Slashdot Mirror

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

Jane/Lonny Eachus also 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 fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional program

I have explained to you clearly at least several times that you MISUNDERSTOOD my meaning, and exactly where and how you misunderstood. Therefore, I can only conclude that to continue presenting this to the public in the distorted way you have, and pretend that it was my actual meaning, is deliberate misrepresentation. Further, the circumstances surrounding it suggest that your purpose was malicious. There is nothing more to be said.

Hmm. Either Jane's "explanations" are just hopelessly confused rants about a dimwit moron, or Jane's actual meaning is being maliciously distorted by that dimwit moron. Let's find out:

... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue. ...

... It may not be very good evidence, and it may be shown to be false later, but evidence nevertheless. And simple statistics suggests this is also true of the young-earthers, as it is of just about anything else. This guy has flatly disputed this nearly-invariate fact of life. ...

Now it's clear why Jane sees no need to provide a single valid example of this "evidence" to back up his claim that simple statistics suggest young-earthers have some evidence. Jane has convinced himself that his refuted examples support his claim even after shown to be false.

In Janeland, it doesn't matter that even Jane/Lonny Eachus had to admit that both of his examples were refuted. Both still count as Janeland evidence nevertheless, even after shown to be false.

So that's why Jane doesn't see any need to provide a single valid example of his claimed "evidence". In Janeland, even Jane's failures support Jane's claim.

In that spirit, here's more "incontrovertible evidence" for creationism: BANANAS!

Not convinced? Doesn't matter. Even if the banana argument is shown to be false, it still counts as evidence in Janeland.

I have explained to you clearly at least several times that you MISUNDERSTOOD my meaning, and exactly where and how you misunderstood. Therefore, I can only conclude that to continue presenting this to the public in the distorted way you have, and pretend that it was my actual meaning, is deliberate misrepresentation. Further, the circumstances surrounding it suggest that your purpose was malicious. There is nothing more to be said.

Hmm. Either Jane's "explanations" are just hopelessly confused rants about a dimwit moron, or Jane's actual meaning is being maliciously distorted by that dimwit moron. Let's find out:

... Even a very basic knowledge of statistics (as I explained to you a long time ago) argues against you. And you didn't show I was wrong about that, you just refuted a couple of hypothetical examples I pulled out of thin air. You've hardly rigorously addressed the issue. ...

... It may not be very good evidence, and it may be shown to be false later, but evidence nevertheless. And simple statistics suggests this is also true of the young-earthers, as it is of just about anything else. This guy has flatly disputed this nearly-invariate fact of life. ...

Now it's clear why Jane sees no need to provide a single valid example of this "evidence" to back up his claim that simple statistics suggest young-earthers have some evidence. Jane has convinced himself that his refuted examples support his claim even after shown to be false.

In Janeland, it doesn't matter that even Jane/Lonny Eachus had to admit that both of his examples were refuted. Both still count as Janeland evidence nevertheless, even after shown to be false.

So that's why Jane doesn't see any need to provide a single valid example of his claimed "evidence". In Janeland, even Jane's failures support Jane's claim.

In that spirit, here's more "incontrovertible evidence" for creationism: BANANAS!

Not convinced? Doesn't matter. Even if the banana argument is shown to be false, it still counts as evidence in Janeland.

Nobody "attacked" gamers in any real sense - that article you keep bitching about is one you never read, it was talking about a made up marketing demographic, not the real people that constitute "everyone who plays games".

You're a shameless lying zealot. They're called the Gamers are Dead articles for a reason. Fucking read them. He's an excerpt.

Gamer's Are Over
> “Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.
> These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.

That's referring to real people. A LOT of real people. THe author explicitly intended it to refer to them and backpedaling and spouting double-think about it is no use now.

This next one presents a An 18 point pro-active plan for "Ending Gamers". This is a real article. Here's an excerpt

> 7. We change the culture of game consumption to be less about buying and rating games, and instead develop a paradigm that is more about playing and thoroughly investigating games. The reason this is so vital is because to be a “gamer” is not merely to play games. At its core, to be a “gamer” is to obsessively and regularly make the correct purchases. “Gamers” are such vicious gatekeepers because they want to protect the perceived value of their investments. We can subvert that by making and playing more free games, changing the ways we evaluate and discuss games, and finding new ways to fund game development.

This is an insult to a consumer demographic and a call for their mass euthanasia all in one. Stop pretending you can just spout your usual political duckspeak to rationalize this away.

Here's another. This one mostly sticks with the lies and standard insults, but it's just pouring more gasoline on the fire for clicks and spite.
>As someone who sees video games as a large part of their life and values the medium as more than just simple, silly “games,” the toxic attitude of much of the core gaming audience is disgusting and at times even terrifying.

These people, these journalists, have attacked the games industry. There is no other word for their continued libelous crusade to smear the industry as misogynist or hostile to women. They have attack the industry and they have, quite literally, tried to "kill" the audience, that is, to end the core audience as a consumer demographic.

Unlike converts such as yourself, most of us geeks care enough about video games, and know enough about their history to stand up to this bullshit and call it out for the conservative moral panic that it is. Sorry if you feel chagrin about being lumped in with Jack Thompson, but this is your home now. It's the future you chose. And when you finally go crawling back to your organised religion, you needn't expect anyone to turn the other cheek after everything that's happened.

