to solicit money by selling 'Polar Bear Adoptions'. This is how Jeff Harvey believes that he can see into the future(*), how he believes that he 'again demolished' the one who he so desperately wants to call an 'idiot'!
I just ask: What does such tripe make him then?
My answer would be: An absolute farce!
(*)Strangely though, he needs to revise his former 'prophecies': From formerly having been 'doomed' with certainty, the polar bears' future has improved to now only being 'bleak'. (Ergo: My answer above still holds!)
Jonas,
">1. HIV is the causative agent in the development of AIDS in humans
I see now that you slightly revise that (very plausible) statement to mean:
> “every person that gets HIV ends up with AIDS”"
I'm actually guilty of being rather imprecise in this case, sorry for the confusion, and you are quite right that my statement did change. After posting my original comment I did some research into consensus statements on HIV. In the intervening period (several weeks) I managed to poorly paraphrase what I read and not explain to you why my statement changed. Here is the document I found with the relevant pages:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=771&page=2
So to be clear, using this document as a benchmark, my statement was too strong. They say, "Current information suggests that the *vast majority*...will eventually progress to AIDS..." whereas I said "every person".
At the end of that paragraph it does say "Some analysts believe that virtually all infected persons will eventually develop AIDS", which was the origin of my statement paraphrasing what I read.
Just to be clear, I've been talking about both qualitative and quantitative certainty of various scientific theories at some length now because I think we should separate out 2 key issues:
1.Does the IPCC statement (or an equivalent statement reformulated as a hypothesis) constitute a good scientific theory?
from 2. The discussion about how to attach a quantitative certainty to that theory.
I'm still interested to hear your opinions on how you attach a quantitative certainty to a theory having shown 1 to be an affirmative.
I am going to get the IPCC statement next. Should be this evening hopefully. I will first post up a list of the evidence with no references. Then, if you have questions, we can go through the list and I'll give you refs to show how the evidence was derived.
Paul, I'd say it is pretty darn far from a 'good scientific theory'. It is a put forward hypothesis, based on (AFIK) very scanty empirical support, and other (non empirical) conjectures, combined with several ad hoc assumptions about many other things.
A Scientific theory without quantification? I hardly know what that even is supposed to mean. The sign of the corresponding coefficient (to first order?) for to a certain assumed causative paramater, wrt to a specified effect!?
But maybe I can save you some time, Paul. I am very familiar with the usual (handwaiving) arguments for AGW. You don't need to repeat them. It is specifically the combination of those into a very narrowly specified attribution claim I am after, and even more specifically how one goes about to ascertain that none of the neither 'known or unknown unknowns' dilute such claims of certainty ..
With words only will suffice. In my experience, people who really understand the depth of what they are arguing, are able to do so describing their methods and how their argument is set up. Qualitatively. Before asigning numbers and values to all parameter ..
Jonas,
"I am very familiar with the usual (handwaiving) arguments for AGW."
Hang on a minute. Earlier today you said:
"And not only that, you claimed to be capable and prepared to argue and defend them in detail, based on your own claimed full understanding of the published science you had actually read. I would like to go back there, and particularly that 90% certaintly attribution claim."
So which is it? I'm trying to open and honest, and I'm going out of my way to talk to you about this subject. If your mind is already made up, or if this is some kind of game then I have better things to be doing.
"very scanty empirical support, and other (non empirical) conjectures"
I would argue that this is a very poor summary of the evidence in support of the theory. Please take a look at the list I've prepared.
Anyway, here it is, qualitatively:
The general framework of the theory is that various predictions about what we should observe emerge from it due to our understanding of the physics. I will present all of the evidence to my knowledge including some of the more fundamental aspects that the whole theory rests on (see points 1 and 2).
1. The globe is warming unequivocally.
a. Surface thermometer records.
b. Sea surface temperature records.
c. Glacial ablation.
d. Ice pack ablation.
e. Thermal expansion of the oceans.
f. Species distribution shifts due to surface temperature changes.
g. Reduction in winter time snow cover.
h. Lakes are warming.
i. Observed shrinking in areal extent and thickness of sea ice.
2. The observed rises in GHGs have unequivocally caused an increase in radiative forcing since 1850.
3. The observed horizontal spatial pattern of the warming is consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG radiative forcing dominated warming.
4. The observed vertical spatial pattern of the warming is consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG radiative forcing dominated warming.
5. The observed temporal patterns of the warming are consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG radiative forcing dominated warming.
a. The observed changes in temperature diurnal cycle are consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG radiative forcing dominated warming.
b. The observed changes in temperature on the multi-decadal timescale are consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG dominated warming.
6. Observed changes in the distribution of water vapour are consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG dominated radiative forcing.
7. There is less clear evidence, present in observations, that other climatic indices such as sea level pressure and land surface precipitation have changed in manner consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG dominated radiative forcing.
8. Alternative theories just don't cut it.
a. 'Solar forcing is dominant' theories have serious flaws.
i. The solar forcing has had the wrong sign for the past few decades.
ii. Even if the change in forcing had the right sign, changes in solar forcing have been too small to explain the observed warming without assuming unrealistically high climate sensitivity, which many skeptics would argue strongly against.
iii. Svensmark's hypothesised cosmic ray forcing seems to be too small to explain the changes if you listen to anyone other than Svensmark. Plus, see point 6.a.i.
iv. The spatial patterns of the warming and other observed changes are are inconsistent with theory and model prediction for solar forcing dominated warming.
(A). The horizontal spatial warming patterns are inconsistent with theory and model prediction for solar forcing dominated warming.
(B). The vertical spatial warming patterns are inconsistent with theory and model prediction for solar forcing dominated warming.
b. Natural variability caused by heat exchanges with the oceans can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
c. Changes in cloud cover can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
d. UHI can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
e. Anthropogenic heat from combustion can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
f. Getting in the realm of the ridiculous now, but it has been put forward before: Heat release from the Earth's mantle can not explain the observed warming and other observed changes.
If you could reference your objections according to the numbering system I've chosen that would help further discussion. If you would like references to material supporting these points I will do my best to provide with the information.
Jonas,
"A Scientific theory without quantification? I hardly know what that even is supposed to mean."
Nor do I. I was talking about attaching quantitative certainty to theories. That should have been clear from the context of the discussion. I did not say anything about "A Scientific theory without quantification".
I was discussing theories that are widely accepted as being good theories, but the theories I chose to mention also lack any good way of directly attributing a quantitative certainty to them. I.e., we do not have some kind of experiment that can perform that will give us the probability that the OH radical is the most important oxidant in the atmosphere. We have several lines of evidence that converge to support that theory, but there is no framework in place to say how certain quantitatively one can be that this theory is correct.
You're a little slow, Paul.
Made a mistake. At 8 iii I refer to 6.a.i. That should be 8.a.i.
I should have added a further point supporting the theory.
9. The top several hundred meters of the oceans have warmed in a manner consistent with physical theory and model prediction for GHG dominated forcing. Further, this warming occurred at a time when natural external forcings should have caused a cooling. This therefore argues against the observed surface warming being due to heat release from the oceans. If the oceans were supplying heat to the atmosphere over this time we would have expected them to cool. This point further supports point 8.b, and I should have added a point 1.j. stating that the top several hundred meters of the oceans have been observed to be warming in addition to SSTs.
Paul, thank you for your comments. There are several points worth replying to, but I have not found the time to do so properly yet.
But you provided exactly what I wanted to spare you to write:
A long list of the usual talking points found to argue the case for AGW and why many find it plausible.
The core question here, however, has been the alleged scientific underpinning of one very specific claim about high certainty in attribution of one observation.
As I said, I am very familiar with what proponents usually mention. The question here however is how one scientifically may make the claim that a certain statment has a confidence of 90%, and not 82% (a huge difference) or 71%, och 64%. (even huger differences)
And it whas that quantification I would have liked you to describe, first by just using words of _how_ it is done.
I (had hoped I) had made myself sufficiently clear above about what is missing (what nobody has even tried to provide) about that 90%-certaintly claim, so that I don't need to repeat this specifically and endelssly
OK Paul H,
Lets recap what this is about!
It is about the existence of proper, solid and published science behind the AR4-claim of:
“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (*)
where the “very likely” corresponds to a stated 90% confidence. This claim is the issue, and if I understood you correctly, you claimed to know such science, have seen and read it, have understood it and can vouch for its veracity, and were prepared to argue its merits and also to defend it and answer to criticism and challenges.
I hope you are with me so far!?
But I think you are somewhat misreading what I am referring to (partly due to imprecise wording). My comment:
“I’d say it is pretty darn far from a ‘good scientific theory”
refers specifically to that AR4-claim (*) and its implications, the one (and in direct response to what) you addressed as:
"Does the IPCC statement (or an equivalent statement reformulated as a hypothesis) constitute a good scientific theory?"
Whereas I in the following paragraphs then also talked about AGW more in general, as did you when replying to it. So please, lets keep 'some AGW' (a reasonable hypothesis IMO) and IPCC projections and quantified claims apart.
And yes, I would not call (*) it a theory, not even a hypothesis. At best it is one claim, a quantification that somebody would proffer based on his presented work (if such work was indeed properly presented with its supporting arguments, data and calculations). Nota bene: If such were presented and available. BTW if it were a theory, or just a hypothesis, the formulation would start at the other end (but it is not).
OK back to your last main post. You write:
"I’m trying to open and honest" and "I’m going out of my way to talk to you about this subject"
Why would the first even be necessary to point out? Particularly when discussing scientific issues about the physical reality of nature? And what do you mean by the second? Is making an argument (that others cannot, will not make) a sacrifice somehow? Especially if you indeed (as you claim) think that it is justified? I truly don't understand these comments, nor about this being 'some kind of game'!?
Going back to your list, it contains the arguments most often proffered for AGW (the milder version). And as such it is mostly reasonable and not very controversial. There are issues with it that I might come back to later. But this long list of supporting/non-contradicting points does not do the quantification, and mostly not the attribution, and the my main issue, that 90% certainty is not even mentioned.
As I see it, the latter hinges on the assumed large positive feedbacks from CO2, amplifying its effects by a factor of ~3. And even if you concede quite some uncertainty around such numbers, that claimed (needed!) high feedback is the crux of the matter.
Rereading your posts I notice that you circle quite a lot around the '"attaching quantitative certainty to theories" but to theories which "also lack any good way of directly attributing a quantitative certainty to them", while you argue(d?) that experts still should be able to opine about them and that their certainty (regarding certain cause-effect relations) should be accepted as such. And to some degree I even agree. Without personal knowledge I would (presently) be prepared to accept att HIV is the causative agent for contracting AIDS etc. However, you may also observe that such (firmly held) opinions aren't expressed in quantitative terms as the AR4-claim. For precisely those reasons, as you said: "we do not have some kind of experiment that can perform that will give us the probability ..". One would be even more (much more!) reluctant to make claims about the tails of such an opined proability/distribution ..
So I would like to ask you once again:
Have you seen, read, fully understood, and if so are you prepard to argue, respond to questions and defend against criticism, objections etc .. those publications where this 90% certainty that most of the observed warming since mid-20th century is demonstrated?
Have you and are you, or have you not?
And it is the confidence for the stated interval that is the core issue, Paul! The one that every news consumer was fed back in 2007.
That there are those 'experts' and scientists who firmly believe in those numbers, I too believe, and I have no problem with that. But as you must know by now, I am not after how confident some few involved are in how good their guesses are, I am after demonstrated work that seriously tries to asses such confidence, and that attributes those numbers, and where also all other factors, uncertainties etc are assessed or at least estimated quantitatively in order to establish how 'certain' they are that observations cannot have other causes.
Sorry to have to ask again, but everytime I read your comments, it looks like you are trying to get away from those two hard numbers (90% and 'most of' since ~1950).
And you are aware of that exactly these where the AR4 Take-home message!?
PS By 'some AGW' I mean that mankind causes, through CO2 emissions, land use, and others, some warming. I thinks this is a quite reasonable assumption
Jonas,
With regards to your 'main point' about the certainty attached to (*), you should read this document prepared by the IPCC ahead of the production of AR4:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-uncertaintyguidanc…
(Look at point 14 it explains either quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views).
A brief nitpick, I stated:
"Does the IPCC statement (or an equivalent statement reformulated as a hypothesis) constitute a good scientific theory?"
As it stands the statement isn't a theory, but it could certainly could be reformulated as one as I claimed above. In that case it certainly would constitute a theory since various testable predictions emerge from it, and it is a good theory because those testable predictions are verified by observation. Further, you mention that I am talking about the general AGW theory. This is not the case. Apologies if this is not clear, but the evidence I presented directly supports the (*) statement reformulated as a theory. True, some of those points (1 and 2) are not directly relevant, but they are certainly necessary conditions that must be fulfilled for the theory to be correct. I added them because I did not know what you accept and do not accept with regards to these matters. I have frequently encountered people that disagree with points 1 and 2 when engaging climate sceptics.
Another point, climate sensitivity is not really that relevant to this statement (*) since climate sensitivity refers to changes at equilibrium, and the current conditions are, according to observation and theory, very much out of equilibrium.
In the next posts, I will try to outline how the evidence I presented fits within the framework for estimating likelihood as stated by the IPCC. I also think I will have to add a point 10 listing some further evidence, which I hope will more directly address your questions. But here is the short answer: We have some studies providing direct quantitative estimates of probability of successful attribution for the observed variables in isolation to GHG forcing, and we also have a collection of evidence that does not lend itself well to providing a direct quantitative estimate of probability successful attribution that lends qualitative support to the statement (*). Therefore, some of the evidence fits the definition of "quantitative analysis", and some of it doesn't.
Paul, two short comments here and now:
The main crux is the 90% certainty, because it makes statements about the tails of an assumed but not established or properly assessed distribution function (pdf). And:
Climate sensitivity is at the very heart of this issue. The assumed large (~threefold) amplification factors (feedbacks) for a change in CO2-levels manisfest themselves equally prominently in the transient- as well as the equilibrium 'climate sensitivity'. They are absolutely central to the attribution attempts.
I am surprised that you think those are peripheral to the issue.
And no: That IPCC claim is not a 'scientific theory' it is not even a scientific hypothesis. At best it is a hypothesis (extremely poorly phrased) as to where its proponents think how far and in what direction the effects of a specified cause should point .. the certainty claims are wild speculations (which rely on loads of ad hoc and unwarranted support hypotheses), which even you seem to be at least party aware of: 'All data is not equally supportive'
Jonas,
On sensitivity, the IPCC reports that the effects of uncertainties in sensitivity have been removed from the detection and attribution studies. This is detailed in chapter 9 AR4. You made the original positive claim that sensitivity affects the attribution studies, so please support that with evidence. Attribution is more about pattern recognition of observed patterns of warming and comparing those to predicted patterns of warming. The list of evidence I posted should make that quite clear. If you want to diverge from the evidence I posted then you need to post some persuasive evidence as to why that is the case.
We are going to have to disagree about your claims about it being possible to formulate the statement as a theory.
Let me know when you are up to speed on the document I linked. I'm going to be busy for the rest of the week so I won't be able to post.
Paul,
The claim (*) is about magnitude caused by GHGs. Climate sensitivity (to CO2) is about magnitude caused by (one) GHG
Maybe you are confusing the term CS, which is (interchangably) used both for sensitivity to CO2 levels, and of the 'climate system' to a 'forcing'.
If so, you can make statements about the _relative_ contributions of one 'forcing' without bothering about the total effects of them combined. In that light, I can at least understand your (IPCC's?) statement (while not totally agreeing). But it doesn't remove the 'necessity' for a high CO2-sensitivity (relative others)
Further, even with this (relative) interpretation, attribution studies must still be compared to absolute levels when it comes to natural ('internal') variability. Especially when trying to remove (the possibiliy/uncertainty of) such and bumbing up your confidence levels.
So no, you can neither discard the needed high CO2-sensitivy, and its alleged high water vapor feedback from you claim in relative terms, nor in absolute terms. Both are central to the two numbers in that claim (*),
Finally, for a claim (like (*)) to be a theory does not depend/rely on how it is formulated. A theory is a hypthesis that has been elevated to a theory since it has proven to be consistently confirmed by observations, and withstood falsifications attempts, and thereby become not only accepted but also not questioned (cf HIV/AIDS).
So yes, you could rephrase (*) as a hypthesis, but elevating it to theory requires quite something more and very different than only reformulation.
Paul contd.
I (re-)asked you that question, since I've had the imression that most of our discussions have cirkled around you relaxing how I interpret (*) to make it somethings less strict. Do you stand by what you claimed reading that claim as it actually is stated?
And I had seen your IPCC-link (years) before, reread it again now. It is essentially a IPCC vocabulary, about how to use the words. Some pointes to avoid groupthink and self-affirmation. The paragraph you pointed to essantially a double caveat:
The numbers shouldn't be taken quite literally, and they may very well be elicited 'expert opinion'.
I can't see that these explanations are making anything more scientific ... rather they are pointing my way, I'd say
Jonas,
I have a few spare minutes, so quickly.
"high CO2-sensitivy"
What do you mean by this? Can you define the range that you think is high sensitivity? For instance, I would define high sensitivity as being on the upper limit suggested by empirical evidence, i.e. 4.5oC. No doubt you have your unique definition.
Again, I asked could you provide evidence that climate sensitivity was central to that claim. You've provided some assertions but no evidence. Can you provide evidence? For instance quotes from chapter 9 supporting your position?
Paul
The 'climate sensitivity' (one of two definitions) is defined as the global average temperature increase to a doubling of CO2-levels.
Based on radiative transfer models, in a controlled environment, the no-feedback sensitiviy can be calculated to be around ~1 C/doubling (which I haven't checked myself but don't question)
The IPCC-proffered CO2 sensitivity is (several) multiples of this number, it lies in the interval ~2 to 4.5 and relies on large positive feedbacks explicitly to the CO2-level changes. And these amplifications, are what I refer to as 'high'. I even mentioned the (usual) claimed 'central estimate' of ~3 above several times.
I maintain the position that a high such number facilitates making the case for that AR4-claim (*). It is self evident that the effects would be lowere if feedbacks were low, insignificant or even negative.
I would say that there is quite som equivalence between the two.
I don't need to provide 'evidence' that such are needed, and wouldn't expect IPCC to explicitly write that both statements are closely related. As I stated when I brought this up, this is "[a]s I see it".
The two might very well be two sides of the same coin. But you (initially?) claimed that attribution was irrespective of climate sensitivity magnitude!? Do you maintain that, and could you please point me to this claim?
BTW, I really would appreciate if you could confirm that you stand by 'most of' and '90% likelihood' (hard dumbers, science, no hanswaving)
Please?
Sorry for the misspelling:
Hard numbers, real published checkable science and no handwaiving
Sorry for the typos:
Hard numbers, real published and checkable science and no handwaiving
@Jonas
"Hard numbers, real published and checkable science and no handwaiving
I think PaulH has run off Jonas.
;)
GSW,
Well it certainly seems he has reconsidered what he initially claimed, claimed to have read and know, and claimed to be willing to argue and defend.
Notable is that he came with one link (remotely) relevant for the discussion, namely the IPCC vocabulary and recomendations how to approach and deal with uncertainties.
But that link only reinforced my impression that the more public AR4 (and previous) claims must be dealt with using extreme caution. And preferably never been taken on faith.
However, it is strange that Paul H made such definite claims to the contrary. Even before he got to that 'vocabulary-link' I had the impression that every turn he took, every argument he brought up (about completely different things often) was to weaken and dilute the interpretation of that famous AR4 claim.
I wonder if in the end he too more was describing his own convictions, albeit him claiming to have read and understood actual references with real science in them.
Strange indeed. But he managed to keep a civil tone at least. That's better than almost all of the rest.
@Jonas,
Agree, he did keep it substantive and to the point, rather resort to the usual abuse. Which is good. Maybe we're seeing a new type of deltoid emerge? The old ones have had their day I think.
;)
Do anybody else have the feeling that Deltoid is slowly dying? ;-)
Well Paul,
As I've said early on, and many times, an as I allways have had confirmed every single time I brought up the subject:
Nobody I have ever met has seen any proper and real science actually establishing this most prominent AR4-claim about how certain they believe they are in their attribution. None!
Almost everybody just tried handwaivingly 'Oh, its in there. You only need to read the references in the report'. Many claiming certainty that it is to be found there, and that so many others do know. Very few have attempted to name those references though, and thw very few exceptions were to papers that most certainly did not establish that claim, not even addressing that issue.
As you know, nowadays I ask those say they know if they've seen, read and thoroughly have understood such alleged references themselves. And also if they are prepared to, after I've had timeto read them properly, to stay and argue their merits, answer for them and respond to criticism and objections. You were the first to claim to be prepared to do that.
However, now we are at mid July, and you have neither given any references, nor have you (as I've asked you) given any outline about how such quantifications were attempted to be established. The only relevant link was one about IPCC-lingo, and guidlines to how to treat uncertaintly, and mostly what vocabulary to use, not any technical specs about what they mean.
That link (I had seen it before) did mor to confirm my suspicions than lend support to the existence of such published science.
And it also seems that you 'have left the building' completely.
Honestly, I'm not the least suprised. I was however, suprised at those claims you made (May 3, 10:40 am ) so affirmingly. But I also expected that you couldn't/wouldn't live up to them.
As I said above, I'll add you to the lengthy list which of those who claimed to know, but never could show where and how.
However, I will commend you for your civil tone (exceptionally rare here, and also among most other pro AGW-debaters). And there were some interesting turns in our discussion about what one may claim to be accepted as science ..
If you ever change your mind. Either really find/read/understand such publications and think you can argue their merits when scrutinized, or if you want to revise your position, your are most welcome to do so.
Meanwhile, our conversations too reinforced me in my views about what that famous AR4 is/was worth ..
Good to chat to you the other day over at BH Jonas! What do you reckon to the Muller and Watts shenanigans?
I think Watts has actually done some good stuff on the paper but not sure it was a good idea to rush it out (I imagine a response to being forewarned about the Muller meltdown).
Still interesting times!
Bernard J and chek are trying to argue since my comments are erased, I never answered them. Quite amazing. Either they are really fooled to believe so through the moderators removal of comments. Or they are aware of removal of comments (quite obvious, since all of the stupid answers are still visible) and are disingenuously trying to imply that I never responded. And additionally hoping that others are that easily fooled. The very obvious response pointed out:
Neither Bernard J nor chek (nor anybody else for that matter) has even made the claim that the provided lists contains the answer to my question. Where is the alleged science demonstrating that famous AR4 claim!
Bernard J, chek, and many others of course would like to send my of elsewhere and waste my time. But the bottom line is they have no clue. They are just firing of random rounds in the dark hoping it my divert the attention and fool others ...
