Slashdot Mirror

Just remember: The Wall Street Journal is now known as the White Supremacist Journal(by their own standards). The suggestion that started it all. The end result. Meme magic is real...

http://archive.is/wGLnS 395 million to deal with such problems, yet the dam still sits there, untouched.

Further, it puts Twitter in the position of being the arbiter over who gets to speak in this chaos. Which users shall we silence?

Dunno if this is real, but it's interesting:

http://archive.is/WwtOJ

Use this link if you don't want to turn off your ad blocker.

Here's 2 PDF mirrors of the pastebin:

https://www.docdroid.net/2MEWa...
https://www.scribd.com/documen...

And an Archive.is mirror:

http://archive.is/q9E44

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

One good thing about Trump, he's far more likely to decide big pharma needs to be beaten with a stick and forced to make new antibiotics

Trump is of the opinion that vaccines are involved with autism. I don't think he's going to be doing too much to "big pharma".

Which is odd since he is a known germaphobe. One would think he of all people would be interested in both vaccines and new antibiotics.

Mirror of the website: http://archive.is/CixsY

And open ports:

nmap -O 209.238.99.227

Starting Nmap 7.40 ( https://nmap.org/ ) at 2017-01-13 16:51 EST
Nmap scan report for giulianisecurity.com (209.238.99.227)
Host is up (0.21s latency).
Not shown: 979 closed ports
PORT STATE SERVICE
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
25/tcp filtered smtp
80/tcp open http
110/tcp open pop3
139/tcp filtered netbios-ssn
143/tcp open imap
161/tcp open snmp
389/tcp open ldap
443/tcp open https
445/tcp filtered microsoft-ds
465/tcp filtered smtps
555/tcp open dsf
587/tcp filtered submission
993/tcp open imaps
995/tcp open pop3s
1971/tcp open netop-school
2007/tcp open dectalk
3306/tcp open mysql
5190/tcp open aol
8080/tcp open http-proxy
Aggressive OS guesses: FreeBSD 6.3-RELEASE (95%), PC-BSD 1.3 (92%), FreeBSD 7.1-RELEASE - 9.0-CURRENT (92%), FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE (92%), FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE (91%), FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT (91%), Juniper JunOS 12.3R5.7 (91%), Juniper JUNOS 9.2R1.10 (91%), Apple OS X 10.10.5 (Darwin 14.5.0) (91%), FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE (91%)
No exact OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).
Network Distance: 11 hops

OS detection performed. Please report any incorrect results at https://nmap.org/submit/ .
Nmap done: 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 343.37 seconds

Leah's own post says it was because of the dismissal, not the bulling.

Bullying is mentioned 4 times in the article. Fired is mentioned 16. Continuing:

Leah Rowe, libreboot's main developer and founder, is a transgender woman herself, and several transgender people have contributed to the libreboot project. What the FSF has done is truly disgusting, so Libreboot voluntarily left the GNU project in protest. GNU is funded in large part by the Free Software Foundation. We will not name the person who was fired, for their privacy and safety.

She says right there she left in protest for "what the FSF has done." I.e., fired a transwoman under what she claims (without evidence) was retaliatory. In addition, as mentioned above she does not speak for Libreboot, she merely has control of the website and is acting as a gatekeeper. This is a standard tactic for these authoritarian marxists -- see also the disaster that was Mighty Number 9's Dana for another good example.

In addition, in what universe is "sound familiar" a stereotyping race trigger? You unhinged loon, do you literally see racism everywhere you look!?

It's a reference to how this kind of social justice faux outrage always goes. Wild accusation, no evidence, demands for evidence are ignored or interpreted as harassment / trolling / "sea lioning," demands for some form of reparations, usually in the form of control.

So... the title is accurate and you're full of snot.

Also, you need to get caught up on your lingo. The term "Fake News" is already on it's way out because it turns out that Journalists live in some very thinly pained glass houses indeed.