Nobody "attacked" gamers in any real sense - that article you keep bitching about is one you never read, it was talking about a made up marketing demographic, not the real people that constitute "everyone who plays games".

You're a shameless lying zealot. They're called the Gamers are Dead articles for a reason. Fucking read them. He's an excerpt.

Gamer's Are Over
> “Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.
> These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.

That's referring to real people. A LOT of real people. THe author explicitly intended it to refer to them and backpedaling and spouting double-think about it is no use now.

This next one presents a An 18 point pro-active plan for "Ending Gamers". This is a real article. Here's an excerpt

> 7. We change the culture of game consumption to be less about buying and rating games, and instead develop a paradigm that is more about playing and thoroughly investigating games. The reason this is so vital is because to be a “gamer” is not merely to play games. At its core, to be a “gamer” is to obsessively and regularly make the correct purchases. “Gamers” are such vicious gatekeepers because they want to protect the perceived value of their investments. We can subvert that by making and playing more free games, changing the ways we evaluate and discuss games, and finding new ways to fund game development.

This is an insult to a consumer demographic and a call for their mass euthanasia all in one. Stop pretending you can just spout your usual political duckspeak to rationalize this away.

Here's another. This one mostly sticks with the lies and standard insults, but it's just pouring more gasoline on the fire for clicks and spite.
>As someone who sees video games as a large part of their life and values the medium as more than just simple, silly “games,” the toxic attitude of much of the core gaming audience is disgusting and at times even terrifying.

These people, these journalists, have attacked the games industry. There is no other word for their continued libelous crusade to smear the industry as misogynist or hostile to women. They have attack the industry and they have, quite literally, tried to "kill" the audience, that is, to end the core audience as a consumer demographic.

Unlike converts such as yourself, most of us geeks care enough about video games, and know enough about their history to stand up to this bullshit and call it out for the conservative moral panic that it is. Sorry if you feel chagrin about being lumped in with Jack Thompson, but this is your home now. It's the future you chose. And when you finally go crawling back to your organised religion, you needn't expect anyone to turn the other cheek after everything that's happened.

Nobody "attacked" gamers in any real sense - that article you keep bitching about is one you never read, it was talking about a made up marketing demographic, not the real people that constitute "everyone who plays games".

You're a shameless lying zealot. They're called the Gamers are Dead articles for a reason. Fucking read them. He's an excerpt.

Gamer's Are Over
> “Gamer” isn’t just a dated demographic label that most people increasingly prefer not to use. Gamers are over. That’s why they’re so mad.
> These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience. They don’t have to be yours. There is no ‘side’ to be on, there is no ‘debate’ to be had.

That's referring to real people. A LOT of real people. THe author explicitly intended it to refer to them and backpedaling and spouting double-think about it is no use now.

This next one presents a An 18 point pro-active plan for "Ending Gamers". This is a real article. Here's an excerpt

> 7. We change the culture of game consumption to be less about buying and rating games, and instead develop a paradigm that is more about playing and thoroughly investigating games. The reason this is so vital is because to be a “gamer” is not merely to play games. At its core, to be a “gamer” is to obsessively and regularly make the correct purchases. “Gamers” are such vicious gatekeepers because they want to protect the perceived value of their investments. We can subvert that by making and playing more free games, changing the ways we evaluate and discuss games, and finding new ways to fund game development.

This is an insult to a consumer demographic and a call for their mass euthanasia all in one. Stop pretending you can just spout your usual political duckspeak to rationalize this away.

Here's another. This one mostly sticks with the lies and standard insults, but it's just pouring more gasoline on the fire for clicks and spite.
>As someone who sees video games as a large part of their life and values the medium as more than just simple, silly “games,” the toxic attitude of much of the core gaming audience is disgusting and at times even terrifying.

These people, these journalists, have attacked the games industry. There is no other word for their continued libelous crusade to smear the industry as misogynist or hostile to women. They have attack the industry and they have, quite literally, tried to "kill" the audience, that is, to end the core audience as a consumer demographic.

Unlike converts such as yourself, most of us geeks care enough about video games, and know enough about their history to stand up to this bullshit and call it out for the conservative moral panic that it is. Sorry if you feel chagrin about being lumped in with Jack Thompson, but this is your home now. It's the future you chose. And when you finally go crawling back to your organised religion, you needn't expect anyone to turn the other cheek after everything that's happened.

... And Kayhoe? She doesn't need to be debunked by professionals. She recently claimed temperatures and temperature variations were dramatically greater today that at any time in the last 6000 years! (She chose 6000, by the way, for the young-earthers in her audience. She said so herself.) Now, that claim just doesn't fit the data. And the fact that by her own admission she cherry-picked her temporal range to please Young-Earthers speaks for itself. You might call that "unprovoked insult", but if so, it's over standards of professionalism that YOU insisted on long ago. How many more "Young-Earth" apologists do you plan to let into your group of "colleagues"? This is the kind of person you used to refer to as pretty much beneath your notice, or even an enemy of science. Hmm... let's see... I'll have to go back and see exactly what comments you made about the Young-Earthers. I do recall you made some. ...

... So now you endorse her "young Earth" dataset chosen specifically for her creationist audience? I pretty much do call that "no credibility". ...