And because my comments are so extremely scary for the regulars, they are now moderated before they (very likely) are erased. Here is the response to cheks posturing about me not replying. Which he very well knows I did:
"So chek, did you ever get around to even claim that that list actually does answer the question to which you posted it in response?
I asked you a number of times. And also if you at all had read them, or at least some of them? (I don’t expect you to understand their contents, just wanted to know if you at least believe that they, or some of them actually establish that famous AR4 claim)
“Something’s very wrong here, surely. Many, many [months] have passed since I ..” first asked about that claim. “Many, many [years] have passed since” it first was made.
It seems to me that all the world, all that mighty consensus and all that science and those scientists and national academys, every single one in Jeffie’s lunchroom and at every important conference and seminar he has ever attended still takes that claim on pure faith and faith alone.
Isn’t that marvelous? Everytime (and almost everybody) I challenge the existence of such science, the answer is similar: It’s in the references (but somebody else, unnamed knows where, and can vouch for its existence and veracity).
But not one single person has ever seen it, or even properly tried to reference that claim. It’s taken on pure faith, and apparently by all those who you think that IPCC-reports are based on ‘the science’. Now why is that? Why blind reliance on faith on the side which again and again claims to deal with ‘science’? I agree: “Something’s very wrong here, surely …”
And I can tell you what’s wrong. It’s the same thing that makes both you here, and those climate activists you champion as ‘scientists’ so afraid of facing opposing views, facts and science … It is what makes you scream for censorship, deletion, demanding exclusion everywhere where your positions come under the slightest challenge.
Only (your own) strawmen dare you really challenge, and of course that looks only ridiculous if this is pointed out simultaneously. Can’t have that, can we ..
:-)"
Things are not looking so well for the climate scare believers ... But then again, they never did. It just looked like it from inside the tent ...
Don't let me disturb your fragile thought processes though, I see that some few regulars still are lingering doing their thingie ..
I just came back here to find a link that Paul H provided me with, about the use of IPPC-lingo. Useful stuff! To bad he threw in the towel too ..
:-)
You're done Jonarse.
As in redundant.
D-U-N, done.
Two years and not so much as even a solitary comment in a POS journal such as E&E, arguing your case. Nothing.
N-O-T-H-I-N-G.
Nothing.
All you have are your rag-tag-along clown circus of half-wits which you preen to, instead of doing the work.. Congratulations, nonentity.
What you don't have is any coherence explaining the warming that also accounts for ocean acidification to complement your 'natural variation' belief. The IPCC does.
You're done, you preening twit.
@chek
Ah chek, on the "denier" thread I see. Don't worry, nobody thinks you are a denier, you're just "Reality!-curious".
Glad you popped back Jonas!
;)
Hey, morons - by which I mean you, Judas and GooseSez'Wha'?'; turns out it is possible not to be an idiot forever.
Won't work on you two bolted-on degenerates, of course, but that's because you really are the nadir of humanity.
Other than that - sod off, the pair of you! Real people can look forward to seeing the movie, when it makes it here...
GSW and Jonas, don't be hard on chek. He's still upset with the dendrochronology community's views on Mann's excellent work:
"I would be surprised if Mann has ever sampled a tree, looked at the resultant samples and even tried to crossdate them. He has utterly failed to understand the fundamental foundation of dendrochronology."
Science is settled! ;-)
A quote with no citation that a google search brings up only under the non-bishop Bishop Hill and the non-entity Tony Watts.
Yeah, "the dendrochronolgy community" indeed. Pathetic loser.
Sorry for not mentioning you Wow. Of course you are as upset as chek. :-)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/dendros-stick-it-to-the-mann/#mor…
;-)
Yes, Anthony Watts, that polymath: he is the dendrochronolgy community.
He is Legion.
Ah yes, WeUseWishfulThinking and Cardinal Puff, ready made for these morons to genuflect over.
And bill you beat me to the punch with that excellent Climate Crocks article with that embedded video. I figure that woman was genuinely shocked at how she had been taken in by Billy 'Goat' O'Reilly and that andrewfez's fears are groundless.
@Olaus
I saw that Olaus, kind of something when even the CRU guys are screaming at Mann to stop "Torturing the data". Interesting times!
Also came across a clip of Marc Morano at Doha, where most of the talk apparently is about Sandy. With Cyclone/Hurricane trends down, he's asking to see the evidence that it can be attributed to CAGW, as is being claimed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr-7kT0bxLc&feature=youtu.be
As some of us here are aware, if there's no evidence, it's just not Science. Belief system Yes, Science No.
;)
"With Cyclone/Hurricane trends down"
Something you can claim every time you've just completed one cyclone/hurricane.
"We had 100% of a hurricane, now down to 0%!".
"he’s asking to see the evidence that it can be attributed to CAGW, as is being claimed."
How about climate? Just climate.
After all, the continental temperate CLIMATE of, for example, Wyoming do not lend themselves to hurricanes.
But a climate that is tropical maritime IS prone to them.
Change the climate, and the weather changes.
Since the very existence of hurricanes depend on the climate, climate creates them.
And changing climates cause a change in the hurricanes.
We've never had Sandy before.
Therefore you have to show that Sandy would have turned up anyway at that time.
Otherwise, all you're proving is that NY state has a climate that allows hurricanes to visit. Not that Sandy wasn't there because the climate changed.
So, the bobbleheads construct a strawman (the legend of 'the team', that monolithic gestalt that conspires to exclude all dissenting denier voices), and then wet themselves with excitement when it transpires that actually, eminent scientists do argue (in the literature) and the bobbleheads' own carefully constructed strawman falls apart. It takes a special mix of cognitive dissonance and stupidity not to see the entirely masturbatory glee their own perceptions give them.
Too funny. But then we knew that.
Actually chek "The Team" was how they referred to themselves, those dedicated to the "cause" with membership exclusive to those "suitable for our purposes" (see climategate). With Mann's involvement, it was fairly obvious that those on the science side of the debate should jokingly refer to them as "The Hockey Team" surely?
As for the Dendro spat,
"We highlight problems in Mann et al.’s implementation of the tree ring model used ... a lack of any empirical evidence for misdating of tree-ring chronologies"
Ah, at last, someone else who thinks you can't just go around claiming things because it suits, it requires "empirical evidence". Some here should take note, making stuff up is good for "stories", but science requires something more.
Presummably, as you believe Sandy is clearly an artifact of CAGW, when such events happened in the past they could only be a result of some kind of Magic rather than a natural phenomenon? Science doesn't deal in the supernatural, only what you have the evidence for and can prove. You'll be advocating we burn the "Weather Witches" next, just in case.
;)
You are a strange little individual, gitty.
stating things as if they were proof merely because you said them.
then whining about how AGW isn't science because you haven't read anything supporting their statements.
Actually Griselda, if you try reading the comment again, employing the comprehension facilities of at least an eight year old this time, I was referring to 'the legend' of the team that denierland constructed.
As for the 'dendro spat' - oh noes!! Shock!! Horror!! Top scientists don't always agree about everything!! Supported arguments to appear in the literature!! Hold the front page!!
And then you wonder why you're dismissed as morons...
Sorry folks, didn't mean to make you so upset. But then again, you manage that all by yourselves. But what is it you are so upset about? Reality, really?
Many here have bent over backwards (and others foward)to 'defend' Mann from all kinds of criticism. While the flaws and mishandled date have been glaring there for anyone to see (you just had to look)
It seem that at least in one case, more skilled people on his own side tell him load and clear, officially and to his (official) face that he doesn't know what he's talking about. That he can't just make data up where there is none.
His reply is as Mannian as it gets: "Anchukaitis et al. critique various aspects of our approach. Although we welcome alternative hypotheses, we note that their comment does not provide a plausible alternative explanation for this vexing problem" and more akin ...
You can read both href="http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/all%20pdfs/Anchukaitisetal2012.pdf">here.
Notable is that several of the 23 authors were concerned about climatechange, friendly to his 'cause' and even earlier co-authors.
I think it was his blatantly anti-intellecutal nonsensical reply that prompted the more clearly spoken judgements by Rob Wilson.
And here, as has been for years, frothing of the mouth is mistaken for intellectual discourse. Jeffie is at it too trying to deny reality from behind his padded confinement.
Repost the link I messed up:
Anchukaitis et al on 'Non-missing tree rings' and Mannian reply
@Jonas
The "correspondence" does make interesting reading.
"Mann and colleagues base their conclusions solely on the
evidence of a tree-ring-growth model"
and,
"First, they use an algorithm that has not been tested for its ability to reflect actual observations"
There's a pattern emerging here, dispensing with empirical evidence that does not support the theory, in favour of untested models that do, then pretend it's "Science". It all looks worryingly familiar.
Mann's not quite there yet, perhaps he should take a leaf out of chek's book, counter reasoned argument with abuse. Something along the lines of,
"Anchukaitis et al. critique various aspects of our approach. But it doesn't matter as they are all morons"
;)
No Griselda, I'm cvareful to distinguish that it's you and your pal who are the morons present here. Not being sufficiently Dunning-Krugered to presume to have an opinion on a subject I have no experience or training in, I'll leave it to the scientists to make and present their cases to their peers in the literature.
I'll leave it to morons like you and Jonarse and Watts et al to agree amongst yourselves (and only yourselves) that you possess the relevant expertise to even have an opinion that isn't informed solely by your drooling political views.
"Padded confinement".
HA! That's a laugh. This is the padded cell, Jonas. In case you forget, its yours and those of your fan-club (= 3 regular members). Real science is dicussed elsewhere.
As usual, I am amused when people with no pedigree in any scientific field think somehow bypassing university education makes them better authorities in climate science than people with hundreds of papers and thousands of citations. I've challenged you and your similar scientific non-entities here to write up a paper for a peer-reviewed journal dozens of times. If you guys are a fraction as clever as you think you are, and certainly better scientists than Mann, Hansen, Trenberth et. al., then let's see the published proof. Instead, you clowns are anonymous armchair/blog experts - legends in your own minds but not where it counts.
Every time I make the same challenge it is ignored, usually accompanied by some vacuous smear. The simple question is why? The simple answer is obvious: because Jonas-GSW-Olaus-quality science would be bounced like a rubber ball. It wouldn't stand the test of peer-review. And because none of them have any relevant research education in the field.They are all rank amateurs with a political axe to grind.
So on blogs they will remain. Forever. That's fine by me, but until then we have to put up with a stream of self-righteous pontificating and the usual smears.
Yes Jeff ..
I remember you (and others) repeatedly asking for 'protection'. You even begged to have me banned from this thread too, more than once!
You are still incapable of arguing anything other than your belief that a CV settles anything in science.
But as I've told you contless times: Real science does not, does not ever, never, work that way.
It is based on a concept called 'the scientific method' and which you seem almost completely unaware of.
And I notice that you once more, invent your own facts about whom you are adressing. Why is this so central to your 'argument', Jeff? You've been trying this for 1½ year now. Fabricating your own facts, repeating your fabrications. It is as stupid as is your CV-waiving. You guessing has absolutley nothing to do with science. Real science, that is ..
But it's brave of you to venture out of your protected comfort zone.
Now, if you just addressed real issues, argued them like a man, abbandoned that infantile sputtering, and just formulated and argued whatever your stance is wrt to reality (not your belief system/fantasies), and if you'd stick to it consistently, that would be real progress.
Do you even know what the climate and climate scare debates are about? Do you even know what has been discussed (by a few grown ups here)?
We could ask you (and the others whose numbers you find reinforcing)
1) Do you really think that volcanos make some tree stands jump some treerings? Yes/No
2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No
Jonas, Why don't you put a sock in it... let's see your bonafides: write up paper and let's see it published. Until then, put up or shut up. Your blog forays are hollow and vacuous. They ain't science, pal.
You lecturing me about the scientific method? HA! What a joke. When you publish one - just one - paper, then come back and lecture me on the 'scientific method'. Clearly, my 125 (and counting) articles published in peer-reviewed journals (the latest came out yesterday in PLoS Biology) seems pretty conclusive evidence that I know what the 'scientific method 'is, you nitwit. I have several in Nature, PNAS, Ecology Letters etc. It seems a bit weird if someone with a lot of scientific publications has to be lectured about the 'scientific method' by a wannabe with no scientific background in any way, shape or form.
You claim you know what 'real science' is, and then you go on to smear Mann, Hansen, Trenberth and other scientists with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and citations. You are an imbecile, Jonas. You can get stuffed.
Yes, I am lecturing you about the scientific method Jeff. You have in your countless comments here demonstrated that you cannot even argue simpler points without glaringly violating almost everything that is required of a real scientist.
Period!
Sientists don't make up their 'supporting data' or 'evidence'!
You still think publishing/citations is 'the scientific methord'!?
And I can tell you exactly where Mann, Hansen, and Tranberth go astray! You can't, Jeff! You stare in awe at their CV and believe therefore what comes out of their mouth or from their pen must be the undeniable truth!
And still, Jeff, science does not work that way. Never did!
All you are doin is arguing 'authority' and science does not work that way, Jeff. Never did!
Will you ever learn?
Oh Jonas, you are one funny guy. Amsuing, comical, and weird. Do you really think that I give a damn about you lecturing me on the scientific method? Come on, man. I couldn't carer less - your 'clout' in science is - well - non-existant.
Think about it before you write any more piffle. And with respect to Mann et al. I repeat (yawn): if you are so cinvinced of your greatness, then write a paper. Submit it. See how far it goes. I am sure that you cam get the bobbsy twins to co-author it with you. Or is your own little feeble thread on Deltoid the extent of the world learning of your wisdom?
Jeff, it is quite obvious that learning comes hard and slow for you. I would almost say you are in denial.
The missteps in elementary logic, already at the blog comment level, are so many, so consistent and so glaring, it's just flabbergasting!
As is you pathalogical need for inventing who I am, my skills and expertise, educations, accomplishments and CV. You just desperately hope.
I explain simpler things in detail. The non-scientist Jeff harvey screeches:
'I don't believe you. I have a CV. And haven't seen yours! How could I ever judge whether what you say is valid?
Exactly my point, Jeffie-little. You can't! And that's why you've been screeching here for over 1½ years.
But can you answer me this instead? You have been shouting here about climate change for ages. Even before my arrival. If you don't understand the issues, the methods, the language, calculations, proposed mechanisms etc. And if you don't argue them either, or address what is discussed, what is your role here?
I mean, you ave entities like Wow, Lionel A, chek, Bernard J here, who often share you outraged emotions (about thins the understand equally little about). But why are you doing it?
I haven't seen you making many points of substance even wrt your own field. Which does nowhere address the possibility and size of the A in AGW, which is my interest.
Why aare you shouting nonsense like a madman för years? Whom are you trying to impress? And with what?
Look Jeff,
Above, I wasn't even asking you to be a scientist. I just asked what you thought about two things mentioned here recently:
We could ask you (and the others whose numbers you find reinforcing)
1) Do you really think that volcanos make some tree stands jump some treerings? Yes/No
2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No
Simple matters of opinion, Jeffie. And both alternatives 'Yes' and 'No' are admissable.
;-)
*Sigh*. Publish or perish, Jonas. Aside from a few acolytes, the only person who takes anything you say seriously here is yourself. Its a big world out there, and you are clearly afraid of it. So Deltoid is where you will stay. Tough, ain't it?
If it gives you comfort in your deluded rants, then stick with it. After all, its you who is screeching. Not me. You and your opinions mean diddly squat to me, Jonas. Remember that in your next reply. Let it sink in. Digest it. I repeat: your opinions of me mean nothing, Nix. Nada. Why? Because you don't count. You can smear and attack me on this innocuous little corner of the world all you like, but I have much bigger fish to fry.
Jeff ...
Still clining to your fantasies.
I am not the one screeching. I came here, and asked for references to a very prominent claim by the IPCC AR4. And the screeching began. You were part of it. Still are!
I read the (very few) offerend alleged references, and pointed out why they were not sufficient.
You and most of the others continued screeching. Hardly ever addressing anything of substance.
BTW Have you ever thought about how your oft repeated proclamations that you don't care the least about me or what I say ...
.. how that comes across in the light of you angrily shaking your CV in your fist at me for 1½ year?
:-)
@jeff
I think we're talking about degree's here jeff. Mann et al, abandon the scientific method when it doesn't give the answer they want. You're a different kettle of fish altogether, completely oblivious to the "need" for it even.
Jonas asked where you stood on the old Sandy, Tree rings and volcanoes questions. I'm curious too.
1) Do you really think that volcanos make some tree stands jump some treerings? Yes/No
2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No
Happy to accept you probably haven't got a clue. But it's just yes/no answers so there's a 50% chance you'll be right from pure luck!
;)
GSW
strictly you are wrong on the 50% chances. And I am asking Jeffs opinion. If he manages to give me that without lying, I'll accept this as the correct answer. Mind you, I'm not even asking him about his rational for believing this or that. Just what it is.
Arguing pros and cons a specific proposition would come after. But for that we first need the proposition. And I will gladly accept if Jeff says that's what he believes. Or if he ansers that the lengt of various CVs led him to lean either way.
And although it is an scientifically invalid argument, the total length of 23 professional CVs compared to only three, would if so, lead Jeff in a direction I believe is is very reluctant to go.
But I don't think we'll get a straight answer. If anything it will be about something else ...
@Jonas,
"strictly you are wrong on the 50% chances"
I do understand Jonas ;) - But where's the fun in that? There's a very one dimensional reasoning engine at work here, let's see where it goes!
;)
I read the (very few) offerend alleged references, and pointed out why they were not sufficient.
Your status as an unqualified moron explains it sufficiently.
<iAnd I can tell you exactly where Mann, Hansen, and Tranberth go astray!
No Jonarse, you just * think * you can. The difference is substantial, and applies to McIntyre, Montford and Watts and the whole anti-science circus you gleefully perform in.
I'm trying to give Jeff an opportunity to show that he can actually make for the topics here meaningful comments. And belief-Yes/No on a specified question seemed to me like a reasonably simple starting point.
Let’s see if this goes!
chek - your comments are just stupid, idiotic. I don't even knwo why you make them. Probably for the same reason as Jaff makes his. You would desperately want to believe all you say ..
But as I said above. Even your opinions (Yes/No) on very simple questions would be welcome.
And if you for once managed to behave like a grown up
The reason is very simple Jonarse - you have said nothing of any import at any time here. Your whole routine is about creating meaningless impressions for your own band of imported hangers on.
Well kiddie,
There you're wrong. Anyway, the unimportan, meaningless, stupid remarks here are the norm from you and quite some more.
I raised the level considerably. Even for you, ceckie ..
You know are (grudgingly) aware of that nobody here has any clue where that AR4 claim about 90% certainty came from. Although this was said to be entirely my own fault.
I understand that you hate me for that revalation, but that's just life. Reality may sting, but its not personal ..
;-)
@chek
I'm happy to accept it's all a bit above you chek. The fact you see no "import" in what's been said, speaks for itself.
Jeff buggered off has he? A couple of straight forward questions put to him and he's gone! Probably checking his CV to see if there's anything in there about yes/no questions or volcanoes.
I’m happy to accept it’s all a bit above you chek
Why you waste your time performing this act, when the only obvious thing is that you and your sidekick haven't got a clue ... well presumably the only possible benefit of it is that you could be elsewhere and an unknown quantity. Witness Jonarse now pretending he understands current "issues".
Amazing.
"Happy to accept you probably haven’t got a clue. But it’s just yes/no answers so there’s a 50% chance you’ll be right from pure luck!"
More self-righteous arrogance from one of the Brady bunch. So you know the correct answers, do you? Youy've done the research? Published the papers? What's comical coming from you, GSW, as well as from Jonas, is the ways in which you two twits act as if you are statured scientists giving sermons.You both appear to believe you have the ability to comment on the validity of published studies that have already gone through peer-review, and that your adjudications are what ultimately matters. Good or bad. End of story. I am surprised that neither of you have mega-web sites where you personally filter out the good science from the bad, and where that is considered, "the final word"on the subject y the scientific community at large. Talk about arrogance and hubris. You two jerks have it in spades. The only problem is that virtually no-one is listening.
OK: regarding Sandy: one excerptional storm of course does not provide proof of AGW. But, and its a big but - certainly an increase in exceptional weather events is an indicator that something is going on in the atmosphere that is quite unusual. And that factor is certainly likely to be linked with anthropogenic forcing. You morons won't like it, being the twin geniuses you think you both are, complete with your lack of scientific bonafides and nil publications, but the climate science community by-and-large would agree with that. I am sure that you both think its hardly strange that autumn temperatures along the Arctic coast of Alaska and NW Canada are 10-15 C above the long-term average, and that for the first time in recorded history the Alaskan coastline was ice-free at the beginning of this month. But I don't. Neither do most climate scientists. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but I just don't take your nil-publication, nil-expertise views all that seriously.
As for volcanic eruptions causing some trees to 'jump' tree rings, I am honest enough to say that, having never researched the field, I wthhold judgment. I would say that it does not make sense, but then again I am not a researcher in that area. You two clowns aren't either, but that won't stop you acting as judge, jury and executioner in claiming to be veritable experts in the field. But of course, neither of you will take your brilliance to a scientific arena, as I have said many times before. Deltoid is it.
As far as my CV is concerned, Jonas appears to be having wet dreams over it. Its the politics of envy. A person builds up their CV as a result of working for it. They don't sit on their asses and suddenly - whoosh!!! - they are globally respected experts in a field. I've done the mileage, Jonas. You haven't even gotten past the starting line. And yet you lecture me on the 'scientific method'! Un-be-lieveable. A person who has never done a single experimentin his life, never published a paper, given a lecture at a university, lectures a scientist. That's a hoot.
This isn't even ridiculous anymore - it basically reveals that Jonas borders on being psychopathic - with GSW at his side in the cuckoo's nest.
I have just read the Mann et al. paper: Here is how they woird their results:
"However, a large fraction (90%) of the 20 independent sites following the ad1258-1259 eruption, and more than half of the sites following the1815 eruption (Fig. 3c), have growing-season lengths that fall below a reasonably defined 'no-ring' threshold (we hypothesize that a ring may in practice not be discernible for growing seasons shorterthan 26 days, but similar results are obtained assuming a shorterthreshold, for example 14 days Supplementary Information)".
And how does Jonas interpret this conclusion? By twisting it, claiming that Mann et al. say that trees 'jump some treerings' duyring a specific year. This type of distrotion is straight out of the anti-environmetal handbook. Mann et al are arguing (using '...') that in some growing season tree rings are so close together that they fall below a growth threshold; this may be particulalry evident if the results of these years are juxtaposed against other yearly growth data. Jonas and his poodle use the term 'jumping' as a smear to imply that Mann et al are claiming that trees have leap years in whichthe rings stay exactly the same. Yet Manns use of the term is within the realm of scientific reality, whereas Jonas twists it to make the conclusion look ridiculous.Talk about dishonest.
