Slashdot Mirror

From TFA / Z-Wave's claim (archived just in case they try to change it)

"We want to be clear: all installed Z-Wave-based smart locks are secure and are not vulnerable to threat."

From the video

click

(you just have to watch it to see what I mean)

What is really scary is that the people responsible for the protocol and for the security systems based on it are clearly either willing to lie about whether it's secure or, even worse, are unable to replicate security results properly and too stupid to ask the security researchers for help.

What is really really scary is that no matter how obviously wrong the claim is from some figure of authority there are always a bunch of people like msuave who will treat every word they say as golden without any interest in the facts.

Businessinsider can hardly be called "socialist America haters".

* fired Pax Dickinson for social justice
* diagnosed Linus Torvalds with a mental disorder
* promotes communist nutjob Zoe Quinn's fraudulent Crash Override Network
* deleted comments that did not fit their party line
* promotes/cites communist nutjob Brianna Wu
* promoted the #ThankYouEllenPao campaign as soon as it began
* promotes Github's communist nutjob Corey Ehmke (Coraline Ada)
* was part of a smear campaign against Palmer Luckey
* is run by a friend of the Lerer brothers, the same group that runs Huffington Post and Buzzfeed

Business Insider is almost a canonical example of a fake news site run by socialist America-haters.

Businessinsider can hardly be called "socialist America haters".

* fired Pax Dickinson for social justice
* diagnosed Linus Torvalds with a mental disorder
* promotes communist nutjob Zoe Quinn's fraudulent Crash Override Network
* deleted comments that did not fit their party line
* promotes/cites communist nutjob Brianna Wu
* promoted the #ThankYouEllenPao campaign as soon as it began
* promotes Github's communist nutjob Corey Ehmke (Coraline Ada)
* was part of a smear campaign against Palmer Luckey
* is run by a friend of the Lerer brothers, the same group that runs Huffington Post and Buzzfeed

Business Insider is almost a canonical example of a fake news site run by socialist America-haters.

The proof of harassment has been posted multiple times, and confirmed by GamerGate's own IRC chat logs. You just choose to ignore this evidence that has been posted multiple times.

http://archive.today/Ler4O
http://www.wehuntedthemammoth....
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

How long are you going to keep this pretence up?

There is no central command, no inner circle to infiltrate.

That's the theory, but in practice it's actually a small number of people directing the group. For example, most members are script kiddies who download clients like Low Orbit Ion Cannon to participate in DDoS attacks. The attacks are directed by the few anons with some actual skill - the app simply fetches a file with a URL in it and starts hammering away.

If you read the infamous IRC logs from Anonymous IRC channels and the archives of posts on 4chan, you can see that it's actually just a handful of people, lots of sock puppets and a legion of useful idiots who joined in our of shear ignorance.

Right, so again no specific complaints about any of the sources, just general vague ad-homs against the sources. In any case, here are the full, uncensored IRC logs:

http://puu.sh/boAEC/f072f259b6...
http://archive.today/Ler4O

The second one was released by GamerGaters themselves. Documented here: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

You can grep those logs yourself, and watch as they plan false flag operations, create fake social media accounts etc.

As for Sarkeesian doxing, I tracked down the original tweet: https://twitter.com/femfreq/st...

As you can see, the person in your source has carefully edited the image to make it look like there might have been some personal information there. In fact the information that was blacked out was an obviously fake email address and the "name" is "W.G., the Daily Telegraph interview request", not even an actual name.

You really should spend 1 minute checking these things out before believing them. That's how long it too to type the text of the tweet into Google and reveal the scam.

As I told you in the past, I discussed evidence behind a legal case YOU brought up. I wasn't aware of it before that. Discussing evidence behind the case is not "blaming" the victim. As usual, you have distorted my comments out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Again, unlike you I actually gave links to your comments so readers can grasp the context:

... To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. ... Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

If Jane/Lonny Eachus wants to keep insisting that his comments don't constitute blaming O'Sullivan's victim or defending O'Sullivan, no power in the verse could stop him. That's all Jane/Lonny can muster about any topic anyway: bizarre pedantic arguments. This time, Lonny seems to be disputing the definition of phrases like "blaming the victim" and "defending pedophiles" while hoping people don't read the disgusting statements Jane/Lonny actually made defending O'Sullivan. Jane/Lonny also seems to be disputing the term "discussing evidence" because what he actually did was uncritically regurgitate O'Sullivan's "blame the victim" act.