Good grief. Without any evidence, Jane insinuates that Dr. Hayhoe is a Young-Earth apologist and tries to smear her as an enemy of science. Yeah Jane, that's another good example of your baseless accusations.

It's also another good example of your rampant psychological projection, because as you recall I made some comments about Young-Earthers in response to your claim: "Even creationists have some facts that support their position. Not enough to carry the day, but saying they don't exist is just another kind of denial." http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Note that Jane's first example was radiometric dating, which is only disputed by young-earth creationists. Jane later said "maybe it was a bad example" but couldn't bring himself to retract his first general claim. Dr. Hayhoe doesn't have to issue weasel-worded nonretractions like Jane's because Dr. Hayhoe never made these absurd young-earth creationist claims in the first place. Jane did! And here Jane is, frantically projecting his own nonsensical claims onto someone he calls a "flake" with "no credibility."

But again I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that all his unprovoked insults are justified. Publicly suspecting a scientist is "without understanding" and thus posing "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil" is just "giving her the benefit of the doubt." How is that an insult? /sarc

If Jane's actually worried about citing creationists, he should consider the creationist statements made by famous climate contrarians Jane has already cited (Spencer, Booker, etc.): https://archive.is/r0JMd#selec...

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

... I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it. ...

Once again, you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. From 2007-10-21 to 2015-04-03, my records show that Jane Q. Public has written 1417 Slashdot comments about climate change. In those comments, "friend" appears 20 times. None of them match Jane's claim.

Do Jane's records contain more than 1417 Jane comments during that time period? If so, it would be very easy for Jane to post that link. Unless of course that link doesn't exist because Jane/Lonny Eachus is simply lying.

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.

So a "reality d***er" is a person or group who doesn't agree with your neverending crackpot accusations of fraud? Like NASA? https://archive.is/nfeEo

... you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. ... I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. ...

Again, I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured had already attacked/harassed him or someone else first. Let's start with the scientist Jane has been insulting today. It simply doesn't matter to Lonny that Dr. Hayhoe has never responded to Lonny's unprovoked insults:
https://archive.is/bYmV8
https://archive.is/TWoFZ
https://archive.is/Oqmya
https://archive.is/b7A5L
https://archive.is/mGG0k
https://archive.is/taIyX
https://archive.is/zB0he
https://archive.is/yhOYy
https://archive.is/wEhgD
https://archive.is/tnnLk
https://archive.is/kqYnZ
https://archive.is/plaiL
https://archive.is/imZly
https://archive.is/YZC0m
https://archive.is/uSVtS

Lonny, have you figured out if Dr. Hayhoe is "pure evil" or "far more of a danger to democracy than people who are truly evil"?

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

As I suspected, if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist.

That was one, sure. But there have been others. Going back years. Apparently I kept some records that you did not, from way back when. But that's okay. As I said before, I don't much feel like bothering to prove that to you, and it's hardly much of an "accusation", so I wonder why you care. So go ahead and claim it doesn't exist. I won't agree with you, but I'm not going to bother to argue with you much about it, either.

And yet you still are arguing about it, and you're still bragging about the records you insist you're not bragging about. Again, if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist. If Jane/Lonny is honest, he'd have to retract his accusation after doing a few seconds of due diligence through his records from way back when.

Nope. You lose again. Saying that the "97%" claim has been debunked and is in fact junk science, is not the same as saying I know what the actual percentage is. Nor have I tried to tell people what it is. But I have very good reasons to believe it's far smaller than that... like for example other surveys that were not fraudulent. ... I won't apologize for calling the Cook 2013 paper a fraud because from the evidence it has very clearly been shown to be, beyond reasonable doubt. I don't expect you to be reasonable, but you should at least recognize what is reasonable and what is not, no matter how much you want to be a "reality denier".

Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?

Regardless, Jane's obviously still lecturing scientists 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 fraudulent bullshit lies.

Well, I'll put the same conditions on it that I put on your other claims (because I can): show us all where I have "harassed" any of those people when they didn't harass me or someone else first. Show us all where I have "attacked" any of those people when they did not attack me or someone else first. Show us all where I have "insulted" any of those people when they did not insult me or someone else first. Show us all where I was "wrongly lecturing" any of those people -- at all. But you have to demonstrate that it was somehow wrong.

Where should we start? Which person or group that I mentioned do you deny harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing? If you deny all of that, which person or group do you deny most strongly? We have to start somewhere, after all: https://archive.is/https://twi...

I have no doubt that Jane/Lonny Eachus will be able to convince himself (if nobody else) that everyone he's harassed/attacked/insulted/wrongly lectured attacked/harassed him or someone else first. But which person or group was "asking for it" the most?

Just run a simple search on your archived tweets for "97%" and you'll uncover dozens of examples where you've been "lecturing scientists about what scientists think": https://archive.is/https://twi...

Nope. You lose again. Saying that the "97%" claim has been debunked and is in fact junk science, is not the same as saying I know what the actual percentage is. Nor have I tried to tell people what it is. But I have very good reasons to believe it's far smaller than that... like for example other surveys that were not fraudulent.

It's like you just put whatever old spin you want on my comments and call them something else... another bad habit you have that I've pointed out before.

