Slashdot Mirror

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?

... before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.

If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?

... I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question. So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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

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?

... before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.

If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?

... I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question. So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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

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?

... before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.

If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?

... I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question. So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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

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?

... before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.

If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?

... I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question. So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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

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?

... before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.

If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?

... I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question. So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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

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?

... before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.

If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?

... I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question. So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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

Bug in Wget passes user's real IP even with proxy use (such as Tor/TAILS)

"Just FYI, it appears there is a bug in wget while using a proxy that allows wget to be forced to use the FTP port and thereby unmask the user's IP (normal usage) or at least leak the user's network adapter IP (in TAILS)."

- Comment @ Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/c...
https://archive.is/3YYo0

- Original discovery of bug @ lists.gnu.org:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/...
https://archive.is/Ah3Pg

- Reported to TAILS project development list (tails-dev):
https://mailman.boum.org/piper...
https://archive.is/nPi5h

- First response @ tails-dev
https://mailman.boum.org/piper...
https://archive.is/derHC

- Wget: What is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Bug in Wget passes user's real IP even with proxy use (such as Tor/TAILS)

"Just FYI, it appears there is a bug in wget while using a proxy that allows wget to be forced to use the FTP port and thereby unmask the user's IP (normal usage) or at least leak the user's network adapter IP (in TAILS)."

- Comment @ Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/c...
https://archive.is/3YYo0

- Original discovery of bug @ lists.gnu.org:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/...
https://archive.is/Ah3Pg

- Reported to TAILS project development list (tails-dev):
https://mailman.boum.org/piper...
https://archive.is/nPi5h

- First response @ tails-dev
https://mailman.boum.org/piper...
https://archive.is/derHC

- Wget: What is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Bug in Wget passes user's real IP even with proxy use (such as Tor/TAILS)

"Just FYI, it appears there is a bug in wget while using a proxy that allows wget to be forced to use the FTP port and thereby unmask the user's IP (normal usage) or at least leak the user's network adapter IP (in TAILS)."

- Comment @ Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/c...
https://archive.is/3YYo0

- Original discovery of bug @ lists.gnu.org:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/...
https://archive.is/Ah3Pg

- Reported to TAILS project development list (tails-dev):
https://mailman.boum.org/piper...
https://archive.is/nPi5h

- First response @ tails-dev
https://mailman.boum.org/piper...
https://archive.is/derHC

- Wget: What is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Bug in Wget passes user's real IP even with proxy use (such as Tor/TAILS)

"Just FYI, it appears there is a bug in wget while using a proxy that allows wget to be forced to use the FTP port and thereby unmask the user's IP (normal usage) or at least leak the user's network adapter IP (in TAILS)."

- Comment @ Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TOR/c...
https://archive.is/3YYo0

- Original discovery of bug @ lists.gnu.org:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/...
https://archive.is/Ah3Pg

- Reported to TAILS project development list (tails-dev):
https://mailman.boum.org/piper...
https://archive.is/nPi5h

- First response @ tails-dev
https://mailman.boum.org/piper...
https://archive.is/derHC

- Wget: What is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Yes, most people who bothered to look at the name "Jane Q. Public" have referred to me here on Slashdot as a gal. Why do you have such a problem with that?

Jane, you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar. But a really good liar could keep piling on the lies, insisting that he'd always just been talking about Slashdot. When Jane said he's "not a lesbian" he obviously that meant he's not a Slashdot lesbian, which explains his Slashdot fantasies about Slashdot fucking Slashdot "hot guys". Jane even had news for guys about how crude Slashdot women are in the Slashdot locker room.

Jane seems to dimly understand that his dishonesty is very inappropriate, but only when others like Rachel Dolezal do it.

But think about this, Lonny. Wouldn't it be worse if Rachel had responded by shamelessly bragging about being a good liar? Wouldn't she seem like a psychopath who couldn't experience shame, so she just piles lies on top of lies?

Again, you've already admitted that you lied a lot when you were younger, but claimed that you got over it. But since you're still shamelessly bragging about being a good liar, did you really "get over" lying a lot?