A case in which the defendent was ACQUITTED of all wrongdoing, I might add. When did you become judge and jury? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Seriously, Jane/Lonny Eachus "didn't" defend pedophiles just like he "didn't" defend a homophobe. Again, if Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fac

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]

@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]

I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

A political message being carried by a child? I consider this to be child abuse. I'm disgusted. Shame. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-28]

@eachus defends pedophiles, but holding a sign asking for a future is "child abuse"? http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7961817&cid=50500503 [Dumb Scientist, 2015-11-28]

I didn't "defend pedophiles". This is simply libel, of the worst and most malicious sort. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

So you deny blaming John O'Sullivan's teenage victim?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

And I know that you don't like John O'Sullivan, but I don't know him, either, and I don't belong to his org. So take your disgusting innuendo and shove it innuendo. This is baseless libel, nothing more. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

That's no "defense of a psychopathic pedophile". You keep trying to falsely associate me with those people. Why? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-30]

Lonny, you've been spreading John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense for years, even after many scientists tried to rescue you from that psychopathic pedophile's cult. Lonny/Jane still keeps spreading O'Sullivan's Slayer nonsense, even after I told Jane/Lonny that O'Sullivan and his fellow Slayer Humlum are taking advantage of the fact that Jane/Lonny doesn't understand calculus or summer and winter.

I've even told Jane that he's quoted a creationist's article praising Sky Dragon Slayer "friend" and dowsing guy Morner.

Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps associating himself with John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayers by helping them spread their Slayer nonsense. I'm trying to help Jane/Lonny finally stop associating himself with the Sky Dragon Slayers. Jane even gave his word that he'd admit he was wrong if he ever decided to stop associating with Latour and the Sky Dragon Slayers:

... if you can actually, successfully complete a refutation of Latour, and show us, and it checks out, I will be happy to declare to everyone that I was wrong and you were right about that issue. You have my word. I will shout it out loud. I'll admit it here on Slashdot and even open a Twitter account and post it there. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-09]

Jane/Lonny, you gave your word that you would declare to everyone that you were wrong about Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer claims. But over a year later you still haven't, even after

Give links, man. Let everybody see what you're talking about so they can understand your commitment to ethics in journalism.

The zoe post vs what the media reports.

Common knowledge is quite uncommon.

Really? You should let the courts know asap. My theory that the sky is actually puce in colour should go over well then.

And yet the founding event of gamergate was sex-for-reviews.

No the founding event of gamergate was unethical conduct by someone posting a positive review with someone they were in a relationship with. That person posting the review was Nathon Grayson, the person he was in a relationship with was Zoe Quinn.

And that never happened. You never showed me the review---because it simply doesn't exist.

It's not a review, it's positive coverage. And he did it not once, but in three different cases. Without disclosing they were in a relationship. This was later collaborated when he disclosed he had been in a relationship with her. He has still not disclosed he paid her financially either.

The entire thing was therefore built on a lie.

No the entire thing was built on fact, that I just showed you. The zoepost as well, shows her statements to Eron while she was engaged in a relationship with Nathon, and her abuse of Eron, including the rape she committed against him(it's important to note, I'm using her definition of rape -- that is cheating behind someones back).

So, there's the proof all nicely laid out. Go ahead, read it. You know who else did something similar? Rich McCormic, he was in a relationship with a Ubisoft PR representative, and wrote articles about Ubisoft games without disclosing it. You know what happened? PC Gamer deleted every single article that he wrote on any Ubisoft game, or had any information relating to it.

And yet the founding event of gamergate was sex-for-reviews.

No the founding event of gamergate was unethical conduct by someone posting a positive review with someone they were in a relationship with. That person posting the review was Nathon Grayson, the person he was in a relationship with was Zoe Quinn.

And that never happened. You never showed me the review---because it simply doesn't exist.

It's not a review, it's positive coverage. And he did it not once, but in three different cases. Without disclosing they were in a relationship. This was later collaborated when he disclosed he had been in a relationship with her. He has still not disclosed he paid her financially either.

The entire thing was therefore built on a lie.

No the entire thing was built on fact, that I just showed you. The zoepost as well, shows her statements to Eron while she was engaged in a relationship with Nathon, and her abuse of Eron, including the rape she committed against him(it's important to note, I'm using her definition of rape -- that is cheating behind someones back).