Or, you know, just read all the baseless accusations of fraud that you've repeated in this very thread on that topic.

Why do you say that ANY of my comments were "baseless"? Please demonstrate that. It's a bald (and quite false) claim.

That comment wasn't anywhere else either, because it doesn't exist. As usual, Jane's hopelessly confused about comments that took place after Cook et al. was out: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

That was one, sure. But there have been others. Going back years. Apparently I kept some records that you did not, from way back when. But that's okay. As I said before, I don't much feel like bothering to prove that to you, and it's hardly much of an "accusation", so I wonder why you care. So go ahead and claim it doesn't exist. I won't agree with you, but I'm not going to bother to argue with you much about it, either.

By the way, since you brought it up: is John Cook a "colleague" of yours? I find it very interesting that you would choose to call someone who has been -- to use someone else's words -- "serially debunked", a colleague of yours. But then it shouldn't surprise me, I suppose.

How ironic that Jane says this while harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.

Oh... now you're expanding your claim to harassment, too? Before you've ever come up with an example of any of the other things yet?

Well, I'll put the same conditions on it that I put on your other claims (because I can): show us all where I have "harassed" any of those people when they didn't harass me or someone else first. Show us all where I have "attacked" any of those people when they did not attack me or someone else first. Show us all where I have "insulted" any of those people when they did not insult me or someone else first. Show us all where I was "wrongly lecturing" any of those people -- at all. But you have to demonstrate that it was somehow wrong.

You haven't done any of those things. Except for Cook et al., I don't recall ever naming any of them as "frauds". And I won't apologize for calling the Cook 2013 paper a fraud because from the evidence it has very clearly been shown to be, beyond reasonable doubt. I don't expect you to be reasonable, but you should at least recognize what is reasonable and what is not, no matter how much you want to be a "reality denier".

Now I'm lecturing scientists about what scientists think? How many more new accusations are you going to make? Example? ... I'm still not sure what you mean by "lecturing scientists about what scientists think". Example?

Just run a simple search on your archived tweets for "97%" and you'll uncover dozens of examples where you've been "lecturing scientists about what scientists think": https://archive.is/https://twi...

Or, you know, just read all the baseless accusations of fraud that you've repeated in this very thread on that topic.

Show some SPECIFIC, in-context for a change, instances where I "attacked" climate scientists who didn't similarly attack others first. Show where I "insulted" specific climate scientists who didn't similarly insult other people first. Show where I "wrongly lectured" some specific scientists, and precisely why you think it was "wrong". Examples, and evidence, man.

Again, just run a simple search on your archived tweets for whichever person or group you deny attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: https://archive.is/https://twi...

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

Link, or it didn't happen.

Regardless, that comment you made to me which I referenced earlier, wasn't on Twitter.

That comment wasn't anywhere else either, because it doesn't exist. As usual, Jane's hopelessly confused about comments that took place after Cook et al. was out: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

What you don't get to do, without eventual consequences, is harass people and make false public accusations.

How ironic that Jane says this while harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.

Again, just run a simple search on your archived tweets for whichever person or group you deny harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: https://archive.is/https://twi...

Now I'm lecturing scientists about what scientists think? How many more new accusations are you going to make? Example? ... I'm still not sure what you mean by "lecturing scientists about what scientists think". Example?

Just run a simple search on your archived tweets for "97%" and you'll uncover dozens of examples where you've been "lecturing scientists about what scientists think": https://archive.is/https://twi...

Or, you know, just read all the baseless accusations of fraud that you've repeated in this very thread on that topic.

Show some SPECIFIC, in-context for a change, instances where I "attacked" climate scientists who didn't similarly attack others first. Show where I "insulted" specific climate scientists who didn't similarly insult other people first. Show where I "wrongly lectured" some specific scientists, and precisely why you think it was "wrong". Examples, and evidence, man.

Again, just run a simple search on your archived tweets for whichever person or group you deny attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: https://archive.is/https://twi...

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

Link, or it didn't happen.

Regardless, that comment you made to me which I referenced earlier, wasn't on Twitter.

That comment wasn't anywhere else either, because it doesn't exist. As usual, Jane's hopelessly confused about comments that took place after Cook et al. was out: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

What you don't get to do, without eventual consequences, is harass people and make false public accusations.

How ironic that Jane says this while harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.

Again, just run a simple search on your archived tweets for whichever person or group you deny harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: https://archive.is/https://twi...

Now I'm lecturing scientists about what scientists think? How many more new accusations are you going to make? Example? ... I'm still not sure what you mean by "lecturing scientists about what scientists think". Example?

Just run a simple search on your archived tweets for "97%" and you'll uncover dozens of examples where you've been "lecturing scientists about what scientists think": https://archive.is/https://twi...

Or, you know, just read all the baseless accusations of fraud that you've repeated in this very thread on that topic.

Show some SPECIFIC, in-context for a change, instances where I "attacked" climate scientists who didn't similarly attack others first. Show where I "insulted" specific climate scientists who didn't similarly insult other people first. Show where I "wrongly lectured" some specific scientists, and precisely why you think it was "wrong". Examples, and evidence, man.

Again, just run a simple search on your archived tweets for whichever person or group you deny attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: https://archive.is/https://twi...

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

Link, or it didn't happen.

