Slashdot Mirror

Remember when Brianna Wu did this:

http://i.imgur.com/zlEkMPQ.png

She's only known because of GamerGate, despite what she says.

She's still doing it:

https://archive.is/RHWfR

At least she knows what she's doing. She makes over $3000 a month trolling people on twitter then crying when people point out that she's an idiot.

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. [Dumb Scientist]

Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

If Jane/Lonny's opinion that Karl et al. used "highly questionable" methods were widely shared by scientists, Jane/Lonny wouldn't have had to say things like this to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) after Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Jane/Lonny's uninformed opinion.

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. Ironically, Jane/Lonny made the same mistake two years ago regarding Cowtan and Way 2013, which yielded a trend similar to Karl et al. 2015. Perhaps Jane/Lonny forgot about that while ranting about "outliers"?

If Jane/Lonny would actually calculate a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties (either using the code I've repeatedly given him, or by writing his own) then he'd realize that Karl et al. 2015 really wasn't news. For instance, years before Karl et al. 2015, I'd already told Jane/Lonny that "There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."

Again, I said this to Jane/Lonny long before Karl et al. 2015. Even without Karl et al. 2015, it's still clear that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

That's not news to anyone who's calculated a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties. Have you done that yet? Will you ever do that, Jane/Lonny?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No adjustment p

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. [Dumb Scientist]

Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

If Jane/Lonny's opinion that Karl et al. used "highly questionable" methods were widely shared by scientists, Jane/Lonny wouldn't have had to say things like this to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) after Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Jane/Lonny's uninformed opinion.

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. Ironically, Jane/Lonny made the same mistake two years ago regarding Cowtan and Way 2013, which yielded a trend similar to Karl et al. 2015. Perhaps Jane/Lonny forgot about that while ranting about "outliers"?

If Jane/Lonny would actually calculate a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties (either using the code I've repeatedly given him, or by writing his own) then he'd realize that Karl et al. 2015 really wasn't news. For instance, years before Karl et al. 2015, I'd already told Jane/Lonny that "There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."

Again, I said this to Jane/Lonny long before Karl et al. 2015. Even without Karl et al. 2015, it's still clear that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

That's not news to anyone who's calculated a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties. Have you done that yet? Will you ever do that, Jane/Lonny?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No adjustment p

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. [Dumb Scientist]

Absolute bullshit. Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

If Jane/Lonny's opinion that Karl et al. used "highly questionable" methods were widely shared by scientists, Jane/Lonny wouldn't have had to say things like this to Dr. Gavin Schmidt (director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies) after Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Jane/Lonny's uninformed opinion.

... Karl et al. conclusion is an outlier. And you don't have to be a scientist to know it... if it weren't, there wouldn't have been news media all over the place reporting "No 'Hiatus' After All". Outliers are outliers. They can be recognized from their conclusions, as I did, but by lay people they can also often be recognized by the media uproar they stir. Simple logic says that if it hadn't been NEWS, it wouldn't have made a stir in the news. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-23]

Jane's method of spotting outliers via media uproar is cute, but it would be more rigorous to actually look at Fig 1 (a) and (b). The new global trend's central estimate is within the error bars of the old estimate. Ironically, Jane/Lonny made the same mistake two years ago regarding Cowtan and Way 2013, which yielded a trend similar to Karl et al. 2015. Perhaps Jane/Lonny forgot about that while ranting about "outliers"?

If Jane/Lonny would actually calculate a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties (either using the code I've repeatedly given him, or by writing his own) then he'd realize that Karl et al. 2015 really wasn't news. For instance, years before Karl et al. 2015, I'd already told Jane/Lonny that "There hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends."

Again, I said this to Jane/Lonny long before Karl et al. 2015. Even without Karl et al. 2015, it's still clear that there hasn't been a statistically significant change in the warming rate, and there isn't a statistically significant difference between the projected and observed trends.

That's not news to anyone who's calculated a trend estimate with autocorrelated uncertainties. Have you done that yet? Will you ever do that, Jane/Lonny?

Apparently NOAA and NASA think nobody in 1937 knew how to read a thermometer. I find that idea... unlikely. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

No adjustment p

I don't think it's fair to say she's made ALL the threats against herself, but she has been proven to be a liar and has on a few occasions been caught trying to drum-up harassment.

