Slashdot Mirror

$300 million? Oh, that's right, the executive who pushed Intel this direction is leaving now. Here's her announcement to leave: https://archive.is/egdkd Here's her announcement for the Diversity Program. https://archive.is/YYbrY Here's where that $300 million came from: https://archive.is/EIqxl

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]

Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."

How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?

It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.

On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.

The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!

How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.

If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely

This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]

Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."

How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?

It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.

On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.

The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!

How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.

If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely

This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]

Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."

How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?

It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.

On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.

The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!

How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.

If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely

This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]

Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."

How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?

It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.

On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.

The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!

How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.

If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely

This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]

Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."

How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?

It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.

On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.

The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!

How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.

If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely

This is hilarious. NY isn't sinking. Overall global sea level rise has REMAINED at about 1mm/year for about 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-05]

Avg. sea lvl. rise has been about 0.9-1.0 mm/year for centuries. It rose a bit faster part of 20th Cen., but some say it's DEcelerating. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-04]

Lonny backpedals away from his stronger claim that sea level has been rising at "exactly the same rate for 300 years."

How did Lonny read the first sentence in Houston and Dean 2011 stating that sea level rose by 1.7mm/y over the 20th century, but not admit that it contradicts his mistaken claim about "< 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years"?

It's especially amusing that Jane/Lonny cites the exact paper which was already debunked in the links I've repeatedly given him. Since the code I just gave Jane/Lonny reproduces figure 2 in Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011, Lonny already had all the code and data he needed to see that Houston and Dean 2011 had been prebunked for years.

Even Houston and Dean said "there is consensus among the authors that sea level accelerated from 1870 to 2004." They just cherry-picked 1930, the starting point with the lowest best-fit acceleration. Then they pretend to question if "sea level has accelerated during the 80 years from 1930–2010" and somehow ignore the fact that best-fit accelerations are even higher starting after 1930.

On top of that, anyone who cites Houston and Dean 2011 to support a claim that global sea level is "DEcelerating" should be aware that this is the result of a simple mistake where they neglected to take into account the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. When Rahmstorf and Vermeer 2011 corrected their error, the best-fit acceleration was positive.

The most hilarious bit, however, might be their response to these corrections. Houston and Dean had selectively cherry-picked a single starting date of 1930, then Rahmstorf and Vermeer calculated figure 2. Like my figure on page 2, Rahmstorf and Vermeer didn't selectively cherry-pick a starting year like Houston and Dean did. Quite the opposite!

How do Houston and Dean respond? They actually complained that Rahmstorf and Vermeer were somehow being "selective". This brazen reversal of the facts might have surprised me before I saw Jane baselessly accuse Layzej of cherry-picking for loading the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998 and kept demonstrating that he would never grasp that irony.

If Jane/Lonny really had "many counterexamples", it's strange that he cited the one paper that had already been repeatedly prebunked and another regional paper which Houston and Dean cited while trying to explain away the fact that the southern hemisphere has more ocean than the north. Again, Lonny doesn't seem likely

How is this a "little" conspiracy rant?

LOL! Jane, for years you've been hurling libelous and baseless accusations against mainstream scientists. You're just figuring out now that people aren't supposed to exhibit such a gross disregard for truth? And furthermore, you don't even seem to realize this applies to Jane/Lonny too? (Yes, this is still true even though Jane's such a special Mensa snowflake.) And you also don't even seem to realize that you were bragging about trying to get attorneys to help you censor speech that you mistakenly thought exhibited a gross disregard for truth? Sadly, that hypocrisy isn't surprising coming from Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Nothing I did was "desperate", nor was I "regurgitating" Latour. Why do you lie so much?

Jane, the most charitable explanation is that you were simply regurgitating Latour rather than repeating his civilization-paralyzing misinformation in full knowledge that it violated what you call "kindergarten-level physics". But very few people will believe that most charitable explanation unless you can find it in your heart to finally retract your Slayer claims.