Regardless, that comment you made to me which I referenced earlier, wasn't on Twitter.

That comment wasn't anywhere else either, because it doesn't exist. As usual, Jane's hopelessly confused about comments that took place after Cook et al. was out: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

What you don't get to do, without eventual consequences, is harass people and make false public accusations.

How ironic that Jane says this while harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.

Again, just run a simple search on your archived tweets for whichever person or group you deny harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: https://archive.is/https://twi...

Jane/Lonny Eachus wouldn't ever be able to provide that link, even in his fantasy courtroom, because it doesn't exist.

No, actually, that's one of the times I was actually addressing you, not other people. I'm not bragging, because I have no reason to. I'm simply telling YOU. As I have told you before. I keep archives of these "exchanges", and over time it has become apparent to me that ... oops, almost gave away something. (Seriously, I'm not being "coy", to use the word you are so fond of using incorrectly. I almost did give away something there.)

As I suspected, if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist. And if Jane actually weren't being "coy" he would've deleted that self-indulgent nonsense before submitting it.

I'd have nothing to say to you at all if you didn't attack/insult/wrongly lecture: John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.

Show, specifically, how I "attacked", "insulted", or "wrongly lectured" those people. ... Seriously? BACK IT UP. I know you won't be able to, but telling everybody else to do it is great amusement. We're all sure you're not really that stupid.

Maybe you shouldn't be lecturing scientists about what scientists think if you can't even run a simple search on your own tweets: https://archive.is/https://twi...

Show, specifically, how I "attacked", "insulted", or "wrongly lectured" those people.

Again, search your archived tweets for those keywords: https://archive.is/https://twi...

This should just take a few seconds. Unless you're a ... what did you call me? A "moron"?

YOU'RE the one who's always been attacking. WHY? What need of yours does it fulfill? If you didn't attack me on a regular basis, I'd have nothing to say to you at all.

I'd have nothing to say to you at all if you didn't attack/insult/wrongly lecture: John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.

These are "mainstream climate scientists in general"? And -- to put the goalposts back where they were -- I have accused them of fraud? Please show us all where.

The goalpost you just planted was accusing me of "attack", not "fraud". I responded to your goalpost by saying that I'd have nothing to say to you at all if you didn't attack/insult/wrongly lecture them (where "mainstream climate scientists in general" refers to Lonny's generic attacks).

But of course Jane/Lonny Eachus will feign confusion once again, so he should probably search his archived tweets for those keywords and reconsider baselessly attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing them in the future: https://archive.is/https://twi...

I don't "hurl accusations at scientists in general". Again, you haven't shown a single instance.

I have, repeatedly. And repeatedly, you responded that "... in that specific tweet there is no mention of any scientist. To whom did that tweet refer? Your objection is supposed to be about accusing scientists of fraud. So who specifically was being accused in that Tweet? ... who do you claim is being accused there? Do you have a name? Or a particular group? ... Once again, who is being accused here? ... You are being ridiculously obtuse. Or just downright stupid. You have accused me, more than once, of claiming that "good scientists" are guilty of fraud. WHO ARE THEY??? ..."

Again, keep in mind that regurgitating vague accusations of fraud against mainstream climate scientists in general = accusing scientists of fraud. Also, keep in mind that there isn't a big difference between accusing scientists of fraud/hoax/scam vs. accusing scientists of telling bald-faced, deliberate lies about science. Let me guess, you don't remember any of that either?

Jane, you've claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard" uncovered "massive" fraud: https://archive.is/HcOkT

Anthony is not "my hero", and I resent that comment. If I were to use similar emotional "reasoning", I might conclude that Macchiavelli is YOUR hero. What do you think of that?

I'd think your incredibly selective amnesia is still getting worse:

".@BradThor Want a real-life hero, but maybe a different kind? Unlike Kyle, @SteveSGoddard REJECTS the bullshit, shows people actual data." https://archive.is/I96C6

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

Link, or it didn't happen.

More hilarity. I have my records. But unlike you, I don't feel obligated (or an emotional need) to "prove" things on Slashdot. ... If you want to see my actual records, it will likely have to be in a courtroom. I might let you see a glimpse from time to time. But when I do, it will be when I decide, not you. ... I'm just building up a file. And (rough estimate) about one in 5 times you open your mouth in my direction, you add to that file. (I've a pretty extensive archive, it's just that not much of what you say is very interesting in that regard, to a general audience. But my archive loves it.) ...

Jane/Lonny Eachus wouldn't ever be able to provide that link, even in his fantasy courtroom, because it doesn't exist. Bragging about his records just makes it more likely that Jane/Lonny is just deliberately lying rather than honestly misremembering things. After all, it would only take a few seconds to search that archive for the keywords Jane provided. If Jane/Lonny is honest, he'd have to retract his accusation after doing a few seconds of due diligence. But if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist and just keep blustering about finally revealing this fantasy link in his fantasy courtroom.

I don't "hurl accusations at scientists in general". Again, you haven't shown a single instance.

