Slashdot Mirror

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and saying:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and saying:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and saying:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and saying:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and saying:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

Lonny, you were just asked to please find it in your heart to stop hurling these baseless accusations. You responded by continuing to regurgitate Mark Steyn's baseless accusations and:

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

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

It's hard to even pretend that Lonny Eachus's disgusting suggestion was intended as a joke, because:

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]

Truly, no joke, Lonny Eachus is still making the same mistake I've repeatedly tried to explain to him. Breathing simply can't increase atmospheric CO2. But as usual Lonny Eachus just doubles down:

Apparently you didn't understand my comment. Emissions are emissions. You emit or you don't. "No safe level." [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.

A plumber who understood plumbing as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Lonny Eachus understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Fortunately, a surgeon that incompetent couldn't affect many people. Spreading misinformation which theatens the future of civilization, on the other hand...

Lonny Eachus, please stop telling scientists to commit suicide. That's NOT FUNNY.

... 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:

... 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:

I don't know anybody who is gender-neutral. I suppose they exist. https://archive.is/9x00E

Lonny Eachus spends about half his time pretending to be a "gal" named Jane Q. Public. Wouldn't that be gender-neutral? Or does Lonny spend slightly more time wearing his "Jane" panties than he does pretending to be a man?

... 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]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes 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]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes 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]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes 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]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes 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]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes 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]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes 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]

Watch The Newsroom's mock debate here at 2:33 to watch in horror as a man is caught impersonating and makes 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

Why even write comments about lumping CO2 together with pollutants that have local effects if you're not even willing to say whether or not your definition of "pollutant" includes well-mixed gases?

And no, your answer to that question isn't already there, and that really should be a concern of yours. Why even write a response any longer than "yes" or "no" unless you can't answer that question without sounding ridiculous?

But go ahead, run away because you're stumped. If you've seen that 1000 times, maybe that's just your reflection off your monitor.

Why even write comments about lumping CO2 together with pollutants that have local effects if you're not even willing to say whether or not your definition of "pollutant" includes well-mixed gases?

And no, your answer to that question isn't already there, and that really should be a concern of yours. Why even write a response any longer than "yes" or "no" unless you can't answer that question without sounding ridiculous?

But go ahead, run away because you're stumped. If you've seen that 1000 times, maybe that's just your reflection off your monitor.

Why even write comments about lumping CO2 together with pollutants that have local effects if you're not even willing to say whether or not your definition of "pollutant" includes well-mixed gases?

And no, your answer to that question isn't already there, and that really should be a concern of yours. Why even write a response any longer than "yes" or "no" unless you can't answer that question without sounding ridiculous?

But go ahead, run away because you're stumped. If you've seen that 1000 times, maybe that's just your reflection off your monitor.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Now if only getting a warrant were an obstacle...

The point of getting a warrant is for judicial review. Review... not obstruction.

If you're that hateful, go post on Stormfront.

Stormfront doesn't even really want to be associated with the more extreme, violent individuals. They want to to keep a "clean" front and not be seen as promoting criminal activity.

That's right, Reddit was harboring the racists that even Stormfront wasn't going to let inside. Their posting guidelines (archive link so your browser history is safe) prohibit obscenity, racial epithets, threats of violence, general shitposting & other crap that fills Reddit's racist subs to the brim.

Now if only getting a warrant were an obstacle...

"Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media." https://archive.is/76y5w#selection-3375.25-3375.75

I'm willing to amend my statement...

Your statement, Jane? That statement was actually made by a man-child named Lonny Eachus!

John Cook did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Whether the picture is real or photoshopped, I don't know. For all I know, he was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

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.

... pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by John Cook's friends and associates, with Cook's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform. ...

What a funny coincidence! Pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by Lonny Eachus's friends and associates, with Eachus's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform. (Let me guess: Jane and Nova's claim about Cook is totally different because blah blah blah...).

... However, Cook didn't seem to have a problem with it until it became a media talking point.

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus also doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Even the "gal" who calls "herself" Jane and claims Lonny's statements as "her" own doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Hmm...

"Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media." https://archive.is/76y5w#selection-3375.25-3375.75

I'm willing to amend my statement...

Your statement, Jane? That statement was actually made by a man-child named Lonny Eachus!

John Cook did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Whether the picture is real or photoshopped, I don't know. For all I know, he was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

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.

... pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by John Cook's friends and associates, with Cook's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform. ...

What a funny coincidence! Pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by Lonny Eachus's friends and associates, with Eachus's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform. (Let me guess: Jane and Nova's claim about Cook is totally different because blah blah blah...).

... However, Cook didn't seem to have a problem with it until it became a media talking point.

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus also doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Even the "gal" who calls "herself" Jane and claims Lonny's statements as "her" own doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Hmm...

"Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media." https://archive.is/76y5w#selection-3375.25-3375.75

I'm willing to amend my statement...

Your statement, Jane? That statement was actually made by a man-child named Lonny Eachus!

John Cook did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Whether the picture is real or photoshopped, I don't know. For all I know, he was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

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.

... pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by John Cook's friends and associates, with Cook's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform. ...

What a funny coincidence! Pictures appeared on social media, apparently (in retrospect) made by Lonny Eachus's friends and associates, with Eachus's head photoshopped onto someone in a Nazi uniform. (Let me guess: Jane and Nova's claim about Cook is totally different because blah blah blah...).

... However, Cook didn't seem to have a problem with it until it became a media talking point.

What a funny coincidence! Lonny Eachus also doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Even the "gal" who calls "herself" Jane and claims Lonny's statements as "her" own doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Hmm...

As someone who visited the place on a few occasions, I can say a lot of the users are pretty extreme and obnoxious/spammy with their hate, but there were a lot (including non-whites, and even some blacks) who wanted to get to the truth and argue facts and logic. FWIW, their main list of 'facts' can be seen here.

Personally, I don't think silencing them will help, as it won't stop people from being racist, and certainly won't help debate (they've just moved anyway - their new place is at Voat which is like a non-censored version of Reddit).

As for own view, well, I guess evolution shows that humans didn't evolve perfectly, and so despite the fashionable cultural relativistic worldview a lot have today, it isn't inconceivable that there are qualities such as IQ, beauty, strength or aggression which are more pronounced in one subset of humans compared to another. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm a little worried that over the next few centuries there won't be any whites as we'll all have mixed into a single homogeneous people (well in previously white countries anyway, since white people aren't exactly flooding Africa, India or Asia...)

Women in tech have a 4:1 advantage over men, and men are much more likely to experience harassment and more severe harassment than women.

And of course there's nothing that harasses and abuses women in this world nearly as much as feminism.

Here's an archived copy: https://archive.is/VpWQl

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

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

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

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

But as usual Jane/Lonny Eachus just makes up numbers to support his baseless accusations rather than actually doing the math.

"Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media." https://archive.is/76y5w#selec...

That's libel. Did Lonny Eachus dress as a Nazi in a picture in social media? http://web.archive.org/web/201...

"Cook did dress as Nazi in picture in social media." https://archive.is/76y5w#selec...

That's libel. Did Lonny Eachus dress as a Nazi in a picture in social media? http://web.archive.org/web/201...