And note how its only now that Jonas and GSW take the scientific high ground on this issue. Why is that? Because a rebuttal has been published that was hihglighted on BH or some other contrarian site. To these twits the Mann study is only on the radar when the denier blogs have a go at it.
Talk about idiots.
Yes Jeff, I have the ability to comment upon published science. I actually do. Even here, when occasionally there is an adult in the room. enough about that ..
But as I foresaw:
You wouldn't answer the question. You probably didn't even read it. Instead you repeat your appeal to a majority of numbers and alleged vaguely related experts in the field.
And still, still after over 1½ years, you are incapable of making the absolutely necessary disstinction between GW and AGW in your argument. In the simplest question directly addressing that distinction, asking about it. It's just amazing
Well, regarding the vocano/treering question you actually did (almost) answer. You indicated that you find it hard to believe. As do I. (And I can argue why I do, but not based on other peoples CVs)
Well, regarding "researcher[s] in that area", thats exactly what they said and wrote. 23 of them. And to the face of (mainly) one who isn't.
And Yes Jeff, I still lecture you on 'the scientific method', but I wouldn't as far as claiming that I'm lecturing a scientist. Amonst others, because you still are trying to fabricate your arguments.
How do you even come up with the stupidities you write in almost every one of your posts Jeff? Just claiming nonsens to be facts out of the blue! Again and again! Inventing, fantasizing, dreaming up stuff!
And to top it of: Based on his own fantasies Jeff deduces that:
" it basically reveals that Jonas borders on being psychopathic "
Well, Jeffie once more demonstrates how scientifically inclined his 'logic' is.
I have the ability to comment upon published science. I actually do.
Bear in mind that long, long experience tells us that your assurances are worthless and an indication that you're - yet again,
.
Jeff .. maybe you should read the reply too, before you wet your pants. I don't need to twist anything. Making things up is your method, not mine.
The core beef of your 'argument' now seems to be that Mann et all didn't call it 'jumping treerings'.
But did you understand what he actually argued. And had you even read the criticism? Or are once more just hoping and believing things to be the way you hope and believe?
Regarding your attempt to come to Manns aid by semantical twists, I can tell you that didn't use the term 'flipped upside down' about the Torneträsk sediments either. His rational for doing exactly that was phrased to sound like:
"within the realm of scientific" methodology.
Likle you observed: "Here is how they woird their results:"
Yes, thats how they worded it. And then you need to check what that actually means and implies in the real word.
the fundamental foundation of dendrochronology"
And still that's what he did. Jeffie! Flipped them!
And you have no way of finding out. Just hoping and believing. Or actually listening to people who care about science and truth ..
I will remind you of two comments by Rob Wilson (on of the 23):
"”if [Mann] had taken the trouble either (1) to speak to some of his dendrochronological colleagues or (2) look at some real tree-ring data to learn what “crossdating” is, he would have quickly realised that his hypothesis was wrong and would not have wasted a lot of time for many people”
”I would be surprised if Mann has ever sampled a tree, looked at the resultant samples and even tried to crossdate them. He has utterly failed to understand
Now let me be clear, I don't know if Wilsons assumptions [about Mann] are right. But their rebuttal makes a pretty strong case for Mann being out of his depth (or just randomly making up things to suit him). His 'response' is also revealing.
chek .. you are a perfect supporter for the Jeffie-side. As is Wow, and earlier Stu, bill Lionel, Bernard J and quite some others. You probably do the best you can ..
I scambled the Rob Wilson quotes, Jeff. Here they are again:
1) "if [Mann] had taken the trouble either (1) to speak to some of his dendrochronological colleagues or (2) look at some real tree-ring data to learn what “crossdating” is, he would have quickly realised that his hypothesis was wrong and would not have wasted a lot of time for many people”
2) ”I would be surprised if Mann has ever sampled a tree, looked at the resultant samples and even tried to crossdate them. He has utterly failed to understand the fundamental foundation of dendrochronology”
"Yes Jeff, I have the ability to comment upon published science"
Says who? You?????
Do you have the ability to write up scientific findings? To publish your research? To give lectures at universities? Or is your science confined to blogs?
We all know the answer to that one.
One last point: in what kind of deluded world does a simple rebuttal of one study by Mann et al.- even if the authors of the rebuttal are correct - deligitimize a huge body of empirical and theoretical literature on AGW?
A: It doesn't. Not at all. I am sure that most if not all of the authors of the rebuttal agree that humans are the major agent of climate forcing. Science does not work by consensus. It never has. This is where your arguments become unglued. You think that by taking apart a single study (and you only did this after Jones made his rebuttal - amplied on the denialosphere - evidence that you rely on WUWT and other contrarian blogs to do your thinking for you), that somehow the entire field is dismissed.
I have given enough lectures on anti-environmentalism to know exactly how the strategy works. Mann is relentlessly smeared by think tanks, right wing blogs etc., and by doing so, the aim is to smear the entire climate science community that by-and-large agree that humans are forcing climate. Its been used in other areas of science where policy is concerned.
Is the climate warming? Most definitely. Numerous proxies prove that without any doubt. The question is how much humans are responsible. Most scientists, whether you like it or not, agree over the primary cause. Us. Until you get off your lazy ass and start publishing rebuttals and counter evidence, and stop relying on contrarian blogs for your information, then you will never win the scientific debate. But of course that has never been the aim of deniers. The aim is to sow enough doubt over the process as to render counter action mute. There you are winning. But not on the science.
As a final point, over a year ago Benard cited some 300 papers in the IPCC report (2007) for you to critique.You never discussxed a single one. I suppose you were relying on Watts of McIntyre or Mountford to help you out, because you clearly cannot think for yourself. Manns Nature Geoscience paper was published months ago. Yet only now are you huffing and puffing about it and about how much you know about the field. Yet, this is only after a rebuttal is published and spread all overthe denialosphere. Coincidence? Hardly.
Jeff, again
"in what kind of deluded world does a simple rebuttal of one study by Mann et al.- even if the authors of the rebuttal are correct – deligitimize a huge body of empirical and theoretical literature on AGW?"
Apparently in your fantasy projection world. Since I have never made any such claim or connection.
"As a final point, over a year ago Benard cited some 300 papers in the IPCC report (2007) for you to critique"
Bernard was trying to avoid the core questions by spamming me with a long list (I think they were 30 or so though). He didn't even claim that any one of these cointaned that AR4 claim I was asking for. Why would I even bother reading a list by Bernard, which not even he claims cointains it? He hedn't even read them himself he said.
""The question is how much humans are responsible. Most scientists, whether you like it or not, agree over the primary cause"
Yes, we hear that a lot. But science is about demonstrating. And whatever people believe is not part of the demonstrating. You need to understand that. Yes, it's true that many agree on that. Because the IPCC said so for instance. But this agreement carries no weight if it is only based on belief. As I have shown here, this faith i strong in certain quarters. And has been almost blindly accepted there.
Ask yourself why you never had heard that there is no proper science behind that AR4 claim? And why nobody even hade checked? Ask your self also why people get so extremely worked up when you ask to see that science that still 1½ year later they're behaving like kids who had their candy taken away?
And all the while making one counterfactual statement after the other. I have never referred to WUWT or any other blog for authority. It is your side that is obsessed with them, while waiting for blogs to explain the science for them. If they're not busy inventing all kinds of 'facts' about those who don't share their beliefs.
"Jonas borders on being psychopathic " or "you clearly cannot think for yourself"
That's your level of thinking for yourself Jeffie. ANd it's revealing!
"I scambled the Rob Wilson quotes"
Still if he's "the dendrochronology community", then the community is very small, isn't it.
PS proved that Sandy would have happened even if AGW hadn't occurred, or are you too busy fapping the wagger, you wanker?
"Since I have never made any such claim or connection."
So what the fuck are you wibbling on about, then?
Hey, arsebreath, since big questions are beyond you, care to answer this?
Are cloudless nights colder or warmer than cloudy nights?
"“Since I have never made any such claim or connection.”
As Wow said. Why else would Jonas expend so much energy about one study and one researcher? And although Jonas claims that his wisdom does not require input from WUWT/CA etc., its pretty strange that his critique of the Mann et al. paper only surfaced when Wilson and colleagues wrote a rebuttal that went viral over the denialsphere. The Mann paper came out 7 months ago. Our resident genius did not make a peep about it until now, shortly after it was attacked by the right wing denial machine. Again, a coincidence? Hardly.
If you aren't claiming that AGW isn't happening, Jonas, why expend so much effort on a few pedantic points? Why not busy your brilliance in another field? Like medicine? Or astrophysics? After all, you've implied here time and again that self-education is all one needs to be a super-duper expert in any field of research. I am sure that your dopey band of followers would be glad to cough up sponsorship for you.
Jeff
It's good that you finally admit that it's all about guessing how things are 'connected' without any other 'evidence' than what you and your imagination come up with.
And now Nature Geoscience, and quite a few dendrochronologists are part of a "attack[] by the right wing denial machine".
Imagination, fantasies, wild-eyed guesses ..
"you’ve implied here time and again that self-education is all one needs to be a super-duper expert in any field of "
You just can't help your self Jeff, can you?
What is it with Jonarse and Griselda & Co. that they can't comprehend the simplest statements without distorting them? Today's examples include some absolute classics of whining victimhood.
Time to wipe that foam off your spittle-flecked screens, boys.
I do not think the 'Dendro' letter means what these fools think it means.
I'm reminded of Goering waking Hitler with a phone call to congratulate him on the death of Roosevelt in April '45, because now the West would waver and fall apart and German might would be resurgent across Europe etc..
When you're a bunch of aging arch-reactionaries confined to your bunkers by the sheer weight of your opposition and praying for a miracle to reverse the course of history, this is the kind of blackly-comic hysterical daftness that comes naturally...
Gee, whaddya know?
Looks like you're still stuck deeeeep in the bunker, guys, and the artillery fire is drawing nearer...
Interesting bill ...
You call that artiellery fire? I'd guess that you'd also call Jeff's decarling victory from his protected zone or at the end of most posts 'direct missile hit' !?
chek & wow ... when did you last time even attempt anything resembling a valid argument?
Let's face it guys, if beating yourselves into an onanistic frenzy regarding some collegial technical dispute, and proclaiming it yet another incipient End of Mannism and the Real Live Truly Final This Time No Really Demise of the CAGW Scam is the best you can do, you might as well just join Lord Monckton on the Alex Jones / Tin-Foil Hat circuit in the US.
C'mon now - man up and admit it ; you feel ridiculous! You certainly should, at any rate...
@Jonas,
Still doing your Science 101 for jeff and others then? aka All that matters is what you have evidence for, forget what you think you "know", no place for prejudices/preconceptions, just what you observe and can show. Be nice to think he is approaching the lesson with an open mind, but he's shown no inclination to that in the past.
I've been trying to parse his answer to the Sandy question. As you say it's a non-answer.
"one excerptional storm of course does not provide proof of AGW."
mmm... that sounds like a No. But is it? This "stock" answer is usually followed by "but in a Warming world we would expect more..."
the take home message from this to simple folk (chek and some others) seems to be that this "failure to attribute" is just science being "awkward" - we know CAGW caused Sandy, but the "intricate rules of science" just won't let us say that ;)
Jeffs take is a little different, he follows with,
"an increase in exceptional weather events is an indicator that something is going on in the atmosphere that is quite unusual"
Presummably a lack of increase in "exceptional weather events" would be an indicator that nothing very much is going on in the atmosphere?
I looked at the NOAA/NCDC site on the "Atlantic Hurricane Climatology and Overview" page.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/hurricanes/us-hurricanela…
The graphs only run to 2008 for some reason, but NOAA's "end of year" report for 2012 has the following,
"Based on the combined number, intensity, and duration of all tropical storms and hurricanes, NOAA classifies the season as above-normal. 2012 was an active year, but not exceptionally so as there were 10 busier years in the last three decades."
so Above average, but not exceptional. Reading that and looking at the graph it would be hard to conclude that there is "something is going on in the atmosphere that is quite unusual" from this single Hurricane (jeffs get out) or the entire historical record of past US hurricanes.
Coincidentally, the latest installment from the WUWT video day has just been released. It's from Meteorologist Mike Smith of WeatherData Inc. in Wichita, KS, talking about this very subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu-6NIUNNw0
Not watched it yet, will do at some point during the day. Mike's just been anounced as the co-lead of the National Weather Service's service assessment for Hurricane Sandy, so should be interesting.
;)
bill, I didn't expet you to understand neither of the issues, papers, letters, replies, RC-posts or what is going on in the larger picture.
The latter BTW, its quite OK and interesting to have different views and opinions about what is happening wrt 'climate science' of lately.
There is some fuss about the recurring hysteria about 'extreme weather' we hear so often from the nutty side.
Interesting things too about the sun, about clouds etc.
But of course you will not be fed such from your usual outlets.
GSW
I was particularly asking if Jeff (or any of the other band) believe that any part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2.
I don't think he ever got close to the key word therein ...
@Jonas,
I got that subtetly Jonas. Hayhoe is on record with the following
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/jso8ub
"So did climate change cause Sandy? No: there is absolutely no evidence that it did. In fact, several future modeling studies suggest climate change may actually *decrease* hurricane frequency (although increasing the number of Cat 4 and 5 storms)."
and (what you're getting at I think)
"I estimated earlier (see previous twitter feed for references) that long-term 7 inch global sea level rise could have enhanced Sandy's storm surge by 4% and sea surface temperature increases by something on the order of 1oC. Compare that to the 14 foot storm surge measured during the storm, and the >5oC natural SST temperature anomaly present this month."
Trenberth has something similar I remember, attribution to Natural Variability and ocean temperatures 3C above normal, with 0.6C[his figure] attributable to Global Warming. Despite that though Sandy meander between being only a Tropical Storm thru to Cat2 Hurricane, just, Cat1 being the quoted level. So fairly unexceptional even with a speculated CAGW component.
I'm sure jeff will comment further.
"I’m sure jeff will comment further".
Nope. The main reason is that I will not be dragged into another wasted discussion with a know-nothing (Jonas) and his wart (GSW). Take your wisdom guys to the climate science community where you will be laughingstocks.
Besides, I have science to do - REAL - science - 4 papers to review, three manuscripts to finish and a seminar to prepare for the British Ecological Society in late December. You clowns don't appear to have anything else to do but to sit on your lazy butts and write into Deltoid.
Notice how we've discreetly dropped the Mann/dendro BS - because even these muppets recognise there's nothing to it, and now we're back to desperately flailing around re Sandy attribution.
Love the utter imbecility - and I seriously mean that - of 'fairly unexceptional'; tell that to the New York subway system! Warmer ocean, higher ocean, 5% more moisture in atmosphere, dramatically reduced Arctic icepack, meandering jetstream. What's not to understand?
And speaking of understanding; saying 'Sandy' would have happened without AGW is like claiming that if chimpanzees had evolved to become the most intelligent species on earth a chimp named Bush would have been elected in a year 2000 (oh - wait a minute!) Sensitive dependence upon initial conditions and all that... morons!
But, by all means, carry on - you two buffoons are an outstanding advertisement for our side of the argument...
So (Sandy) fairly unexceptional even with a speculated CAGW component.
Alrighty, if it was so 'unexceptional' I'm really looking forward to all the 1000 mile diameter storms you can name that have hit so far north in the west Atlantic and so late in the season within (oh, let's make it easy..) say the past 50 years.
** crickets **
When will you realise that your distortions, misrepresentations and lying only work on double digit IQ's and some Faux viewers (although some of those are turning) - in other words people like yourself. Take your wares to those who don't (yet) know that there's real data out there, not filtered by the mendacious likes of you.
Bill: well said. Notice how they've steered away from meterorlogically extreme events such as the searing heat wave the crippled much of the US this year; March when temperatures broke existing records in some areas by ten or more degrees C on multiplee days; heat waves and other extreme events elsewhere in the world that have increased in extent since the 1960s. And the point about Sandy is not just its intensity but its size: this gigantic storm reached almost half way across the US, impacting Lakes Superior and Michigan while battering the Atlantic coast at the same time. It is this that was exceptional and unprecedented by any standards; the "Long Island Express" hurricane of 1938 may have been devastating to New York and New Jersy as well, but that storm (and later, hurricane Hazel in 1954) were not even close to Sandy in their geographical size.
And of course the latestnews which shows that ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic are melting three times faster than they were in 1990. What makes this years loss of Arctic ice (and especially older ice) so remarkable was that even the IPCC did not expect such an event to occur for another 20 years or so. Climate change is very real, its largely mediated by human activities, and its getting worse.
As Chek said... Sandy was gigantic. Storms of this size are unprecedented. Its not just the intensity but the size.
Jeff
You are the one wasting time and space writing about all kinds of things that are either irrelevant, and very very often just products of your fantasies. And your infantile spouting attempted insults inbetween ...
I have watched this for 1½ year no, and you truly are incable of anything resembling civil, much less scientific debate.
And most amazing is that you write som much nonsense wich is demonstarably untrue about many factual things. I don't know how many times you completely misrepresented things I said. Even completely missed the topic.
I have a very hard time that you can do better in whatever it is you call 'science' in your publications. The only thing I've read is your smear on Lomborg, whose book you neither understood nor reviewed the contents of. Just the usual idiotic rants ... and that was you in your day-job!
And your need to waive your CV as if it would somehow impress och strengthen your argument is just ludicrous. Someone who consistently fails even simple things like answering straightforward questions (or reading them correctly), someone who is emotionally som unstable he cannot hold back his flood of insults he'd rather spew.
Somene behaving as imature and badly, but who still has the temerity to whine about not beeing treated nicely enough.
A person desperately wanting to be labelled 'scientist' but makes every logical fallacy in the book, comment after comment ... And has no clue about what 'the scientific method' requires.
BTW Did you ever get around to tell us how and what you were going to do about the melting glaciers? Your were very upset about it, and accused others for not doing anything about it ;-)
Hey, you two lovebuddyboys, "it's happened before" isn't proving Sandy would have happened without AGW changes to the climate.
Skyscrapers fell down because of earthquakes and NYC gets earthquakes, but this doesn't prove 11/9 was caused by earthquakes.
And you bumchums still don't seem to know whether a cloudy night is colder or warmer than a cloudless one.
bill ...
I see you too want to 'draw conclusions' based on things you are not seeing. Its a common misconception among those who aren't trained in science. That you get to make up 'facts' about everything you don't know or see. If you just imagine them, or convince yourself they are consistent with whatever you want to believe.
The relevant questions is (and was): Is there any part of Sandy that can be attributed to human CO2-emissions?
Chimpanzies and Bushes are not part of the question (but giveaway part of the emotional mindset)
Wow ... "this doesn’t prove 11/9 was caused by earthquakes"
your logic is even better than Jeff's.
I don’t think he ever got close to the key word
Any reputable scientist will not honestly attribute a single storm event to AGW as you are so desperately trying to get someone here to do, anymore than a doctor can attribute cancer to any one single cigarette.
You need a larger focus, which is why you morons are obsessing about one event.
Congratulations chek
A rare comment with some substance and content.
But I didn't ask him (or anybody) to attribute "a single storm event to AGW".
Instead I asked:
2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No
Let me specify the details. Firstly, I asked about Jeffies beliefs. Thats all he has, but these (potentially at least) he can give correctly. Secondly, i asked about any part of Sandy (for instance its size, or if it was aggravated) and finally I asked if such can be attributed to human CO2. Still only his beliefs. But the 'can be attributed' implies two things. Some kind causation, and the possibility to demonstrate this connection. And it was a Yes/No question, and I'd accepted both answers.
Well, it seems you are aware that the demonstration/attribution is essantially impossible for a single event. I just would have liked to hear this from Jeff (and others) too.
And I'm sorry, but you totally and completely miss the plot. The hangup with single event Sandy is entirely on the climate scare side. And it is made by many, and implied by many more still. On the realist side, it is again and again pointed out that such claims cannot be made.
"The only thing I’ve read is your smear on Lomborg, whose book you neither understood nor reviewed the contents of"
Now Jonas you really are out of your depth. I so badly understood Lomborg's book that I co-reviewed it for Nature, the Union of Concered Scientists, as well as being invited to Demark to give seminars at two universities on the book as well as being interviewed by the BBC and two newspapewrs in the UK and one in Holland. And here you are, a complete non-entity in science telling me that I didn't udnerstand the book. Your comedy rotuine gets better every day.You are a complete idiot.
The book wasn't at all hard to understand as most of the arguments were based on kindergarten-level analysis. I certainly understood that Lomborg cherry picked results over and over again, and ignored many others that came to directly different conclusions or which were correctives. I understood that he used a single model based on predicted UK insect extinctions and applied that to global extinction rates of all taxa, whilst ignoring 12 others that produced very different (and higher)estimates. I undersood that he referred to earthworms as insects; I understood that he does not know what supporting ecosystem services are, and completely does not grasp the prevailing global economic system that drives social injustice aqnd poverty. I certainly understood that he included palm oil plantations and banana plantations in his estimates of global forest cover, as well as planned reforestation projects that had not yet been realized. I understood well enough that he could not tell as second growth forest from a primary forest, a grave mistake. I understood that he had not a clue about the ecological effects of acid rain on fresh water and forest ecosystems.I unbderstood that he misquotes scientists several time sin the book (e.g. Paul Colinvaux) in order to distort what they siad. I understood that he tried to link esteemed scientists like Jared Diamond, Ed Wilson and Paul Ehrlich to a plan taht doesn't exist as he describes it in order to smear them. Need I go on? Most scientists could see that the book was an abomination but it wass never intended for a scientific audience; it was intended for simpletons like you, Jonas. Welcome to the club.
You think you are a really smart guy but you are an ignorant jackass in my humble opinion. I'd debate you or GSW in any venue on Earth on the Lomborg book and would destroy your arguments.Piece of cake. Heck, I gave Lomborg a beating here in 2002, and since then he has avoided me like the plague. He's doing very well on the right wing think tank circuit these days anyway. They queue up to listen to his nonsense, and that's fine by me. But on environmental science, Jonas, you know nix.
"Well, it seems you are aware that the demonstration/attribution is essantially impossible for a single event. I just would have liked to hear this from Jeff (and others) too"
Of course it is, you moron. But many events occurring in a relatively short time increase the evidence that something with climate is amiss. You love to create straw men for your purpose. Its one of your allegedly cunning strategies. I have news for you: it isn't cunning.
