Slashdot Mirror

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

That's okay, when a group of journalists are having a talk about the ethical problems of game journalists, and they get a threat and the building has to be evacuated it doesn't even make the news. But so far there are 20+ articles about this already. There possibly couldn't be an agenda here right? Or that they all came out mere hours within one another.

Kinda...funny isn't it?
Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

Recode: https://archive.is/CsPAb

Motherboard: https://archive.is/9oM4o

Techraptor: http://techraptor.net/content/...

Kotaku: https://archive.is/e1xwK

Gamasutra: https://archive.is/QYNkB

KeyeTV: https://archive.is/cKcLx

Gamespot: https://archive.is/QYNkB

BleedingCool: https://archive.is/Wtpxb

Polygon: https://archive.is/l8vpD

Fusion: https://archive.is/zX39U

Austin360: https://archive.is/GXYap

The Verge: https://archive.is/oPhzJ

TheOuthousers: https://archive.is/R5kPl

Bits NYTimes: https://archive.is/5wR5Y

Arstechnica: https://archive.is/JLsE2

Mashable: https://archive.is/LQMGq

Slate: https://archive.is/bjRO3

Engadget: https://archive.is/THkXN

Jezebel: https://archive.is/iQg6P

KVUE: https://archive.is/p41HD

As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request? [Dumb Scientist]

You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers? For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science? You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":

I'd be fascinated to read peer-reviewed literature saying CC will cause fewer Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Doubt it exists, but may have missed it. [Eric Holthaus]

IPCC, you bozo: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
"it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease... or remain ... unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in ... maximum wind speed and rain rates."
That's one. ... For somebody who likes to insult others so much, you sure don't know much about the subject. [Jane/Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-24]

Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".

Prof. Adam Sobel answered Eric's actual question with TS.26 on p. 108 here, which is also Fig. 14.17 on p. 1250 of Ch. 14.

The "global

As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request? [Dumb Scientist]

You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers? For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science? You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":

I'd be fascinated to read peer-reviewed literature saying CC will cause fewer Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Doubt it exists, but may have missed it. [Eric Holthaus]

IPCC, you bozo: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
"it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease... or remain ... unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in ... maximum wind speed and rain rates."
That's one. ... For somebody who likes to insult others so much, you sure don't know much about the subject. [Jane/Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-24]

Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".

Prof. Adam Sobel answered Eric's actual question with TS.26 on p. 108 here, which is also Fig. 14.17 on p. 1250 of Ch. 14.

The "global

As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request? [Dumb Scientist]

You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers? For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science? You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":

I'd be fascinated to read peer-reviewed literature saying CC will cause fewer Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Doubt it exists, but may have missed it. [Eric Holthaus]

IPCC, you bozo: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
"it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease... or remain ... unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in ... maximum wind speed and rain rates."
That's one. ... For somebody who likes to insult others so much, you sure don't know much about the subject. [Jane/Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-24]

Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".

Prof. Adam Sobel answered Eric's actual question with TS.26 on p. 108 here, which is also Fig. 14.17 on p. 1250 of Ch. 14.

The "global

As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request? [Dumb Scientist]

You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers? For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science? You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":

I'd be fascinated to read peer-reviewed literature saying CC will cause fewer Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Doubt it exists, but may have missed it. [Eric Holthaus]

IPCC, you bozo: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
"it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease... or remain ... unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in ... maximum wind speed and rain rates."
That's one. ... For somebody who likes to insult others so much, you sure don't know much about the subject. [Jane/Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-24]

Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".

Prof. Adam Sobel answered Eric's actual question with TS.26 on p. 108 here, which is also Fig. 14.17 on p. 1250 of Ch. 14.

The "global

As promised, are this year's high temperatures due only to El Nino with "nothing particular" connecting them to anthropogenic global warming? If that's true, it should be easy to confirm by comparing this El Nino to past El Ninos. This graph (backup) shows global mean surface temperature (GMST) during just El Ninos in recent decades (excluding Pinatubo). It has a positive slope. If this year's high temperatures are due only to El Nino, why are El Nino years getting warmer at about the rate projected by the IPCC? Once again, ocean heat content (OHC) reveals much more of the cumulative radiation absorbed over the last few decades than GMST does.