And nothing mainstream scientists have done is "desperate" but that doesn't stop Jane/Lonny Eachus from repeatedly projecting his own desperation onto them. Should we ask why Jane/Lonny Eachus lies so much, or just accept that "desperate" is a subjective judgment and that "discussions" about semantics are useless?

Jane/Lonny Eachus hasn't retracted his endless Sky Dragon Slayer claims, and continues to spread Slayer misinformation.

Bullshit. What "slayer misinformation" do you pretend I "continue" to spread? Just another lie. You seem to have no respect for the truth whatsoever. ... What is asking for the impossible, is asking me to stop doing something I'm not doing.

I'll debunk all the Slayer misinformation you continue to spread. But you'll have to be patient (just like when you demanded that I debunk Latour's nonsense in the first place) because I'm still working on about a dozen debunkings of all the other libelous accusations you've hurled at mainstream scientists. Would you like me to debunk your Slayer misinformation before or after I debunk all the times you've accused mainstream scientists of fraud because they told you what scientists think?

So what is your point here? Some kind of attempt to show guilt by association? Some kind of attempt at sexual harassment? Because I have never so much as met any of these people, and I didn't even know of the existence of some of them until YOU pointed them out to me.

Wow! Jane, you still don't see the irony of your "sexual harassment" rants?

Jane, you spent years regurgitating Latour's nonsense and loudly insisting he was correct. Don't you remember repeatedly claiming to be happy to admit your mistakes? Once again, I gave you another opportunity to show that you have a shred of intellectual integrity by retracting your Slayer claims. And once again, you've declined...

Note the words "to the best of my knowledge". O'Sullivan had been accused of improper conduct, but was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. As for any other non-criminal conduct in his personal life, I have no knowledge or interest whatsoever. Further, as I indicated to you, the only person of whom I was aware, who could possibly be the subject of your ranting was O'Sullivan. So imagine my surprise when you linked to a page about someone named Manuel who was completely unknown to me. Further yet, as I told you at the time, I had no idea who were "members" of the Sky Dragon Slayers, nor did I care, nor was I a member myself. So you knew all this, yet posted all this bullshit anyway.

Jane, that's ridiculous. Maybe Jane/Lonny really didn't know that O'Sullivan later admitted his "fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

If Jane/Lonny really didn't know that, then he would apologize for helping a psychopathic pedophile blame h

You already know I don't believe the ocean is not rising at all, but you use your out-of-context distortions to make it appear that I did. That's lying.

Please read my comment again. I quoted you in-context saying things like "other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all."

I never said you were one of those other sources saying there has been no measurable overall rise at all. But you specifically said those sources existed, so once again it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

Don't you realize that being completely unwilling to back up your lies with actual calculations is indistinguishable from your being completely unable to perform even the most basic tests for acceleration in a dataset?

You cited Church and White, but I have more that say it ISN'T accelerating. I have many counterexamples, but I only need one. Church and White (2011) found a minuscule acceleration (0.009 cm / year ^-2), while others have found larger DEcelerations. Houston and Dean (2011), though their error bars are somewhat larger, Watson (2011), etc. No dishonesty here. I have evidence for the things I say.

No, Jane. I didn't just cite Church and White. I wrote an R program which calculates trends and accelerations (and correlated uncertainties) at different starting points in any dataset, then zipped up that code along with many datasets and handed it to you on a silver platter.

In response, Jane simply names two papers studying REGIONAL sea level in TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. Don't cherry-pick data by trying to deflect attention away from global sea level to papers which study REGIONAL sea level. So far you haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your claim that sea level rise (unqualified, meaning global) "has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years."

What would a scientist do now, Jane? Do you think a scientist would write an angry response, or do an actual calculation and calmly report the answer (whichever way it goes)?

As usual, you just whine that context is missing without explaining how you could possibly believe yourself when you said "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

And seriously, how could an honest man keep spreading lies even after it is demonstrated that he is wrong? Don't you realize that being completely unwilling to back up your lies with actual calculations is indistinguishable from your being completely unable to perform even the most basic tests for acceleration in a dataset?