FFS Slashdot... Reddit and GamerGate are the main sources? And they don't even back up the wild claims being made. Look at this bullshit, for example:

"She follows this up with more increasingly unhinged spam and unfounded accusations. She ignores, bans, or curses out people requesting evidence or disputing her one woman lynch mob. She posts an unhinged screed on her website showing she has little to no understanding of open source, all while repeating the same unfounded claims, as well as claiming martyrdom on her part.
https://archive.is/JmiTG [archive.is]"

The link does not support any of the claims! Nothing about banning, cursing or even responding to anyone at all.

And if course, Kita follows it up with some transphobia. Clarification of gender dysphoria as a mental illness is a political move. Some people want to stigmatise it, some want to ensure that US health insurance providers cover treatment.

Um - https://libreboot.org/

Also there is more information as to why libreboot left the GNU. From their site - 'Libreboot left GNU on 2016-09-15, in protest of transgender discrimination at the FSF'.

Having read it... That's... an interesting interpretation of events. You'll note the complete lack of evidence in it? That's important.

Here's what actually happened, based on what evidence I could find. Leah Woods is a SJW who had a fit because of some made up bullshit that boils down, like all made up SJW bullshit, to "Open Source is a meritocracy, but we still want special treatment."

Here's a well sourced discussion on it on Kotaku In Action, the GamerGate reddit board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...

And some discussion over on reddit's linux board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux...

Basically, Leah Rowe had a fit because the FSF parted ways with a transgendered employee.

Leah makes the unfounded claim that the FSF did this because the person has a mental illness (gender dysphoria / gender identity disorder), because someone wrote criticism of said person with mental illness which looked bad on the FSF, etc. She provides no evidence of these VERY specific claims.
http://archive.is/iXIbc

The FSF make a statement on 9/16 pointing out that they have a strong anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, as well as a so called "safe space policy" at FSF events. In other words, they have already capitulated to all the standard Regressive Leftist demands. They deny the accusation and say the person with mental illness was terminated for other reasons.
https://archive.is/HGLMa

Leah specifically follows up this claim here, changing her claim to a different claim that two FSF employees were "transphobic" and "bullying" this mentally ill developer. She namedrops these two people, but refuses to namedrop the supposed victim, believing they deserve protection from any criticism or questioning of these claims. Note that this apparently does not apply to the two men she is accusing without any form of evidence of unprofessional and possibly illegal behavior.
https://archive.is/7cXtw#selec...

She follows this up with more increasingly unhinged spam and unfounded accusations. She ignores, bans, or curses out people requesting evidence or disputing her one woman lynch mob. She posts an unhinged screed on her website showing she has little to no understanding of open source, all while repeating the same unfounded claims, as well as claiming martyrdom on her part.
https://archive.is/JmiTG

It's important to note that libreroot is a fork of Coreboot and being part of the GNU project means it was posted under an open source license. Which means someone could easily fork it again and put it BACK in the GNU project. Of course, proving she doesn't understand the first thing about open source, she specifically wants people NOT to do that. I suggest the name cisLibreBoot, because it seems the most amusing name possible.

Fortunately, the GNU mailing list appears to basically shut her histrionics down fairly quickly:
http://archive.is/di974

In addition, it's important to realize the unhinged professional victimhood martyrdom ravings of Leah Rowe, which are REMARKABLY similar to other social justice activists such as Brianna Wu or Nora Reed, don't actually represent the Libreroot community. See, it turns out, what she did was steal access to the main repository and lock out everyone else, all while making her unhinged, evidence-free stat

Um - https://libreboot.org/

Also there is more information as to why libreboot left the GNU. From their site - 'Libreboot left GNU on 2016-09-15, in protest of transgender discrimination at the FSF'.

Having read it... That's... an interesting interpretation of events. You'll note the complete lack of evidence in it? That's important.

Here's what actually happened, based on what evidence I could find. Leah Woods is a SJW who had a fit because of some made up bullshit that boils down, like all made up SJW bullshit, to "Open Source is a meritocracy, but we still want special treatment."

Here's a well sourced discussion on it on Kotaku In Action, the GamerGate reddit board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...

And some discussion over on reddit's linux board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux...