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request? [Dumb Scientist]

You neglect to mention that before that, I cited IPCC's own statement on the matter. Are you also going to claim IPCC's comments aren't based on peer-reviewed papers? For example, will you now claim that their summary is not based on peer-reviewed science? You really can be an idiot sometimes. And the more you try to prove somebody wrong, the more idiotic you have tended to get. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-25]

No, you repeated the same IPCC link I gave you hours earlier and (innocently?) misrepresented it while calling Eric Holthaus a "bozo":

I'd be fascinated to read peer-reviewed literature saying CC will cause fewer Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Doubt it exists, but may have missed it. [Eric Holthaus]

IPCC, you bozo: http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
"it is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease... or remain ... unchanged, concurrent with a likely increase in ... maximum wind speed and rain rates."
That's one. ... For somebody who likes to insult others so much, you sure don't know much about the subject. [Jane/Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-24]

Eric Holthaus asked about Cat 4/5 hurricanes, but Jane/Lonny Eachus couldn't/wouldn't answer the actual question. Instead, Lonny called Eric a "bozo" and desperately tried to deflect attention away from Cat 4/5 hurricanes. Ironically, Lonny's quote should have been a clue that answering an imaginary question about the frequency of all hurricanes (Cat 1+) isn't the same as answering Eric's actual question about Cat 4/5 hurricanes because those have the maximum wind speeds and rain rates which will "likely increase".

Prof. Adam Sobel answered Eric's actual question with TS.26 on p. 108 here, which is also Fig. 14.17 on p. 1250 of Ch. 14.

The "global

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?

Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper, but Jane's use of "AFTER" suggests he doesn't agree. If Jane thinks Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece contradicts his 2010 paper, couldn't Jane just ask Dr. Landsea if that's the case?

Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."

In response to a request for peer-reviewed literature, Lonny Eachus quotes from the same opinion piece that "Jane Q. Public" quoted above without linking. Will Lonny Eachus admit that he wasn't quoting peer-reviewed literature, despite the clear request?

Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece doesn't contradict his 2010 paper, but Jane's use of "AFTER" suggests he doesn't agree. If Jane thinks Dr. Landsea's 2011 opinion piece contradicts his 2010 paper, couldn't Jane just ask Dr. Landsea if that's the case?

Again, in Jane's quote above Dr. Landsea ironically says that if the "hot spot" were actually missing as Jane/Lonny insists, that would just imply that "there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into."

... I was seriously concerned that my dad might start thinking I was gay or something. :0) [Lonny Eachus, 2009-11-01]

I was sure by then my father must have been convinced I was gay or something. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-03-07]

... seriously thinking: "Oh, shit. My father probably thinks I'm gay or something now." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

Well, you would have to know too that my father was a pretty serious bigot and gay-basher, both. It's how HE was raised. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.

Releasing this burden might even let you stop spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Jane/Lonny Eachus would have fewer stains on his legacy, and civilization would be less paralyzed. Win-win.

... I was seriously concerned that my dad might start thinking I was gay or something. :0) [Lonny Eachus, 2009-11-01]

I was sure by then my father must have been convinced I was gay or something. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-03-07]

... seriously thinking: "Oh, shit. My father probably thinks I'm gay or something now." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

Well, you would have to know too that my father was a pretty serious bigot and gay-basher, both. It's how HE was raised. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.

Releasing this burden might even let you stop spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Jane/Lonny Eachus would have fewer stains on his legacy, and civilization would be less paralyzed. Win-win.

... I was seriously concerned that my dad might start thinking I was gay or something. :0) [Lonny Eachus, 2009-11-01]

I was sure by then my father must have been convinced I was gay or something. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-03-07]

... seriously thinking: "Oh, shit. My father probably thinks I'm gay or something now." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

Well, you would have to know too that my father was a pretty serious bigot and gay-basher, both. It's how HE was raised. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.

Releasing this burden might even let you stop spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Jane/Lonny Eachus would have fewer stains on his legacy, and civilization would be less paralyzed. Win-win.