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

That Shaun Bridges was even charged at all is amazing. He's a government employee, and in most of the world it's very rare for government employees to be charged with a crimes because fellow government employees refuse to prosecute them. Thank your lucky stars, America, you are not like Australia where the press reports alleged corruption, the police ignore it, and it piles up and up and up: https://archive.is/KUTAy#cases

Nah, it's pretty much the same in America.

The difference in this case is the nature of the crime and the victim chosen. No, not Ulbricht. The victim was the federal government, because they were going to seize that money anyway. You steal from the government, or attack the government in any way, they're going to drop the hammer on you. If your victim is an individual, well, it depends in large part on the socioeconomic status of that individual. A government employee can get prosecuted for killing a poor black man, for example, but it's rare. If you're a government agency and your victim is the entire nation, you're almost certainly going to get away with it. At most you'll be told to stop, but no one will be going to jail... well, except the guy who ratted the agency out. There's a good chance he'll go to jail, if he can be caught.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

That Shaun Bridges was even charged at all is amazing. He's a government employee, and in most of the world it's very rare for government employees to be charged with a crimes because fellow government employees refuse to prosecute them. Thank your lucky stars, America, you are not like Australia where the press reports alleged corruption, the police ignore it, and it piles up and up and up: https://archive.is/KUTAy#cases

Actual studies on the subject have found upwards of half of all rape claims in the US are false.

https://archive.is/at8Uo

https://archive.is/R4TNM

"According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser. ...

Kanin's findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false. ...

According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists "some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions." (that's 40% for those not counting) ...

That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.""

The 2% figure feminists often cite is a good example of the Woozle Effect:

https://archive.is/gaqiW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Actual studies on the subject have found upwards of half of all rape claims in the US are false.

https://archive.is/at8Uo

https://archive.is/R4TNM

"According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser. ...

Kanin's findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false. ...

According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists "some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions." (that's 40% for those not counting) ...

That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.""

The 2% figure feminists often cite is a good example of the Woozle Effect:

https://archive.is/gaqiW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Actual studies on the subject have found upwards of half of all rape claims in the US are false.

https://archive.is/at8Uo

https://archive.is/R4TNM

"According to a nine-year study conducted by former Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin, in over 40 percent of the cases reviewed, the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred (Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994). Kanin also studied rape allegations in two large Midwestern universities and found that 50 percent of the allegations were recanted by the accuser. ...

Kanin's findings are hardly unique. In 1985 the Air Force conducted a study of 556 rape accusations. Over one quarter of the accusers admitted, either just before they took a lie detector test of after they had failed it, that no rape occurred. A further investigation by independent reviewers found that 60 percent of the original rape allegations were false. ...

According to a 1996 Department of Justice Report, of the roughly 10,000 sexual assault cases analyzed with DNA evidence over the previous seven years, 2,000 excluded the primary suspect, and another 2,000 were inconclusive. The report notes that these figures mirror an informal National Institute of Justice survey of private laboratories, and suggests that there exists "some strong, underlying systemic problems that generate erroneous accusations and convictions." (that's 40% for those not counting) ...

That false allegations are a major problem has been confirmed by several prominent prosecutors, including Linda Fairstein, who heads the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit. Fairstein, the author of Sexual Violence: Our War Against Rape, says, "there are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.""