Like the time she forgot to log out of her dev account on Steam before starting a thread saying bad things about herself. She was called on it by a Steam mod and ended up removing the thread shortly after. (https://archive.is/t1Oxl)

Or the time she was talking private chatting with a group of anons that ended up mysteriously being involved in harassing her (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B1WSLdFCAAEicWf.png:large)

Or the time she claimed GamerGate was threating a PAX conference, except the threats were from one of her followers directed at GamerGate supporters (https://i.imgur.com/nAxgNCD.png)

Or the time she created the brololz account to harass & mock people on twitter (http://imgur.com/y1OK1By)

I don't agree with anyone receiving death threats and it's dumb that I have to state that whenever Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu or Anita Sarkeesian come up, but I'm all out of empathy for these women. Who seem to continually kick beehives, get stung by wasps then parade it around as evidence that bees need to be eradicated. They're definitely creating they're own "misery" which gets them big bucks and lots of attention while breaking the #1 rule of the internet (don't feed the trolls)

Janelle Asselin @gimpnelly: @Spacekatgal @slashdot do you have your bingo card ready?

Marcy-Not a Vampire @marcyjcook: @gimpnelly @Spacekatgal @slashdot That would take 30 secs to complete! It's going to be a mess. I think I need lunch before reading /.

Carfolio.com @Carfolio: @Spacekatgal @slashdot Is there an equivalent term to SJW for these privileged white male offence dispensers?

Kirby Carav @MumaKirby: @Carfolio @Spacekatgal @Slashdot Jackasses?

Carfolio.com @Carfolio: @MumaKirby @Spacekatgal @slashdot Nothing catchier? We need branding here ;-)

LaurieC @MsLaurieC 3h3 hours ago: @Spacekatgal @slashdot Yeah, because you know, there's nothing worse than hearing about how badly people who aren't me are treated!

Laura Genn @Reason2Write: @Spacekatgal @slashdot That word. Ugh. -_- Nazis were real and horrible. Their legacy remains. Don't call things that aren't Nazis "Nazis"!

Devyn Rodriguez @DevynRodriguez: @Spacekatgal @slashdot That comment section is a depressing example of people not getting it.

Swift Studies @Swift_Studies: @Spacekatgal well I think you are awesome

Ryan Robinson @Ryan_LR: @Spacekatgal It's a tough life being a man in a nanny state that won't even allow rape and murder whenever I feel like it.

Jens Scholz @jensscholz: @Spacekatgal @slashdot When i'm Godwined i'm usually pretend to argue a bit forth and after some time post this. "No, You hang up first"

Lindsay Felt @ArayaNexus: @Spacekatgal @slashdot Whelp. That didn't take long. You don't happen to have an estimated time it took to get to feminazi, do you?

Steve Paulo @StevePaulo: @Spacekatgal Gotta love the "I'll give you something to complain about!"-style threat at the end.

ToxicAudri @ToxicAudri: @Spacekatgal https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Many see you have an internal problem with your group and supporters.

Erik Montoya @emontoya42: @Spacekatgal @slashdot does the feminazi party provide awesome boots with the uniform? Cause really they should. #hottakes

Greg Downing @MightyGregDoge: @Spacekatgal @slashdot "I'm sorry, what? I stopped reading after you said feminazi. You kept writing, so I assume you apologized."

Jarred @smilingmerle: @Spacekatgal Does Frank know you treat him like the enemy?

Norah Williams @LikeIronLies: @Spacekatgal Feminazi stole my ice cream! https://vimeo.com/64941331

THE LORD HUMUNGUS @ChristopherRasa Brooklyn, NY: @Spacekatgal @slashdot Not being allowed to threaten to kill people every day: A forced nanny state.

Phoebe Washington @Feministphoebe: @Spacekatgal @slashdot just ignore the haters. You're an incredible woman.

Consider these people defenders of harassment, especially given that they've threatened more than they've actually been threatened (aside from staged incidents, nil). Such defense is not maintaining civility, but to defend a logically indefensible narrative from criticism. Shutting it up or blocking it won't make the painful truth any less true.

Archived at: https://archive.is/bBvN7

Seeing as I asked first

He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter https://archive.is/AiKKt [archive.is] .

And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged intohttps://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/623939409797357568 when faking harassment again! Oops!