So, there's the proof all nicely laid out. Go ahead, read it. You know who else did something similar? Rich McCormic, he was in a relationship with a Ubisoft PR representative, and wrote articles about Ubisoft games without disclosing it. You know what happened? PC Gamer deleted every single article that he wrote on any Ubisoft game, or had any information relating to it.

And yet the founding event of gamergate was sex-for-reviews.

No the founding event of gamergate was unethical conduct by someone posting a positive review with someone they were in a relationship with. That person posting the review was Nathon Grayson, the person he was in a relationship with was Zoe Quinn.

And that never happened. You never showed me the review---because it simply doesn't exist.

It's not a review, it's positive coverage. And he did it not once, but in three different cases. Without disclosing they were in a relationship. This was later collaborated when he disclosed he had been in a relationship with her. He has still not disclosed he paid her financially either.

The entire thing was therefore built on a lie.

No the entire thing was built on fact, that I just showed you. The zoepost as well, shows her statements to Eron while she was engaged in a relationship with Nathon, and her abuse of Eron, including the rape she committed against him(it's important to note, I'm using her definition of rape -- that is cheating behind someones back).

So, there's the proof all nicely laid out. Go ahead, read it. You know who else did something similar? Rich McCormic, he was in a relationship with a Ubisoft PR representative, and wrote articles about Ubisoft games without disclosing it. You know what happened? PC Gamer deleted every single article that he wrote on any Ubisoft game, or had any information relating to it.

And yet the founding event of gamergate was sex-for-reviews.

No the founding event of gamergate was unethical conduct by someone posting a positive review with someone they were in a relationship with. That person posting the review was Nathon Grayson, the person he was in a relationship with was Zoe Quinn.

And that never happened. You never showed me the review---because it simply doesn't exist.

It's not a review, it's positive coverage. And he did it not once, but in three different cases. Without disclosing they were in a relationship. This was later collaborated when he disclosed he had been in a relationship with her. He has still not disclosed he paid her financially either.

The entire thing was therefore built on a lie.

No the entire thing was built on fact, that I just showed you. The zoepost as well, shows her statements to Eron while she was engaged in a relationship with Nathon, and her abuse of Eron, including the rape she committed against him(it's important to note, I'm using her definition of rape -- that is cheating behind someones back).

So, there's the proof all nicely laid out. Go ahead, read it. You know who else did something similar? Rich McCormic, he was in a relationship with a Ubisoft PR representative, and wrote articles about Ubisoft games without disclosing it. You know what happened? PC Gamer deleted every single article that he wrote on any Ubisoft game, or had any information relating to it.

A couple of things, first Nathan Grayson did admit to sleeping with the dev, but he claimed it was days after he'd written his last article about her. Sorry if I find that a little to coincidental. In any case, Nathan did write about her, he was also thanked in the game he shilled for her, he didn't disclose any of that.

https://archive.today/5IBg1
http://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.today/0KhZv

But the, "Sex for good reviews" is still just a distraction that's thrown in. "Sex", rather than "relationship", because it lets people push the argument toward being about a women and her sex life while ignoring Grayson is the one in the wrong who had the breach of ethics. "Reviews" is used to intentionally obfuscate the issue because he did write about her and her game, but he didn't review it. To a lot of people "write about" and "review" are pretty much the same thing so most don't catch the use of the term "review" until the start getting hammered over the semantics.

This is done to keep people from discussing all the stuff that came out AFTER that incident. The GameJournoPro list, the black listing of journos and devs that didn't toe the line, financial ties between journalists, judges and indi devs, the "Gamers are dead" articles and other journos that covered friends and roommates without disclosures to name a few.

If you do get past the depression quest incident, then they'll likely just start dismissing everything else as unrelated and/or trivial and will claim it's not what gamers are concerned about or they'll use the old, "If you cared about ethics, you'd be going after publishers instead of women" (because some journalists happen to be women and therefore cannot be talked about), which is Kafkatrapping you into defending yourself against accusations of misogyny instead of talking about the blatant ethical violations.