Basically, Leah Rowe had a fit because the FSF parted ways with a transgendered employee.

Leah makes the unfounded claim that the FSF did this because the person has a mental illness (gender dysphoria / gender identity disorder), because someone wrote criticism of said person with mental illness which looked bad on the FSF, etc. She provides no evidence of these VERY specific claims.
http://archive.is/iXIbc

The FSF make a statement on 9/16 pointing out that they have a strong anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, as well as a so called "safe space policy" at FSF events. In other words, they have already capitulated to all the standard Regressive Leftist demands. They deny the accusation and say the person with mental illness was terminated for other reasons.
https://archive.is/HGLMa

Leah specifically follows up this claim here, changing her claim to a different claim that two FSF employees were "transphobic" and "bullying" this mentally ill developer. She namedrops these two people, but refuses to namedrop the supposed victim, believing they deserve protection from any criticism or questioning of these claims. Note that this apparently does not apply to the two men she is accusing without any form of evidence of unprofessional and possibly illegal behavior.
https://archive.is/7cXtw#selec...

She follows this up with more increasingly unhinged spam and unfounded accusations. She ignores, bans, or curses out people requesting evidence or disputing her one woman lynch mob. She posts an unhinged screed on her website showing she has little to no understanding of open source, all while repeating the same unfounded claims, as well as claiming martyrdom on her part.
https://archive.is/JmiTG

It's important to note that libreroot is a fork of Coreboot and being part of the GNU project means it was posted under an open source license. Which means someone could easily fork it again and put it BACK in the GNU project. Of course, proving she doesn't understand the first thing about open source, she specifically wants people NOT to do that. I suggest the name cisLibreBoot, because it seems the most amusing name possible.

Fortunately, the GNU mailing list appears to basically shut her histrionics down fairly quickly:
http://archive.is/di974

In addition, it's important to realize the unhinged professional victimhood martyrdom ravings of Leah Rowe, which are REMARKABLY similar to other social justice activists such as Brianna Wu or Nora Reed, don't actually represent the Libreroot community. See, it turns out, what she did was steal access to the main repository and lock out everyone else, all while making her unhinged, evidence-free stat

Um - https://libreboot.org/

Also there is more information as to why libreboot left the GNU. From their site - 'Libreboot left GNU on 2016-09-15, in protest of transgender discrimination at the FSF'.

Having read it... That's... an interesting interpretation of events. You'll note the complete lack of evidence in it? That's important.

Here's what actually happened, based on what evidence I could find. Leah Woods is a SJW who had a fit because of some made up bullshit that boils down, like all made up SJW bullshit, to "Open Source is a meritocracy, but we still want special treatment."

Here's a well sourced discussion on it on Kotaku In Action, the GamerGate reddit board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...

And some discussion over on reddit's linux board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux...

Basically, Leah Rowe had a fit because the FSF parted ways with a transgendered employee.

Leah makes the unfounded claim that the FSF did this because the person has a mental illness (gender dysphoria / gender identity disorder), because someone wrote criticism of said person with mental illness which looked bad on the FSF, etc. She provides no evidence of these VERY specific claims.
http://archive.is/iXIbc

The FSF make a statement on 9/16 pointing out that they have a strong anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, as well as a so called "safe space policy" at FSF events. In other words, they have already capitulated to all the standard Regressive Leftist demands. They deny the accusation and say the person with mental illness was terminated for other reasons.
https://archive.is/HGLMa

Leah specifically follows up this claim here, changing her claim to a different claim that two FSF employees were "transphobic" and "bullying" this mentally ill developer. She namedrops these two people, but refuses to namedrop the supposed victim, believing they deserve protection from any criticism or questioning of these claims. Note that this apparently does not apply to the two men she is accusing without any form of evidence of unprofessional and possibly illegal behavior.
https://archive.is/7cXtw#selec...

