Slashdot Mirror

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Honest people can be wrong or disagree.Ur claim I'm lying about Ru Academy leaders opposing AGW indicates more about U than me? U've exposed the level discussion to which GWarming advocates sink. Yep, pretty sad labeling some who disagrees a liar. Not wrong, but even if I was, only Fanatics claim people who believe in what they R advocating R liars if they R wrong. I don't lose my temper & I don't call people who disagree liars. The way U disagree consistent with most GWarming advocates [Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), August 2015]

That's unbelievably ironic, coming from a man who's been hurling accusations like lying lying lies lies lies lies lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lied lie dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonest dishonesty dishonesty dishonesty fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud fraud

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

Jane/Lonny Eachus aces his hypocrisy final for bragging about how he's desperately trying to silence/censor/suppress/stifle the speech of others.

... You should GET A LIFE rather than stalking and harassing people for years on end, for personal (and apparently nefarious) reasons of your own. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

This person has been harassing me for over 5 years. So far, Slashdot has refused to do anything about it. I have recorded instances of libel, attempted character assassination, deliberate misquotes, and I suspect him of deeds even more foul. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

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.

No sane person would take that comment IN CONTEXT, and think it was genuinely a recommendation that anyone commit suicide. And he is fully aware of that. And yet he continues to present it as truth. I don't know of a better definition of libel. Do you? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Don't be ridiculous, Jane. I've repeatedly shown that comment IN CONTEXT. The most charitable explanation is that you didn't read those comments (just like I hope Lonny didn't read the comments he was responding to), so here's that CONTEXT again...

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]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does. ... this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny's disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. That's what scientists mean by "CO2 emissions": adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere.

Once again, breathing can't do that 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."

... You should GET A LIFE rather than stalking and harassing people for years on end, for personal (and apparently nefarious) reasons of your own. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

This person has been harassing me for over 5 years. So far, Slashdot has refused to do anything about it. I have recorded instances of libel, attempted character assassination, deliberate misquotes, and I suspect him of deeds even more foul. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

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.

No sane person would take that comment IN CONTEXT, and think it was genuinely a recommendation that anyone commit suicide. And he is fully aware of that. And yet he continues to present it as truth. I don't know of a better definition of libel. Do you? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Don't be ridiculous, Jane. I've repeatedly shown that comment IN CONTEXT. The most charitable explanation is that you didn't read those comments (just like I hope Lonny didn't read the comments he was responding to), so here's that CONTEXT again...

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]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does. ... this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny's disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. That's what scientists mean by "CO2 emissions": adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere.

Once again, breathing can't do that 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."

... You should GET A LIFE rather than stalking and harassing people for years on end, for personal (and apparently nefarious) reasons of your own. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

This person has been harassing me for over 5 years. So far, Slashdot has refused to do anything about it. I have recorded instances of libel, attempted character assassination, deliberate misquotes, and I suspect him of deeds even more foul. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

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.

No sane person would take that comment IN CONTEXT, and think it was genuinely a recommendation that anyone commit suicide. And he is fully aware of that. And yet he continues to present it as truth. I don't know of a better definition of libel. Do you? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Don't be ridiculous, Jane. I've repeatedly shown that comment IN CONTEXT. The most charitable explanation is that you didn't read those comments (just like I hope Lonny didn't read the comments he was responding to), so here's that CONTEXT again...

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]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does. ... this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny's disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. That's what scientists mean by "CO2 emissions": adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere.

Once again, breathing can't do that 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."

... You should GET A LIFE rather than stalking and harassing people for years on end, for personal (and apparently nefarious) reasons of your own. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

This person has been harassing me for over 5 years. So far, Slashdot has refused to do anything about it. I have recorded instances of libel, attempted character assassination, deliberate misquotes, and I suspect him of deeds even more foul. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

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.

No sane person would take that comment IN CONTEXT, and think it was genuinely a recommendation that anyone commit suicide. And he is fully aware of that. And yet he continues to present it as truth. I don't know of a better definition of libel. Do you? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Don't be ridiculous, Jane. I've repeatedly shown that comment IN CONTEXT. The most charitable explanation is that you didn't read those comments (just like I hope Lonny didn't read the comments he was responding to), so here's that CONTEXT again...