A couple of things, first Nathan Grayson did admit to sleeping with the dev, but he claimed it was days after he'd written his last article about her. Sorry if I find that a little to coincidental. In any case, Nathan did write about her, he was also thanked in the game he shilled for her, he didn't disclose any of that.

https://archive.today/5IBg1
http://archive.is/WtK25
https://archive.today/0KhZv

But the, "Sex for good reviews" is still just a distraction that's thrown in. "Sex", rather than "relationship", because it lets people push the argument toward being about a women and her sex life while ignoring Grayson is the one in the wrong who had the breach of ethics. "Reviews" is used to intentionally obfuscate the issue because he did write about her and her game, but he didn't review it. To a lot of people "write about" and "review" are pretty much the same thing so most don't catch the use of the term "review" until the start getting hammered over the semantics.

This is done to keep people from discussing all the stuff that came out AFTER that incident. The GameJournoPro list, the black listing of journos and devs that didn't toe the line, financial ties between journalists, judges and indi devs, the "Gamers are dead" articles and other journos that covered friends and roommates without disclosures to name a few.

If you do get past the depression quest incident, then they'll likely just start dismissing everything else as unrelated and/or trivial and will claim it's not what gamers are concerned about or they'll use the old, "If you cared about ethics, you'd be going after publishers instead of women" (because some journalists happen to be women and therefore cannot be talked about), which is Kafkatrapping you into defending yourself against accusations of misogyny instead of talking about the blatant ethical violations.

There are more recent papers (in 2013 and more recently) that debunk the debunkers. We could do that kind of back-and-forth forever. You've proved nothing. The issue isn't settled. ... again, there have been more recent papers as well. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, don't you see the irony here? I repeatedly gave you links and even gave you ready-to-run source code with data included, all showing that Houston and Dean 2011 was a massive cherry-pick. In response, you actually cited Houston and Dean 2011! Why, if all these other more recent papers (which Jane doesn't even name) supposedly exist? Again, read the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

If Jane is hiding blockbuster peer-reviewed papers that overturn that latest 2013 literature review, why would Jane keep them secret? Unless they don't exist, and as usual Jane is just 100% bluster.

... if I am not mistaken the original Humlum paper wasn't even actually published until 2012. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Good grief. Jane, you're slipping again. The Humlum paper you and other Sky Dragon Slayers promoted had NOTHING to do with sea level rise! Here's what the Humlum paper was about:

Paper: atmospheric CO2 *lags* sea-surface temperature change by 12 months or so. Since surface temperature increases occur before CO2 increases, CO2 could NOT be the cause. bit.ly/YTcYvI [Lonny Eachus, 2013-02-25]

Lonny linked to Humlum et al. 2013 which mistakenly claimed that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Here's why. If A(w) is the amplitude at angular frequency "w", its time dependence is A(w)*exp(i*w*t). Its time derivative is i*w*A(w)*exp(i*w*t). So taking the time derivative multiplies the amplitude by a large "w" for fast frequencies, and multiplies it by a small "w" for slow, long-term frequencies. This amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Since our CO2 emissions increase atmospheric CO2 over the long term, Prof. Humlum's analysis can't even detect the rise he claims to be analyzing. However, his method amplifies the faster annual carbon cycle. Prof. Humlum "discovered" summer and winter.

Ferdinand

There are more recent papers (in 2013 and more recently) that debunk the debunkers. We could do that kind of back-and-forth forever. You've proved nothing. The issue isn't settled. ... again, there have been more recent papers as well. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, don't you see the irony here? I repeatedly gave you links and even gave you ready-to-run source code with data included, all showing that Houston and Dean 2011 was a massive cherry-pick. In response, you actually cited Houston and Dean 2011! Why, if all these other more recent papers (which Jane doesn't even name) supposedly exist? Again, read the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

If Jane is hiding blockbuster peer-reviewed papers that overturn that latest 2013 literature review, why would Jane keep them secret? Unless they don't exist, and as usual Jane is just 100% bluster.

... if I am not mistaken the original Humlum paper wasn't even actually published until 2012. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Good grief. Jane, you're slipping again. The Humlum paper you and other Sky Dragon Slayers promoted had NOTHING to do with sea level rise! Here's what the Humlum paper was about:

Paper: atmospheric CO2 *lags* sea-surface temperature change by 12 months or so. Since surface temperature increases occur before CO2 increases, CO2 could NOT be the cause. bit.ly/YTcYvI [Lonny Eachus, 2013-02-25]

Lonny linked to Humlum et al. 2013 which mistakenly claimed that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Here's why. If A(w) is the amplitude at angular frequency "w", its time dependence is A(w)*exp(i*w*t). Its time derivative is i*w*A(w)*exp(i*w*t). So taking the time derivative multiplies the amplitude by a large "w" for fast frequencies, and multiplies it by a small "w" for slow, long-term frequencies. This amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Since our CO2 emissions increase atmospheric CO2 over the long term, Prof. Humlum's analysis can't even detect the rise he claims to be analyzing. However, his method amplifies the faster annual carbon cycle. Prof. Humlum "discovered" summer and winter.