She follows this up with more increasingly unhinged spam and unfounded accusations. She ignores, bans, or curses out people requesting evidence or disputing her one woman lynch mob. She posts an unhinged screed on her website showing she has little to no understanding of open source, all while repeating the same unfounded claims, as well as claiming martyrdom on her part.
https://archive.is/JmiTG

It's important to note that libreroot is a fork of Coreboot and being part of the GNU project means it was posted under an open source license. Which means someone could easily fork it again and put it BACK in the GNU project. Of course, proving she doesn't understand the first thing about open source, she specifically wants people NOT to do that. I suggest the name cisLibreBoot, because it seems the most amusing name possible.

Fortunately, the GNU mailing list appears to basically shut her histrionics down fairly quickly:
http://archive.is/di974

In addition, it's important to realize the unhinged professional victimhood martyrdom ravings of Leah Rowe, which are REMARKABLY similar to other social justice activists such as Brianna Wu or Nora Reed, don't actually represent the Libreroot community. See, it turns out, what she did was steal access to the main repository and lock out everyone else, all while making her unhinged, evidence-free stat

Um - https://libreboot.org/

Also there is more information as to why libreboot left the GNU. From their site - 'Libreboot left GNU on 2016-09-15, in protest of transgender discrimination at the FSF'.

Having read it... That's... an interesting interpretation of events. You'll note the complete lack of evidence in it? That's important.

Here's what actually happened, based on what evidence I could find. Leah Woods is a SJW who had a fit because of some made up bullshit that boils down, like all made up SJW bullshit, to "Open Source is a meritocracy, but we still want special treatment."

Here's a well sourced discussion on it on Kotaku In Action, the GamerGate reddit board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...

And some discussion over on reddit's linux board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux...

Basically, Leah Rowe had a fit because the FSF parted ways with a transgendered employee.

Leah makes the unfounded claim that the FSF did this because the person has a mental illness (gender dysphoria / gender identity disorder), because someone wrote criticism of said person with mental illness which looked bad on the FSF, etc. She provides no evidence of these VERY specific claims.
http://archive.is/iXIbc

The FSF make a statement on 9/16 pointing out that they have a strong anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, as well as a so called "safe space policy" at FSF events. In other words, they have already capitulated to all the standard Regressive Leftist demands. They deny the accusation and say the person with mental illness was terminated for other reasons.
https://archive.is/HGLMa

Leah specifically follows up this claim here, changing her claim to a different claim that two FSF employees were "transphobic" and "bullying" this mentally ill developer. She namedrops these two people, but refuses to namedrop the supposed victim, believing they deserve protection from any criticism or questioning of these claims. Note that this apparently does not apply to the two men she is accusing without any form of evidence of unprofessional and possibly illegal behavior.
https://archive.is/7cXtw#selec...

She follows this up with more increasingly unhinged spam and unfounded accusations. She ignores, bans, or curses out people requesting evidence or disputing her one woman lynch mob. She posts an unhinged screed on her website showing she has little to no understanding of open source, all while repeating the same unfounded claims, as well as claiming martyrdom on her part.
https://archive.is/JmiTG

It's important to note that libreroot is a fork of Coreboot and being part of the GNU project means it was posted under an open source license. Which means someone could easily fork it again and put it BACK in the GNU project. Of course, proving she doesn't understand the first thing about open source, she specifically wants people NOT to do that. I suggest the name cisLibreBoot, because it seems the most amusing name possible.

Fortunately, the GNU mailing list appears to basically shut her histrionics down fairly quickly:
http://archive.is/di974

In addition, it's important to realize the unhinged professional victimhood martyrdom ravings of Leah Rowe, which are REMARKABLY similar to other social justice activists such as Brianna Wu or Nora Reed, don't actually represent the Libreroot community. See, it turns out, what she did was steal access to the main repository and lock out everyone else, all while making her unhinged, evidence-free stat

Um - https://libreboot.org/

Also there is more information as to why libreboot left the GNU. From their site - 'Libreboot left GNU on 2016-09-15, in protest of transgender discrimination at the FSF'.

Having read it... That's... an interesting interpretation of events. You'll note the complete lack of evidence in it? That's important.