The 2% figure feminists often cite is a good example of the Woozle Effect:

https://archive.is/gaqiW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Saying we should have zero emissions is shorthand for saying we should not be adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere. [Ken Caldeira, 2015-08-12]

That's the same definition used by every other mainstream scientist who discusses the "'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming." [Dumb Scientist, 2015-08-23]

Proof of moving the goalposts. Because MY comment wasn't about "allowable budgets". It was about emissions... the commonly understood, technically correct, and dictionary definition of "emission". It wasn't about "budgets", nor were the words Lonny was originally replying to on Twitter. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Nonsense. Again, that's the "technically correct" definition of "emission" written by the scientist who wrote the words Lonny was originally replying to on Twitter. Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny was originally replying to this tweet about the "'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming.":

2C target old idea, phys unsafe,see @KenCaldeira thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0... "There is some noise around the idea that it useful to think about some amount of 'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming. ..." [Peter Shepherd, 2015-08-11]

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny was originally replying to Ken Caldera's words about "allowable CO2 emissions budget"! Jane/Lonny's apparent ignorance of the words Lonny was replying to might be a good defense, unless Jane keeps digging...

... Your argument that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Understanding that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 is an important prerequisite to understanding what scientists talking about anthropogenic warming mean when they say "emissions". Please Jane, can we agree that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2? If not, that's the fundamental cause of our miscommunication. And yeah, that's extremely relevant.

It's important to remember that breathing can't increase overall CO2 because it's like a circulation pump in a pool. Therefore mainstream scientists don't include breathing in an "'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming." In exactly the same way, plumbers don't include a circulation pump's flow in an "'allowable water budget' that keeps the pool from overflowing."

... your ridiculous argument that exhaling was not an "emission". You are a complete nutcase. An exhalation is an emission in exactly the same way that CO2 from an exhaust pipe is an emission. Organic compounds are "burned" via your metabolism in an analogous way to how ethanol is burned in your automobile. Both are relatively simple organic "cycles"... the CO2 could be from corn in either case. Your argument that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to whether an exhalation is an "emission"

Saying we should have zero emissions is shorthand for saying we should not be adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere. [Ken Caldeira, 2015-08-12]

That's the same definition used by every other mainstream scientist who discusses the "'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming." [Dumb Scientist, 2015-08-23]

Proof of moving the goalposts. Because MY comment wasn't about "allowable budgets". It was about emissions... the commonly understood, technically correct, and dictionary definition of "emission". It wasn't about "budgets", nor were the words Lonny was originally replying to on Twitter. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Nonsense. Again, that's the "technically correct" definition of "emission" written by the scientist who wrote the words Lonny was originally replying to on Twitter. Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny was originally replying to this tweet about the "'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming.":

2C target old idea, phys unsafe,see @KenCaldeira thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/0... "There is some noise around the idea that it useful to think about some amount of 'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming. ..." [Peter Shepherd, 2015-08-11]

Then @KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2. Talk about unacceptable levels! @tan123 [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-11]

Lonny was originally replying to Ken Caldera's words about "allowable CO2 emissions budget"! Jane/Lonny's apparent ignorance of the words Lonny was replying to might be a good defense, unless Jane keeps digging...

... Your argument that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Understanding that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 is an important prerequisite to understanding what scientists talking about anthropogenic warming mean when they say "emissions". Please Jane, can we agree that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2? If not, that's the fundamental cause of our miscommunication. And yeah, that's extremely relevant.

It's important to remember that breathing can't increase overall CO2 because it's like a circulation pump in a pool. Therefore mainstream scientists don't include breathing in an "'allowable CO2 emissions budget' that would keep the world under 2 C of global warming." In exactly the same way, plumbers don't include a circulation pump's flow in an "'allowable water budget' that keeps the pool from overflowing."

... your ridiculous argument that exhaling was not an "emission". You are a complete nutcase. An exhalation is an emission in exactly the same way that CO2 from an exhaust pipe is an emission. Organic compounds are "burned" via your metabolism in an analogous way to how ethanol is burned in your automobile. Both are relatively simple organic "cycles"... the CO2 could be from corn in either case. Your argument that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to whether an exhalation is an "emission"

I worked in an office that the women basically ran, and believe me, they were sexist tyrants! They could tell jokes, men could not. I was told that ANYTHING they found offensive (in any way) would be considered sexual harassment. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-04-30]

... While discussing harassment at the workplace, the bookkeeper (who I found to be a pretty offensive person herself) said "ANYTHING I consider to be offensive is sexual harassment." Thinking she didn't mean that quite the way she said it, I said "You mean anything sexual you find offensive is sexual harassment." She gave me a rather nasty look and said: "No. ANYTHING I find offensive is sexual harassment." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

Poor Jane/Lonny Eachus. Was this why you started posing as a woman on the internet? To get back at the sexist tyrant women by making all women look bad?