"@RatbagsDotCom You're a liar (which you have just proven beyond doubt), and present yourself as something you are not. You're a hypocrite." [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-04]

Yes, most people who bothered to look at the name "Jane Q. Public" have referred to me here on Slashdot as a gal. Why do you have such a problem with that?

Jane, you're shamelessly bragging about being a good liar. But a really good liar could keep piling on the lies, insisting that he'd always just been talking about Slashdot. When Jane said he's "not a lesbian" he obviously that meant he's not a Slashdot lesbian, which explains his Slashdot fantasies about Slashdot fucking Slashdot "hot guys". Jane even had news for guys about how crude Slashdot women are in the Slashdot locker room.

Jane seems to dimly understand that his dishonesty is very inappropriate, but only when others like Rachel Dolezal do it.

But think about this, Lonny. Wouldn't it be worse if Rachel had responded by shamelessly bragging about being a good liar? Wouldn't she seem like a psychopath who couldn't experience shame, so she just piles lies on top of lies?

Again, you've already admitted that you lied a lot when you were younger, but claimed that you got over it. But since you're still shamelessly bragging about being a good liar, did you really "get over" lying a lot?

"@RatbagsDotCom You're a liar (which you have just proven beyond doubt), and present yourself as something you are not. You're a hypocrite." [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-04]

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

I'm not going to argue with you on Slashdot about somebody's comments on Twitter. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Somebody's comments on Twitter? Jane, just think!

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Jane, in less than an hour you changed from defending "Lonny Eachus' comment" to defending your comment! Are you actually such a pathological liar that you really think you can just shrug off your libelous attacks by saying they were "somebody's comments on Twitter"?

They were your comments, Jane! You are Lonny Eachus, as you just admitted by claiming Lonny's comment as your own! Please don't treat everyone as though we're stupid. We're not.

I will say that people make mistakes. Like the time you claimed (as shown in one of your links above) that the Wegman report wasn't peer-reviewed. The report had been reviewed by no less than 6 other professional statisticians with no axe to grind, before it was presented. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

Once again, it's hilariously ironic that Jane/Lonny Eachus doubles down on his "Wegman Report" nonsense. Stay tuned for more.

If this is Jane's inept attempt at admitting mistakes, it's absurdly counter-productive to double-down on nonsense while half-heartedly pretending to admit mistakes.

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]

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!

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-08]

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-08]

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-08]

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

Further, those quotes are not from Mark Steyn, they are comments from (mostly) scientists about Michael Mann, and his infamous Hockey Stick. They are not comments by Steyn, at all. In fact many of those quotes are from Mann's own colleagues. The only person who is being nasty or misrepresenting anything here is you. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny ironically regurgitates nasty comments about Mann's "infamous" Hockey Stick and claims not to be nasty or misrepresenting anything.

I showed Steve McIntyre this quote from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. ..."

... I just showed you a graph from NAS. That's not good enough for you? You want maybe I should call God down to talk to you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-08]

Lonny Eachus, I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop regurgitating all your nasty and baseless accusations?

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principl

Further, those quotes are not from Mark Steyn, they are comments from (mostly) scientists about Michael Mann, and his infamous Hockey Stick. They are not comments by Steyn, at all. In fact many of those quotes are from Mann's own colleagues. The only person who is being nasty or misrepresenting anything here is you. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny ironically regurgitates nasty comments about Mann's "infamous" Hockey Stick and claims not to be nasty or misrepresenting anything.

I showed Steve McIntyre this quote from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. ..."

... I just showed you a graph from NAS. That's not good enough for you? You want maybe I should call God down to talk to you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-08]

Lonny Eachus, I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop regurgitating all your nasty and baseless accusations?

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principl

Further, those quotes are not from Mark Steyn, they are comments from (mostly) scientists about Michael Mann, and his infamous Hockey Stick. They are not comments by Steyn, at all. In fact many of those quotes are from Mann's own colleagues. The only person who is being nasty or misrepresenting anything here is you. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny ironically regurgitates nasty comments about Mann's "infamous" Hockey Stick and claims not to be nasty or misrepresenting anything.

I showed Steve McIntyre this quote from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. ..."