Here's what actually happened, based on what evidence I could find. Leah Woods is a SJW who had a fit because of some made up bullshit that boils down, like all made up SJW bullshit, to "Open Source is a meritocracy, but we still want special treatment."

Here's a well sourced discussion on it on Kotaku In Action, the GamerGate reddit board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kotak...

And some discussion over on reddit's linux board:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux...

Basically, Leah Rowe had a fit because the FSF parted ways with a transgendered employee.

Leah makes the unfounded claim that the FSF did this because the person has a mental illness (gender dysphoria / gender identity disorder), because someone wrote criticism of said person with mental illness which looked bad on the FSF, etc. She provides no evidence of these VERY specific claims.
http://archive.is/iXIbc

The FSF make a statement on 9/16 pointing out that they have a strong anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, as well as a so called "safe space policy" at FSF events. In other words, they have already capitulated to all the standard Regressive Leftist demands. They deny the accusation and say the person with mental illness was terminated for other reasons.
https://archive.is/HGLMa

Leah specifically follows up this claim here, changing her claim to a different claim that two FSF employees were "transphobic" and "bullying" this mentally ill developer. She namedrops these two people, but refuses to namedrop the supposed victim, believing they deserve protection from any criticism or questioning of these claims. Note that this apparently does not apply to the two men she is accusing without any form of evidence of unprofessional and possibly illegal behavior.
https://archive.is/7cXtw#selec...

She follows this up with more increasingly unhinged spam and unfounded accusations. She ignores, bans, or curses out people requesting evidence or disputing her one woman lynch mob. She posts an unhinged screed on her website showing she has little to no understanding of open source, all while repeating the same unfounded claims, as well as claiming martyrdom on her part.
https://archive.is/JmiTG

It's important to note that libreroot is a fork of Coreboot and being part of the GNU project means it was posted under an open source license. Which means someone could easily fork it again and put it BACK in the GNU project. Of course, proving she doesn't understand the first thing about open source, she specifically wants people NOT to do that. I suggest the name cisLibreBoot, because it seems the most amusing name possible.

Fortunately, the GNU mailing list appears to basically shut her histrionics down fairly quickly:
http://archive.is/di974

In addition, it's important to realize the unhinged professional victimhood martyrdom ravings of Leah Rowe, which are REMARKABLY similar to other social justice activists such as Brianna Wu or Nora Reed, don't actually represent the Libreroot community. See, it turns out, what she did was steal access to the main repository and lock out everyone else, all while making her unhinged, evidence-free stat

Ghostbusters (2016) disproved this.

Well that's because the trump supporters, misogynists, racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, gamergators, alt-right, nazi-kkkers were all raging against it don't ya know. Don't take my word for it, take it from the directors, actors and some more stuff and movie/review/news sites mouths--among others. That it's all their fault that it was a failure.

Or...it could be that it was just a shitty movie, and the entire marketing idea was to release shitty trailers, attack your audience, then double down. I'm sure that's a winning strategy, it worked against Trump, and for Brexit right? It sure looks like it's a winning strategy in the NL and DE elections coming up too.

Ghostbusters (2016) disproved this.

Well that's because the trump supporters, misogynists, racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, gamergators, alt-right, nazi-kkkers were all raging against it don't ya know. Don't take my word for it, take it from the directors, actors and some more stuff and movie/review/news sites mouths--among others. That it's all their fault that it was a failure.

Or...it could be that it was just a shitty movie, and the entire marketing idea was to release shitty trailers, attack your audience, then double down. I'm sure that's a winning strategy, it worked against Trump, and for Brexit right? It sure looks like it's a winning strategy in the NL and DE elections coming up too.

Ghostbusters (2016) disproved this.

Well that's because the trump supporters, misogynists, racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, gamergators, alt-right, nazi-kkkers were all raging against it don't ya know. Don't take my word for it, take it from the directors, actors and some more stuff and movie/review/news sites mouths--among others. That it's all their fault that it was a failure.

Or...it could be that it was just a shitty movie, and the entire marketing idea was to release shitty trailers, attack your audience, then double down. I'm sure that's a winning strategy, it worked against Trump, and for Brexit right? It sure looks like it's a winning strategy in the NL and DE elections coming up too.