I worked in an office that the women basically ran, and believe me, they were sexist tyrants! They could tell jokes, men could not. I was told that ANYTHING they found offensive (in any way) would be considered sexual harassment. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-04-30]

... While discussing harassment at the workplace, the bookkeeper (who I found to be a pretty offensive person herself) said "ANYTHING I consider to be offensive is sexual harassment." Thinking she didn't mean that quite the way she said it, I said "You mean anything sexual you find offensive is sexual harassment." She gave me a rather nasty look and said: "No. ANYTHING I find offensive is sexual harassment." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

Poor Jane/Lonny Eachus. Was this why you started posing as a woman on the internet? To get back at the sexist tyrant women by making all women look bad?

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying about sea level rise. If Jane/Lonny were just honestly confused, showing him actual calculations should have caused him to stop making his wrong claim, or at least provide a calculation of his own.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

Jane/Lonny Eachus, please stop harassing mainstream scientists and those who agree with them.

Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting ... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]

Once again, absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5

If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.

The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting ... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]

Once again, absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5

If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.

The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting ... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]

Once again, absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5

If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.

The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.

Let's start here, from no more than a few days ago:

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever. [Dumb Scientist, 2015-08-23]

Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus still hasn't said if it's "disgusting" for political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh to do what they do publicly. Once again, Jane/Lonny still refuses to retract his accusation that Cook is "gone now" for doing what Josh does, but in private. What's Up With That?

Based on Jane's suspicions, it seems like Jane still continues to suspect that my "deeds even more foul" include building a time machine, then going back in time and leaving Imposter Lonny comments. Don't laugh; this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.

Let's start here, from no more than a few days ago:

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever. [Dumb Scientist, 2015-08-23]

Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus still hasn't said if it's "disgusting" for political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh to do what they do publicly. Once again, Jane/Lonny still refuses to retract his accusation that Cook is "gone now" for doing what Josh does, but in private. What's Up With That?

Based on Jane's suspicions, it seems like Jane still continues to suspect that my "deeds even more foul" include building a time machine, then going back in time and leaving Imposter Lonny comments. Don't laugh; this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.

Let's start here, from no more than a few days ago:

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever. [Dumb Scientist, 2015-08-23]

Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus still hasn't said if it's "disgusting" for political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh to do what they do publicly. Once again, Jane/Lonny still refuses to retract his accusation that Cook is "gone now" for doing what Josh does, but in private. What's Up With That?

Based on Jane's suspicions, it seems like Jane still continues to suspect that my "deeds even more foul" include building a time machine, then going back in time and leaving Imposter Lonny comments. Don't laugh; this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.

Let's start here, from no more than a few days ago:

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever. [Dumb Scientist, 2015-08-23]

Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus still hasn't said if it's "disgusting" for political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh to do what they do publicly. Once again, Jane/Lonny still refuses to retract his accusation that Cook is "gone now" for doing what Josh does, but in private. What's Up With That?

Based on Jane's suspicions, it seems like Jane still continues to suspect that my "deeds even more foul" include building a time machine, then going back in time and leaving Imposter Lonny comments. Don't laugh; this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.

Let's start here, from no more than a few days ago:

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever. [Dumb Scientist, 2015-08-23]

Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-26]

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus still hasn't said if it's "disgusting" for political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh to do what they do publicly. Once again, Jane/Lonny still refuses to retract his accusation that Cook is "gone now" for doing what Josh does, but in private. What's Up With That?