You love asking me questions, smartass, but here's one for you (that you won't answer, of couse):
WHAT IS YOUR PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND (IF ANY). WHAT IS YOUR DAY JOB?
Watch Jonas evade this one. He'll again claim its irrelevant. But it isn't. People lacking specialist training in certain fields are apt to make asses of themselves because they think they know more than they actually do. I have made it clear that I am not formally trained in dendochronolgy or climate science, but that the prevailing view based on the empirical evidence amongst professionals in the field is that AGW is very real.
However, several of the crappy chapters in Lomborg's book do stray into my field of expertise. The one on forests, his dicussion of biodiversity and ecosystem services are well within my scientific comfort zone (note how Jonas, in true D-K fashion, appears to suggest his comfort zone is petty well every field of science). And those chapters in Lomborg's book are abominable. End of story.
Jeff ...
If you really did understand the book, why did you not review its conent then? Your Nature review was ad hom and hate speech which seems to be your your preferred debating MO. Avoiding the issues, and probably incapable of seeing even what the other guy's viewpoint and perspective is.
If you understood Lomborg (which I doubt), why not address and in a balanced argument take on the points where you think he is wrong, why his perspective would be on the whole, not valid.
In that Nature review (wich wasn't a review) you did nothing of that. It looked as most of your comments here. Angry screaming and insulting, for som two thirds of the text.
I haven't seen the BBC interview, UCS is astrtoturfed activism, but I've heard about your 'debating' which meant your usual ranting.
And I'm serious here Jeff. I can't (nor have I tried to) judge on any particular topic there. But somebody screaming and ranting like yourself, is very hard to take seriously. Especially when he isn't even making an argument. Just spouting insults. Repeating 'You're / He's wrong! .. Because I say so!'
I have read (and probably you too) his response to your rant, and again he comes across like tha reasonable argumentative type, and you still look like the screaming activist.
And yes, you repeatedly, essentially in every comment, tell me that I'm and idiot or something very similar. And you still you 1) need to invent your own facts about me, and 2) you are incapable of arguing and getting any details right here. Most of the time I have the impression you yourself have no clue about what you are arguing. 'Do something about the glaciers' 'Your earth shattering views' etc.
I would assume that your 'victory' over Lomborg carries as much weight as when you declare the same thing here.
Jeff ... it is really really difficult, isn't it?
"many events occurring in a relatively short time increase the evidence that something with climate is amiss"
Apart from climate always changing, and 'being amiss' in that respect is quite vague, the question was a different one:
2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No
I detailed the specifics in my response to chek above. I am asking your opinion or belief. So far, it seems (only slightly) that you lean towards the 'No' option, but can't bring yourself to say this, whereupon you once more bring up that 'climate-is-changing-everywhere-spiel' drawing speculative implication lines between all kinds of things, to land in a 'but it should really be Yes' position.
BTW Neither moron, Dunning Kruger, Denialist, idiot etc are arguments anywhere among scientists. Rather they indicate that it is primarly emotional, and is most often because of 'lack of better arguments' or anger. Or both. And you seem like a very angry guy, Jeff.
The hangup with single event Sandy is entirely on the climate scare side.
You conveniently (yet again - it's a pattern, isn't it) missed my qualifier "you need a larger focus". As Bill said:
"Warmer ocean, higher ocean, 5% more moisture in atmosphere, dramatically reduced Arctic icepack, meandering jetstream. What’s not to understand? "
Those major contributory factors are exactly the components which are predicted by AGW.
Oh my: "UCS is astrtoturfed activism"
And WUWT, CA, BH et al aren't? At least UCS is made of of real scientists, not retired weathermen and pundits with no relevant background. This very comment of yours tells me exactly where you're coming from. No further comments needed.
I clearly rattled Lomborg, but that wasn't hard. He freely admits in his book that he isn't an expert with respect to environmental problems. That's the most honest statement in his book. As far as the soc-alled debate, I focused on teh biodiversity chapter which if it was written by one of my Master's students I would fail them. That's how awful it is. So its hardly surprising that Lomborg didn't even try to rebut my criticisms except to try and defend his smears of Wilson, Ehrlich and Diamond. That was easy to counter too. The we were supposed to chat for an hour but he just sat there looking scared to death. Clealry he did not want to give me any rope to metaphorically hang him with. Later on I was invited to present a keynote lecture on the biological effects of climate change; Lomborg was invited too but at the last minute backed out. He also backed out of a debate here in Holland with me later in 2002. Take from that what you will. But he's not a scientist and his book is not aimed at scientists because he is fully aware that its full of distortions. But the general public (that's you, Jonas)will often swallow this crap hook, line and sinker, because they aren't trained to see the flaws.
As for the Nature review, I stand by it. We did not have unlimited space which a full demolition of the book required. Kare Fog has done a great job of that on his web site.
As for anger, no; its more frustration at encountering a stubborn, arrogant, self-professed know-it-all who clearly won't admit his limited knowledge in various complex fields.Your question of hurricane Sandy is a straw man. You knwo it. As I said, it constitutes part of a much larger scenario in which trends can be extrapolated. In case you were wondering, Jonas, this provides definitiev proof that you have no basic understanding of the scientific method. I woluld never draw a conclusion on, say, the relationship between secondary chemistry in a plant and the development of an insect herbivore on the basis of a single data point. But many data points do provide evidence one way or the other. And the current trends in weather and climate point to the fact that super-storms like Sandy - super meaning in sheer geographical size - are unusual in the context of normal background weather patterns. The same is true for the frequency of droughts in Aamazonia; heat waves in much of the world; and record melt rates of polar ice caps. Biotic indicators are showing clearly that it is warming. I need not go into the proxies here; the empirical data is full of them. Its just too bad that you probably have never read an ecological journal in your life.
And finally, for the billionth time: just what is your professional background? You job?
S-I-L-E-N-C-E; obfuscation! Yup, you are not going to answer that one. And while we are on the point of evasion, your hypocrisy bleeds through every time you claim that I am "seeking refuge from you on other threads". At least I have been honest and you know who I am. But you steadfastly refuse to tell us not only who you are but what it is that you do. The latter is because it will make you look even sillier than you already are in the eyes of most who contribute here except, of course, your blemish.
Indeed they have bill, now let us see if they can follow this:
Responses to volcanoes in tree rings and models
and their quoting of Hayhoe is straw clutching sublime, after all this is the best they can do to construct their straw men. What GSW did not quote was this:
Without global warming there would not have been an increase in sea level, a very much altered jet stream pulling two weather systems together, and warmer surface waters which combined caused the Coriolis force to be overcome and the storm growing to an hitherto unrecorded size for this time of year and latitude. This produced a storm surge capable of inundating New York and causing the damage we are now, second hand for most of us, familiar with.
You bozos would soon change your tune if you were hit by something like this.
As clear novices in this field I will suggest an excellent book on sea level rise:
Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact Hunt Janin, Scott A. Mandia
And take note of this:
Scientific American: ‘Loss of Ice, Melting Of Permafrost And Other Climate Effects Are Occurring At An Alarming Pace’
Another take home point here comes from the crowing of the 'delayniers' a few years ago about the fact that many scientists involved in the information gather part of the IPCC TAR were upset because they didn't agree with some of the projections therein. Their objections were based on their understanding that the projections were watered down and didn't include many of the factors which should have been causing an undershoot between the worst case scenarios of the IPCC FAR and what many scientists suspected from the physics, models and data on the ground combined.
And the likes of Marc Morano who from this search result: seems to be pushing this Hayhoe quote story along. Surprise! Surprise!
Professor Andrew Watson got Morano spot on., and you two, Jona and GSW are in the same category as Morano.
Drat, dropped a closing italic tag.
chek
I didn't miss the qualifier. But commented about the 'obsessing' which definitely is on the climate scare side. As in: Weather is not climate, unless we need it to be ..
And the larger picture is not very conclusive wrt to the issue of storms /extreme weather.
And yes, I saw bill's comment. It was the usual attempt to barrage of words conceal that you can't really imply any causation. Chimps and Bushes too. Same thing Jeff tried, and I think he was all over Canada, Alaska, and last years heat too etc ..
Jeff tried before with (a typically unscientific) 'unprecedented' wrt both size and 'by any standards'. But I think it will be hard even to argue that implication based on observations and alleged mechanisms (the 'unprecedented' I disregard, those are Jeffs emotions on the loose again).
In his latest comment he throws in " it constitutes part of a much larger scenario in which trends can be extrapolated"! In response to 'what can be attributed to human CO2'!?
And it doesn't stop there. After his wildeyed extrapolation affirmation of his own beliefs, he concludes:
"Jonas, this provides definitiev proof that you have no basic understanding of the scientific method"!?
Did you get that? He again lost focus of the absolute main question here. About what I have been asking: The A-part of GW!
"The hangup with single event Sandy is entirely on the climate scare side."
Weird. You and your bottom buddies keep claiming that you need to see "a catastrophe" before you admit there's any such thing as AGW.
Then when you're given one that you can't ignore, you whine about how *we* are obsessed about a single event.
Truly you lot are up each others arses...
"Wow … “this doesn’t prove 11/9 was caused by earthquakes”
your logic is even better than Jeff’s."
Cheers.
So you care to give some actual proof now you have admitted your current attempts were empty?
"2) Do you believe that anything of storm Sandy can be attributed to human emissions of CO2? Yes/No"
The SSTs are higher than they were because the climate is getting warmer and the sea therefore warmer and therefore since SSTs are the power source of hurricanes (hence why they don't appear in continental interiors), that is something of the storm called Sandy that is attributed to human production of CO2.
Jeff
No I don't thint that WUWT, CA or BH are astroturfing activism. I think their funding is essentially non-existant. And neither are they referred to as authorities. However, some of them in their readership actually publish climate science. Successfully, and to the great dismay of some of your 'preferred scientists'.
Regarding UCS it definitely has financial and PR backing, and it admits anybody. Regarding the 'scientists', I would be vary cautious. I have read only few of their reports, and it was mostly the kind of propaganda you'd expect from such quarters.
And no, the 'scientists' at UCS are not in any way more qualified re the issues than others. And when they also are activists they cease to be scientists. BTW, I would be suprised if there were that many among them engaged in real science, the one you know, where you must(!) adhere to the scientific method.
Re: Lomborg
If on any particular part you seriously think Lomborgs view and stance is unsupportable, I would have expected a serious reviewer to state that stance, and the explain why it doesn't ad up. But from your 'review' it is completely impossible to determin what Lomborgs book was about. What could be seen however, were angry proclamations, hatered and invectives.
In my book, that has nothing to do in a boow review. Its what I expect from raging blind actvism. My point is: If you had a valid point, you failed to get it accross. The only thing you did convincingly was to demonstrate your loathing, and claims that everybody does/should see it that way ...
As unprofessional as it gets in my view.
And Jeff, you often claim that yor intimidated your 'enemies', here too. Also in your protected zone. And yes, you've asked again and again for having med banned. This is how people like you would like to 'resolve' disagreements or opposing views.
We've seen it many times before.
As to who I am!?
You see, that's the problem Jeff. You have been telling me that from almost day one. Not only that, you've told me on what floor I live, who pays my bill, what I work with or have quit, what I have done and never done, my (lack of) education, expertise, training etc. and everything that I'm not. And changed your story. You spent 1½ trying to tell me exactly those things.
And of course (and obviously) you have no clue at all. And although I've told you quite some details, and given more than just subtle hints. You have no clue at all! You have been fabricating fantasies for 1½ years about those things, trying to bully and intimidate me, to beat me over the head with such tactics. And of course, those don't work. Moreover, they are the antithesis to scientific mind and inquiry.
I was just glad to let you go on with this (and still am) because everytime, it proves my point: inquisitive curiosity, and real science just aren't your things. You are incapable of leaving your emotions and your extremely wishful thinking outside almost any issue. You want things to be to fit you're narrative so badly that you just invent them when you don't know. Or fit perfectly as long as nobody can see ...
Care to explain why you spent so much effort telling me what and who I am and not?
From my side it just looks stupid. Stupid futile attempts to defy reality, and in public!
Why?
"No I don’t thint"
Yup, you don't.
"If on any particular part you seriously think Lomborgs view and stance is unsupportable,"
It's all unsupportable.
But if you're told, you whine "from my side it just looks stupid".
Joan, the point is you're a nobody.
You haven't got any indication that you know what you're talking about on the subject of, among many other things, climate, physics and biology.
"No I don’t thint that WUWT, CA or BH are astroturfing activism. I think their funding is essentially non-existant. And neither are they referred to as authorities. However, some of them in their readership actually publish climate science. Successfully, and to the great dismay of some of your ‘preferred scientists’"
First point: Of course weblogs set up to deny human impacts on the biosphere, and which counter the empirical evidence, are a form as astroturf activism; one has to wonder what motivates untrained people to challenge the bulk of scientific evidence. And let us not forget, some of these people are linked quite openly with right wing think tanks like the George Marshall Institute, Fraser institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute etc. that are openly acting as PR conduits for the fossil fuel lobby. Or else they collaborate with people employed by these think tanks, which quite openly aim to eviscerate public constraints in the pursuit of private profit. As for publishing in the scientific literature, that's a joke: a could count on one hand the papers most of these people have published and few are cited much by other scientists. Again, this apparently reveals the Jonas view of science: good if you are a denier, bad if you aren't. Just look at anything published by Mann: the aim of smearing him (and again, the hypocrisy could not be richer from Jonie boy here) is downplayed, whilst I am accused of smearing Lomborg. As Wow said, I didn't do that: his book is so abominable that he did that all by himself when he wrote it in 15 months superficially covering a huge range of complex and diverse fields that experts take many years to master in each field. But Lomborg has a thick skin and knew his book would be trashed by the experts: his aim, as I said, was to sell it to the general public, who either needed some form of solace to convince them that the planet is doing quite well, and that western overconsumption and social injustice is not one of the major roots of environmental destruction. His book was lapped up by those whose understanding of these issues is wafer thin as well as by neoclassical economic thinkers who think humans are largely exempt from nature's laws. Scientists weren't fooled. But again, we weren't it target audience. The aim was to sell it in bundles to a gullible public desperate for good news. The right wing denialosphere loved it. Hence why our resident untrained genius drools all over it. He doesn't know anything about environmental science but thinks he does.
No wonder Chek calls Jonas 'Jonarse' , cos' that's where his head is safely tucked away...
By the way, Jonas, I am not telling anyone what it is you do, I am openly asking to know what it is. And of course you won't tell. Not because we'll track you down and find out who you are, but because your intellectual cover will be blown. After all, its you who are attacking the likes of Mann, Trenberth, Hansen and others with quite impressive scientific resumes.
My guess is that your professional background, if you indeed have one and aren't some computer geek, has nothing scientifically relevant in it. If i was wrong, given your bloated ego, you would have told us all by now. But your steadfast silence tells everyone here that I am correct.
Wow, you are a true asset to this site. And to Jeff Harvey too ... What would he be without you? Among the two of you, you should be able to have really intelligent lunchroom discussions. Jeff has those, he told med multiple times.
In denial Jeff?
Making up new stuff, now even about all your own certain claims? You never made thme? You were merely asking? Or guessing?
Point is you have no clue, and even are incapale och taking a hint or two(-hundred)
"but because your intellectual cover will be blown"
You really don't know what constitutes an argument even, Jeff, let alon a logical one. And right after, you again try your nonsensical claims. In the same post you started out denying them.
"Point is you have no clue,"
How do you know this? You refuse to show evidence that your testimony is reliable.
You are a nobody whose mouthings are worth nothing.
(PS I note that having answered your whining petulant query, you fail to do anything about it other than pretend it isn't there)
Lookee here oh simple one and then connect the other dots by visiting here and John Mashey's exposures. You will have to provide your own plate.
You really don’t know what constitutes an argument even, Jeff, let alon a logical one.
Jonarse, on the most primary of elementary levels, PhDs are not handed out to those who can't.
Your customary childish, hyperbolic tantrums are the evidence that , as Wow says, "You are a nobody whose mouthings are worth nothing". Or less.
Jonas grok this: How The Big Oil Lobby Secretly Funded 2012 Election Attack Ads.
And here we have more connections made;
REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers.
But of course you won't you will slalom around this like any argument with substance that threatens to blow away your smoke and splinter your mirrors. Andrew Watson could have been describing you when speaking, almost, off camera, about Morano (see above).
Clang!
And here we have more connections made;
REVEALED: Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers.
"Drat, dropped a closing italic tag"
I think it may have been me Lionel, but having taken care since the last 'italicsgate' incident, I'm wondering if there's some site glitch which doesn't like use of more than one quotation.
You know, once again my time in Jonas' little asylum is coming to man end for awhile. Thankfully I will be away for a month in February and won't read his willful ignorance. But here's a closer for today-:
Jonas is constantly accusing me of waving my CV in his face (I know it hurts that he hasn't got one to wave, but I digress). I have said many times that I fully admit that I have no formal training in climate science or, as I said yesterday, in dendochronology. These aren't my fields. But I do know well enough that the vast majority of scientists - and especially climate scientists - agree that climate warming is very real, that humans are the primary culprit, and that the consequences of business-as-usual could be grave. At conferences I attend where the biotic effects of climate warming are described and discussed, the speakers, all scientists, don't even have to say that GW is 'controversial' or whether its causes are poorly understood. Given what we now know, its taken pretty much as a slam dunk, a given.
But listening to pseudo-intellectual skeptics like Jonas and his few admirers here, as well as the right wing denialosphere in general, its intimated the GW is some controversial area of science and that it's causes are very poorly understood. This flies in the face of the mainstream scientific opinion and of the evidence.
A few days ago GSW, who clearly spends a lot of time on the denial blogs, had the audacity to link a piece by Marc Morano. Why anybody would take this right wing clown seriously is anyone's guess, but GSW apparently does. Morano used to work for Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s. In 2000 he wrote an abominable piece about the current state of the Amazon forest, of course downplaying the amount of damage incurred on it at that time. The article was utterly appalling: Morano interviewed two people who have no expertise in the field at all, both of whom are now climate change deniers, to argue that the Amazon was doing fine. His article said nothing about the collateral effects of fire and high grade logging on wet tropical forests, nor did he mention how much of the forest was second growth. Now Morano has switched to climate change as his anti-environmental topic of the moment, and GSW cites his bilge as if its somehow independent and reputable.
As far as Jonas is concerned, he seems to forget that most posters on Deltoid don't agree with him at all. He's got his little wart, GSW, and a few other Swedes, but that is it. Yet the way he responds to all of his critics is as if there is some huge army of people out there who agree with him. At the same time, he can't fathom why Tim banished him to his own little thread. He appears to think its because his ideas were so special that they stand out. Well, I've got news for you Jonas. Try the other one.
@Jonas,
OMG!, you've been busy - don't know where you get the patience to deal with all this. Simple things like explaining the required relationship between claims and evidence drives them into a mad fury. It's almost as if CAGW should be exempt in some way - certainly how they come across anyway.
Let me see... our resident Zoologist, who couldn't even answer the simple Yes/No "quiz" set for him with any degree of coherence, keeps referring to his CV as a reason for not knowing anything, or being able to put forward any kind of alternative argument whatsoever. Twas ever thus.
;)
It's the simple folk (chek et al) I feel sorry for. They just keep posting endless rounds of abuse as they don't have anything worthwhile to contribute.
Surprisingly, made me think of another Mitchell & Webb piece. ;)
(Warning any similarity between the "Anne Robinson" character and wow's posts is entirely coincidental)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAsbPl_-fAY
No matter what anyone else says zoologist Jeff, remember... You Are the Hole In the Ring!
Oh look - the sycophant's back making up sycophantic drool as sychophants do, because he hasn't comprehended the last two dozen posts, and how the object of his sychophancy has had his arse handed to him.
It's not just climate science you're in pathological denial about, is it Griselda?
GSW, you're also a nobody.
Why should anyone take what you say seriously when you have not proven your bone fides on the subject?
Sickophancy for a sick-O'-mancer. GSW clearly likes his material regurgitated.
Griselda is a modern phenomenon - intelligent enough to pound a keyboard on the internet, but not intelligent enough to have aything to say, which is just how Morano Repeaters Inc. likes'em
Sad that GSW can't separate zoology from population ecology.
But what can one expect from someone who cites crap from Morano?
Jonas, a page back spewed this:
I have already replied to this bit of wilful ignorance but here is some more proof for your lying eyes:
following blockquote from within this link
Leaked Documents
Clang!
following blockquote from within this link
Thanks again for this, Lionel, and all of your other posts.
All this does is further show how intellectually bankrupt Jonas and his small coterie of followers are. The right wing think tanks collectively and secretly funnel millions of dollars to weblogs, people and other anti-environmental groups that work on behalf of their corporate sponsors. Again, were one to read any number of books on the subject, they'd realize that the link you supplied was but a small drop in a well-organized and funded sea of disinformation.
As I said Lionel, funding is virtually non-existent.
Those 90 k$ are for a (different) visualisation project, they don't even go to the blogging. And it's peanut money. Have your checked ExxonSecrets too? What did they find? Peanut money too. And again, the money did not go towards funding skepticism against climate hysteria. Instead it went to places wich somehow could be constructed to 'have links' with persons or other activities which in turn could be viewed to have som skepticviews/ connections.
All this 'Big Oil and Industry Coordinated and Massively Funded '-meme is bonkers, but often repeated by the hysterics. Even in your link, the lier/faker/deceiver/nutter Peter Gleick says:
What an utter farce. And he needed to fake the document/source that he forwarded to his friends(!) which some then went hysterical over.
Because they so much wanted to believe their own myths. (BTW Did you notice that 'sourcewatch' somehow 'failed' to report that the document you all went bonkers over, the 'Confidential Climate Strategy' was faked? Very likely by that nutter Gleick?).
At Deltoid, you were so happy back then to be duped (by someone on your own side)
And while I was (writing, and having difficulties with) posting my last comment, our resident poster boy for activism going off the deep end (masquarading as scientist/science) confrimed exactly what I just said:
.. secretly funnel millions of dollars to weblogs, people and other anti-environmental groups ..
Again, Jeff just knows that WUWT, CA, BH must be payed lots and lots of money, and that really only are mouthpieces for secret industries and think tanks. He feels those truths so intensely, they just must be true.
He has spent his life (here, and probably everywhere) establishing things for 'facts' by emotionally just 'knowing' ie feeling them to be true.
Here in response to me not being overly impressed by what UCS alledgedly (according to Jeff) had to say about Lomborg. He also claimed that "UCS is made of real scientists" (which I very much doubt). But Jeff must think highly about UCS. Just think (ie feel) about it:
Union (Nice warm fuzzy comfy word)
Concerned (Signals: Earnest, caring, protecting)
Scinetists (Noble, dispassionate, truth seeking, meticulous arbiters of facts)
How can such an organisation, or what some say in its name, not be taken at face value right away? How could one even questions such a noble cause?