Ferdinand

There are more recent papers (in 2013 and more recently) that debunk the debunkers. We could do that kind of back-and-forth forever. You've proved nothing. The issue isn't settled. ... again, there have been more recent papers as well. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, don't you see the irony here? I repeatedly gave you links and even gave you ready-to-run source code with data included, all showing that Houston and Dean 2011 was a massive cherry-pick. In response, you actually cited Houston and Dean 2011! Why, if all these other more recent papers (which Jane doesn't even name) supposedly exist? Again, read the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

If Jane is hiding blockbuster peer-reviewed papers that overturn that latest 2013 literature review, why would Jane keep them secret? Unless they don't exist, and as usual Jane is just 100% bluster.

... if I am not mistaken the original Humlum paper wasn't even actually published until 2012. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Good grief. Jane, you're slipping again. The Humlum paper you and other Sky Dragon Slayers promoted had NOTHING to do with sea level rise! Here's what the Humlum paper was about:

Paper: atmospheric CO2 *lags* sea-surface temperature change by 12 months or so. Since surface temperature increases occur before CO2 increases, CO2 could NOT be the cause. bit.ly/YTcYvI [Lonny Eachus, 2013-02-25]

Lonny linked to Humlum et al. 2013 which mistakenly claimed that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Here's why. If A(w) is the amplitude at angular frequency "w", its time dependence is A(w)*exp(i*w*t). Its time derivative is i*w*A(w)*exp(i*w*t). So taking the time derivative multiplies the amplitude by a large "w" for fast frequencies, and multiplies it by a small "w" for slow, long-term frequencies. This amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Since our CO2 emissions increase atmospheric CO2 over the long term, Prof. Humlum's analysis can't even detect the rise he claims to be analyzing. However, his method amplifies the faster annual carbon cycle. Prof. Humlum "discovered" summer and winter.

Ferdinand

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

I think the study's methodology is highly suspect. What of all those people in India and China (and other parts of the world) who burn organics like wood or straw or animal dung for heat, cooking, etc? That puts out far more pollution than a gas or even coal-fired power plant per capita. The paper is currently paywalled, but I think the study and its methodology deserve some close scrutiny before people start jumping on this bandwagon. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-09]

As others have explained, burning wood can be carbon neutral. And as I just told Jane, the only real caveat here is significant land use change, like deforestation. I've also told Jane that in the 1990s, the upper bound on CO2 emissions due to land-use changes was less than half of the lower bound on those due to fossil fuel emissions.

This can be confirmed using simple accounting or by using 14C isotope ratios. Burning wood releases unstable 14C carbon because it hasn't had time to decay, but there is no 14C in coal. So we actually have several independent ways to see that Jane Q. Public and John O'Sullivan are wrong when they keep blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations:

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

I've already told Jane this is nonsense, but he refused to retract this Sky Dragon Slayer claim and keeps blaming developing countries for supposedly emitting "far more" CO2 than developed nations. Once again, John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Ironically, when one isn't talking to Sky Dragon Slayers like John O'Sullivan, it isn't controversial to note that developed countries are responsible for most of the CO2 rise. Here's an interactive tool to explore historical CO2 emissions

The harassment of Quinn was a long running "game" to GamerGate, as evidenced by their own IRC logs that they published themselves: http://archive.today/Ler4O

The "censorship" you talk about was the deletion of threads on 4chan that were encouraging people to harass her, or contained doxxing and the like. Eventually it go so bad that even 4chan had to ban it. In fact even 8chan does delete some threads about it, because they violate US law.

As for the Zoe Post, it's worth noting that the author now has a restraining order against him that prevents him posting further such material. Before that blog went up he posted it to a few other places that deleted it, because it was basically impossible to verify and only posted for the sole purpose of harassing Quinn. The ethics in journalism angle is one or two sentences, the rest is just about slandering Quinn. It has zero credibility, and no, a few easily faked or taken out of context screenshots are not "proof". In fact, the specific claims made about ethics in journalism turned out to be demonstrably false.