Based on Jane's suspicions, it seems like Jane still continues to suspect that my "deeds even more foul" include building a time machine, then going back in time and leaving Imposter Lonny comments. Don't laugh; this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

Repeat after me: "I am not Vox Day".

Also you might notice SJWs are the people who backed such wonderful individuals as RequiresHate.

"Vox Minion". Gotta love that doublethink... SJWs are never reflected on by the people they explicitly support, people SJWs hate are always minions of whoever you hate most regardless of what's really going on. Repeat after me: "I am not Vox Day"

The only stacking after the puppies got on the ballet was the SJWs stacking on No Award then handing out special "awards" to everyone they had originally preselected to win before their plans were disrupted.

The nomination votes weren't "stacked", the award votes were. The accusations of the puppies rigging anything are patent nonsense. Meanwhile on the other hand the SJWs even had alternate awards premade for their predetermined "winners".

You mean things like the fact the burn-it-all outcome was predicted in advance and the SJWs' preselected winners were even given alternate awards?

If yo've been following any of this, it's quite clear Vox Day and his ilk espouse much the same in the way of toxic views as the MRA/RedPill/MGTOW/etc crowd. MRA is as convenient a label as any since they all behave in more or less identical ways.

Only if you're a complete liar who needs to delegitimize one of those because they threaten the monopoly your toxic hate movement has on all discourse, funding, and even morality itself. MRAs are diametrically opposed to Redpillers on virtually everything except that they both have a problem with feminists. Redpillers, like feminists, judge men solely based on their success with women. To a feminist a man's worth is judged by how loyal of a kapo he is, to a redpiller it's how much sex he has. Both use being unsuccessful with (or unattractive to) women as their ultimate insult. Feminists use the slur "neckbeard", which draws on racialized caricatures and repurposes them. Redpillers use the insult "beta".

But a big part of it is the rabid puppies are in fact a bunch of raving mysoginists who hate anyone who is't a straight, whte, Chriatian male. Their fearless leader (Vox Day) holds those views loudly and proudly. He's never tried to deny it and frequently makes such comments. See here for his own views in his own words on homosexuality for example:

I'm not Vox Day. Vox Day also agreeing the Hugos are rigged by a toxic clique of social justice pretenders is about as relevant to the point as Hitler passing animal cruelty legislation is to my volunteering with a shelter.

And if you really think this is still the case, then explain why the blogger who outed RH and documented her awfulness got a Hugo for her efforts.

The real question is why it took that much to finally get SJWs to stop supporting this person in the frist place.

so where is the example of me calling someone a liar? questioning facts & logic is honest disagreement U should try that approach [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-08-24]

I've repeatedly showed Dana links to his incredibly ironic accusations of dishonest lying fraud. Here are just a few:

whoever gave U the 97 percent scientists endorsing Man made Global warming theory is lying 2 U. [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-07-05]

97% is fake number & reflects dishonesty of those giving U info on GWarming. ask Urself what process used 2determine it [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-09-15]

James Taylor's Forbes oped 5/30/13 detailed blatant fraud behind 97 claim yet alarmists R so brazen they keep using it [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-09-16]

That figure is a total fraud. U may not know where it came from but I do. In the end it was 97% of 87 selected scientists. [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-03-26]

who ever told U that is the same one pushing the lie. I have read full account & 97% is fraud, other GWarming evidence [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-03-28]

If U knew fraud behind that 97% number surely U'd quit using it. ... fess up that the 97% figure is the percent of the few scientists who responded to a poll that was itself selectively sent.FRAUD ... the 97 % figure you use is a total fraud, just like the rest of the phony evidence of man made Global Warming [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-01]

97% figure is just as much a fraud as GWarming theory. Some times U should question what this crowd is feeding U [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-04]

major figures refuse to support 97% claim. That should tip U off as to lies that many advocates of GWarming support [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-06-05]

... it is a lie to say 97% agree [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-06-27]

CO2 theory is fraud [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-01-12]

It's especially ironic that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has spent years accusing scientists of lying dishonest fraud when scientists tell him what scientists think.