You really have to wonder how big a lying sack of crap someone has to be for you to call B.S.

So once again what does it take for you to admit he is lying attention whore, whose only knowledge of the troubles of women is how to capitalize on them

We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

Well, we know she saw at least some of them, because she complained about them.

Note that in Brianna's circle, disagreement is "harassment" or being "toxic".

Seeing as I asked first

He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter https://archive.is/AiKKt [archive.is] .

And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged intohttps://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/623939409797357568 when faking harassment again! Oops!

You really have to wonder how big a lying sack of crap someone has to be for you to call B.S.

Say what you want, but I have never seen a bloke who claims to be able to code subjected to this level of flat-out disbelief.

Well with Mr. Walker aka Briana Wu you just have.

Now I know you are very very adept at not seeing things that conflict with your prejudices but

He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter https://archive.is/AiKKt .

And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged intohttps://twitter.com/Spacekatgal/status/623939409797357568 when faking harassment again! Oops!

You really have to wonder how big a lying sack of crap someone has to be for you to call B.S.

We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter.

And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into when faking harassment again! Oops!

Now that should be modded informative.

Of course Wu can never give up the whole sexism racket because that is the key to her sympathy funding. She worked on the first game, which qualifies as one of the worst games ever made, then found out it's a lot more difficult and time consuming to make a game than she thought it would be so she decided to be a full time victim making $3000 per month for going around and stirring the pity pot.

We don't actually know that she got sent the hard questions.

He claims to have read through all the questions on Twitter.

And it looks like someone forgot which account they were logged into when faking harassment again! Oops!

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c

... the "raw vs adjusted" argument has no bearing on the fact that the Karl paper reaches different conclusions, based on the available data, than just about everyone else, AND used highly questionable methods to reach those conclusions. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-07-18]

That's an opinion, not a fact. Informed opinions require understanding simple facts about the adjustments that were already used before Karl et al. 2015 proposed an incremental improvement. A prerequisite to understanding Karl et al. 2015 is acknowledging the fact that NOAA's adjustments (before and after Karl et al.) show less global surface warming over the last century than the raw data do.

... we've had no significant warming since around 1900. Surprise! The government's own unmanipulated data shows that quite clearly. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-13]

Nonsense. The government's own "unmanipulated" data show even more global surface warming since around 1900 than their "manipulated" data do. Calling necessary adjustments "manipulations" is bad enough, but hopefully we can agree that it would be stupid to call those adjustments fraud?

There are issues with how temperatures get adjusted, but calling it fraud is just lazy and stupid. [Brandon S]

It's only stupid to those who don't understand how and to what extent it has been done. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-03]

Wow. Will Jane/Lonny ever understand the extent to which adjustments reduce global surface warming over the last century compared to raw data? If so, will he retract his accusation?

Actually NASA (or was it NOAA?) changed their tune again and are saying it [the hottest year in our very short records] was 1937. Gotta keep up with this stuff, man. The raw, unadjusted temperature records always have said 1937. It's the adjustments that are questionable, not the historical record. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-15]

It was warmer in 1937, when there was no significant CO2 release! That's natural causes! [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-07]

... 1937 was probably the warmest year in "modern times". 1937 data has been gathered from all over. It's widely recognized to be a globally very hot year. NOAA's own historic temperature data show it clearly. From sources all over the world, not just USA. Of course, they've since "adjusted" temperatures of that period downward. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-07-04]

Nonsense. Karl et al. 2015 Fig 2(b) (backup) shows that NOAA has been adjusting the 1937 global surface temperature upward before and after Karl et al. 2015. Not downward, Jane/Lonny. Upward.

NOAA's adjustments to data are many times higher than the amount of "record" temp. they claimed last year. Think about that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-06-09]

Okay. I thought about how NOAA's adjustments reduce the global surface warming rate over the last c

Ah I see you're talking about Randi Harper and her harassment against the Free BSD community for someone daring to have a different opinion then her. Yes, that Harper, the one who claims to have an anti-harassment group called "OPAI" and engages in harassment.

The problem of course, is that the FOSS community operates on merit, to SJW's and radical feminists merit and meritocracy are verboten. They'd rather have racial and sex based quotas. If people want to see how bad it's gotten look at Github, and their removal of the meritocracy rug. They're also the ones pushing for codes of conduct, that take peoples feelings into account. And at least in the projects I've started working for they've instituted a no-code-of-conduct policy.