Well well, Jeff, real science and scientists don't accept things because they are claimed, neither because the claimant appearsto have a CV or other credentials. Definitely not if said credentials are pushed as the main argument for accepting the claims.
But I' guess you will never really learn this (allthough at some point, you seemed to be aware that it of course must be so)
Jonas, the kid with his hands over ears and blinkers on his eyes and wearing a cap with a big D on it whilst stood in the corner mumbled petulantly:
As I wrote Jonas, '...your lying eyes'.
Now why would the Financial Post print the following linked to abominable article so full of zombie arguments (see SkS for the pre-debunk):
OPEN CLIMATE LETTER TO UN SECRETARY-GENERAL: Current scientific knowledge does not substantiate Ban Ki-Moon assertions on weather and climate, say 125-plus scientists.?
Now as has been proved time and time again anything like this is undersigned by a long list of the usual suspects, most with not a hint of a scientific track record in relevant fields and any who have, and these have very few if any peer reviewed papers still relevant and cited as such.
Furthermore these has-been scientists are now engaged in advocacy and not science else they would write all this up for a respected scientific journal. The fact that they have not tells us that they could not.
Here is a starter on Singer: Mashey Report Confirms Heartland's Manipulation; Exposes Singer's Deception: S. Fred Singer Lied to the IRS about identity of his chair
Now a self proven bully like Singer (check out the Justin Lancaster/Roger Revelle persecution clues here ) would surely have sued about that would he not? That he did not speaks volumes.
Now here is another trail for you to follow:
Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax.
So once again, and also considering material I have previously linked to, you are either a wilful ignoramus or are wilfully lying and spreading BS. Which is it?
Whatever, I have not even started on this theme, so keep it up for every post you make gives myself and others chances to interdict with information that will inform the casual visitor to this exchange where the real truth lies.
As denial becomes ever more difficult, and the likes of you become ever more desperate and shrill, I guess we could be in for a long haul. What you need to know is that this one time sisyphian task is getting easier as the slope up which we work eases.
Clang!
Now here is another trail for you to follow:
Fake science, fakexperts, funny finances, free of tax.
Here you are Jonas more:
Meet The Climate Denial Machine.
Keep falling into these traps Jonas.
Jonarse is just following orders ... or procedure, Lionel.
When outright denial becomes impossible, then play down and minimise. Dishonesy is their strategy. How many misprepresentions and distortions have The Collective made in this thread? Too many to count. It's second nature for them.
By the way Jeff, I am late with replying to som other of your nutty wild-eyed claims above (your 'fabricated facts') and might get back on them later. But your obsession with the existence of sound and reasonable voices about the climate-o-mania is truly entertaining.
Three private individuals (Watts, Montford, McIntyre) upset the megaindustry of ClimateChurch and even Occultism which is funded (not by Mega- but) Giga.bucks to the extent that the activists almost lose it (not only the argument)
At the same time, these activists are completely unaware of how this argument applies (if you were to take it seriously) when applied both ways. They gladly believe and link to blogs like SkSc or even DesmogBlog, they think UCS is peddling science, they accept GreenPeace and WWF reports as facts eve science and seem completely unaware of the massive flow of money going to NGOs with various (alleged) 'green agendas'. Not only tax money, but large sums from industries to. Oil companies fund vastly more to those groups and interest than the feeble breadcrumbs ExxonSecrets managed to scrape together which didn't even go to climate scare scepticism, only could be constrructed to have some (often far fetched) links to such.
Lionel,
You were saying something about funding for those three bloggers. Your last few posts didn't really bolster your case.
Your FinancialPost-link does absolutely nothing to establish any such funding.
Seems you'd rather switch to another of your fantasies. And again you seem completely blind to how your 'arguments' work if applied both ways. You take John Mashey as authority, you link to DeSmogBlogg and Rabbet, accept Lancasters (withdrawn, later still claimed) smears on Singer etc (I think he was closely connected to Al Gore)
And you seem to believe you have a point!?
chek you are back to your idiotic conspiracy-thinking. And you never got around to establishing anything wrt Sandy (which you of course cannot). And the misrepresentation is massive on your side here. It's funny that you are so completely oblivious to this ...
That you attempt to portray Watts, McIntyre and Montford's activities as those of 'private individuals', when the documented evidence you were pointed to proves otherwise, shows that you're reduced to nothing but ineffective table pounding and hand wavin that fools only the likes of your own circus troupe.
Oh and Jonarse - don't bother posting again until you can provide credible counter documentation showing John Mashey is in error.
That may take you quite some time. Yes indeed.
Jonas.
Of course it does not stupid. It was laying out the context by demonstrating the sort of BS coming from your heroes and highlighting who they, some of them, were. In other words it was to prepare the ground for what came next.
That is the trouble with you black is white/white is black and no shades in between types, more than one colour of argument or factor and you are all at sea.
Clang!
Jonas.
Of course it does not stupid. It was laying out the context by demonstrating the sort of BS coming from your heroes and highlighting who they, some of them, were. In other words it was to prepare the ground for what came next.
That is the trouble with you black is white/white is black and no shades in between types, more than one colour of argument or factor and you are all at sea.
That is where your ignorance once again lets you down as this demonstrates , Singer is the smear and no you don't 'think'
Lancaster's words:
This matter was raised some time ago here at Deltoid Nobody should trust S Fred Singer.
But keep up with your ideologically driven, and probably funded, stupid. This way more will learn how bankrupt, on many levels, your arguments are. Remember I have hardly started yet.
BTW Have you studied the entirety of John Mashey's work?
Of course you haven't, you would rather argue from ignorance.
Jonas, here is some more:
Who framed Roger? Rabett
wherein one of the respondents supplies this link OSS: The Cosmos Myth.
and here: The Real Truth About the Revelle-Gore Story we find this reply:
Now can you understand how a poor scientist, with a new family to support as it happened, was bullied by S Fred who had the deep pockets of the FFL to back him. That is what a SLAPP suit is, it is financial bully boy tactics.
Not only do you appear to not-understand climate science but also don't know much about the history of denial. You must do better.
Read 'Climate Cover Up', 'Merchants of Doubt' and then 'Doubt is Their Product' and 'Golden Holocaust', or remain wilfully ignorant and pig headed.
WRT SandyJonas, I have answered your points about why the impact of Sandy was unusual and extreme, lookee here for more on this: Top 5 Weather & Climate Challenges Facing White House where we find this:
.
Now try hand-waving that away again, and all the other points raised in the above.
Hint, even Curtin knew when to stop digging, admittedly he moved on to other 'venues' and was treated just the same. In the end - with utter disdain.
@Lionel
Careful Lionel, you're starting to look like a one man Astroturfing advocacy machine. That last link, haven't you posted that once already?
It's from Climate Central;
"Mission Statement
Communicate the science and effects of climate change to the public and decision-makers, and inspire Americans to support action to stabilize the climate and prepare for impacts of climate change."
Not exactly NOAA, NASA or the Met Office are they?
(Anybody know what's happened to Tim? it's the 2nd and there's no Dec thread, normally a bit more punctual than this)
chek - as I said, you guys go bonkers over the existence of a few private citicens who blog and are trying to get by.
Those Mega-bucks you all rant about, all the way up to your revered 'climate scientists' and failed Veeps are nowhere to be found.
And you (lots of you) are unable to argue the case, the possibility and extent of an A in GW. Whenever that core question is raised you need to switch to different things, preferably all those myths you nourish, and rant about that all those not believing them, or arguing other viewpoints are bad bad baddies. And then you try to 'prove' that by more of the same or similar nonsense.
You shout like little children, stamping your feet and cussing, hoping that insults and name-calling will strengthen your stance, try stupid 'linked to' implications and conspiracy theories, and get these from the silliest blogs around. Incidentally, all of which need to 'strengthen' the case of the 'home team' by deleting comments which counters the picture they'd like to paint. RC, Deltoid, Stoat, SkSc, Rabbet, Tamino, and the others too.
And almost all arguments are counterfactual and what you 'attac' grossly misrepresented.
What the heck does an opionion piece in Financial Post even has to do with trying to show a stream of money towards WUWT!? Nothing whatsoever! And still we here this and Rabbet and Mashey are 'crucial evidence' ... And it seems they don't even know 'for what'?
The claim here (both you, Lionen och Jeffie) is that BH, WUWT and CA are astroturfing activist which are funded by outside sources. The closes 'funding' provided was a grant of 90k$ for a different project. Peanut crumbs ..
And what does that money show, even if it indirectly helped keep WUWT alive? How does it 'prove' that Watts is wrong or disingeneous?
And this stupid talk about 'my heros'? I have not referred to them or made the argument that what they say therefore also must be true. Thats the stupid stuff you find on your side. Blogposts and activists, cartoonints, Al Gore and Oreskes.
Now chek, I have been around a lon long time, and seen various activists how they rant and cheer. And in this topic, those who feel that 'denier' or 'denialist' or 'anti-science' and similar are 'arguments' to be used, they never have anything of substance to contribute. They repeat what they have heard and meomorized, but discussing any topic, they are incapable of.
The lot of you here, all those who cherish the word 'deniar' are excellent demonstrations of that.
@Lionel,
Actually, Climate central are good case in point. From their "Funding" page;
Anonymous
Changing Horizons Fund of the Rockefeller Family Fund
ClimateWorks
The David & Lucille Packard Foundation
The Dixon Family Fund
Flora Family Foundation
Foundation for Environmental Research
Google.org
The High Meadows Foundation
Island Foundation
Kresge Foundation
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
NASA Headquarters
NASA Langley
National Institutes of Health via Johns Hopkins University
National Science Foundation via Columbia University
National Science Foundation via George Mason University
NOAA CICS (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) via North Carolina State University
Northrup Grumman
Peter T Paul Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation via Pepperwood Preserve
The Pisces Foundation
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
The Robert & Ellen Gutenstein Foundation
Robertson Foundation
Saul D Levy Foundation
The Schmidt Family Foundation
Town Creek Foundation
Turner Foundation, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Department of Energy
University of Tennessee
V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation
The Winslow Foundation
The World Bank via The Nature Conservancy
Formatting's probably screwed.
Doesn't look as though they starve though does it.
;)
Lionel
You are not that well versed with science, are you? My question was if you believe there any part of Sandy can be attributed to human CO2 emissions.
You seem to answer that you believe it was aggravated by AGW. But that wasn't the questiond. It was wheter this belief also can be demonstrated wrt this causation.
And I am 100% certain, that you can't. Heck you spent two days not even understanding the question.
You little shouting activists, reading Rabbet and DeSmogBlog etc, cannot even understand the simpler questions. Of course you would be completely unable to understand the very difficult task to demonstrate scientifically that a weather event would have been different in a very specific way if ththere had been less CO2 in the atmosphere.
With you little ranters, its all about religuous belief, and that's why you are so obsessed with what the 'heretics' say and are doing.
@Lionel
Hey look Lionel - I can post that type of stuff too.
http://www.greencease.org/article/21/follow_the_money_the_morality_of_g…
"Members of the board of WRI, are Al Gore and Theodore Roosevelt IV. Mr Roosevelt is the chairman of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. and is the former chairman of the ill-fated Lehman Brothers’ Global Council on Climate Change and a board member of the Alliance for Climate Protection, whose chairman is Al Gore. The 2008 income for Gore’s “Alliance” was over $88m. Nice."
Further Lionel
I had looked into that Lancaster story previously, and there is no real beef there either. Again it's nothing but you activists shouting faul play.
Lancaster was urged byr Al Gore to start this fight, and made some public and defaming statements about Singer and didn't stop at that. even tried to rewrite history and have namens removed, records deleted. Ie the usual tactics from your camp ..
Well, he got taken to task for his actions, and conceded in court that he'd gone to far
Best case scenario (for your side) is that he really really believed what he said but couldn't prove it. And was forced to retract ..
But Al Gore tried more of the same at the same time, slinging his mud at anybody whom he saw as opposing his views.
And I really wouldn't trust anybody in the Gore camp on anything wrt to global warming.
But still there is no beef. Singer and Revelle's Cosmos piece is not very controversial, it jsut goes against the extremist side, and spoils the stupid, untrue narrative of a 'consensus' just a little bit.
That's all. It neither proves or disproves anything. To me it sounds like one or two activists claiming privilege to knowing exactly what one deceased scientist really meant. It's all quite petty anda stupid.
But hey, this is climate activism for you ...
;-)
Keep digging boys - you must be real close now to convincing yourselves.
Let me see.
Sea surface temperatures were higher,
Sea levels are higher,
Because of more heat energy in the earth's systems - there are so many sources that can prove this.
The increase in energy in recent times is due to the earth warming because heat is not being released back to space as fast as it is coming in.
This is because of the known increase in GHGs with an isotopic signature that can only come from anthropogenic sources.
That is based upon basic physics understood since the time of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrenhius and taken forward by such as Callendar, Bolin, Revell and of course Keeling.
The behaviour of molecules WRT various energy levels, wavelengths of electromagnetic energy is also a part of the underlying physics.
I didn't think a person of your claimed abilities would have needed reminding about the underlying causes.
You have come away from the Revelle, Lancaster Singer story with a direct inversion of the truth. Why is this, poor comprehension or ideological blinkers. Whichever you are a total idiot for we all loose out here if we do not reign in GHGs. You included you dipstick!
What this stupid Lancaster story is/was about is an article in Cosmos coauthored by Fred Singer and Roger Revelle (Al Gores alleged but very questionable 'mentor' regarding global warming).
I had never heard of that article before the climate nutters braught it up, it is not very controversial or of any larger consequences. But it was not the picture Al Gore wanted to paint.
And for that reason he/they wanted Revelles factual coauthorship revoked. And made som very nasty accusations in order to achieve this. No suprise there ...
You guys really want to radicate all opposition 'swat them like flies' as Jeffie put it. :-) Or ban them everywhere you can ..
And this purportedly because your scienctific case is so strong. So strong that nobody can argue it. That the core messages of the alleged science are nowhere to be found in all thos IPCC references ..
And you still wonder why you are not convincing? Why the public is losing interest in your alarmism? Why the direction is to move away from catastrophism towards saner and more resonable views. Among all but the die-hard activist, a few pot-commited academics, and the ones who swallowed all this and are dyed and duped to the core?
Well I am not suprised. If anything it is surpising that it has taken so long ... But then again, that's what happens if politics get involved. The damage lasts for ages ... We haven't really recovered from all the damage done by you lefties last century ...
Lionel
That's almost cute ..
You are trying to make a scientific argument. And doing this by piling up various talkning points you've no doubt come across ..
And still, you fail to address the question and the relation to Sandy. Maybe you are even aware of that here ar many links missing (not only re: Sandy) and that's why pile up talking points, and name-drop Tyndallm Fourrier etc ..
And conclude with the usual vary convincing: "you are a total idiot .. you dipstick!"
About the strength and depth of Jeffies 'scientific' arguments!
Let's just take one part (that has been frequently used), the alleged higher sea levels. For all I know these have been rising at about the same rate before and after CO2 emissions. But lets assume your side of the argument, that some of that rise may be caused by human GHG emissions. How much?
And how different would Sandys impact have been if sea levels really had been those few millimeters less? Seriously? And how much is this when compared to the unfavourable tidelevels at the time it hit? Or do you want to 'attribute' Sandy's timing too to CO2?
;-)
I'll stop there. But remind you once more of the 'can be attributed' part of the Sandy ...
The armwaiving I hardly have to ask you about.
Funny too that you claim to posess the truth about Lancaster. As I said, I've read up on it, all the way to the court affidavits. The only reason I ever came across that issue is because you (the Al Gore side) kept on pestering about it ... Who would ever have cared about a Cosmos article from 20+ years ago
"Three private individuals (Watts, Montford, McIntyre)"
You mean three right wing hacks...
Not a real scientist amongst them.
What experience of this thread from the beginnning will show you Lionel, is that Jonarse will claim to have read something, with the implication that he's understood it.
Such inferences are invariably wrong
"You little shouting activists..."
Jonas is of course referring to >90% of the scientific community and every prestigious scientific organization on Earth. Funny that this little fact always bypasses him.
He believes, in the tried and trusted behavior of a denier, that <5% of the world's scientists, no reputable national organizations, and the right wing punditocracy that agree with his side represent the sound, mature side of the scientific debate.
And one wonder why so many of us here consider Jonas to be a complete and utter imbecile. It also explains why no one has heard of the guy outside of a few blogs. Anonymous deniers with wafer-thin arguments feel safe sniping from the sidelines. But you don't see many of them trying to break tackles in the open field.
Jonas: you are an unknown minion. Same goes for GSW. No scientific publications, no lectures, no seminars, no nothing. If it makes you feel all excited getting a few people to respond to your bull-crap on a blog or two, then go with it. But it is a relief to know that you are effectively shut out from the scientific arena.
Hurray for small mercies.
Yes Jeff..
They're private citizens, and they bug the hell out of you nutty activists. And coming from you, the term 'right wing hacks' means absolutely nothing. But how many on your side are left leaning ideologes? I would reckon, quite a few. That doesn't invalidate anything you/they say per se. But I'd guess it comes in the way of straight thinking quite often. But hey, it was you who brought up yet another unscientific attempt at labelling instead of arguing the facts. What a surprise (nt)
And mind you two of them are published scientists in the flied of climatology. Again you seem to be confusing the essence with some piece of paper on which things are stated.
I would say that Steve McIntyre is by far mor a real scientist than many who masquerade as such. Definitely compared to you Jeff. It is true that he is (or at least was) unfamiliar with the academic way of doing science. But then again, only a nutter would think that real science has to be carried out in academia, or that 'publishing' is the ultimate test of science.
Further Jefffie
No, 90% of the scientific community (which you previously claimed to speak for) are not shouting stupidities like you, and a few fellows here. Not even among the climate scientists is the rhetoric as derailed as among you.
And as you very well know, those organisations don't either. Their boards have made statments to echo the IPCC cliams (which you by now know to be overstated) without consulting or polling their memberships. Several of them have reversed that stance, and other are trrying tu bury that there is fierce objection to such stated beliefs.
"why so many of us here consider Jonas to be a complete and utter imbecile"
You know the answer to that Jeffie .. Because you so dearly want to belive that. Half of your comments are directed at constructing those whishes as 'established facts'. And again you are leaning on a 'majority' who believs shout 'denier' or 'Dunning Kruger' constitutes an argument.
I told you 1½ years ago that that doesn't fly in science ... but then of course, that's not what your peddling here ... never were. Which instead is 'a shouting little activist'
The salient thing is Jonarse, for all your ineffective huffing anf puffing your "point" regarding attribution hasn't flown ANYWHERE.
Why is that? My guess is your winbaggery is just that - the puffings of a verbose, moronic windbag and his accompanying coop of li'll chickens.
chek - You make the claim that this thread somehow shows that I don't know what I'm talkning about!? Either you haven't followed it, or you suffer from similar delusions as Jeffie, who irresitably wants to replace reality with what he feels should be the truth instead.
At some point you made a reasonable comment about 'attributing a part of Sandy to human CO2', but Lionel has been pounding the opposite from the beginning. And you side with him here.
Sorry chap, but that doesn't fly either. Shouting stupid activism .. Denier Denier Denier .. Dunning Kruger to the cube .. JonArse in almost every comment .. that has been your main line here ...
And you don't know physics. And still you want to beat me over the head about what can and cannot be established based on physics!? Which means that self awareness isn't part of your skillset either ...
Heck, almost all of you were siding with post-reality-physics -expert 'luminous b' in a simple matter of a sliding box .. and set your hopes to utter (and easily checkable) nonsense. And failed!
Maybe that still stings, and that's why you are in denial. Or wors, you still believe that you did bet on the right side.
Wlle wich is it? Jeff, Wow, chek, were in on it. Sorry Lionel, I can't say for certain you were too. But if you had been there, I'm very certain you would have chimed in with the nutters also then ...
So chek ...
The absence of any possible attribution of (part of) Sandy, to any human "hasn't flown anywhere"!?
Well, then you probably can direct me to someone/where where my observation is contradicted based on science and sound argument/reasoning and proper demonstration of causation.
If not, you are essentially conceding my point.
All those loonies who want to attribute (even only a part of) Sandy to human CO2 are talking (or repeating) nonsense. Including Lionels attempts here ..
... and yet everyone employed and professionally involved in the field, including every National Academy of every major country doesn't dispute that attribution. It's only blog-posting you and your little band of contrarian nutters.
Nor have you taken your objections outside of your stupid blogposts to places where rhetoric doesn't count. Why is that, Jonarse? It's OK, I'm pretty sure everyone knows the answer to that including you and your fresh-faced coop.
chek .. repetition of claims is not science.
If there is sceince behind it, it can be found and checked. And Re: Sandy, I don't know of any academies puting their (remaining) weight behid such claims ..
And you have no clue, just as little as fantasizing little Jeffie, to what I do when I am not mocking you fake-science-promoters here ...
None!
But you claim to speak for 'everyone'!? Another giveaway ...
The thing is Jonarse, that you refuse to "see" the science that is there to be seen (by all those scary "activist" Academies), and that will never change. Not as long as your mission parameters remain.
This is getting nuttier by the minute, chek!
Now you claim to speak for everyone involved, that every professional and even every academy and whole countries believe in such an attribution which essentially none of them even attempted to perform!?
Completely amazing, chek!
Nuttier by the minute! You just demonstrated two things:
1) You relly believe that Sandy was caused or aggravated by the A in GW, and
2) You believe that everybody else also shares not only those beliefs, but that this attribution can be made, ie demonstrated
Which is essenatiall what I've claimed all along:
That what you are harbouring is a (relgious type of) belief system. That your views are based on beliefs you harbour and which you cannot substantiate. And when challenged, you simply invent things, that so manay more shar this faith, that there is a consensus and that you think everybody (except the 'heretics') share the same belief.
Accept without proof, argument or demonstration. Even in the face of empirical evidence that no such trends can be established ...
You are truly part of an amazing cult ... But fortunately, its dwindling now. Just not quick enough ..
chek ...
the problem is the opposite. Quite early I asked to see the science behind that infamous AR4 claim .. and nobody ever even attempted to present it.
Academy statements are not science .. science is something which can be demonstrated, with detailed methods so that others can be convinced, or repeat the procedures to check if they work.
My 'mission parameters' were to see if anyone of you had seen that 'science' which you claimed to base your beliefs on ... and so far non of you has.