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]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does. ... this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny's disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. That's what scientists mean by "CO2 emissions": adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere.

Once again, breathing can't do that 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."

The Sad Puppies won. Yes, they didn't win a single award -- in fact, some really good works lost to No Award, seemingly just to spite them.

But that was the point.

Their stated goal was to prove that there was a group of people out there voting for political reasons and fixing the Hugos. To fight this, they did the unforgivable sin of nominating some good works (such as one of the Dresden Files novels) for a Hugo.

The CHORF / SJWs fell for it en mass, just as George R R Martin begged them not to (archive version) back in April. They proved the Sad Puppies point -- that the Hugos are fixed by a group of gatekeepers.

The Hugos have been fixed for years, to the point that Steven King outright refused to participate due to how bad it became. The CHORFs proved the Sad Puppies' point more than anything else could. The Hugos have been forever tarnished by this -- not by the Sad Puppies voting in the "wrong way" for the "wrong type of fans", but by the CHORFs decreeing that you have to have the right politics, the right thoughts, the right opinions, to be a "real fan" or a "real hugo winner."

Sorry... you are mistaken. Even if I admitted to being this person, re-tweeting someone else (akin to quoting) is not the same as endorsement. You should know better. ... you are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, I never said anything about endorsement. You're putting words in my mouth. You should know better. You are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. ("When in Rome, do as Romans do." Maybe this is how Janeland denizens communicate?)

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

Indeed. And I wonder where he got word of it? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Do you actually wonder that, Jane? I'm curious to see if you're suffering from multiple personality disorder, or if you're just a psychopath who can't stop lying. Does Jane actually wonder where Lonny got word of it? Or, deep down, does Jane know the truth that Lonny Eachus got word of it when Jane read the Slashdot comment above because Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus?

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

Why does it matter to you, if it wasn't you? But then, *I* have a suspicion regarding that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

It matters because Lonny's last forensic wet dream was so hilarious that I have to ask again: who does Jane/Lonny suspect it was?

I have a suspicion that Jane/Lonny is hallucinating a hydra for the ninth time, oblivious to the fact that this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

Seriously: who does Jane/Lonny Eachus suspect it was?

Frankly, Imposter Lonny fooled me because his insults got snipped just like insults from the genuine Lonny Eachus get snipped. But in retrospect Imposter Lonny was urging people to be skeptical of Monckton's claims, and that's out of character for the genuine Lonny Eachus.

Here's another comment that seemed too reasonable to be from the genuine Lonny Eachus:

All these inquiries were flawed by the fact that I LONNY the One Man Inquiry Team with Infallible Net TRuthfulness Sense (Tm. Patent Pending) knew, no, PROVED 100% that Mann was a mannipulator and that the whole global warming hoax was started by Mann for a joke on the Democrap Evilushonist Liberuls. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-08-26]

For a split second it seemed like Lonny Eachus might have been poking fun (incredibly accurate fun!) at himself. But since Lonny's never displayed self-awareness, mayb

Sorry... you are mistaken. Even if I admitted to being this person, re-tweeting someone else (akin to quoting) is not the same as endorsement. You should know better. ... you are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, I never said anything about endorsement. You're putting words in my mouth. You should know better. You are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. ("When in Rome, do as Romans do." Maybe this is how Janeland denizens communicate?)

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

Indeed. And I wonder where he got word of it? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Do you actually wonder that, Jane? I'm curious to see if you're suffering from multiple personality disorder, or if you're just a psychopath who can't stop lying. Does Jane actually wonder where Lonny got word of it? Or, deep down, does Jane know the truth that Lonny Eachus got word of it when Jane read the Slashdot comment above because Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus?

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

Why does it matter to you, if it wasn't you? But then, *I* have a suspicion regarding that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

It matters because Lonny's last forensic wet dream was so hilarious that I have to ask again: who does Jane/Lonny suspect it was?

I have a suspicion that Jane/Lonny is hallucinating a hydra for the ninth time, oblivious to the fact that this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

Seriously: who does Jane/Lonny Eachus suspect it was?