... I was seriously concerned that my dad might start thinking I was gay or something. :0) [Lonny Eachus, 2009-11-01]

I was sure by then my father must have been convinced I was gay or something. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-03-07]

... seriously thinking: "Oh, shit. My father probably thinks I'm gay or something now." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

Well, you would have to know too that my father was a pretty serious bigot and gay-basher, both. It's how HE was raised. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.

Releasing this burden might even let you stop spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Jane/Lonny Eachus would have fewer stains on his legacy, and civilization would be less paralyzed. Win-win.

... I was seriously concerned that my dad might start thinking I was gay or something. :0) [Lonny Eachus, 2009-11-01]

I was sure by then my father must have been convinced I was gay or something. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-03-07]

... seriously thinking: "Oh, shit. My father probably thinks I'm gay or something now." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

Well, you would have to know too that my father was a pretty serious bigot and gay-basher, both. It's how HE was raised. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-12-23]

I meant what I said to Demena. I dismissed the possibility that you're transgendered after you claimed that was quite literally not your problem. But if your gay-bashing bigot father left you confused about your gender then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support you as you experiment with your gender identity.

Releasing this burden might even let you stop spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. Jane/Lonny Eachus would have fewer stains on his legacy, and civilization would be less paralyzed. Win-win.

So in my lifetime America has gone from "give me liberty or give me death" to a bunch of scared sheep repeating "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear"?

And the real problem with that latter statement is quite simple: If you have nothing to hide, but are politically dissident, you have to fear for your life even in 1st world "free speech" countries. The mistake the common person makes is twofold: 0. They are not politically active (esp. not Politically Incorrectly). 1. They don't realize how ruthless their country can be, esp. when it is being infiltrated by agents from other countries without your nation's best interest in mind.

Someone attempting to overthrow your country can infiltrate the state's security apparatus and use it against you. The same goes for spying on work email / internet traffic: Someone trying to get you fired can simply pay off an IT guy to plants false evidence against you, and because "what are the chances of that happening" is the first response, it is very effective. This is also a method by which other nation states infiltrate your companies, gain power, and lobby for their own kind.

Considering that the nation state knows that NSA is the largest single point of failure from a security perspective, and thus the greatest threat to national security for the politically active person (esp. those aligned strongly to the beliefs of their own government), it is obvious that the welfare of the citizens is not what is meant by "National Security". "Workplace Security" has the same meaning as "National Security", in that it is to protect the establishment from YOU, not you from badguys.

The answer is to show them the security apparatus by getting more people politically active. However, you need to show them the true history of their country, not the propaganda they've been fed their whole lives. Once you've done that, suddenly those people are considered "the greatest threat to national security". No, I'm not even kidding.

A couple of things, first Nathan Grayson did admit to sleeping with the dev, but he claimed it was days after he'd written his last article about her. Sorry if I find that a little to coincidental. In any case, Nathan did write about her, he was also thanked in the game he shilled for her, he didn't disclose any of that.

https://archive.today/5IBg1
http://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.today/0KhZv

But the, "Sex for good reviews" is still just a distraction that's thrown in. "Sex", rather than "relationship", because it lets people push the argument toward being about a women and her sex life while ignoring Grayson is the one in the wrong who had the breach of ethics. "Reviews" is used to intentionally obfuscate the issue because he did write about her and her game, but he didn't review it. To a lot of people "write about" and "review" are pretty much the same thing so most don't catch the use of the term "review" until the start getting hammered over the semantics.

This is done to keep people from discussing all the stuff that came out AFTER that incident. The GameJournoPro list, the black listing of journos and devs that didn't toe the line, financial ties between journalists, judges and indi devs, the "Gamers are dead" articles and other journos that covered friends and roommates without disclosures to name a few.

If you do get past the depression quest incident, then they'll likely just start dismissing everything else as unrelated and/or trivial and will claim it's not what gamers are concerned about or they'll use the old, "If you cared about ethics, you'd be going after publishers instead of women" (because some journalists happen to be women and therefore cannot be talked about), which is Kafkatrapping you into defending yourself against accusations of misogyny instead of talking about the blatant ethical violations.