So why am I discussing 'science' with the likes of you who have never seen it!? Do you think it is coincidence that all of you (essentially) need to revert to stupid insuts the monent I ask a pertinent question? Do you think it's conicidence that Michael Mann refuses to debate any of his critics? Or even Al Gore?
I am just pointing out the obvious ... and we can all see what that leads to here.
So why hasn't your Great Revelation gone anywhere Jonarse? And why haven't you knocked down the whole house of cards?
You don't need me to tell you the answer to that do you Jonarse? I was there seeing you cut off at the knees on every forum used by professional scientists.
All you've achieved is Griselda and Olap and PantisizeZ for your efforts. That must be a wonderful consolation to you.
"why haven’t you knocked down the whole house of cards?"
Don't think there's much left to knock down chek, it's pretty much a busted flush.
Your comprehension skills are as inadequate as ever, Griselda. But a perspective such as yours is to be expected when you choose only to swim in the infosewers, as is your inevitable wont.
Well chek .. can you demonstrate that your beliefs are shared by essentially every professional and all countries and academies? About what (part of) Sandy can be attributed to?
Or were these cliams just things you found in the 'info sewers' which you frequent!?
Thje idea that the 'cult' - i.e. those who perceive reality as determined by evidence and actual scientists, as opposed to filtered by their Libtard ideology and the spoutings of corporate whores - is 'dwindling' is as well evidenced as all your other quarter-arsed (let's face it, they don't even make it to half-arsed!) claims.
Why am you discussing 'science' indeed?! You're too stupid to even appreciate that you've lost the debate...
bill .. if there had been actual science behind that infamous AR4 claim, I'm sure even you morons would have found it by now... five+ years later.
And yet you are wholly unable to show that the emperor has no clothes, why is that Jonarse?
Could it be that failure to see is a failing in you? Of course that's not an admission you can make, being the one and only treasured USP you have to sell.
chek - The absence if any proper science establising that prominent AR4 claim pretty much establishes the absence of clothes ... Unless you now want to claim that those clothes arw to be found elsewhere, where nobody dares to show them ... And it would still be my point!
You are taking things on faith, and pure faith ,,, knowingly by now
More on the 'dwindling cult'.
Jonas, you are a pathetic, useless individual, and the world would, in all seriousness, have been a better place had you never been born.
Same goes for your pointless acolytes.
Sod off, the lot of you.
Ah bill, the idea of a better world if just some of its inhabitants could be eradicated .. where have we heard that on before? I think it was another selfproclaimed friend and protector of the environment.
And you too, of course now claim to be speaking on behalf of 'the world' .. I am not surprised
Gee - play the manipulative 'exterminist conspiracy' card - now there's a surprise! Like the pathetic Cold War relic that you are...
Clearly I forgot to add, you're also a pompus, hypocritical, hysterical, paranoiac, narcissitic humbug.
The Reality Wars are over, little man: you lost. Now, have the decency to STFU.
Ah bill ... I lost ... and you won!? And I should take your word for that? And everything else you say?
On faith? Or because your ABC-link claims 4-6 degrees more by 2100? You know, that this would mean more than a 10-fold increase in rate compared to the warming we've had so far. Of which at most half could possibly be due to CO2.
As I said, the nutters are growing fewer and nuttier ...
4-6 degrees, by end of this century bill .. Pah!
Jonas, 'rate' of what?
You cannot even lay out a coherent statement, this demonstrates quite clearly the chaotic state of your cognitive processes. You are either a wilfully ignorant moron (like Morano) or a mendacious tool of the FFL (like Morano).
That the FFL have been corrupting the science-public policy interface with BS aimed at manufacturing doubt since before the start of the nineteen naughties has been established by the following:
The late, and much missed, Stephen Schneider [1], in his book 'Science as a Contact Sport',
Ross Gelbspan in 'The Heat is On',
James Hoggan & Richard Littlemore in 'Climate Cover-Up'
Naomi Oresekes & Erik M Conway in 'Merchants of Doubt'
To misconstrue the Revelle-Singer-Lancaster story in the way that you have demonstrates again that you are either a wilfully ignorant moron (like Morano) or a mendacious tool of the FFL (like Morano).
You appear as a particularly nasty example of a troll for the contrarians. Any intelligent, roundly educated (which means gaining information from a broad swath of the sciences, history and socio-political issue [2]), sensible and honest person who dips into those books searching indices using the relevant names, including also Michaels and Lindzen will be appraised of how nastily perverted your lines of argument are.
[1] Who in a presentation in front of a largely hostile audience broadcast on Australian TV was so courteous and painstaking in his replies, in particular to a short sighted farmer who refused to understand the issues and a GP who couldn't understand the 'bath tub' analogy WRT building GHG levels. This at a time when Schneider was clearly gravely ill.
This is typical, on one side we have had openness and courteous honesty and on the other all manner of dirty tricks from bulling law suits to pushing of partial truths, downright lies and subversion of the democratic process (through the media and election irregularities - see Greg Palast on that latter). It is way past time to stop playing nice with the likes of you. You have clearly shown that you don't deserve that.
[2] We don't see such a balanced outlook from many of those who have been home-schooled, and it frequently shows.
Also the ever growing trend for individuals to get their news from one or two sources or restrict the sources of information for a narrow range of interests (blood sports are typical) is not good for setting humanity on a sustainable course.
Lionel ..
The ABC-piece talked about 4-6 degrees this century. Depend how you interpret that it means a warming of some 5 degrees in 88 years.
You can (well, maybe not you, but someone with a basic science degree could) calculate the rate of warming necessary to reach those prediction. And compare them to how it has looked so far. You know the 'unprecedented' levels of temperature and increase rates so far.
And yes, I am aware of all those concpiray-books. I'm not the least suprised that you get your 'facts' from such sources. But they nowhere manage to establish any coorruption of any science.
It's jsut the usual innuendo, trying to smear people with different (non-äactivist) views trough imagined or constracted 'connections' ... the stuff you guys feed of, whil avoiding the real issues.
The fuss about Revelle was that some activists didn't like him being co-author on a Cosmos piece. And tried very hard to change that afterwards. Those are the facts, Lionel. The story after is documented. The accusations (by Lancaster) were very speculative, and he went too far. Again, you are obsessing about a co-authorship on a piece 20+ years ago. It is immaterial to argue about what exactly were the views of Revelle back then. Lancaster pretty much claimed that Revelle became a co-author against his will. And couldn't prove such claims in court.
And your incessant and stupid insults are growing a bit old, my dear Lionel. Whil your arguments are incoherent, mostly activist fodder from the worse sources. And you still have not established one thing.
It started by my pointing out that BH, CA and WUWT essentially are private citizens with very little (if any) funding for their blogging. Individuals who upset the (C)AGW-industry to levels they virtually lose it!
Reading your last comment looks like you want to give the impression of the CAGW-industry and the billions of dollars spent annually on and around it ... is being bullied and unfairly treated by three bloggers, som thinktanks who barely get by, and commenters and scientists who on question the dogms of the climate church on their spare times.
You still haven't found thes huge monies, and iven if you find them (alleged millions) they're peanut crumbs compared to what activists spend on their activism. And regardless of that, those activists and even the louder public figures dare not debate their views on a level playing field. Dare not expose themselves to valid and pointed questions and criticism when other can see them.
Sorry Lionel, but the smearing and mudsllining, the ad homs, the strongarming tactics, the urge to want to shut people up, etc ... they all abound in your trench .. I think it was good that Gores tactics didn't work for once back in 1994 (?) and Lancaster mayby just was a usful tool while it lasted. I can understand if he is bitter.
Regarding your last point, I actually agree with you. That's one of the reasons I ask people with views and beliefs different than mine, what their best arguments are for their view.
And quite often (on this topic) it comes down to exactly what has transpired here. Essentially no substance, but tons and tons of (attempted) abuse.
Quite often without even understanding what issues are debated and why ...
It is truly surreal to watch quite a few individuals (who probably think of them selves as educated and even intellgient) spout insults as the core part of their argument .. .
I've seen this behavior mainly in extreme leftist cults and cells, and other groups who search inwards among them for confirmation and shun contact with the outer world ..
That's what I referred to when I noted that so many here want to be protected and demand exclusion of dissenting voices. And a large part of the climate industry is similarly afraid of meeting reality ..
Yeah right Fantasy Boy.
"a large part of the climate industry is similarly afraid of meeting reality" - that would be the 'industry' with actual research and peer reviewed science backing it up, whereas you have paid cranks shysters and liars on your side.
Your a clown, Jonarse.
Now let me see, the amount of warming we have seen so far is......?
And thus 'a more than 10-fold increase in rate' is ....?
Something a little odd there.
Whatever, the take home point is this, if we stopped increasing GHGs tomorrow then temperatures will continue to rise until such times as all components of the climate system reach energy exchange equilibrium.
Indeed, the final balance is unlikely to be reached for more than a millennium due to the inertia in the oceanic systems where most of the extra heat is going. This is partly why the waters are expanding. The other part is from glacial run off.
The true effects of that increased flow of water are muted by increased catchment behind dams and increased irrigation for agriculture. And it was the increased amount of water in the atmosphere due to rising temperatures over recent years that caused a slight hiatus in the increasing rate of sea level rise. Other example of inertia.
You accuse me of not knowing science and yet you still fail to grasp these points.
That you still can chant on about not answering your simplistic question WRT Sandy is another pointer to your weird thought processes. The bottom line to that is that global warming may or may not have caused the formation of Sandy but it sure as heck brought on the climate change that made Sandy the monster that it became.
So what science have you done? Enough to be a dental technician or something perhaps? Brain surgeon?
And did you not note the date of the latest response from Lancaster WRT Revelle being tricked? Your arguments there are as bankrupt as any other, and getting more incoherent at that.
Here is your theme tune. I wonder if anyone can recall what was on the reverse of that?
Jonas who cannot grok Sandy this is for you:
As Brutal Record Hurricane Season Ends, NBC Says It’s The New Normal Since Climate Change Is ‘Right Here, Right Now’
be sure to watch the video and listen to Heidi Cullen.
Hand wave that away.
Lionel, the only odd thing would be if you found my statement odd. Especially after the second time. It's OK to ask if you really find this difficult. But that's not what you did. Instead you said:
"You cannot even lay out a coherent statement, this demonstrates quite clearly the chaotic state of your cognitive processes. You are either a wilfully ignorant moron ... "
And I see that you pile up a bunch of talking-points (Al Gore-level) about the climate alamism. But no, none of these are science, they are the tabloid version of the (C)AGW hypothesis. And you really don't think I've heard these before!? Really?
Re: Sandy
You seem to be claiming that Global Warming made Sandy the monster it was. "[S]ure as heck" were your words.
Again, do you really think such a statement of attribution can be demonstrated? And have you still missed that it was the possible A in GW I was asking about?
And I missed what 'date was tricked' wrt to Lancaster. Thats essentially a non-issue. You brought it up to somehow support your idea that WUWT (and possibly more) received substantial funding for their blogging, secretly. But if your main sources are all those blogs, sites and books you linked and listed, I would expect you to essentially know nothing of any of the issues. Heck, there is a reason for why you are hanging here ...
Joan, you have nothing to say because there's no reason to believe a word of what you put down.
Sound and fury, signifying nothing.
"Again, do you really think such a statement of attribution can be demonstrated?"
What causes hurricanes, dipshit?
Why don' t they happen in the temperate zones or in continental interiors?
SSTs.
And when the SSTs rise, you get a hurricane as an option where you didn't before.
SSTs increasing power hurricanes.
And when the SSTs rise, you power a stronger hurricane.
Really, you're like the creotards going "Prove that we evolved from monkeys!!!!" (for some reason, they don't accept a link to your posts as evidence we haven't all managed to evolve *away* from monkeys yet.
Prove your lights are caused by electrons running through your light filament, you ignorant arsehole.
Go on, prove it.
..."they’re peanut crumbs compared to what activists spend on their activism"
Pure and utter bulls***. This statement alone should tell everyone wasting their time with the Swedish meathead what an utterly deluded person he is.
No more need be said. End of story.
Jeff ...
Instead of your empty puffing .. show me where those bloggers receive those secret millions of $$ you were going on about.
So far, and in spite of your repeated efforts to the contrary, you have not demonstrated one bit anything that isn't fully legitimate and part of a debate on both science and policy.
The big part missing, and what you activists go on and on about, is still how any of your (mostly imagined) money is paid to for the purpose of forwarding disingeneous positions wrt to climate.
And are you really unaware of what money is being floated around to all those GONGOs and various UN and other programs who all feed of the climate hysteria.
Why don't you finally show that right whing instead of just claiming that it is there but secret ...
Wow .. thank you again for your valuable contribution.
And although I just inte last comment had pointed out that the issue was not GW but the possible A-component to it, this little detail must just have slipped your mind while you took the precious time to share your profound thoughts and insights on the matter.
Mustn't it?
So you agree that SSTs increasing made Sandy worse.
Well, the A component is demonstrable entirely in exactly the same way as someone can deduce the murder when they're standing by the dead body with a smoking gun in their hand saying "I DID IT!!! AND I'LL DO IT AGAIN!!!!".
Fuck it, that joan is a peabrain.
It's not like it hasn't been shown time and time again the A component of this GW event. Hell, the little pindick could just pick up an Exxon shareholder report to find the A component.
Lionel
I see that you still rely on some of the worse activist sites for filtering and interpreting (and exaggerating) informaion and spin for you. But even Heidi Cullen, who definitely leans in the direction of your beliefs. is careful avoiding attributions. It's all 'possibly' and 'maybe' and 'if it continues further ..' or 'if our models are correct .. ' etc.
But the point is, in spite of your media-headline, hurricane seasons har not getting worse over the years, and witth the increased observed temperatures. If anything, the trend is slightly downwards.. It is the reporting that is getting worse, but that's something different ...
Wow ..
Are you aware of that it is not the greenhouseffect that heats the oceans? If anything, it lowers the cooling rate, particularly over land, in dryer coller darker, more poe-ward regions.
The possiblke extra 'downwelling' longwave radiation cannot heat the oceans, that is done almost excusively by the sun.
It's a minor detail. Not really relevant to correcting the massively ill informed beliefs you have.
Fact is, that Sand-type storms y have happened before, several times, and att markedly lower temperatures.And couldn't be attributed to human emissions then either.
But science just isn't for you, is it? Belief by the masses, and dumb media reports ... It's way quicker to establish 'facts'. Jeffie is quicker still. He just invents things as he goes! His recent comment just states i regarding those secret millions:
"No more need be said. End of story."
I notice that Bernard J still is trying to rescue the fact that no one here (or anywhere else) can point to any proper science demonstrating that most prominent IPCC AR4 claim about attribution and high certainty. Not one of all the faith believers ...
His preferred method of misdirection is to ask:
'Have you read all these papers (which nobody claims to contain said science). If not, you have not searched properly'
it is a very idiotic argument. It describes science as something that needs to be hidden ..
But then again, he is talking about 'climate science' and all kinds of things are not suitable for public display there ..
..and so Jonarse continues, plinking away at his one note riff on his one string banjo at the riff that neither Michaels, Lindzen or the Fabulous Furry Flying Idso Brothers will touch with a bargepole, hoping against hope to have a worldwide hit with it that's never gonna happen. It was a minor hit on the Swedish gay club scene (championed by the other Bjorn, but sadly obscurity doesn't come any more obscure than that.
Meanwhile AR4 Chapter 9 is working on a follow up provisionally titled AR5 Chapter 9, with expectations said to exceed athose of another Led Zep reunion. (which to anyone who has seen the Celebration Day release of the 2007 show, is a very high bar indeed).
chek
Essentially, you are making my point for me:
Nobody has ever seen any science baking up those claims. And your assertions above, that claimed "actual research and peer reviewed science backing it up" on your side but which nobody ever can detail or even has seen, makes things worse for you. It menas that those who claimed this were doing this in blind faith or lying. And the same things goes for all of you repeating those claims.
Now it seems that you pin your hopes to that AR5 finally will prove all such beliefs right .. well good luck!
And you are wrong again. I can knowingly discuss quite a few aspects of the climate hysteria. But whenever I do, you guys derail and want to switch topics.
You had one partly mature comment earlier, that of course Sandy cannot be attributed to exactly human CO2 emissions. But you never got closer. Rather the opposite ..
You merely underline that you, as an individual - Jonarse the Moron - don't comprehend attribution.
Thank you for reinforcing the point so speedily.
Did anybody notice that the recent "letter from 125 "scientists"" did not include Ian Plimer's name?
You're going to get awfully lonely there under that dunce cap in very short order, JOnas.
Dear me, I see the intellectuals have arrived.
;)
Your doing a good job Jonas, Keep it Up! They must get it eventually. The requirement for evidence to back up claims, theories to be tested empirically, It's all part of science. For those of you that have not come across the term before it's spelt S-C-I-E-N-C-E.
There some long established principles that we try to adhere to, sort of makes it work. How are you alarmists getting on with your leeches, ouija boards and witch-dunkings? Any new portents of doom we should be aware of?
;)
It's hard work Jonas, but think of it as missionary work to the heathen.
chek, your problem is that it is the other way around. Attribution in real sciences is something very different from armwaiving, consensus claiming, implied linked-to connections, and the glaring gaps filled in with wishful thinking. And of course from the CV-waiving, authority elevating and stupid name calling.
And deep down you know it too, at least partially. You just don't want it to be so, not pointed out in public and definitely not by me. But that's your problem, not mine ...
Vince W
Yeah, the promises about what is to come have been many, far reaching and sometimes spectacular, in the name of so called climate science and expecially from the supporting foot soldiers ...
Incidentally, those supporters quite often are called scientists and experts when commenting on such things. But I guess on your side those labels are fully legitimate every single time!?
"Attribution in real sciences is something very different from armwaiving, consensus claiming, implied linked-to connections, and the glaring gaps filled in with wishful thinking."
Indeed it is. Your point?
"Are you aware of that it is not the greenhouseffect that heats the oceans?"
Yup.
Are you?
Do you know what does?
"The possiblke extra ‘downwelling’ longwave radiation cannot heat the oceans"
No, apparently not.
According to this idiot, H20 in liquid form is transparent to IR radiation...
"Fact is, that Sand-type storms y have happened before"
Fact is, they happen for a reason.
You seem to have problems with "reasons" you seem to want to insist they are completely random events with no cause and no mechanism for cause.
Like I've always said, you're a nobody who has never once demonstrated that they know what they're talking about.
Wow -- as ever so often, there is no coherent argument in what you write. Its only brainless ranting, disconneted from both issues and reality.
You still haven't gotten around the 'attribution' part. And contrary to your latest claim, what you tried time and again is exactly "armwaiving, [and] implied linked-to connections'
"Fact is, they happen for a reason"
Fact is that quite a few claim, or want to imply that human CO2 was the reason, or part of it. Demonstrably more CO2 is not a necessary requirement ..
I would say that you have a quite severe problem both with reason, with reason, and reasoning ...
Demonstrably more CO2 is not a necessary requirement
No barnaclebrain, but the well known effects of more CO2 help provide the necessary conditions.
Hanging round with the company you keep must be knocking 10 IQ points a week off you, and you only started in double figures.
"Demonstrably more CO2 is not a necessary requirement "
Cyanide isn't a necessary component of poison either.
This doesn't mean it won't kill you if you ingest it.
"You still haven’t gotten around the ‘attribution’ part."
Yes I did. But you missed it because you're too busy getting a BJ for GSW.
AGW causes higher SSTs.
Attributing the change of SSTs that cause hurricanes increasing to AGW.
Attribution.
"or want to imply that human CO2 was the reason"
Nope, not human CO2.
CO2.
Currently humans are increasing it.
But it doesn't matter what caused the CO2 increase.
GSW
What we see here (and unfortunately elsewere, even from more 'official' places too) is a new version of science. Some might call it post-modernism or post normal science, but partly I'd say its even post that.
Post modernism was the idea that in understanding (mostly cultural, social) phenomena anything goes, if you just feel it , argue it, want and believe it. That there are many simultaneous layers of reality to be viewed and interpreted differently, by different individuals. Contradictions are no problem and no view is better than another. It wants to distance itself from the idea of one objective reality. (Most often the desire is abandon the need for meticulous and hard work, to replace it easier softer wishing instead)
Post normal science, is when such post modern ideas are introduced also into the real and hard science fields. Examples are when math and physics should be interpreted differently from a gender perspective etc.
In climatology we see all sorts of post modern arguments being put forward. Unfortunately also by 'offical scientists'
They are too many to be listed, but the idea of a model explaing what is not understood, or that many model runs quantify the degree of uncertainty are some of them. The invention of large positive feedbacks or that CO2 rules H2O as a slave parameter globally are some ..
Also al the post hoc adjustments that need to be appended.
But equally bad is the argumentation from its proponents, all the way from Trenberth and Mann, with the backward reasoning and arguments, such as reversed null hypothesis or ¨we have no other explanation'. Verry irritating too is the notion of that vage, shaky and contradictory hyptheses and thereupon built models should be accepted as 'best knowlege' because no alternative is presented.
Brrrr ... none of these arguments is even close to any real science.
And if we go down the ladder, and listen to the 'experts' that make up the 'consensus' who are just repeating the memes and talking points, who are clueless to any scientifically pointed question pointed at them, if they have not a rehearsed reply ready, or instead try a different reheared reply.
And closer to the bottom, we find all these 'soft science' types who hope that finally their time has come to be 'of real importance', to part of reshaping the world and how it is understood.
But interspersed we also have the small and sometimes big cheating with the data, where lack of information, or large uncertainties are us as the argument for the pet-hypothesis, or even taken as opportunity to fill in what is desired.
Jeff Harvey, inventing all kinds of things about all the (rest of the) world he does not know or understand is only one of the more blatant types: 'Those BigOil millions are secret, that you cannot see them is proof of it. And therfor you are an idiot' - kind of arguments. Incidentally he is back att producing CAPITAL strawmen en masse in his protected zone again. Poor thing ..
To be fair, the dwellers here are not that many. Those few on their side capable of formulating their stance properly, arguing its merits and understanding/responding to valid counterquestions and even understanding why they are asked their relevance, have abandoned ship, if there ever were that many.
For the remainder its all about the war, the activist agendas and belief systems. Every acknowledged point (to the other side) , every new understanding of the climate, every publication with more sceptical results, every media article or clip with such viewpoints, even existence of bloggers and their traffic are all steps in the wrong direction (and concessions are defeat) and must be avoided at all costs and ferociously counterattacked.
Jeff here, who really knows nothing about the climate, climate science (neither the CAGW-versions, or others), who cannot argue one aspect of that debate properly (actually 'cannot argue properly at all'), who is unaware of what real science and the scientific methods are, has spent 1½ years shouting that everybody not sharing his complete ignorance of this topic, and based upon that also his belief system ..