... I just showed you a graph from NAS. That's not good enough for you? You want maybe I should call God down to talk to you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-08]

Lonny Eachus, I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop regurgitating all your nasty and baseless accusations?

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principl

Further, those quotes are not from Mark Steyn, they are comments from (mostly) scientists about Michael Mann, and his infamous Hockey Stick. They are not comments by Steyn, at all. In fact many of those quotes are from Mann's own colleagues. The only person who is being nasty or misrepresenting anything here is you. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny ironically regurgitates nasty comments about Mann's "infamous" Hockey Stick and claims not to be nasty or misrepresenting anything.

I showed Steve McIntyre this quote from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. ..."

... I just showed you a graph from NAS. That's not good enough for you? You want maybe I should call God down to talk to you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-08]

Lonny Eachus, I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop regurgitating all your nasty and baseless accusations?

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principl

Further, those quotes are not from Mark Steyn, they are comments from (mostly) scientists about Michael Mann, and his infamous Hockey Stick. They are not comments by Steyn, at all. In fact many of those quotes are from Mann's own colleagues. The only person who is being nasty or misrepresenting anything here is you. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

As usual, Jane/Lonny ironically regurgitates nasty comments about Mann's "infamous" Hockey Stick and claims not to be nasty or misrepresenting anything.

I showed Steve McIntyre this quote from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

"The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years. ..."

... I just showed you a graph from NAS. That's not good enough for you? You want maybe I should call God down to talk to you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-08]

Lonny Eachus, I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop regurgitating all your nasty and baseless accusations?

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-13]

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.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principl

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

... Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media. He ALSO was recently found to have been using the name of Lubos Motl in some private blog posts, later published publicly. And that's definitely not okay. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-29]

... Cook also made injudicious comments in a private forum which later became public, using the name of Lubos Motl. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-06]

Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?

John Cook (stupid debunked "97% climate consensus" paper), caught impersonating others. Supposedly for "science". wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes... And it's NOT a small thing. He was making false statements in the name of a Harvard physics professor. You're gone now, John. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-24]

During The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33, watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and making false statements in the name of Michele Bachmann. Is Jane/Lonny Eachus also going to regurgitate blackmail threats against HBO? Is HBO "gone now"?

(And, seriously... "stupid debunked"? No, Lonny. Just... no. Calm down.)

Hey John Cook @skepticscience Did you steal Lubos Motl's identity?goo.gl/uQNCgN @clim8resistance @lumidek
Because John Cook has committed identity theft, won various grants and prizes, and his wrongdoing has been revealed, I demand all the funds – like his share of those $240,000 in 2011 – to be sent back where they belong, namely to my account. ;-) It's just some $240,000 and you will increase your chance that you won't spend the rest of your life in prison, despite your being a fraudster, and a very incompetent one. [Steve Milloy, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-27]

Good grief. Lonny, you're regurgitating shameless threats of blackmail and libelous accusations of "identity theft" based on illegally obtained private correspondence! Can't you see that overwhelming irony?

Lonny, suppose you hold a mock debate in your private home. However, a script kiddie finds an unlocked door and lets himself into your private home, recording everything you say. Against your wishes, that script kiddie then releases your private mock debate on the internet. Hordes of gullible people then accuse you of identity theft, not realizing that you were just holding a private mock debate and that all these baseless and libelous accusations are ironically based on illegally obtained private correspondence.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous? (Let me guess: this analogy is totally different from Jane/Lonny's regurgitated accusations b

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-08]

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-08]

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Is the picture real or photoshopped? Who knows? Maybe Lonny Eachus was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

And maybe somebody who is not my friend is trying to make me look bad, which is vastly more likely. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-08]

Make you look bad, Jane? That's not a picture of Jane Q. Public maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween. It's a picture of Lonny Eachus maybe dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

The difference is that Cook's picture appeared in a forum frequented by friends and colleagues, not in a post aimed at mocking or character-assassinating him.

What a funny coincidence! So did Eachus's picture. Exactly how is Jane's claim any better supported?