I have, repeatedly. And repeatedly, you responded that "... in that specific tweet there is no mention of any scientist. To whom did that tweet refer? Your objection is supposed to be about accusing scientists of fraud. So who specifically was being accused in that Tweet? ... who do you claim is being accused there? Do you have a name? Or a particular group? ... Once again, who is being accused here? ... You are being ridiculously obtuse. Or just downright stupid. You have accused me, more than once, of claiming that "good scientists" are guilty of fraud. WHO ARE THEY??? ..."

Again, keep in mind that regurgitating vague accusations of fraud against mainstream climate scientists in general = accusing scientists of fraud. Also, keep in mind that there isn't a big difference between accusing scientists of fraud/hoax/scam vs. accusing scientists of telling bald-faced, deliberate lies about science. Let me guess, you don't remember any of that either?

Jane, you've claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard" uncovered "massive" fraud: https://archive.is/HcOkT

Anthony is not "my hero", and I resent that comment. If I were to use similar emotional "reasoning", I might conclude that Macchiavelli is YOUR hero. What do you think of that?

I'd think your incredibly selective amnesia is still getting worse:

".@BradThor Want a real-life hero, but maybe a different kind? Unlike Kyle, @SteveSGoddard REJECTS the bullshit, shows people actual data." https://archive.is/I96C6

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

Link, or it didn't happen.

More hilarity. I have my records. But unlike you, I don't feel obligated (or an emotional need) to "prove" things on Slashdot. ... If you want to see my actual records, it will likely have to be in a courtroom. I might let you see a glimpse from time to time. But when I do, it will be when I decide, not you. ... I'm just building up a file. And (rough estimate) about one in 5 times you open your mouth in my direction, you add to that file. (I've a pretty extensive archive, it's just that not much of what you say is very interesting in that regard, to a general audience. But my archive loves it.) ...

Jane/Lonny Eachus wouldn't ever be able to provide that link, even in his fantasy courtroom, because it doesn't exist. Bragging about his records just makes it more likely that Jane/Lonny is just deliberately lying rather than honestly misremembering things. After all, it would only take a few seconds to search that archive for the keywords Jane provided. If Jane/Lonny is honest, he'd have to retract his accusation after doing a few seconds of due diligence. But if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist and just keep blustering about finally revealing this fantasy link in his fantasy courtroom.

Don't be silly, Jane. I've provided many links above where you regurgitated baseless accusations of fraud.

That's a blatant lie. I did no such thing. I have linked to articles and papers. I have not "regurgitated" anything. We've been over this already... I'm amazed how you keep using arguments you've lost many times in the past. As though you think you could "wear me down" or something by repeating the same nonsense I've successfully repelled before.

It's really funny to watch you do this. The more you're losing, the more "out there" your accusations get. It's as if (hint, hint), you might have some kind of emotional inability to admit when you're wrong.

You're just so far gone that you're incapable of admitting that your accusations are baseless

You might be called upon to actually support this statement some day, with actual facts. So far you have not gotten anywhere close. These pages these last few days certainly haven't shown anything.

even the vague accusations you hurled at mainstream climate scientists in general

Oh, so now my "accusations" have been hurled at "climate scientists in general"? Have you understood nothing of what has gone before in this conversation? This is directly contrary to what I stated just above! I don't "hurl accusations at scientists in general". Again, you haven't shown a single instance. Bad things have occurred, but I haven't accused "scientists in general", at all. In fact, it has often been scientists who uncovered the wrongdoing. This is a ridiculous accusation. You're just making shit up again.

Hint again, man: your feelings about what I say are not facts... though I suppose one might count them toward your emotional maturity.

Jane, you've claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard" uncovered "massive" fraud: https://archive.is/HcOkT

Anthony is not "my hero", and I resent that comment. If I were to use similar emotional "reasoning", I might conclude that Macchiavelli is YOUR hero. What do you think of that?

Again, you present my comment out of any context, to try to "prove" your point. It's just plain pathetic.

Link, or it didn't happen.

More hilarity. I have my records. But unlike you, I don't feel obligated (or an emotional need) to "prove" things on Slashdot. The times I have proved you're making a fool of yourself I've done for fun. Because it's easy. But let's make no mistake: I also do it because I feel obligated to defend myself from your false public accusations. It's just that you're so inept at this that defending oneself can also be a bit of fun.

If you want to see my actual records, it will likely have to be in a courtroom. I might let you see a glimpse from time to time. But when I do, it will be when I decide, not you.

You really don't get it do you? Even though I've told you many times. I'm just building up a file. And (rough estimate) about one in 5 times you open your mouth in my direction, you add to that file. (I've a pretty extensive archive, it's just that not much of what you say is very interesting in that regard, to a general audience. But my archive loves it.)

This particular exchange has been a bit of a haul. Not because it's anything new, but because you confirmed certain things I have you on record doing before.

I don't understand why you don't get it. I've told you to go away many, many times. Pretty much everything you've done here is on you, not me. You've even told me you made it your primary work to prove that I'm some kind of dumbass or "denier" or idiot or crazy or something... I really didn't quite catch all of that. You even stated that you felt I was "dangerous" somehow because I was saying things with which you didn't agree. But the funny thing is, the only one attacking anybody here is you.

I don't have any reason to coop

AFTER BEING ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A "BASELESS" ACCUSATION OF FRAUD!