.. therefor must be a total idiot and a long list of similar epitets.
The main argument from our Jeffie is: He has all the answers and correct understanding of things. Which i cannot even formulate. And those not accepting his 'authority' therefor must be moron, idiots, mentally ill etc.
Its what you expect from 7 - 8 year olds in the schoolyard. But he really seems to mean it exactly that way!
Jonas, do you really, honestly, seriously think I give a rat's ass what you say?
Jeff Harvey, in is protected zone is having another fit over this:
"I wonder whether the Scandinavian Troll Collective has explained yet why the biosphere has ignored their denialism and is instead agreeing lockstep with the consensus climatology"
Which he'd like to explain with:
"No, and they never will .. The guy is a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect"
It seems that he still not has wrapped his braincell around the fact that it is not the global waring that is the issue. It is whether there is an A-component to it, and if so its magnitude.
I guess this must have been pointed out to him some 100 times by now. Nobody has questioned that the biosphere reacts to both temperatures, and in some part to more CO2. Nobody!
But our myth fabricator Jeff Harvey is so convinced of the exact opposite he starts screaming counterfactual:
"climate change DENIAL"
What an utter idiot he must be!
Jeff .. y
"Jonas, do you really ..think I give a rat’s ass what you say?"
You spend quite a lot of your time here fantasizing about me and trying to come up with some final smackdown ... A year and a half by now.
Your comments here, and their content, are the emprical observations ,Jeff. Those which can be shown as corroboration evidence if one would like to make the claim (hypothesis) that what I say matters to or has some effect on you.
The effect is obvious, the cause is often spelled out in detail in your comments. I don't see that I need to add much here ...
"The invention of large positive feedbacks or that CO2 rules H2O as a slave parameter globally are some "
Wow, idiocy in its purest form.
Just because YOU don't understand a bloody thing doesn't mean your misunderstandings belong to anyone but yourself.
"because no alternative is presented."
Where's yours, dipshit?
Wow .. I think you have demonstrated very well how little you understand. For starters, you haven't figured out the difference between 'believing' and 'understanding' yet ...
On a much higher level: The atmospheric H2O content is not governed by its CO2 content. You can believe that (because its true, and I tell you this) or believe whatever else you want. Both alternatives would still only be beliefs ...
Another incoherent, ambiguous and ill constructed rant, further proof that,“You cannot even lay out a coherent statement”. Keep going your making my point for me.
Now as to my difficulty with your statement WRT rate of increase [of something or other, you did not specify where the start was, what values there were at the start and then you later blundered by muttering something about about, 'a more than 10-fold increase in rate' which did not compute with the numbers that you provided at that time] this was because your lack pf precision in language
Now as to an Al Gore level bunch of talking points, that is ridiculous. Why? Because within each article I link to are other links to information that would provide scientific support for the arguments therein. Maybe you don't know about the cleaver way the intertubes are constructed so that instead of having to re-invent the wheel and try to educate (in your case the obviously in-educable where each of us is continuing to bang our head against the brick wall that is you) there are easily available lessons on the science just a few clicks away.
Similarly there is much information available on how the think-tanks and other special interest organisations gather their funds and to whom and how they are distributed. Seeing as the tax payer props up the fossil fuel industry by tax breaks (and higher energy prices) then the tax payer is essentially paying to be hoodwinked by the delayniers. Now that is where one term of the un-ethical expression comes from (using a mathematical analogy). This is what makes the likes of Joe Bast and those he connect fiscally with so disgusting, this ignoring for a moment the scandalous propaganda and character assassination of others. Michaels and Lindzen both have a record here too.
As for the A in AGW, you must have missed my chain of causation so clearly and unambiguously presented on December 2, 2012 , here it is again:
All those points are easily backed up by consulting the scientific record, (including David Archer, Ray Pierrehumbert 'The Warming Papers', much consulted) and indeed you have been provided with ample links to assist with this.
Instead of doing that you hand wave by inferring that we know no science and/or don't have any scientific experience when a reading of any of our collective posts on other threads lays the lie to that.
I have asked you recently – what are your scientific credentials – don't be shy now. Being coy about this diminishes you further. If that were possible.
I have had much scientific education, practice and have a library to support this including a very good text on weather and climate dating back to the 1980s, Roger G. Barry and Richard J Chorley (Fourth Edition 1982) 'Atmosphere, Weather & Climate', ISBN 0-416-33700-7 and building on that my most recent addition is, Hunt Janin (Author), Scott A. Mandia (2012) 'Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact', which I am in the process of reading.
Now my point about dates with Lancaster was to do with the date of his most recent statement putting the Singer-Revelle saga in its proper light. This implies that Singer would rather not drag this up again because he knows how he would now come out i.e Lancaster was right first time.
"For starters, you haven’t figured out the difference between ‘believing’ and ‘understanding’ yet"
Yet you have nothing to base that statement on.
Or do you just "believe" that?
"The atmospheric H2O content is not governed by its CO2 content. "
True.
So what?
Do you "believe" that your "H2O content is not governed by its CO2 content” is sufficient and that you have no need to "understand" it?
Jonas, you've been ranting pretty much at length for a few weeks now.Look at your recent posts. Diatribes one and all. Usually trying to explain my psychologic al state. Clearly I get under your skin... but then again, if the vast majority of scientists who agreed with me decided to write into Deltoid, your bullshit would be truly and utterly washed away down the drain.Your views are very firmly planted on the academic fringe, where they belong.
Your problem (well... one of many) is that you think you're incredibly smart. Stuck in this little corner of the blogosphere, you are feree in your anonymity to spew forth all kinds of crap, packaging it as science, and then to return to your little shell. You seem oblivious to the fact that most posters here think you are a complete pillock; only one (GSW) regularly tries to stoke your bloated ego.
I must admit that, amongst all of the verbal diarrhea that you spew forth in copious amounts, your recent one suggesting that environmental activists have bigger PR budgets than the fossil-fuel, automobile and energy lobby has to be amongst themost clearly deluded and insane. Environmental NGOs depend on membership fees to exist; these plae in comparison to the PR budgets of transnational corporations.In some of the lectures I used to give on the subject, I showed that the fossil-fuel lobby invested 58.3 million dollars in 1998 alone in lobbying members of Congree on various energy bills and regulations; the same year ALL NGOs combined (not only environmental groups, but those advocating on behalf of such disparate topcs as gay rights, women's rights, laws with regards to race, pensions for the elderly, social security groups etc.) invested a paltry 4.3 million dollars. Certainly that from environmentgal NGOs constituted a tiny portion of this. And this is only for direct lobbying money: it does not include the vastly greater sums spent by the fossil-fuel lobby for election campaigns, political donations etc. Just check out to see how much money the oil and electrical utility corporations have invested in politicans like Joe Barton, James Inhofe and other politicians in both major US political parties. It is a staggering amount. Environmental groups do not have this money at their disposal. So who curries the most favor in elite ciircles of government? If you for a second think that policy is influended at all by environmental activists as you call them, then you are even dumber than I previously thought (which is saying a lot).
Exxon-Mobil makes more annual profit thatn all but 13 nations on Earth. Along with Shell, BP, Texaco-Chevron and the other fossil-fuel giants, these corporationsinvest a of money in PR, think tanks and other astroturf groups. That is because they see any imposition of regulations as a threat to the way they do business and to their profit margins. There are quite a few books out there detailing the well funded industry of denial; you simply choose to not read them. Just because your head it firmly planted up your butt does not change reality.
Ultimately, I am fed up with your vast ignorance and self-righteous preaching. You really think that you are a clever guy. It bleeds out every time you write some more of your piffle. But of course, given your self-professed scientific brilliance, I would have expected you to be a houselhold name in the world of science. I would expect to be reading about you in the media, seeing your books advertised on the internet, and for your TED lectures to be promoted long before they are given. Buyt all of this is an illusion. You are an annoyance, but, as I said yesterday, it is nice to know that your fame is very limited in scale. Even here your cannot muster an avalance of support; its tricked away to a few dregs.
Lionel
Lancaster claimed to know that Revelle meant something very different than what was written in a Cosmos piece together with Singer. Essentially he claimed that Revelle was tricked into accepting coautorship and/or content against his will.
There are those who claim to be in contact with the dead, and can to know them to speak for them posthumously. I don't believe such things. But I know that many have very strong feelings about what they think others think and feel. Or thought and meant.
As I said, I think that Cosmos piece is totally irrelevant, especially today. I don't even know when Lancaster last spoke up about it. And to draw any far reaching conclusions about others in absence of anything would just be guessing once again.
And I am sorry you didn't understand what 'rate' referred to when I stated a temperature increase over a given timeframe. It still implies about 10 times as much as hitherto observed.
And I have seen that list Lionel. Are you sure you want to push that one? Because it is not quite what you think it is. It is a list of talking points to argue AGW. I don't even see any point in there which purports to indicate more, stronger, or bigger storms which was your initial claim. And furthermore, the list represents arguments for a AGW-hypotheses, it is not even close to specify any magnitudes (which is the crux of the matter, regarding the bigger issue here)
I am glad that you've had an education. But I'm afraid it is not sufficent to fault me on things I say here, not wrt to the real science parts at least.
But you can of course point out when you feel II was being unclear. And maybe you can even refrain from the Jeffie-style personality extraction attempts. I think those look really stupid, especially when you at the same time make basic errors and attac strawmen ...
"I am glad that you’ve had an education. But I’m afraid it is not sufficent to fault me on things I say here, not wrt to the real science parts at least"
What a pompous, arrogant jerk you are, Jonas. In my opinion you're well and truly bonkers.
Lionel asks Jonas, " I have asked you recently – what are your scientific credentials – don’t be shy now. Being coy about this diminishes you further. If that were possible."
His creddentials are these:
In the mind of Jonas: World renowned expert on all areas of science, all-around genius. Several doctorates, > 300 peer-reviewed publications, many plenary and keynote conference lectures, invitred speaker at AAAS, other prestigious bodies; several TED lectures.
Reality: No formal qualifications at all. No peer-reviewed publications, no invited lectures, no conferences attended. Purely self taught amateur.
Stll is a legend in his own mind...
Jeff ... its funny. You have spent 1½ year trying to analyse my psychological state. I think you brought Dunning Kruger already the first day. Sorry if you can't handle if I speculate about why you fail so specacularly so often. I am not even on the playingfield when it comes to your stupid barrage of piling up insults. But you are correct if you deduce that I don't have any higher regards for your intellect or your ability to argue scientific issues.
Earlier today, you had a hissy fit (in another thread) about the biosphere reacting to changing conditions. A complete and total strawman. So abysmally stupid it defies belief!
Here you now try to equate the size of large production industries their PR, marketing, and also lobbying expenses to what you describe as "climate CHANGE denial lobby"
And still none of that money can be tracked to any denial. Because neither the climate, or its constantly changing is denied by anybody (except in the wet fantasies of deranged fanatics).
But even with the correct labelling of those who you fear, despise, hate, and are incapable of debating arguing or otherwise interacting with ..
Even wrt those who argue, express and research skepticism against (C)AGW, the likes of BH, CA, WUWT and a few others, you cannot show any stream of secret millions. And anyway, where is that alleged money purportedly being spent? Maintanance and support for som webservers?
I see WWF adds everywhere, and need to listen to their 'experts' in both TV, the papers and now they're flocking in Doha. They arrange 24 h Climate Bonazas on the internet, and Earth Day around the globe. And are visible.
GreenPeace and WWF are huge industries, and 'climate change' is a major part of their agenda.
On the skeptic side I know of one (rather poor) 1 day ad campain along one freeway in Chicago.
As usual, you make the idiotic (or dishonest) attempt to equate the entire size of a general budget, if some part of it goes to some organisation, which in turn in some part has produced a pamhplet, or invited a speaker, who harbors sceptical views, or just can be 'linked to' somebody/thing else which according to you screaming activists can be viewed as skeptical.
And you then claim 'Millions supporting Denial' wich is wrong in every part of it.
And you are claiming that 'green agendas' have no clout in politics? Well you really must be living on a different planet then. We have windpower desaster all over the old world, and carbon trading in EU attracting billion dollar crimes only. We have subsidies to all sorts of crank green technology and of course lots of them who want to be part of such handouts.
And you almost lose it over som private bloggers with shoe-string budgets, Jeff!?
And I still think its funny that your 'massive' support here, at this of all the places, leads you to believe anything at all. That's almost cute ...
to to the budget of pressure groups and NGOs etc.
Again it defies belief.
"you cannot show any stream of secret millions"
They have shown that stream of millions. 400 grand here, 80 grand there, it all adds up.
Meanwhile you haven't shown any stream of millions being milked by scientists to "promote" AGW.
"And you then claim ‘Millions supporting Denial’ wich is wrong in every part of it."
Nope, there's plenty of millions. Every part of the claim is true.
"We have windpower desaster all over the old world"
Where? You mean the "disaster" of Germany coming out of recession early because of their reduced deficit of payments from their use of wind and solar power increasing?
I admit that it's a disaster to your friends at Exxon.
PS isn't that claim "windpower desaster" alarmist???
of course it is!
"and carbon trading in EU attracting billion dollar crimes only."
And any proof of this? Or are you going to accept that crime as you see it, if applied to you and your friends, would see them hang for their crimes?
"Jeff … its funny. You have spent 1½ year trying to analyse my psychological state"
No, Jonas, That takes only about 10 seconds. IMHO you're completely bonkers.
And no, with you I don't have hissy fits. Sorry to disappoint. You aren't as important as your bloated ego leads you to believe.
A final point for our resident fruitcake:
I wouldn't care if Greenpeace or the WWF nature had a billboard up every mile... these do NOT affect public policy. The fossil fuel lobby and the US government are revolving door. Hlaf of Bush's cabinet was plucked from the oil or gas industries or their contractors. Why would oil, gas and coal interests invest so much in lobbying members of Congress and the Senate? Think about it dopey. Let it sink in. As I said, thePR budgets of Greenpeace, WWF et al. are a trickle in the ocean by comparison. And how many senior mmbers of environmental NGOs are im senior government positions? By contrast, where are many senior CEOs and business leaders to be found? You guessed it. In some level of government, often in regulatory bodies.
Good grief Jonas you are stupid. Total, rank stupidity.
Jeff .. you are in denial about almost everything. You are still trying. And failing. Spouting nonsense
And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees.
And you still cannot show any secret millions going towards skepticism wrt to climate hysteria. Which was your orginal claim. Instead you ar talking about politics as they always have been.
And mind you, BH, CA, WUWT have far less clout politically than WWF and GreenPeace.
Your are moving your armies of goalposts and strawmen all over the place again, Jeffie. An the result is the usual minced sallad of everything that occuoies the inside of your head, without any coherent meaning other that the projection of all your evil demons on the wall ..
"And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees."
You believe that.
However, it's just a random statement with no proof substantiating it.
(PS you now cannot claim "I've never made it about me or my education)
One more Jeffie. As everybody can see, you have spent 1½ years trying to analyse my psychologically (in the most childish stupid fashions). And you claim:
"No, Jonas, That takes only about 10 seconds"
It once again describes what it is about here, Jeff. You start guessing, and claim to know the answer in 10 seconds. Whereafter you believe you have established something as 'fact'.
And yes, you did throw a hissy fit, imagining that those evil DENIARS deny that changed conditions affect the biosphere.
You are in denial once again (of your own actions)
Wow . and your point is what?
Joanarse,every word you type is an indicator of your psychological state. And there's been a lot of them. Oh boy has there been a lot of them. And never a reference to be seen, just overblown claims, vanity and rhetoric.
You'd go down a storm with the old cranks at Montford's site.
And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees.
I'm sure everyone recognises that you have the best education and far, far better degrees (and applicable to every subject imaginable too) than anyone else in the whole wide world, Jonarse.
Such education and erudition as you frequently display can obviously only spring from the most brilliant of minds. I expect many here will be very, very sorry to have treated you the way you have been and will have to go stand in the naughty corner for a very long time indeed when the truth is known.
The University of Life can be a hard taskmaster.
"Wow . and your point is what?"
My point is that several times you've whined "I've never made this about my credentials" when asked who the hell YOU are. You've done it on this thread.
The point is that you can no longer claim that because on your own thread where you will be writing all your bollocks to will prove the lie.
We also note that you haven't actually mentioned where and what qualifications you have.
So yet again you're making statements unscientifically.
chek ..
I believe that you very often type the word 'Jonarse' when commenting anything. I think other of your preferred words are 'moron' and 'deniar' ..
And I think your wording indicates your psychological state. You seem to believe that such wordings somehow elevate your comments. Jeff seems to share such sentiments. Yet he is patently incapable of distinguishing what is discussed from his own fantasies.
So far you've made one sensible statement here. That Sandy cannot be attributed to any human CO2. But you quickly wanted to revert again to that it after all must somehow been the fault of humas, 'the bigger picture'
Well, sorry chap. It is extremely hard to establish any such connection, even if you believe that humans are responsible for some of the warming. There just isn't any observable trend in the available data.
But I really wonder: Why are you all so keen on having various disasters occuring? I mean, whenever there is some new information that things are actually better than the doomsayers prophesized, you get really really angry and upset!
Why is armageddon som import for you all?
Wow .. as a pet or cartoon character you would be entertaining for a while .. But I think you are neither
And Lancaster was correct, which you could discover for yourself if you had half a brain and managed to correctly comprehend the literature on this. You could start with the Affidavits of Justin Lancaster and of Ms. Christa Beran. Also check out the Galley which includes a para' headed 'Impacts of Climate Change' where the words of S Fred, 'of less than one degree Celsius' have been scrubbed out and initialled RR.
Now what do you think all that means? Not what you are opining.
It was statements such as the following which:Singer included by stealth in the article,
O&C 2010 p193.
to which Lancaster objected knowing, as he did from his close working relationship with Revelle, that Roger would never have agreed to that from them both understanding, with other leading scientists of the day, Walter Munk, 'Scientists already knew from paleoclimate data that the lowest possible sensitivity to doubled CO2 was 1.5 C.' O&C 2010 pp192.
On climate sensitivity it is of more than passing interest that on the Galley document mentioned above that there is another freehand annotation Lindzen (underlined) pointing to the text 'The models are “tuned” to give' where 'tuned' is the target of the 'Lindzen' annotation.
It is clear that Revelle would never have agreed to the publication of that Cosmos article as is.
Singer took advantage of a gravely ill man, who could stay focused only for very short periods (see Lancasters Affidavit), to slip one past Revelle by having a document published within which were statement WRT global warming with which Revelle would never have agreed, and indeed to which there is evidence of his aversion). It was unfortunate that Revelle had started this ball rolling before a massive heart attack, a triple by-pass, an emergency hernia operation followed by a severe infection, but back then many scientists were trusting souls – oh how they have learned how wrong they were to trust some as evidenced from this.
It is plain as a pikestaff that Singer misused Revelle to further the cause of preserving the bottom line and obscene profits, and tactics, of the fossil fuel industries.
This was the beginning of a push back against the solid understanding of enough of the science back twenty years ago which could, and should, have been used as a basis for precautionary action. The time delay thus imposed on policy to reign in GHGs has already cost the lives of millions and made life a misery for many millions more (we see this unfolding in front of our eyes) and many of the culprits are still active in this. And you are aiding and abetting them.
Clang!
It ain't easy making sure all the tags, in a syntactically complex argument, are what they should be in this small space.
BTW O&C are Oresekes and Conway and yes original documents can be traced so no hand-waving on that account.
Also check out the Galley which includes a para' headed 'Impacts of Climate Change' where the words of S Fred, 'of less than one degree Celsius' have been scrubbed out and initialled RR.
Now what do you think all that means? Not what you are opining.
It was statements such as the following which:Singer included by stealth in the article,
O&C 2010 p193.
But I really wonder:
No you don't, Jonarse.
A more complete lack of curiosity than you display would be difficult to match. You're here misrepresent, pervert meaning and quack your inactivist lines and that's what you do.
At length.
Quack quack quackety stupid quack.
What you believe you're achieving, only you can know.
Lionel
So you too claim to know things you don't have any chance to know, just because you want to believe them? We have Lancasters word for a lot of things. Quite a few things he may have believed but had no way of establishing. Drop it, it's a dead goose
I have read those things ... the whole case rests on Lancasters claims. Which he of course cannot prove.
And we need to be aware of that there were heavy handed politics involved. Do you think anybody just shoud accept the words of a political hack as gospel?
And it is still totally irrelevant for anything today.
chek
"A more complete lack of curiosity than you display would be difficult to match"
Well, up-side-down once more.
You need to remember that I am the one coming here, asking you about your best arguments, asking you if you have seen read and understood any science underpinning that AR4 claim. I even read through some of the papers offered.
And no, I don't need to misrepresent. That's Jeffie (worst of them all) and the rest of the bunch now to various degrees.
All you ever manage to show is what is at the core of your belief systems. Not even the handwaiving is particularly coherent ...
re: "Jonas N December 4, 2012"
And your point of asking what my point was...?
"So you too claim to know things you don’t have any chance to know"
Gosh, it's like you see a myriad copies of yourself on teh interwebs, noob!
"And no, I don’t need to misrepresent."
You do, though.
Well, Joan, you ALWAYS are talking out your arse.
Hence Jonarse is entirely appropriate.
"And yes, my education is better than yours. Far better. As are my degrees"
Prove it then, ego-boy. We have to take your word for it, and we all know how much that means (hint: not a lot). We have asked you here many times to show us your earth-shattering credentials and you balk every time.
Prove it.
You wish it were a dead goose and yes it is relevant to today.
Only the schemers and dreamers like yourself try to hand-wave this.
You are shown increasingly naked and it ain't a pretty sight.
Now what will your masters tell you to do.
Jeff .. how about you proving any single one of the endless claims you have made about me!?
Or, alternatively, coming clear about that you just have been fantasizing? As your main method of trying to put me down?
I don't think there is much need for me proving that I am far more knowledgeable in real science than you are, Jeff. Almost every post about any real issues, I have detailed for you where you lose the plot, and where the substance is.
While you kept on describing your fantasy la-la land of mostly those who don't share your beliefs.
I've given enough hints about my professional skills and background that even a fanatic avtivist would get it if he just wanted. But probably you were just to obsessed with your strawmen and fantasies.
Again, in your latest comment your rant about some 'earth shattering credentials' while it is only you who tried such trashtalk. If you really think that you, somehow represent something so special on this topic, that everybody else should become silence(d) in awe, it says much more about your perception of the world, than I ever need to claim.
There are few things I have ever said here (on topic) that I needed to revise, and those instances were mostly me not formulating things properly. Whereas you essentially contradict your own arguments in most of your comments. Like an emotional angry child beyond help ..