Frankly, Imposter Lonny fooled me because his insults got snipped just like insults from the genuine Lonny Eachus get snipped. But in retrospect Imposter Lonny was urging people to be skeptical of Monckton's claims, and that's out of character for the genuine Lonny Eachus.

Here's another comment that seemed too reasonable to be from the genuine Lonny Eachus:

All these inquiries were flawed by the fact that I LONNY the One Man Inquiry Team with Infallible Net TRuthfulness Sense (Tm. Patent Pending) knew, no, PROVED 100% that Mann was a mannipulator and that the whole global warming hoax was started by Mann for a joke on the Democrap Evilushonist Liberuls. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-08-26]

For a split second it seemed like Lonny Eachus might have been poking fun (incredibly accurate fun!) at himself. But since Lonny's never displayed self-awareness, mayb

Sorry... you are mistaken. Even if I admitted to being this person, re-tweeting someone else (akin to quoting) is not the same as endorsement. You should know better. ... you are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, I never said anything about endorsement. You're putting words in my mouth. You should know better. You are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. ("When in Rome, do as Romans do." Maybe this is how Janeland denizens communicate?)

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

Indeed. And I wonder where he got word of it? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Do you actually wonder that, Jane? I'm curious to see if you're suffering from multiple personality disorder, or if you're just a psychopath who can't stop lying. Does Jane actually wonder where Lonny got word of it? Or, deep down, does Jane know the truth that Lonny Eachus got word of it when Jane read the Slashdot comment above because Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus?

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

Why does it matter to you, if it wasn't you? But then, *I* have a suspicion regarding that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

It matters because Lonny's last forensic wet dream was so hilarious that I have to ask again: who does Jane/Lonny suspect it was?

I have a suspicion that Jane/Lonny is hallucinating a hydra for the ninth time, oblivious to the fact that this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

Seriously: who does Jane/Lonny Eachus suspect it was?

Frankly, Imposter Lonny fooled me because his insults got snipped just like insults from the genuine Lonny Eachus get snipped. But in retrospect Imposter Lonny was urging people to be skeptical of Monckton's claims, and that's out of character for the genuine Lonny Eachus.

Here's another comment that seemed too reasonable to be from the genuine Lonny Eachus:

All these inquiries were flawed by the fact that I LONNY the One Man Inquiry Team with Infallible Net TRuthfulness Sense (Tm. Patent Pending) knew, no, PROVED 100% that Mann was a mannipulator and that the whole global warming hoax was started by Mann for a joke on the Democrap Evilushonist Liberuls. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-08-26]

For a split second it seemed like Lonny Eachus might have been poking fun (incredibly accurate fun!) at himself. But since Lonny's never displayed self-awareness, mayb

Sorry... you are mistaken. Even if I admitted to being this person, re-tweeting someone else (akin to quoting) is not the same as endorsement. You should know better. ... you are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, I never said anything about endorsement. You're putting words in my mouth. You should know better. You are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. ("When in Rome, do as Romans do." Maybe this is how Janeland denizens communicate?)

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

Indeed. And I wonder where he got word of it? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Do you actually wonder that, Jane? I'm curious to see if you're suffering from multiple personality disorder, or if you're just a psychopath who can't stop lying. Does Jane actually wonder where Lonny got word of it? Or, deep down, does Jane know the truth that Lonny Eachus got word of it when Jane read the Slashdot comment above because Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus?

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

Why does it matter to you, if it wasn't you? But then, *I* have a suspicion regarding that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

It matters because Lonny's last forensic wet dream was so hilarious that I have to ask again: who does Jane/Lonny suspect it was?

I have a suspicion that Jane/Lonny is hallucinating a hydra for the ninth time, oblivious to the fact that this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

Seriously: who does Jane/Lonny Eachus suspect it was?

Frankly, Imposter Lonny fooled me because his insults got snipped just like insults from the genuine Lonny Eachus get snipped. But in retrospect Imposter Lonny was urging people to be skeptical of Monckton's claims, and that's out of character for the genuine Lonny Eachus.