I'm sorry for still being alive. Think carefully about context, and you'll realize your accusations of dishonesty are baseless. Once again.

As I stated to you before, my position on the physics from long past may not necessarily be related to my current position... but your insistence on persistently dragging up bullshit from 5 years ago only serves to muddy the waters, and makes me not want to discuss it with you.

Jane, you repeated your incorrect position on the physics just last month. Again, were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?

I concede that nucleation via cosmic rays is at this time theoretical, but heck... so is warming via CO2.

I've already told you that the NAS calls it a "settled fact" but you still seem unable to retract your claims about warming via CO2. Were you lying when you insisted you DO have a reply to that physics problem?

they predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world

But they DIDN'T predict growing sea ice in a world that is NOT warming, did they? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?

"We know the Earth is warming, you idiot. That's not the issue here." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]

Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.

The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.

You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

That's absurd, Jane. I've repeatedly linked to Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. Polyak et al. reconstructs Arctic sea ice back to 1870, and Kinnard et al. goes back 1,450 years.

... I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850? No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]

I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.

That's why it was so baffling when Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH d

This "conversation" is continued from here.

Pardon me again. Just for the sake of completeness, I want to post this:

Answer

In physics, we call "thermodynamics" something else. We call it "statistical mechanics." Meaning macroscopic and predictable based on statistics. Before you read further, please just consider this notion: "equilibrium" is *defined* in thermodynamics as a state where there is no net flow. Trying to prove that there is a net flow is just trying to prove non-equilibrium. There's no reason to try and say that there are counterexamples. That's like trying to say that a dog is really a cat. The very word "equilibrium" means that all the flows are equal in all parts of the system, in and out. If you find a counterexample that exists, then by definition the system is NOT IN EQUILIBRIUM. So if you find a counterexample, then you've found a system that is not in thermal equlibrium. Done.

In the system I showed there IS net heat transfer. It is not in local thermal equilibrium. The point was important. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-13]

Notice that the quote you copied isn't restricted to heat flow. That point is important. Conservation of energy applies to all energy which crosses a boundary, even if it crosses that boundary in the form of electricity instead of heat.

Conservation of energy means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out of the boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. If nothing inside the boundary is changing, that rate is zero so power in = power out.

If power in = power out, physicists say there's "no net flow".

So Lonny's link is actually just repeating the same basic concept that I am: if there's no change with time, conservation of energy says that power in = power out. ALL power. Not just heat, because any form of energy has to be included in the energy conservation equation.

That's why if nothing is changing with time, electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Once again, what matters is that the objects' temperatures aren't changing with time. It's just a matter of labels if we call this "equilibrium" or "steady-state".

But I generously let you choose "steady-state" seven months ago. And yet you're still using this nonsensical excuse to evade solving the very first step of this very simple thought experiment. Why?

@tan123 @SteveSGoddard These two bozos wanted to set me up. (I *DO* have a reply to their physics problem, by the way.) [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-13]

Really? Then prove it. Show everyone how the enclosed plate doesn't warm, without using your previous nonsensical equation which violates what you call "kindergarten-level physics", and without wrongly claiming that "radiative power out" is held constant rather than electrical (or Jane's cow fart or Lonny's horse fart, etc.) heating power.

This "conversation" is continued from here.

Pardon me again. Just for the sake of completeness, I want to post this:

Answer

In physics, we call "thermodynamics" something else. We call it "statistical mechanics." Meaning macroscopic and predictable based on statistics. Before you read further, please just consider this notion: "equilibrium" is *defined* in thermodynamics as a state where there is no net flow. Trying to prove that there is a net flow is just trying to prove non-equilibrium. There's no reason to try and say that there are counterexamples. That's like trying to say that a dog is really a cat. The very word "equilibrium" means that all the flows are equal in all parts of the system, in and out. If you find a counterexample that exists, then by definition the system is NOT IN EQUILIBRIUM. So if you find a counterexample, then you've found a system that is not in thermal equlibrium. Done.

In the system I showed there IS net heat transfer. It is not in local thermal equilibrium. The point was important. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-13]

Notice that the quote you copied isn't restricted to heat flow. That point is important. Conservation of energy applies to all energy which crosses a boundary, even if it crosses that boundary in the form of electricity instead of heat.

Conservation of energy means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out of the boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. If nothing inside the boundary is changing, that rate is zero so power in = power out.