And you've been in that state for 1½ years, Jeff. While being old enough to be well beyond such teenage emotive instability ...
I’ve given enough hints about my professional skills and background that even a fanatic avtivist
Jonarse, we've known you were a corporate think tank call centre shill (perhaps, or maybe not with at most an MBA)since you showed up here with your monkey troupe.
Nothing new there.
Lionel, I have gone through most of that stuff. I have read both sides of the story (as I usually try to do), and twp people disagree about how history should be described. One with first hand knowledge, and one more, with second hand opinions (Lancaster). I cannot judge on the details, but I would never ever trust an Gore affiliate about any such things. That doesn't mean that I think Singers version is the whole picture. It probably isn't. But the bottom line is Lancaster made some very sharp accusations he then couldn't defend in court. He is probably bitter because if that, possibly because he believed he knew his mentor better than anybody else, but couldn't provet it. And very likely also because he let himself be a tool in a dirty political fight, and got spit out when he was used.
As I said, I had never heard of any of that before you activist made an (20+ year old) issue of it. And it still isn't an issue.
Singer (and possibly Revelle) where closer to the mark than previous attempts, even if it was quite speculative back then. Same thing with that alleged memo that only Gelbspan knows the origin of or has seen. The uncertainties were much larger than what was claimed by the your side. And still, this memo exists only in Gelbspans book, and is the sole source of both Gore and Oreskes 'Big Oil conspiracy' meme ..
chek .. the same wishful Jeffie-style fantasies ...
Like a teenage girl .. just knowing by feeling it, closing your eyes and knowing that your feelings confirm your beliefs ...
Sure ..
Your behaviour, buzzwords and terminology usage fits the bill, Jonarse.
I doubt anyone's losing sleep over any possible misattribution.
Oh dear,,and now your own fantasies are showing .
Nevertheless, your behaviour, buzzwords and terminology usage fits the bill, Jonarse. We'll let little details like how you perennially dispute the 'A' in AGW and your fellow travellers insist on adressing 'C' AGW, yet there is never any disagreement amongst you - none! - pass .
I doubt anyone's losing sleep over any possible misattribution. You're universally derided as an idiot, which is quite correct.
Now that Jonarse is quite obviously champing at the bit that his true identity be recognised, I respectfully request that we comply with his wishes and address him heronin as "Jonarse, the Call-Cubicle Shill". It is after all only the respect he requests and deserves.
Marvelous chek ... almost like a caricature
Guessed the same thing three times in a row, and then adecied it as confirmed! You can't make these things up ..
Almost comic that there is a real world person typing these things on your end ...
And the same for you chek. 1½ years, and no beef .. just repetition of guesses and belief systems.
... and likewise no actual substantive disagreement with the attribution studies all this time from you. Touche!
[/]
I guess JOnas has to rake over old history, seeing as the progress of science has left him and his beliefs by the roadside.
chek, as far as I can judge you have neither read nor would be able to understand what these 'attribution studies' do or how they'd try to show any causation. And anyway, you still seem to miss/ignore that I asked about that 90% certainty. Wich is the crucial question ... Does that curve-retro-fitting mean anything more than that they'd fitted their models to agree with essentially one parameter (temps)?
All that huffing and puffing from the lot of you will not change this ...
Vince ..
Lots of people claim to be speaking for hte science ..
"I don’t think there is much need for me proving that I am far more knowledgeable in real science than you are, Jeff"
There you go again, joan. You "think" there is no need.
However, like everything you "think" you are wrong.
Go on, PROVE your knowledge.
Hell, you don't even have an alternative theory for the temperature change. All you have is "anti-knowledge" or as SCO would call it "negative know-how". All you 'know' is "it's not that", hence you are a DENIER.
Wow ..
As a rule of thumb you could navigate by assuming that everytime you assume I am wrong, it is actually you.
Its not bulletproof, I know, but It will gnerelly guide you towards not being totally off the mark far more often than not.
But you have only my word for it. I am afraid you have no real method determining any such thing by your own.
Are you aware that your finish is the 'creationist gambit'?
"Hell, you don’t even have an alternative theory for [Creations Greatness]"
"As a rule of thumb you could navigate by assuming that everytime you assume I am wrong, it is actually you."
Prove it.
Go on. One instance.
"Are you aware that your finish is the ‘creationist gambit’? "
Are you aware that YOU were the one decrying climate science for not considering alternative scenarios?
Why yes, you are:
May 4 "I’d say that you lack the ability to compare the relevant and different alternatives and options."
Dec 4 "Verry irritating too is the notion of that vage, shaky and contradictory hyptheses and thereupon built models should be accepted as ‘best knowlege’ because no alternative is presented. "
Don't you realise that "CO2 from human production" is a valid causation and that you need a BETTER ONE to replace it?
It's basic science 101.
Try it sometime.
"But you have only my word for it."
Mar 12: "that Jeffie once more was making wild unsupported (very likely very false) claims just because he so desperately wanted them to be true. "
Seems like you are the only one you allow to make unsupported (very likely very false) claims. It's only everyone else who needs to support their words.
Hey, Joan, do you think you know more than these guys?
"Is there a greenhouse effect? Concedo [concedo / concede]. Does it warm the Earth? Concedo. Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? Concedo. If carbon dioxide be added to the atmosphere, will warming result? Concedo."
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/monckton/climate-freedom-hancock-backgro…
"I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-201…
"There is a greenhouse effect"
i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
"The emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, and its continued accumulation in the atmosphere is changing the climate. "
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/skeptical-climate-resp…
"The greenhouse effect is real, as is the enhancement due to increasing carbon dioxide concentration."
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4…
Here is another signature tune for you Jonas the increasingly incoherent and babbling shil, who clearly gets some of his stuff from Bishop Hill, aka Cardinal Puff (magic dragons and all that).
His display of wishful thinking is another marker for source.
I suspect he has others feeding him stuff in an attempt to stay relevant whilst continuing with the BS argument all of which have been knocked down repeatedly at SkS alone.
Keep digging for more and more will decide you are best left to that and ignored.
Jonas, listen to the oracle herself starting at about 0:16:47.
All the evidence points to Lancaster being certain that Revelle would NOT have agreed to the statements slipped into the article in question. Only somebody living in a FFL funded bubble would eschew that.
Wow ..
You were the one not even understanding why it matters whether or not there is proper and published science behind that prominent AR4 claim.
I cannot even begin trying to imagine what depth of ignorance even would promt such a statement. But I am thankful that you did, and that Jeff thinks your 'contrubutions' here are on the mark.
Because in one twisted way, they all are. Yours, Jeff's, chek's, Bernard J's, Lionel's bill's and all the others. They describe a deeply rooted beliefsystem and how it reacts when challenged, when flaws and gaping holes are pointed out, or just when the dogmatic beliefs aren't shared.
We've seen just lately how desperately many of you want to linke Sandy to AGW, although (some of the smarter) they realize that this doubly implissible. But they so much want it to be so, they just can't help them selves.
And you again missed what I say. I cannot prove it to you, because you lack even the most basic understanding of what is discussed. That was why I wrote:
"I cannot even begin "
Is that why you never tried to explain what the hell you're talking about?
"it matters whether or not there is proper and published science behind that prominent AR4 claim."
And since there is, then that's fine.
"We’ve seen just lately how desperately many of you want to linke Sandy to AGW"
So you know more than all those people who agree that CO2 from human causes cause climate change?
You know people like:
John Christy
RPSr
RPJr
Monckton
Watts
et al
?
"I cannot prove it to you, because you lack even the most basic understanding of what is discussed. "
No, you cannot prove it to anyone (and haven't tried) because you're an idiot.
Or, in other words, Jonarse, you don't understand because you're too damn thick.
Unfortunately, the thick-as-a-yard-of-lard idiot (you) are ALWAYS the last one to know.
And too dumb to read the above.
Well of course Sandy is most certainly linked to AGW as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Including here:
Correction, ours is a deeply rooted understanding based upon scientific analysis from multiple lines of investigation of which ecology and paleobiology are just some fields. Once you diss in your crass slanging at Jeff.
Whereas your is the belief system, one bolstered by ideological inspired anti-science. You are either a dupe or are duping others. If you believe the BS you spout then you are an intellectually challenged fool and if you don't then you are a dishonest promoter of those denial memes.
Monbiot, 2006, had this to say, my additions in [ ]:
This from 'Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand' by Haydn Washington and John Cook pp.77.
Jonas, you have not made one valid argument, not one.
Wow ... so now you fantasize about the science being in there?
And who exactly is in denial?
;-)
"And who exactly is in denial?"
You.
But, like I said: too dumb to read the above.
The science is in there.
Read it.
" " We’ve seen just lately how desperately many of you want to linke Sandy to AGW…"
Well of course Sandy is most certainly linked to AGW as has been demonstrated repeatedly."
Hang on, I think I get it.
This idiot thinks that if you say that a dog is an animal, then you're desperately trying to link dogs to the animal kingdom.
If you're saying that mountains are a geographical feature, then you're desperately trying to link mountains to geography.
The point is that there's nothing to this label "desperately trying". To Joan here, that's what every teacher has ever done to them: depserately tried to teach him things.
Thing is, joan here is immune to being taught.
Jonarse, you haven't so much as refuted or corrected a single paper of AR4 Chapter 9, not a single one. Not even in E&E, the sack of shit journal by sacks of shit for sacks of shit.
Instead you preen about on blogs posing for the likes of Griselda and PantiesizeZ. And making a jerk of yourself to everyone else.
The only issue you have with AR4 is you're too moronic to understand that you're too moronic to understand it.
Wow you stupid moron ..
The entirety of your sides activists and faithers have had almost six years to find that science. They cannot even come up with any references. Those few who actually gave real references revealed that they hadn't checked, they just hoped.
Bernard J has tried to deflect from that fact for 1½ year now.
And you still haven't caught up. You can't even read short blog comments correctly. and think you can teach me about science you have never seen!? As the saying goes:
It's even worse than we thought ...
;-)
"Wow you stupid moron .. "
Yup, like I said: you see yourself everywhere.
And you still show that you're too dumb to read.
The science is in AR4.
Read it.
And there'll be science in AR5, just like there was in AR3, AR1 and the first report from the IPCC.
But you're too dumb to read the above, never mind the IPCC reports.
Jonas, having had his 'arguments' shelled, bombed and torpedoed is floating around like The Black Knight talking to the fish whilst gabbling inanities madly to himself.
chek ..
I don't need to refute any paper yet, because nobody of you can show me any paper where this claim allegedly is established. Nobody!
Although you all are boneheaded hard believers ...
Instead I get the ranting or idiocy like Bernard J's demand that I detail all the papers I've read which don't even pretend to contain such science.
Above, you claimed to have the science and the scientists on your side. (Well not here, at Deltoid). But that particular science is still just an unsubstatiated rumor among the activists (at Deltoid) and unfortunately also among other scientists who accept the claims that it is someone else who has seen and checked such science.
And that's what the gullible are fed to believe: All the worlds best experts agree in consensus, that most of the warming is caused by humans, and with 90% certainty ...
Especially when this relayed through the media.
Your stupid and childish insults don't mean squat! It still is only a rumor, even among you guys. I guess that's why you get so darn angry!
Well, what did I just write:
Point proven.
Lionel,
I am sorry to inform you, but nothing is bombshelled. You just cut and paste more text saying the same stuff, repeating it from the same few sources, linking to activist sites who repeat this.
Wow .. if the science were in AR4 it would have been read by someone on your side. Who would have hit me over the head with it. Over and over again.
Instead jokes like you try 'But it's in there, all of us say so. Believe us, we do!' over and over again ..
The fish hear another inanity, Scientific American is an 'activist site'.
Whoda thunk!
"I don’t need to refute any paper yet, because nobody of you can show me any paper where this claim allegedly is established"
Yes he has: AR4 Chapter 9.
If you want a paper specifically named because you can't read long words then try this one:
Andronova, N.G., et al., 2007: The concept of climate sensitivity: History and development. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.
If you're worried about the authors, do you have a problem with Roger?
Chase, T.N., J.A. Knaff, R.A. Pielke, and E. Kalnay, 2003: Changes in global monsoon circulations since 1950. Natural Hazards, 29, 229–254.
"Wow .. if the science were in AR4 it would have been read by someone on your side"
It has.
However, you are too dumb to read.
The science is in AR4
"linking to activist sites"
Which if you weren't too dumb to read, you'd have read AND FOUND THE PAPER YOU WERE DEMANDING.
Truly you're too dumb to read.
"and unfortunately also among other scientists who accept the claims"
Because, unlike you, THEY CAN READ.
Lionel, thanks for the video ..
It's still the same old rehash retold. I have heard Oreskes several times before. And there just is no beef in there, she is the sole source of Al Gores claimed 'consensus', a very poor study. But it propelled her to center stage (she mentions it in your video, but grossly misrepresnts its content)
But you really need to realize one thing Lionel. Everybody, every-single-body who tries to paint others as 'denialists' has already lost the argument. Has shown that it is about something completely different. You've seen it here many times, and elsewhere. And in that radio-show they both lament about 'denialism' and 'deniers'!
There is no need to listen to that. They are bone headed activists fighting a PR-war ..
It's worth just as much as if Al Gore would have given me his most earnest look and assured me it was true ..
Zip!
Look kid, you link Oreskes, Monbiot, Joe Romm, John Cook, DeSmogBlog refer to McKibben and Gelbspan as if they were neutral arbiters of anything.
It just shows how deeply skewed your perceptions are. It shows how desperately you want to believe what you read at those places. Now it's opinionpieces and activist radioshows with the most strident warriors on the belief system side.
It's almost a wonder you haven't linked Al Gore yet!
;-)
"I don’t need to refute any paper yet, because nobody of you can show me any paper where this claim allegedly is established".
Whu are you lying, Jonarse? And refusing Bernard's challenge?
"Everybody, every-single-body who tries to paint others as ‘denialists’ has already lost the argument."
So you say, but that doen't make it true. You for example deny the 'A' in AGW when there is an overwhelming consensus that the climate is being modified by mankind. You reflexively deny this without counter evidence, ergo you're a denier.
"Look kid, you link Oreskes, Monbiot, Joe Romm, John Cook, DeSmogBlog refer to McKibben and Gelbspan"
The primary differenceis that most of those are scientists using the scientific method to practice science, and/or are journalists referring to peer reviewed papers and studies.
That you moronically claim some kind of equivalence with the output of cranks, loons and industry shills is a proposition that only flies with your fellow shills, Cubicle Boy.
Chek this out. Peel of the layers...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/un-agency-says-2012-celebrities-hottes…
;-)
"And there just is no beef in there, she is the sole source of Al Gores claimed ‘consensus’"
And this is another proof you're too dumb to read.
Boy are you dumb.
“Wow .. if the science were in AR4 it would have been read by someone on your side”
then after
Andronova, N.G., et al., 2007: The concept of climate sensitivity: History and development. In: Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment [Schlesinger, M., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, in press.
and
Chase, T.N., J.A. Knaff, R.A. Pielke, and E. Kalnay, 2003: Changes in global monsoon circulations since 1950. Natural Hazards, 29, 229–254.
What?
Despite having demanded papers, when given them, Joan here is, as said before: TOO DUMB TO READ.
Olap doesn't know what The Onion is!
Probably because he's too dumb to read!
Hey, denier retards, read this!
http://friendsofginandtonic.org/
PROOF of your deniers idiocy!!! :-P :-P :-)
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a scientist who applies the laws of physics to the behaviour of the atmosphere must be part of a communist conspiracy to overthrow Christianity and impose a genocidal world government."
From a denier website!!! :-) ;-P ;-)
Work day has ended in Norway so we'll have to wait until work opens up again before Olap or Joan answer.
They don't work for free, you know. :-)
@Olaus,
Nice! Hopefully our Celebrity Zoologist won't turn up telling us it all must be true (because he has CV) and refers us to the excellent "TED" video from Perez Hansen-Hiton!
;)
'course the EST sect are still punching the clock :-P
What? You're not going to comment on the "fact" that romney locked himself in the whitehouse?
"Romney Locks Self In Oval Office During White House Visit "
Ha ha!
Too dumb to read, too thick to think.
Does it strike any of you that there is considerable irony in the fact that this is the most commented thread on this site? And that you all say the same thing over and over? And that at 3000+ comments it is undoubtedly the most commented on thread in the history of this site?
Yet you keep saying Jonas has no valid argument. So why do you bother? Really. Why?
Possibly because its fun pointing out to the deniers that they're delusional, selective and alarmist and frequently other negative attributes they like to accuse others of too.
Plus they're very, very slow learners.
"Yet you keep saying Jonas has no valid argument. So why do you bother? Really. Why?"
Because he has no valid argument.
I mean, does the fact that Joan doesn't know that its arguments are empty and unsupported (as well as being dead wrong) make his points valid and supported?
If you don't think we think that is the case, why did you post that message? Really. Why?
Wow ... why would you post references that you haven't read yourself? And wouldn't understand if you tried? It seems a very common practice among types like you though?
These two references do not present any such science demonstrating the claimed certainty!
And while you think that some random site you found proves anything, you need to remember that we are at a site, where the proponents claim to argue science while sputtering utter nonsense ... many of them
"Wow … why would you post references that you haven’t read yourself?"
You demanded the names of science papers in AR4.
You got them.
Now you're whining about having being given them???
Too dumb to read, too thick to think.
chek, really!?
do you still not what the debate is about? Although you've been hanging here for years? Spouting all kind of upset and unsubstantiable claims at the 'deniers' without ever managing to engage in any relevant debate? You really still don't know?
Are you really just flailing your arms in the fog at the strawmen and demon windmills of your imagination?
Point is. Still and has been for 1½ years:
Nobody has ever presented, or even claimed to have read and understodd what proper science that prominent AR4 claim is supposed to be based on. No one! Neither you, nor Bernard, Jeff, or any other activist or climatescientist who has dared to answer has ever seen such science.
Bernards challanges (both) are irrelevant to this.
And your capacity to understand written english must be really poor, when you still try to convince your self of counterfacual nonsens like:
"You for example deny the ‘A’ in AGW .."
Albeit i have said, repeated time and again that it is the A in GW that is relevant (for Sandy, for glaciers etc) and also that it is the size of that A (the alleged positve feedbacks) that are the core discussion about the matter.
And still, like mythomaniac-Jeffie, you need to invent an alternative universe where you knock down your own strawmen. Simply amazing.
And no, those activists are not scientists (Oreskes is probably closest, but in a different field, and has abandond science for mud slinging and campaigning). The others are entrenched eco warriors and activists. And more importantly, their arguments are not over the science. They too argue mostly that they are the goodies against the baddies.
And yes, anybody bringing 'denialist' or all of the other stupid labels to a debate, is not interested in debate, at best a shouting contest. You yourself demonstrate that perfectly well. Only Jeff is worse here. But you'r not alone.
You say me saying so doen't make it so. But this observations has held for a very long time now. Ask yourself, what have you possibly brought to the table here? You who cannot even read the arguments and positions you'd like to attac?
The most funny (or depressing) thing is that you claimed that Glebstein Oreskes, Monbiot, Romm, Cook, etc use 'the scientific method'. It's just hilarious how absolutely clueless you must be. Do you really think that handwaivingly referring to a oublication is 'the scientific method'?
On the contrary, the way those guys use selected phrases from selected publications is the antithesis of 'the scientific method'.
That one would require dealing with reality, the issues, the questions, the data, the lack of data and understanding, the uncertainties etc, and doing it properly. But you wouldn't know that, would you?
"do you still not what the debate is about?"
Do you?
You seem to chop and change it at the whim of providence.
"Nobody has ever presented, or even claimed to have read and understodd what proper science that prominent AR4 claim is supposed to be based on."
You have already been given two papers which the AR4 assessment claim was based on.
Too dumb to read, too thick to think, too inbred to change.
Wow ..
Yes, I asked for published proper science which establishes those AR4 claims. Not random references you found ... and definitely not references you haven't read and which not even adress the core claims. But this is as it always goes. The least knowledgable just try posting random (lists of) references and lists hoping that it might contain something, and buy them some time.
You are definitely not the first one trying this. While I wonder if all of you really are so thick and gullible that you manage to fool even yourselves?
Wow, you really really are that dumb, aren't you?
Here is the abstract of one of them. It deals with totally different things. Neither attribution, nor assessment of certainty of such attribution!
Are you really so stupid, that you believed the AR4 claimed was based on this? Really? I mean even chek and Jeff must be ashamed about such stupidity on their side.
Why would you post these references and make such claims? Stuipid activists in total denial would be my first guess ...
You really really are that dumb, aren’t you.
"“Nobody has ever presented, or even claimed to have read and understodd what proper science that prominent AR4 claim is supposed to be based on.”
You have already been given two papers which the AR4 assessment claim was based on."
Too dumb to read, too thick to think, too inbred to change.
"Yes, I asked for published proper science which establishes those AR4 claims."
Yes you got two of them.
Do you want to know where to get them all?
Wow: Too dumb to read!?
Even your own claims and references?
Too dumb? Monsoon patterns! Too dumb?
Let me highlight the last sentence in the abstract:
Too dumb to read!? Stupid beyond belief? To incompetent to post? A liability even for the worst activist sites? Which is it Wow?
Wow: Too dumb to read!?
I never asked that, 'cos I know the answer.
You ARE too dumb to read. Too thick to think. Too inbred to change.
“Yes, I asked for published proper science which establishes those AR4 claims.”
Yes you got two of them.
Do you want to know where to get them all?
"We find no support in these data for an increasing hydrological cycle or increasing extremes as hypothesized by greenhouse warming scenarios"
And the AR4 isn't saying "100% of weather is created by anthropogenic climate change".
Too dumb to read, too thick to think, too inbred to change and too stubborn to listen.
So Wow .. now even you yourself have demonstrated that there really is no bottom to how stupid claims you guys can make in order to maintain your faith and belief system shielded against reality.
I ask for proper science regarding 'most of the warming since 1950' and with '90% certainty' and the moron brigade try to swamp me with lists of other references, and even specifies some that show how the AGW-hypothesis predictions cannot be seen in observations.
Too dumb to be called dumb!?
chek, Jeff, Tim Lambert and all the others ...
:-)
All I can say is: Wow !!
"I ask for proper science regarding ‘most of the warming since 1950′ and with ’90% certainty’ "
And you don't seem to want to know how to get it.
Why is that?
Don't you want to know how to find the papers you're demanding? You've been given two. There are more.
Why don't you want to know how to get them?
Too dumb to read, too thick to think.
If I didn't know that Wow was a masochist I would be very impressed with the amount of spanking he can endure. :-)
But has the poor guy no self-preservation at all?