Don't be silly, Jane. I've provided many links above where you regurgitated baseless accusations of fraud. You're just so far gone that you're incapable of admitting that your accusations are baseless, even the vague accusations you hurled at mainstream climate scientists in general. Also, keep in mind that there isn't a big difference between accusing scientists of fraud/hoax/scam vs. accusing scientists of telling bald-faced, deliberate lies about science. Let me guess, you don't remember any of that either?

You and I both know those weren't the scientists you were originally referring to when you claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard has indeed uncovered some fraud in the data manipulations."

Ridiculous. I know no such thing, since I don't know who you are referring to. You refuse (or are unable) to provide any examples.

Jane, you've claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard" uncovered "massive" fraud: https://archive.is/HcOkT

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. ... You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud".

Link, or it didn't happen.

Moving the goalposts? Jane, "fraud" was in the title of the link you called "incontrovertible evidence". Here's that text again, with emphasis to help Jane see that the goalpost has been motionless for years:

I didn't write that article. Did I say I endorsed it? Did I claim it was true? ... you lie to people about things I wrote. ... you're trying to blame me for things other people write. ... Do you know what the word "evidence" means? Are you aware that "incontrovertible evidence" does not mean "proof"? The evidence is incontrovertible. Whether it constitutes proof or not is another question.

Jane, you said "It is incontrovertible evidence that you have been fed a pack of lies. Not mistakes, LIES." https://archive.is/4pmLj

... Either way, the tweet did not claim "fraud". It said "lies". And unless you're a complete moron, you understand that they are two different statements. ... I (or somebody else) can point to an article that claims "fraud", and say there is evidence in it of lies. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the claim of fraud.

Jane/Lonny Eachus is either retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty" or continuing to pretend that this isn't an accusation of "harmful" dishonesty. When I noted this above, Jane projected accusations onto me, insisting that "the only way that one comment could be linked to the other" would be if "the IPCC's reports were created for their economic gain".

Maybe Lonny Eachus should remind Jane that "fraud" is not necessarily a money scam. https://archive.is/v1AzN

But it's especially hilarious that Jane projects his own accusations of fraud for economic gain:

https://archive.is/aT9Pv#selec...
https://archive.is/7fcQw

... I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying? ...

We don't have to guess, because you've made comments of your own:

"@509freckles Follow @SteveSGoddard to see how much fraud there is behind it. It's massive. (He's a bit snarky about it at times.)" https://archive.is/HcOkT

Jane can probably twist himself into a pretzel mansplaining away his endorsement of those "massive" fraud accusations, but he should pace himself. We still need a condescending lecture about how "scam" is totally different than "fraud":

https://archive.is/PlNaK

https://archive.is/4ihiE#selec...

https://archive.is/eDXHJ#selec...

Moving the goalposts? Jane, "fraud" was in the title of the link you called "incontrovertible evidence". Here's that text again, with emphasis to help Jane see that the goalpost has been motionless for years:

I didn't write that article. Did I say I endorsed it? Did I claim it was true? ... you lie to people about things I wrote. ... you're trying to blame me for things other people write. ... Do you know what the word "evidence" means? Are you aware that "incontrovertible evidence" does not mean "proof"? The evidence is incontrovertible. Whether it constitutes proof or not is another question.

Jane, you said "It is incontrovertible evidence that you have been fed a pack of lies. Not mistakes, LIES." https://archive.is/4pmLj

... Either way, the tweet did not claim "fraud". It said "lies". And unless you're a complete moron, you understand that they are two different statements. ... I (or somebody else) can point to an article that claims "fraud", and say there is evidence in it of lies. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the claim of fraud.

Jane/Lonny Eachus is either retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty" or continuing to pretend that this isn't an accusation of "harmful" dishonesty. When I noted this above, Jane projected accusations onto me, insisting that "the only way that one comment could be linked to the other" would be if "the IPCC's reports were created for their economic gain".

Maybe Lonny Eachus should remind Jane that "fraud" is not necessarily a money scam. https://archive.is/v1AzN

But it's especially hilarious that Jane projects his own accusations of fraud for economic gain:

https://archive.is/aT9Pv#selec...
https://archive.is/7fcQw

... I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying? ...

We don't have to guess, because you've made comments of your own:

"@509freckles Follow @SteveSGoddard to see how much fraud there is behind it. It's massive. (He's a bit snarky about it at times.)" https://archive.is/HcOkT

Jane can probably twist himself into a pretzel mansplaining away his endorsement of those "massive" fraud accusations, but he should pace himself. We still need a condescending lecture about how "scam" is totally different than "fraud":

https://archive.is/PlNaK

https://archive.is/4ihiE#selec...

https://archive.is/eDXHJ#selec...

Moving the goalposts? Jane, "fraud" was in the title of the link you called "incontrovertible evidence". Here's that text again, with emphasis to help Jane see that the goalpost has been motionless for years:

I didn't write that article. Did I say I endorsed it? Did I claim it was true? ... you lie to people about things I wrote. ... you're trying to blame me for things other people write. ... Do you know what the word "evidence" means? Are you aware that "incontrovertible evidence" does not mean "proof"? The evidence is incontrovertible. Whether it constitutes proof or not is another question.