Ghostbusters (2016) disproved this.

Well that's because the trump supporters, misogynists, racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, gamergators, alt-right, nazi-kkkers were all raging against it don't ya know. Don't take my word for it, take it from the directors, actors and some more stuff and movie/review/news sites mouths--among others. That it's all their fault that it was a failure.

Or...it could be that it was just a shitty movie, and the entire marketing idea was to release shitty trailers, attack your audience, then double down. I'm sure that's a winning strategy, it worked against Trump, and for Brexit right? It sure looks like it's a winning strategy in the NL and DE elections coming up too.

Ghostbusters (2016) disproved this.

Well that's because the trump supporters, misogynists, racists, bigots, homophobes, sexists, gamergators, alt-right, nazi-kkkers were all raging against it don't ya know. Don't take my word for it, take it from the directors, actors and some more stuff and movie/review/news sites mouths--among others. That it's all their fault that it was a failure.

Or...it could be that it was just a shitty movie, and the entire marketing idea was to release shitty trailers, attack your audience, then double down. I'm sure that's a winning strategy, it worked against Trump, and for Brexit right? It sure looks like it's a winning strategy in the NL and DE elections coming up too.

Yep, and now that story contains a correction at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors.

The BBC published an article describing biased, allegedly misogynistic criticism of the new Ghostbusters movie, quoting as an example a post from Reddit. The Sydney Morning Herald ran an article on the same point, but their reporter took five minutes to do some actual journalism, looked up the Reddit poster's history, and found it was a fairly obvious false flag attack. The BBC responded by excising this part from a revised version of their article, without any sort of acknowledgement of the change, or the fact that they had been fooled (or, less generously, had tried to fool their readers).

Does this mean that the BBC is not a legitimate news site?

Yep, and now that story contains a correction at the top of the page. That's what legitimate news sites do when they make factual errors.

The BBC published an article describing biased, allegedly misogynistic criticism of the new Ghostbusters movie, quoting as an example a post from Reddit. The Sydney Morning Herald ran an article on the same point, but their reporter took five minutes to do some actual journalism, looked up the Reddit poster's history, and found it was a fairly obvious false flag attack. The BBC responded by excising this part from a revised version of their article, without any sort of acknowledgement of the change, or the fact that they had been fooled (or, less generously, had tried to fool their readers).

Does this mean that the BBC is not a legitimate news site?

Wu is openly trans, mentions it on Twitter now and then, doesn't try to hide it.

HORSE SHIT. Not only is Wu ADAMANT that she is NOT Trans, whenever anyone points out this INCREDIBLY obvious fact she accuses them of "GamerGate misogyny."

Worse, back when she was still transitioning (2005 to 2008) she would brag about hooking up with straight men and not telling them about her biological gender:
https://archive.is/vbrpk#selec...

She was thrown out of several online transgender support groups for advocating that kind of toxic crap. For example, here's her advocating not telling people on Susan's Place, which led in part to her being tossed out:
https://archive.is/eJvba#selec...

Here's her on reddit claiming being Transgender is something you can be "accused" of and suggesting people just not respond (like any Tumblrina could ever resist an opportunity to avoid gaining victim cred);
https://archive.is/CDZwb

Wu is openly trans, mentions it on Twitter now and then, doesn't try to hide it.

HORSE SHIT. Not only is Wu ADAMANT that she is NOT Trans, whenever anyone points out this INCREDIBLY obvious fact she accuses them of "GamerGate misogyny."

Worse, back when she was still transitioning (2005 to 2008) she would brag about hooking up with straight men and not telling them about her biological gender:
https://archive.is/vbrpk#selec...

She was thrown out of several online transgender support groups for advocating that kind of toxic crap. For example, here's her advocating not telling people on Susan's Place, which led in part to her being tossed out:
https://archive.is/eJvba#selec...