How? Because when everything becomes sexist you stop caring. When your movement declares "manspreading" a problem (but ignores women taking up 3 fucking seats with bags), the shirt a scientist wears a problem (yet don't you dare every criticize what a woman wears), keeps perpetuating myths like rape culture in the west and the wage gap, everything you say becomes suspect. When things like climate change, fatherhood, and science are declared sexist, why the flying fuck should we believe anyone when they declare yet another thing as sexist?

The perpetrator seems to be a troll called "Vince". His previous activities include hacking gamergate.me (which hosted the GG wiki, various pro-GG articles, etc.) and during the panel on GG hosted by SPJ Florida he dumped dox on some of the pro-GG panelists and the organizer. You could try to familiarize yourself with the whole drama, but the relevant context is just that it's a year-long controversy that the troll is seemingly trying to milk for attention. In the tweet about the Patreon hack Vince also claimed responsibility "in the name of #gamergate" (and he later retweeted a post mocking that "GamerGate being blamed for Patreon hack" but "it's actually Vince"), which sufficed to fool a writer for the New York Observer.

According to Detectify Labs, Patreon had left Werkzeug Debugger exposed to the public on one of their debug versions, leaving a very blatant vulnerability. Gamergate.me was presumably put together by amateurs and it hadn't been updated in months except for the people editing the wiki when it was hacked. So the troll has likely just been going after easy targets that they think will generate attention.

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

As usual, Lonny responds to a comment with exact quotes and links by hypocritically spewing more dishonest "paraphrases" without links. Lonny's desperately begging for attention on Twitter by wrongly lecturing scientists about what scientists think and hurling even more baseless accusations of fraud

Again, Lonny is rapidly spewing so many libelous accusations that he'll have to be patient. Once again, I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations Lonny's hurled at mainstream scientists. Once again, would Jane/Lonny like me to debunk his 10/2 accusations of fraud before or after I debunk his Slayer misinformation?

(Or, for that matter, before or after I debunk all the other accusations Jane/Lonny vomited onto this thread in an attempt to distract everyone from noticing that Jane/Lonny was completely wrong about the implications of the hot spot, and can't bring himself to admit it.)

I see no mention at all of how I demonstrated your foolishness on Twitter earlier today (10/2). ... Interesting, though, that you would come HERE and add more harassment after you lost an argument THERE. Why is that, you think? ... you were trying to "get back" at me here because you lost the Twitter argument so miserably. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-03]

Jane, you'll never realize that you're only demonstrating your own foolishness by compulsively lecturing scientists about what scientists think. But you should learn how time works. Rule #1: time machines don't exist. Don't you realize you're accusing me of laughing at your 10/2 tantrum, then going back in time to 10/1 to leave that comment?

Jane already suspects I use a time machine to post comments. Is it the same time machine string theorists and Obama used in Jane's other conspiracy theories? Would Jane/Lonny Eachus stop staining his legacy if he realized that all his hysterical accusations are this ridiculous?

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil

LOL! Jane/Lonny publicly vomits even more of his dishonest "paraphrasings" and once again "forgets" to provide links, even after I just pointed out that awe-inspiring hypocrisy. No doubt Jane/Lonny Eachus will claim he wasn't "intentionally" putting words in my mouth, despite the fact that I just showed Lonny Eachus has repeatedly done that even after I gave him actual links showing that his "paraphrasings" were wrong.

Lonny Eachus should learn the difference between his dishonest "paraphrasings" with "forgotten" links and actual quotes with actual links:

@SteveSGoddard It HAS hit the fans. Fans of Al Gore, Michael Mann, Obama, etc... They don't know how to handle it now that THEY are deniers. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-13]

Isn't that an offensive word with many implications?

"Denier" is an offensive word with many implications. Let's just call them crazy. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-24]

Lonny, have you seen anyone using that offensive word?

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

Lonny, aren't you throwing away any pretense at objectivity?

Now it has been said nobody is denying it's warming, you continue with the "denier" label. Negative objectivity points. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-05-01]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else get nega tive object ivity points by using that label?

If you ignore the huge amount of science against man-made climate change, then YOU are the science denier. #climatechange #YoureADenier [MattWilliams06, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-20]

Lonny, aren't you worried that using that silly term reveals more about you than it does about the victim?

"Denier" is a silly term which reveals more about the person who uses it than it does about the victim. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-25]

Lonny, have you seen anyone else using that sil