> The reason it exploded wasn't because it was a superior discussion system- nerds made better ones at the dawn of the net, and they are still here.

They did make some incremental improvements. I love Markdown now. I stopped writing HTML ages ago for my own blog. Reddit is much easier to use in terms of adding formatting to text.

Coming back to Slashdot I realized how tedious doing full mark up was just to add some emphasis or a URL. I also like that with RES you can view images inline. I wish that there was a script to automatically show the first paragraph of a wiki article if you hovered over a complex term.

And where Reddit does work is in smaller groups. There's a threshold for a subreddit where everything just goes to shit. My wife loves hanging out on /r/babybumps, /r/parenting & /r/clothdiapering because it's a place where she can sit and chat with other women about parenting. There's no reason for full slashdot moderation there. Reddit's 'everyone votes' system works just fine. But that's because there isn't a "/r/disposablediapers" subreddit that comes in to brigade what they say, argue endlessly, etc.

I'll restate the same thing I've been stating for a few months: I want a new *protocol*, not a new site. A RFC that outlines comment moderation, story submission, etc. I want a C/C++ stack that I can deploy on my own server to roll my own Slashdot or Reddit. NNTP was good for its time but had its flaws (moderation). I want a stand alone app (then again I still use Thunderbird over a webmail) for discussion. I want it to be decentralized

Reddit's system is awful by design, because their goal isn't to make for conversation, it's to make for clicks and fights and play off that end of the emotional spectrum.

Reddit figured out fanning flame wars was more profitable. Twitter too.

When Brianna Wu tried to get her echo chamber to ask her the questions she wanted to answer in her Interview it didn't work.

Most people here have been isolated from "GamerGate" attributing it to "Reddit/Twitter Drama" but it's now been spilling over to Slashdot (because it's profitable for Dice) and even to the FreeBSD project (Because of Randi Harper). However people have found out that it's also profitable to be a professional victim which is why you're seeing it everywhere now, they need a bigger audience to fund their patreons

- https://www.patreon.com/freebs...
- https://www.patreon.com/user?u...

I wish Grace Hopper was still alive to tell this new group to STFU and GBTW.

Easy enough.

As opposed to your world where how you feel overrides objective reality ?

Most definitely.

BTW since words and meanings are important here and you raised the issue.

[1]Not that you've given anything beyone mere assertions.

If you look up evidence was provided, It can be verified by googling.

Please keep pretending the points you repeatedly raise haven't been answered ad nauseum, and this isn't an attempt at passive aggressive behavior on your part.

Oh and btw the fellow you are championing played you

https://archive.is/m0MCY

Gee you think he might have realized that this would be disruptive ?

So are you a troll or just stupid ?

The article had exactly the intended effect. She got to claim she was a victim on twitter. [Archive]

I read all 300 toxic questions for my @slashdot interview, here are the ones I can answer
1. Yes, I like peanut M&Ms

She got exactly what she was going for. She never intended to answer any questions. She's just run out of venues to call her out on her bullshit. She heard Slashdot used to do 'tech', probably knew someone at Dice and got it put in. I wonder what Slashdot's traffic looked like today when she actively tried to get her followers to brigade Slashdot

And it's pretty easy to tell who they are. They have no Karma, didn't even Create an account

Meanwhile some of us have been on Slashdot for 10+ years and have decent post histories to fall back on. She claims it was GamerGaters that did this but most of them are too young to have ever found Slashdot.

These people can't handle the truth/criticism.

The article had exactly the intended effect. She got to claim she was a victim on twitter. [Archive]

I read all 300 toxic questions for my @slashdot interview, here are the ones I can answer
1. Yes, I like peanut M&Ms

She got exactly what she was going for. She never intended to answer any questions. She's just run out of venues to call her out on her bullshit. She heard Slashdot used to do 'tech', probably knew someone at Dice and got it put in. I wonder what Slashdot's traffic looked like today when she actively tried to get her followers to brigade Slashdot

And it's pretty easy to tell who they are. They have no Karma, didn't even Create an account

Meanwhile some of us have been on Slashdot for 10+ years and have decent post histories to fall back on. She claims it was GamerGaters that did this but most of them are too young to have ever found Slashdot.