Here's her on reddit claiming being Transgender is something you can be "accused" of and suggesting people just not respond (like any Tumblrina could ever resist an opportunity to avoid gaining victim cred);
https://archive.is/CDZwb

Wu is openly trans, mentions it on Twitter now and then, doesn't try to hide it.

HORSE SHIT. Not only is Wu ADAMANT that she is NOT Trans, whenever anyone points out this INCREDIBLY obvious fact she accuses them of "GamerGate misogyny."

Worse, back when she was still transitioning (2005 to 2008) she would brag about hooking up with straight men and not telling them about her biological gender:
https://archive.is/vbrpk#selec...

She was thrown out of several online transgender support groups for advocating that kind of toxic crap. For example, here's her advocating not telling people on Susan's Place, which led in part to her being tossed out:
https://archive.is/eJvba#selec...

Here's her on reddit claiming being Transgender is something you can be "accused" of and suggesting people just not respond (like any Tumblrina could ever resist an opportunity to avoid gaining victim cred);
https://archive.is/CDZwb

Supported Sanders? Please.

https://archive.is/zi9is

I think the review you're referring to is this one. It isn't a glowing review, just more coverage than the game deserved. Alone, it would be forgotten, but it ended up making people dig deeper and finding out the gaming press was far from neutral (it's almost like they're the real press!). This had been going for ages, but gamergate was what made the public aware of the fact (kinda like Snowden made average Joe aware of what was already known to be going on). Reviewers tried to rewrite the events, so if you try to dig deeper you'll get an one-sided account unless you put a lot of effort into it.

If you're unfamiliar with games, the way it works (as far as I understand) is like this: a dev gives you early access to their game, plus some goodies. In return, you give them a review. You get what you need to do your job, they get the word out there and gamers get to know what to expect from the game. Everybody wins, right? So, what's the catch? If you give it a bad review, you will never receive early access and goodies again. Without early access you won't be among the first to review new games and nobody will read what you write since you'll be late to the punch. Also, I think there was some worse collusion with some indie devs, but I'm not sure on this.

From what I remember Wu was with the anti-gamergate crowd in the beginning but later on, somehow, managed to piss off the anti-gamergate side as well (I think because he talked with some pro-gamergate guy or something). If you want someone really crazy, there's no better candidate. He might even compete with Trump for best twit.

You won't find the review or any archived copy of it, because it doesn't exist.

Wrong

Microsoft's director of public affairs has quite the history.

His associates Talat Othman and Rabia Chaudry can be linked to Yaqub Mirza and Wajahat Ali.

So the Pentagon's IT is likely to be managed by people that the feds raided after 9/11 for supporting bin Laden. Someone approved this. I wonder how much they got paid, or if they did it for free to show how progressive they are.

Microsoft's director of public affairs has quite the history.

His associates Talat Othman and Rabia Chaudry can be linked to Yaqub Mirza and Wajahat Ali.

So the Pentagon's IT is likely to be managed by people that the feds raided after 9/11 for supporting bin Laden. Someone approved this. I wonder how much they got paid, or if they did it for free to show how progressive they are.

Microsoft's director of public affairs has quite the history.

His associates Talat Othman and Rabia Chaudry can be linked to Yaqub Mirza and Wajahat Ali.

So the Pentagon's IT is likely to be managed by people that the feds raided after 9/11 for supporting bin Laden. Someone approved this. I wonder how much they got paid, or if they did it for free to show how progressive they are.

Microsoft's director of public affairs has quite the history.

His associates Talat Othman and Rabia Chaudry can be linked to Yaqub Mirza and Wajahat Ali.

So the Pentagon's IT is likely to be managed by people that the feds raided after 9/11 for supporting bin Laden. Someone approved this. I wonder how much they got paid, or if they did it for free to show how progressive they are.

Microsoft's director of public affairs has quite the history.

His associates Talat Othman and Rabia Chaudry can be linked to Yaqub Mirza and Wajahat Ali.

So the Pentagon's IT is likely to be managed by people that the feds raided after 9/11 for supporting bin Laden. Someone approved this. I wonder how much they got paid, or if they did it for free to show how progressive they are.