Jane's claim is based on the word of a script kiddie who illegally hacked into a private forum, then asked "what if I wanted to try to sell the data, perhaps even back to Cook et al?"
So I asked the script kiddie: isn't there a word for this?
But the script kiddie just confused blackmail with "courtesy".

Does Jane/Lonny make a habit of regurgitating accusations from people who dig through illegally obtained private material, then publicly and shamelessly consider blackmailing others? Or was this the only time you ever sunk to that disgusting level, Jane/Lonny Eachus?

... 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]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... 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]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... 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]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... 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]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... 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]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... 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]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

... 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]

As I explained six years ago, Jane/Lonny is actually quoting from a paragraph that's devoted to understanding shortcomings in the deuterium-temperature connection. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CO2 timeline! As usual, Lonny's claim that Petit et al. "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years" is completely wrong.

If you don't believe me, open Petit et al. 1999 to page 431, and notice that Lonny's quote comes from the "temperature" section where "CO2" doesn't appear in the text until a new section called "greenhouse gases" starts on page 433.

But why would mainstream scientists even want to be plain criminals who shift the CO2 timeline? I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that mainstream science expects orbitally-driven glacial transitions to show temperatures leading CO2 because ocean outgassing of CO2 amplifies the orbitally-driven glacial cycle.

Again, Jane/Lonny Eachus should really consider watching Richard Alley's 2009 AGU talk at 33:51. A reasonable person would understand that interest on a debt adds to that debt, despite lagging the original debt. Would that reasonable person agree with the email shared at 3:42 sent to Richard Alley's university trying to get him fired?

Now Lonny, remember that your accusation of "plain criminal" is much more serious and libelous than merely trying to get a scientist fired. If Lonny Eachus were put on trial for his libelous attacks, does he really think a reasonable person would believe Lonny was just hopelessly confused about the fact that interest adds to debt despite lagging the original debt? Or would they conclude that Lonny was maliciously spreading lies that no reasonable person could possibly believe?

For instance, Lonny baselessly claims that Petit et al. 1999 "shifted the CO2 timeline back by something like 300-800 years ... to make it appear that the peaks coincide."

A reasonable person could read these quotes from Petit et al. 1999:

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

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.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principle and fact. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Lonny Eachus, please support your ridiculous accusation that the EPA declares your body a toxic polluter because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. You know, with a quote from an actual link.

That might help SANE, rational people see your point, because until now the only people making those ridiculous claims are WUWTers like Jane/Lonny Eachus. Until you provide a quote from an actual link it just seems like you're projecting your ignorance onto yet another organization.

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

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

Apparently you are confused about context. As usual. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Wow! Lonny Eachus, I just gave you an effective defense and you rejected it! You might have a chance if you swear you were just confused about how breathing can't raise CO2 levels, and only said this out of confusion: "@KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2."

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!

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

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.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principle and fact. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Lonny Eachus, please support your ridiculous accusation that the EPA declares your body a toxic polluter because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. You know, with a quote from an actual link.

That might help SANE, rational people see your point, because until now the only people making those ridiculous claims are WUWTers like Jane/Lonny Eachus. Until you provide a quote from an actual link it just seems like you're projecting your ignorance onto yet another organization.

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

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

Apparently you are confused about context. As usual. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Wow! Lonny Eachus, I just gave you an effective defense and you rejected it! You might have a chance if you swear you were just confused about how breathing can't raise CO2 levels, and only said this out of confusion: "@KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2."

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!

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

Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself. No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide. You can't even get this right. What a loser. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

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.

Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]

The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principle and fact. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Lonny Eachus, please support your ridiculous accusation that the EPA declares your body a toxic polluter because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. You know, with a quote from an actual link.

That might help SANE, rational people see your point, because until now the only people making those ridiculous claims are WUWTers like Jane/Lonny Eachus. Until you provide a quote from an actual link it just seems like you're projecting your ignorance onto yet another organization.

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

Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels. [Dumb Scientist]

Apparently you are confused about context. As usual. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-12]

Wow! Lonny Eachus, I just gave you an effective defense and you rejected it! You might have a chance if you swear you were just confused about how breathing can't raise CO2 levels, and only said this out of confusion: "@KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2."

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!