These people can't handle the truth/criticism.

Reddit policy to be updated, CEO says site was not created "to be a bastion of free speech"

After a string of dramatic events like the removal of the Fappening and FatPeopleHate subreddits, the dismissal of Victoria Taylor and the subsequent AMAgeddon culminating in the resignation of the former CEO Ellen Pao, the recently returned Reddit CEO and site founder Steve Huffman announces that a comprehensive Content Policy and the tools to enforce it are currently in development motivated in part by the media and internal repercussion of "the more offensive and obscene content" on their platform.

Mentioning without specifying some communities "whose purpose is reprehensible" and disclaiming that they "don't have any obligation to support them" the CEO announces an AMA (Ask me Anything) next Thursday 1pm where they "as a community need to decide together what our values are".

The CEO states that "Neither Alexis nor I created reddit to be a bastion of free speech, but rather as a place where open and honest discussion can happen.".

In a top comment in the announcement a site user refutes this claim point to a Forbes article from 2012 where Ohanians, answering a question of what the founding fathers would think of Reddit, replies: "A bastion of free speech on the World Wide Web? I bet they would like itâ. Alexis himself, in a Google Plus post from 2012 (archived version), says that he is "really, really proud of these quotes".

Really? Cause it sure shows up easily on a 29" monitor. And of course you can't forget the other stuff either. I'm sure someone will go hurdurdur breitbart because they have an ideological bias.

Regardless of what you believe Ms. Wu experienced, do you truly not know any women in software or gaming who've experienced the kind of awful "boy's only club" attitudes and sometimes downright literal sexual harassment?

Yes. Game developer Kathy Sierra was run off the Internet by harassment from GNAA / Bantown, the group of Weev, Hepkitten, Randi Harper (Selkie), and Nigger Christ / BLCKMSSH / Teridax, who are twitter friends of Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu. I wonder who could possibly be sending all that harassment to these two women right before they release their games, right when they would profit most from some gimmick to get attention from the media. It must be those other people over there who are talking about that hashtag that is no allowed to be spoken anymore

CLAIM: RANDI HARPERâ(TM)S âANTI-ABUSE CHARITYâ(TM) CONSISTS OF AN EMAIL ACCOUNT AND A TUMBLR
TRUE. Harper describes herself as the founder and chief executive of the âoeOnline Abuse Prevention Initiative.â She has set up a Tumblr and and email account for the organisation. But it has no staff, no proper website, no offices, no external funding and, most importantly, no 501(c)(3) registration. Harper says OAPI is âoein the processâ of being registered.

CLAIM: RANDI HARPER ACCUSED A STANFORD ACADEMIC AND DIVERSITY ADVOCATE OF ABUSE
TRUE. Harper tweeted at or about acclaimed campaigner and academic Vivek Wadhwa, who holds appointments at Duke, Stanford, and Singularity University, over 40 times, accusing him of harassment. He sent back two tweets, both apologetic. She tweeted at him for nine months, and even wrote a fake book review on Amazon to try to besmirch his character.

CLAIM: RANDI HARPER IS HERSELF A TROLL AND A HARASSER
TRUE. She is a notorious one, in fact, whose aberrant online behaviour goes back to the 1990s. Harper has relentlessly pursued dozens of innocent people over the slightest of perceived ideological infractions or personal slights over the years.

CLAIM: RANDI HARPER DOXED A DEBT COLLECTOR
TRUE. In 2011, Harper was being pursued for a debt. Her response was to post the home phone number of the collection firmâ(TM)s chief executive, after first threatening to release his familyâ(TM)s personal information.

https://archive.is/dma4t

http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

http://www.breitbart.com/big-h...

Nobody's trying to "smear" GamerGate, we read what you write in your own words on 8chan, /r/KIA, and under the #gamergate hashtag.