Does Rep. Rohrabacher also accuse surgeons of lying dishonest fraud when surgeons tell him what surgeons think? Or does Rep. Rohrabacher realize that surgeons probably know what surgeons think better than he does?

so where is the example of me calling someone a liar? questioning facts & logic is honest disagreement U should try that approach [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-08-24]

I've repeatedly showed Dana links to his incredibly ironic accusations of dishonest lying fraud. Here are just a few:

whoever gave U the 97 percent scientists endorsing Man made Global warming theory is lying 2 U. [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-07-05]

97% is fake number & reflects dishonesty of those giving U info on GWarming. ask Urself what process used 2determine it [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-09-15]

James Taylor's Forbes oped 5/30/13 detailed blatant fraud behind 97 claim yet alarmists R so brazen they keep using it [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-09-16]

That figure is a total fraud. U may not know where it came from but I do. In the end it was 97% of 87 selected scientists. [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-03-26]

who ever told U that is the same one pushing the lie. I have read full account & 97% is fraud, other GWarming evidence [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-03-28]

If U knew fraud behind that 97% number surely U'd quit using it. ... fess up that the 97% figure is the percent of the few scientists who responded to a poll that was itself selectively sent.FRAUD ... the 97 % figure you use is a total fraud, just like the rest of the phony evidence of man made Global Warming [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-01]

97% figure is just as much a fraud as GWarming theory. Some times U should question what this crowd is feeding U [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-04]

major figures refuse to support 97% claim. That should tip U off as to lies that many advocates of GWarming support [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-06-05]

... it is a lie to say 97% agree [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-06-27]

CO2 theory is fraud [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-01-12]

It's especially ironic that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has spent years accusing scientists of lying dishonest fraud when scientists tell him what scientists think.

Does Rep. Rohrabacher also accuse surgeons of lying dishonest fraud when surgeons tell him what surgeons think? Or does Rep. Rohrabacher realize that surgeons probably know what surgeons think better than he does?

so where is the example of me calling someone a liar? questioning facts & logic is honest disagreement U should try that approach [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-08-24]

I've repeatedly showed Dana links to his incredibly ironic accusations of dishonest lying fraud. Here are just a few:

whoever gave U the 97 percent scientists endorsing Man made Global warming theory is lying 2 U. [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-07-05]

97% is fake number & reflects dishonesty of those giving U info on GWarming. ask Urself what process used 2determine it [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-09-15]

James Taylor's Forbes oped 5/30/13 detailed blatant fraud behind 97 claim yet alarmists R so brazen they keep using it [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2013-09-16]

That figure is a total fraud. U may not know where it came from but I do. In the end it was 97% of 87 selected scientists. [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-03-26]

who ever told U that is the same one pushing the lie. I have read full account & 97% is fraud, other GWarming evidence [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-03-28]

If U knew fraud behind that 97% number surely U'd quit using it. ... fess up that the 97% figure is the percent of the few scientists who responded to a poll that was itself selectively sent.FRAUD ... the 97 % figure you use is a total fraud, just like the rest of the phony evidence of man made Global Warming [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-01]

97% figure is just as much a fraud as GWarming theory. Some times U should question what this crowd is feeding U [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-04-04]

major figures refuse to support 97% claim. That should tip U off as to lies that many advocates of GWarming support [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-06-05]

... it is a lie to say 97% agree [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2014-06-27]

CO2 theory is fraud [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), 2015-01-12]

It's especially ironic that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has spent years accusing scientists of lying dishonest fraud when scientists tell him what scientists think.

Does Rep. Rohrabacher also accuse surgeons of lying dishonest fraud when surgeons tell him what surgeons think? Or does Rep. Rohrabacher realize that surgeons probably know what surgeons think better than he does?