Jane, you said "It is incontrovertible evidence that you have been fed a pack of lies. Not mistakes, LIES." https://archive.is/4pmLj

... Either way, the tweet did not claim "fraud". It said "lies". And unless you're a complete moron, you understand that they are two different statements. ... I (or somebody else) can point to an article that claims "fraud", and say there is evidence in it of lies. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the claim of fraud.

Jane/Lonny Eachus is either retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty" or continuing to pretend that this isn't an accusation of "harmful" dishonesty. When I noted this above, Jane projected accusations onto me, insisting that "the only way that one comment could be linked to the other" would be if "the IPCC's reports were created for their economic gain".

Maybe Lonny Eachus should remind Jane that "fraud" is not necessarily a money scam. https://archive.is/v1AzN

But it's especially hilarious that Jane projects his own accusations of fraud for economic gain:

https://archive.is/aT9Pv#selec...
https://archive.is/7fcQw

... I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying? ...

We don't have to guess, because you've made comments of your own:

"@509freckles Follow @SteveSGoddard to see how much fraud there is behind it. It's massive. (He's a bit snarky about it at times.)" https://archive.is/HcOkT

Jane can probably twist himself into a pretzel mansplaining away his endorsement of those "massive" fraud accusations, but he should pace himself. We still need a condescending lecture about how "scam" is totally different than "fraud":

https://archive.is/PlNaK

https://archive.is/4ihiE#selec...

https://archive.is/eDXHJ#selec...

Moving the goalposts? Jane, "fraud" was in the title of the link you called "incontrovertible evidence". Here's that text again, with emphasis to help Jane see that the goalpost has been motionless for years:

I didn't write that article. Did I say I endorsed it? Did I claim it was true? ... you lie to people about things I wrote. ... you're trying to blame me for things other people write. ... Do you know what the word "evidence" means? Are you aware that "incontrovertible evidence" does not mean "proof"? The evidence is incontrovertible. Whether it constitutes proof or not is another question.

Jane, you said "It is incontrovertible evidence that you have been fed a pack of lies. Not mistakes, LIES." https://archive.is/4pmLj

... Either way, the tweet did not claim "fraud". It said "lies". And unless you're a complete moron, you understand that they are two different statements. ... I (or somebody else) can point to an article that claims "fraud", and say there is evidence in it of lies. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the claim of fraud.

Jane/Lonny Eachus is either retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty" or continuing to pretend that this isn't an accusation of "harmful" dishonesty. When I noted this above, Jane projected accusations onto me, insisting that "the only way that one comment could be linked to the other" would be if "the IPCC's reports were created for their economic gain".

Maybe Lonny Eachus should remind Jane that "fraud" is not necessarily a money scam. https://archive.is/v1AzN

But it's especially hilarious that Jane projects his own accusations of fraud for economic gain:

https://archive.is/aT9Pv#selec...
https://archive.is/7fcQw

... I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying? ...

We don't have to guess, because you've made comments of your own:

"@509freckles Follow @SteveSGoddard to see how much fraud there is behind it. It's massive. (He's a bit snarky about it at times.)" https://archive.is/HcOkT

Jane can probably twist himself into a pretzel mansplaining away his endorsement of those "massive" fraud accusations, but he should pace himself. We still need a condescending lecture about how "scam" is totally different than "fraud":

https://archive.is/PlNaK

https://archive.is/4ihiE#selec...

https://archive.is/eDXHJ#selec...

Moving the goalposts? Jane, "fraud" was in the title of the link you called "incontrovertible evidence". Here's that text again, with emphasis to help Jane see that the goalpost has been motionless for years:

I didn't write that article. Did I say I endorsed it? Did I claim it was true? ... you lie to people about things I wrote. ... you're trying to blame me for things other people write. ... Do you know what the word "evidence" means? Are you aware that "incontrovertible evidence" does not mean "proof"? The evidence is incontrovertible. Whether it constitutes proof or not is another question.

Jane, you said "It is incontrovertible evidence that you have been fed a pack of lies. Not mistakes, LIES." https://archive.is/4pmLj

... Either way, the tweet did not claim "fraud". It said "lies". And unless you're a complete moron, you understand that they are two different statements. ... I (or somebody else) can point to an article that claims "fraud", and say there is evidence in it of lies. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the claim of fraud.

Jane/Lonny Eachus is either retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty" or continuing to pretend that this isn't an accusation of "harmful" dishonesty. When I noted this above, Jane projected accusations onto me, insisting that "the only way that one comment could be linked to the other" would be if "the IPCC's reports were created for their economic gain".

Maybe Lonny Eachus should remind Jane that "fraud" is not necessarily a money scam. https://archive.is/v1AzN

But it's especially hilarious that Jane projects his own accusations of fraud for economic gain:

https://archive.is/aT9Pv#selec...
https://archive.is/7fcQw

... I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying? ...

We don't have to guess, because you've made comments of your own:

"@509freckles Follow @SteveSGoddard to see how much fraud there is behind it. It's massive. (He's a bit snarky about it at times.)" https://archive.is/HcOkT

Jane can probably twist himself into a pretzel mansplaining away his endorsement of those "massive" fraud accusations, but he should pace himself. We still need a condescending lecture about how "scam" is totally different than "fraud":

https://archive.is/PlNaK

https://archive.is/4ihiE#selec...

https://archive.is/eDXHJ#selec...