A movement with no spokesmen, which communicates primarily through venues that enforce total anonymity by default is awfully convenient for those who would use "their words" against them, since any 15-year old child on his smartphone can - and will - be held up as representative of the entire group. This is simply an extension of the "cyber-bullying" cause, where people try to conflate toss-off statements posted anonymously on the internet with serious and credible death threats. Through an anonymous, geographically remote medium like an imageboard, the possible consequences of saying nearly anything are almost nonexistent - so people say whatever they can, just because they can. It takes little wherewithal, conviction or true feeling to type "you are bad and deserve to be raped," whereas making the same threat in person almost guarantees a visit from stern men in institutional blue; which is why they're taken seriously - the motivation required to prompt it must be that much more severe. The personalities at the center of this "Gamergate" fracas make a policy of conflating the former with the latter to enhance their claims of victimhood - and if the baseless internet trashtalk isn't pouring in fast enough, they'll start actively baiting the trolls themselves.

Your entire movement started when Adam Baldwin tweeted links to YouTube videos smearing a female game dev's sex life because her ex-boyfriend wanted to run a hate campaign against her.

It sure did! And if said dev had replied in a different fashion, it would've been utterly forgotten by now. I've got a bachelors in Journalism, and I can tell you that absolutely nobody with a quarter of a brain or over the age of 20 is at all surprised that industry publications are little better than shills for the advertisers that provide all their income. The difficulty of monetizing online journalism (a task even major, respected mainstream news publications have struggled with) almost guaranteed it'd be even worse for online gaming websites. It's not exactly breaking news to anyone. It should've been a minor story only a few cared about, and died a quiet death when the muddy nature of the allegations became clear.

But that's not what happened.

What happened was a game developer resorting to moral fiat argument; i.e. my critics are sexist and thus automatically evil and wrong. At a stroke this transformed the issue; it went from some nobody indie dev arguing with nobody internet nerds to An Attack On Women. This alone polarized the issue and involved a massive preexisting base of communities, activists and political context (which was the goal, of course.) But what really blew the flames into a forest fire was the obvious collusion and outright slander by the gaming news sites being criticized: they all published "gamers are dead" articles arguing that "gamer culture" had been completely overtaken by sexism and misogyny, the implication being that anyone who identified as a "gamer" (i.e. all the people criticizing them,) was by definition a sexist, misogynistic bastard, and their opinions could and should be rejected out of hand.

This kind of argument tactic is nothing new in the political sphere - moral fiat arguing backed by complicit media outlets is a staple of left-wing strategy, as best evidenced by theCindy Sheehan phenomena. I've watched it in action for years. But when I was writing political op-eds on a home-grown website run by me and a few highschool friends, all my peers were playing Halo tournaments

The admins didn't realize how much we rely on Victoria. Part of it is proof, of course: we know it's legitimate when she's sitting right there next to the person and can make them provide proof. We've had situations where agents or others have tried to do an AMA as their client, and Victoria shut that shit down immediately. We can't do that anymore.

Chooter didn't allow anyone to do fake third-party AMAs, nor did she allow anyone to pay money to do an AMA. She practiced what she preached:
http://blog.prspeak.com/blog/p...

My comment from Reddit's banfest a few weeks ago:

Reddit has unbelievable traffic and reach, so stuff that earns popularity there gets spread to virtually everywhere and everyone.

It's exposure that marketers (of anything: products, politics, whatever) would kill for. They want to buy their way in, but not if some dirty peasant can tell the truth and (through sheer merit) get voted up and be taken just as seriously (or more seriously) than their bought & paid for message.

So Reddit sees advertisers chomping at the bit to throw money at it, but first Reddit has to demonstrate that it can crush contrary opinions at will.

IMO redditors are right to be suspicious that Reddit suddenly removed (without explanation) the only person whom they trust to expose fake/paid AMAs.

No, we don't know why she was fired. But even if it was for cause, what the mods and community are most angry about is the lack of communication from admins (lots of them were left hanging for scheduled AMAs, with no word from Reddit). You see this lack of communication cited over and over again in the explanations on the subreddits made private. They say it's been a problem for years, and yesterday was just the tipping point.

Reddit's rationalization of its recent taste for censorship is that they want to create "safe spaces" to prevent abuse, harrassment, threats, terrorism, earthquakes, etc. But that is clearly a lie because they never provide evidence of such harrassment and they allow much worse subreddits like SRS to exist, and many other subreddits have been banned since FPH without even the pretense of a "harrassment" excuse, and there are other examples of uneven enforcement (e.g. the admins told KiA (the Gamergate subreddit) that they can't post public company contact info, which appears to be a "rule" unique to KiA).