Here's another comment that seemed too reasonable to be from the genuine Lonny Eachus:

All these inquiries were flawed by the fact that I LONNY the One Man Inquiry Team with Infallible Net TRuthfulness Sense (Tm. Patent Pending) knew, no, PROVED 100% that Mann was a mannipulator and that the whole global warming hoax was started by Mann for a joke on the Democrap Evilushonist Liberuls. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-08-26]

For a split second it seemed like Lonny Eachus might have been poking fun (incredibly accurate fun!) at himself. But since Lonny's never displayed self-awareness, mayb

Sorry... you are mistaken. Even if I admitted to being this person, re-tweeting someone else (akin to quoting) is not the same as endorsement. You should know better. ... you are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, I never said anything about endorsement. You're putting words in my mouth. You should know better. You are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. ("When in Rome, do as Romans do." Maybe this is how Janeland denizens communicate?)

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

Indeed. And I wonder where he got word of it? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Do you actually wonder that, Jane? I'm curious to see if you're suffering from multiple personality disorder, or if you're just a psychopath who can't stop lying. Does Jane actually wonder where Lonny got word of it? Or, deep down, does Jane know the truth that Lonny Eachus got word of it when Jane read the Slashdot comment above because Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus?

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

Why does it matter to you, if it wasn't you? But then, *I* have a suspicion regarding that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

It matters because Lonny's last forensic wet dream was so hilarious that I have to ask again: who does Jane/Lonny suspect it was?

I have a suspicion that Jane/Lonny is hallucinating a hydra for the ninth time, oblivious to the fact that this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

Seriously: who does Jane/Lonny Eachus suspect it was?

Frankly, Imposter Lonny fooled me because his insults got snipped just like insults from the genuine Lonny Eachus get snipped. But in retrospect Imposter Lonny was urging people to be skeptical of Monckton's claims, and that's out of character for the genuine Lonny Eachus.

Here's another comment that seemed too reasonable to be from the genuine Lonny Eachus:

All these inquiries were flawed by the fact that I LONNY the One Man Inquiry Team with Infallible Net TRuthfulness Sense (Tm. Patent Pending) knew, no, PROVED 100% that Mann was a mannipulator and that the whole global warming hoax was started by Mann for a joke on the Democrap Evilushonist Liberuls. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-08-26]

For a split second it seemed like Lonny Eachus might have been poking fun (incredibly accurate fun!) at himself. But since Lonny's never displayed self-awareness, mayb

Sorry... you are mistaken. Even if I admitted to being this person, re-tweeting someone else (akin to quoting) is not the same as endorsement. You should know better. ... you are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, I never said anything about endorsement. You're putting words in my mouth. You should know better. You are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame. ("When in Rome, do as Romans do." Maybe this is how Janeland denizens communicate?)

And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly put those disgusting accusations into his own words. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

Indeed. And I wonder where he got word of it? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Do you actually wonder that, Jane? I'm curious to see if you're suffering from multiple personality disorder, or if you're just a psychopath who can't stop lying. Does Jane actually wonder where Lonny got word of it? Or, deep down, does Jane know the truth that Lonny Eachus got word of it when Jane read the Slashdot comment above because Jane Q. Public is Lonny Eachus?

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

Why does it matter to you, if it wasn't you? But then, *I* have a suspicion regarding that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

It matters because Lonny's last forensic wet dream was so hilarious that I have to ask again: who does Jane/Lonny suspect it was?

I have a suspicion that Jane/Lonny is hallucinating a hydra for the ninth time, oblivious to the fact that this would be the third time Jane's paranoid conspiracy theories would have required a time machine.

Seriously: who does Jane/Lonny Eachus suspect it was?

Frankly, Imposter Lonny fooled me because his insults got snipped just like insults from the genuine Lonny Eachus get snipped. But in retrospect Imposter Lonny was urging people to be skeptical of Monckton's claims, and that's out of character for the genuine Lonny Eachus.

Here's another comment that seemed too reasonable to be from the genuine Lonny Eachus:

All these inquiries were flawed by the fact that I LONNY the One Man Inquiry Team with Infallible Net TRuthfulness Sense (Tm. Patent Pending) knew, no, PROVED 100% that Mann was a mannipulator and that the whole global warming hoax was started by Mann for a joke on the Democrap Evilushonist Liberuls. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-08-26]

For a split second it seemed like Lonny Eachus might have been poking fun (incredibly accurate fun!) at himself. But since Lonny's never displayed self-awareness, mayb

Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!

Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Good grief. Jane's amnesia strikes again:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

I've already explained in my previous comment above why Jane/Lonny's accusation was completely baseless.

I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

At the same time that Jane can't seem to remember his accusations, Jane also doubles down on his accusation that the Petit et al. 1999 graph is "created to mislead" and "harmful to society". Once again, Jane/Lonny is wrong. And once again, Jane tries his favorite "out of context" evasion when his lies are challenged. So here's some more context behind Jane's baseless accusations:

... That other giant graph in the movie that correlates warming with CO2? (A misleading graph with no numbers, showing data that had been shifted in time.) Should I believe THAT "science" too? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".

Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!

Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Good grief. Jane's amnesia strikes again:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

I've already explained in my previous comment above why Jane/Lonny's accusation was completely baseless.

I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

At the same time that Jane can't seem to remember his accusations, Jane also doubles down on his accusation that the Petit et al. 1999 graph is "created to mislead" and "harmful to society". Once again, Jane/Lonny is wrong. And once again, Jane tries his favorite "out of context" evasion when his lies are challenged. So here's some more context behind Jane's baseless accusations:

... That other giant graph in the movie that correlates warming with CO2? (A misleading graph with no numbers, showing data that had been shifted in time.) Should I believe THAT "science" too? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".

Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!

Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Good grief. Jane's amnesia strikes again:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

I've already explained in my previous comment above why Jane/Lonny's accusation was completely baseless.

I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

At the same time that Jane can't seem to remember his accusations, Jane also doubles down on his accusation that the Petit et al. 1999 graph is "created to mislead" and "harmful to society". Once again, Jane/Lonny is wrong. And once again, Jane tries his favorite "out of context" evasion when his lies are challenged. So here's some more context behind Jane's baseless accusations:

... That other giant graph in the movie that correlates warming with CO2? (A misleading graph with no numbers, showing data that had been shifted in time.) Should I believe THAT "science" too? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".

Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!

Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Good grief. Jane's amnesia strikes again:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

I've already explained in my previous comment above why Jane/Lonny's accusation was completely baseless.

I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

At the same time that Jane can't seem to remember his accusations, Jane also doubles down on his accusation that the Petit et al. 1999 graph is "created to mislead" and "harmful to society". Once again, Jane/Lonny is wrong. And once again, Jane tries his favorite "out of context" evasion when his lies are challenged. So here's some more context behind Jane's baseless accusations:

... That other giant graph in the movie that correlates warming with CO2? (A misleading graph with no numbers, showing data that had been shifted in time.) Should I believe THAT "science" too? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".

Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!

Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Good grief. Jane's amnesia strikes again:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

I've already explained in my previous comment above why Jane/Lonny's accusation was completely baseless.

I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

At the same time that Jane can't seem to remember his accusations, Jane also doubles down on his accusation that the Petit et al. 1999 graph is "created to mislead" and "harmful to society". Once again, Jane/Lonny is wrong. And once again, Jane tries his favorite "out of context" evasion when his lies are challenged. So here's some more context behind Jane's baseless accusations:

... That other giant graph in the movie that correlates warming with CO2? (A misleading graph with no numbers, showing data that had been shifted in time.) Should I believe THAT "science" too? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".

Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!

Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Good grief. Jane's amnesia strikes again:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

I've already explained in my previous comment above why Jane/Lonny's accusation was completely baseless.

I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

At the same time that Jane can't seem to remember his accusations, Jane also doubles down on his accusation that the Petit et al. 1999 graph is "created to mislead" and "harmful to society". Once again, Jane/Lonny is wrong. And once again, Jane tries his favorite "out of context" evasion when his lies are challenged. So here's some more context behind Jane's baseless accusations:

... That other giant graph in the movie that correlates warming with CO2? (A misleading graph with no numbers, showing data that had been shifted in time.) Should I believe THAT "science" too? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".

Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!

Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Good grief. Jane's amnesia strikes again:

... See that first chart? It's from this paper: researchgate.net/publication/22... BUT that paper has a qualification about the chart: "To avoid distortions in the calculation of DTI linked with dating uncertainties, we correlate the records by performing a peak to peak adjustment between the ice and ocean isotopic records." In other words, they shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years. Temperature rises actually PRECEDED higher CO2. But it's not obvious. And it's plain criminal that Ramnstorf mentions that nowhere in his derived chart. CO2 has been shifted. Shifted in time by several hundred years at least, to make it appear that the peaks coincide. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-10]

I've already explained in my previous comment above why Jane/Lonny's accusation was completely baseless.

I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

At the same time that Jane can't seem to remember his accusations, Jane also doubles down on his accusation that the Petit et al. 1999 graph is "created to mislead" and "harmful to society". Once again, Jane/Lonny is wrong. And once again, Jane tries his favorite "out of context" evasion when his lies are challenged. So here's some more context behind Jane's baseless accusations:

... That other giant graph in the movie that correlates warming with CO2? (A misleading graph with no numbers, showing data that had been shifted in time.) Should I believe THAT "science" too? [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

A giant chart comparing temperature proxies against CO2 concentrations from ice cores, showing a high correlation. But no labels or indices, or even a casual mention that one of the two lines had been shifted somewhere between 300 to 800 years to the left! Even assuming the correlation is correct, if you don't tell people you have massaged the data in some way, you are "lying with statistics".

'Voodoo' Hackers: Stealing Secrets From Snowden's Favorite OS Is Easier Than You'd Think

http://www.forbes.com/sites/th...
https://archive.is/XNQ3x

##

Government Hacking Us - @botherder calls security firms out

##

@botherder calls security firms out for not publishing info on hacking they discover when done by their own govs

"In a talk at #cccamp2015, @botherder calls security firms out for not publishing info on hacking they discover when done by their own govs[1]."

- https://twitter.com/csoghoian/...
- https://twitter.com/csoghoian/
- https://twitter.com/botherder
- https://twitter.com/hashtag/cc...
- [1] governments

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

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]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does. ... this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny's disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. That's what scientists mean by "CO2 emissions": adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere.

Once again, breathing can't do that 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."

Are you now saying that you already knew that breathing can't raise CO2 levels, but you made your despicable statement anyway? Hopefully not. Think, Lonny! Think! [Dumb Scientist]

Since the subject of breathing raising overall CO2 levels was not mentioned or even implied by anyone except you, I have no reason to respond to this. Once again, your out-of-context straw-manning gets you nowhere. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Lonny, your disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. So your original disgusting statement was either accidentally or deliberately "out of context" of the statements you were replying to. Which is it, Lonny Eachus? Are you honestly confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse others?

emit v. to send forth (liquid, light, heat, sound, particles, etc.); discharge.

There is nothing there about "increasing levels" or averages. Everbody knows what "emit" means, regardless of your attempts to narrow the definition to your liking. He does emit a rather large amount by himself, according to every common definition of the word "emit". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny completely ignores context and quotes a dictionary to support his disgusting statement. Ironically, Jane has previously said: "Di

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]

No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does. ... this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Anyone who cares to look can see that Lonny's disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. That's what scientists mean by "CO2 emissions": adding CO2 to the atmosphere+oceans+biosphere.

Once again, breathing can't do that 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."

Are you now saying that you already knew that breathing can't raise CO2 levels, but you made your despicable statement anyway? Hopefully not. Think, Lonny! Think! [Dumb Scientist]

Since the subject of breathing raising overall CO2 levels was not mentioned or even implied by anyone except you, I have no reason to respond to this. Once again, your out-of-context straw-manning gets you nowhere. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Lonny, your disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. So your original disgusting statement was either accidentally or deliberately "out of context" of the statements you were replying to. Which is it, Lonny Eachus? Are you honestly confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse others?

emit v. to send forth (liquid, light, heat, sound, particles, etc.); discharge.

There is nothing there about "increasing levels" or averages. Everbody knows what "emit" means, regardless of your attempts to narrow the definition to your liking. He does emit a rather large amount by himself, according to every common definition of the word "emit". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny completely ignores context and quotes a dictionary to support his disgusting statement. Ironically, Jane has previously said: "Di