Saying the wrong thing (especially criticism of Pao) can easily get you shadowbanned, which means you can see your own posts but no one else can see them. This feature can only be used by admins (not mods), and its only legitimate use was against spammers and bots, but even that's no longer the case because tech-savvy users (e.g. spammers) know how to test for it. Now it's just a sneaky way they censor with the hope of avoiding a confrontation and backlash.

Of course none of these unique and secret and biased rules and enforcement policies have been communicated to the community or mods either. This is almost always the real root cause behind every Reddit leadership fuckup with corresponding mod/user uprising, and this time even they and their friends in the corrupt, colluding tech news media--you know, the ones who hailed Pao as a hero of women for her frivilous failed lawsuit--can't hope to spin this user/mod revolt into a "redditor harrassment" narrative. It all started over Reddit's firing of a universally-beloved female employee, for fuck's sake. Redditors would trade

That link shows Jane repeating 40+ of the same baseless false accusations over and over. Is Jane/Lonny hoping to "wear down" another female scientist, after Prof. Hayhoe never responded to his baseless, unprovoked and libelous accusations? How is this not a personal vendetta:

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Now Naomi Oreskes is a "scientist"??? You might want to tell other people that, because nobody else seems to know.

Good grief, Jane! Yeah, that's yet another good example of your baseless, unprovoked accusations. Harvard seems to know (emphasis added) that "Naomi Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences . She recently arrived at Harvard after spending 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Geosciences at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography."

So Harvard seems to know that Prof. Oreskes isn't "just" a science historian; she's also an Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences after being an Adjunct Professor of Geosciences.

But let me guess. Jane has "incontrovertible evidence" (like bananas) that Prof. Oreskes is a "false consensus lady" charlatan and famous purveyor of scientific bullshit with a bad reputation in regard to scientific integrity who's either incompetent or a liar and spreads statistical nonsense and a parody of good statistics and blatant & obvious falsehoods.

Naturally, Jane decrees that Prof. Oreskes is a laughing stock with no credibility.

For some reason, Harvard doesn't seem to agree with Jane/Lonny Eachus. A brief glance at Prof. Oreskes' CV shows why: she has a background in geology (like Richard Alley and many other scientists) and actually wrote her PhD thesis on the "false consensus" of American earth scientists in the early twentieth century, who were united in their opposition to continental drift.

So not only is Prof. Oreskes a scientist, her other field of expertise is critically evaluating consensus in science. That would seem to suggest yet another reason why Jane should think twice before lecturing a scientist who's also a science historian about how scientists think.

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists who are also science historians about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of being charlatan laughing stocks with no credibility who are either incompetent or liars.

Seriously, wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

"@NaomiOreskes How do you live with yourself? Do you sleep well, knowing the pseudo-science you have tried to pull off? Just curious." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-20]

Hmm. That makes no sense. Did Jane mistype the link?

But it does confirm that Jane/Lonny Eachus won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fa

Hmm. That makes no sense. Did Jane mistype the link?

But it does confirm that Jane/Lonny Eachus won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fa

Hmm. That makes no sense. Did Jane mistype the link?

But it does confirm that Jane/Lonny Eachus won't admit he baselessly attacked Dr. Naomi Oreskes without provocation:
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
https://archive.is/z2Eg0 https://archive.is/IovCA
https://archive.is/1hQtE https://archive.is/ftB10
https://archive.is/5ZDTm https://archive.is/OyD0x
https://archive.is/q0DCz https://archive.is/08wup
https://archive.is/zpR3F https://archive.is/rOvUs
https://archive.is/5jaxb https://archive.is/vY9Xe
https://archive.is/vhCp4 https://archive.is/bUf4S
https://archive.is/4bmhT https://archive.is/QWyYt
https://archive.is/hew6k https://archive.is/YTPLP
https://archive.is/m3j0q https://archive.is/nV3l1
https://archive.is/2iqkS https://archive.is/kkoA1
https://archive.is/SX8RW https://archive.is/t7WkF
https://archive.is/2Xc6r https://archive.is/m4vnY
https://archive.is/oyngE https://archive.is/Sggkk
https://archive.is/l2tjm https://archive.is/IvXHW
https://archive.is/wxUKb https://archive.is/plaiL

It's not clear why Jane/Lonny keeps lecturing scientists like Dr. Oreskes about what scientists think. Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fa