If power in = power out, physicists say there's "no net flow".

So Lonny's link is actually just repeating the same basic concept that I am: if there's no change with time, conservation of energy says that power in = power out. ALL power. Not just heat, because any form of energy has to be included in the energy conservation equation.

That's why if nothing is changing with time, electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Once again, what matters is that the objects' temperatures aren't changing with time. It's just a matter of labels if we call this "equilibrium" or "steady-state".

But I generously let you choose "steady-state" seven months ago. And yet you're still using this nonsensical excuse to evade solving the very first step of this very simple thought experiment. Why?

@tan123 @SteveSGoddard These two bozos wanted to set me up. (I *DO* have a reply to their physics problem, by the way.) [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-13]

Really? Then prove it. Show everyone how the enclosed plate doesn't warm, without using your previous nonsensical equation which violates what you call "kindergarten-level physics", and without wrongly claiming that "radiative power out" is held constant rather than electrical (or Jane's cow fart or Lonny's horse fart, etc.) heating power.

This "conversation" is continued from here.

Pardon me again. Just for the sake of completeness, I want to post this:

Answer

In physics, we call "thermodynamics" something else. We call it "statistical mechanics." Meaning macroscopic and predictable based on statistics. Before you read further, please just consider this notion: "equilibrium" is *defined* in thermodynamics as a state where there is no net flow. Trying to prove that there is a net flow is just trying to prove non-equilibrium. There's no reason to try and say that there are counterexamples. That's like trying to say that a dog is really a cat. The very word "equilibrium" means that all the flows are equal in all parts of the system, in and out. If you find a counterexample that exists, then by definition the system is NOT IN EQUILIBRIUM. So if you find a counterexample, then you've found a system that is not in thermal equlibrium. Done.

In the system I showed there IS net heat transfer. It is not in local thermal equilibrium. The point was important. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-13]

Notice that the quote you copied isn't restricted to heat flow. That point is important. Conservation of energy applies to all energy which crosses a boundary, even if it crosses that boundary in the form of electricity instead of heat.

Conservation of energy means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out of the boundary equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. If nothing inside the boundary is changing, that rate is zero so power in = power out.

If power in = power out, physicists say there's "no net flow".

So Lonny's link is actually just repeating the same basic concept that I am: if there's no change with time, conservation of energy says that power in = power out. ALL power. Not just heat, because any form of energy has to be included in the energy conservation equation.

That's why if nothing is changing with time, electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

Once again, what matters is that the objects' temperatures aren't changing with time. It's just a matter of labels if we call this "equilibrium" or "steady-state".

But I generously let you choose "steady-state" seven months ago. And yet you're still using this nonsensical excuse to evade solving the very first step of this very simple thought experiment. Why?

@tan123 @SteveSGoddard These two bozos wanted to set me up. (I *DO* have a reply to their physics problem, by the way.) [Lonny Eachus, 2015-04-13]

Really? Then prove it. Show everyone how the enclosed plate doesn't warm, without using your previous nonsensical equation which violates what you call "kindergarten-level physics", and without wrongly claiming that "radiative power out" is held constant rather than electrical (or Jane's cow fart or Lonny's horse fart, etc.) heating power.

Lonny Eachus keeps digging:

I objected to this malicious habit of his in writing years ago, and often since, but he has persisted. So: in closing, I apologize for the long stream of tweets, but you DID ask. Wait⦠I will add a bit more. I donâ(TM)t claim to be perfect, and I have made mistakes. But I admit them. Any mistakes I have made do not excuse Killettâ(TM)s behavior, which has been unprofessional and malicious. He accuses me of âoebaseless accusations of fraudâ, for example. I do not make âoebaselessâ statements. He parades around errors I made in the far past, admitted then and corrected, as though they were today. Those are SOME OF the reasons I no longer engage in argument with him. I have no desire to have statements of mine even further taken out of context and misrepresented.

Further, this is why I created a new account on Quark Soup for my reply: he has âoecyber stalkedâ my social media accounts, going back years. That is not normal behavior. I have evidence he has used sock-puppeted social media accounts to suppress my own comments. Etc. So I shall not apologize for a certain amount of âoeparanoiaâ, if you will, over such things. Killettâ(TM)s demonstrated, persistent behavior has been the direct cause.

If Lonny's rant keeps going after this article is locked, they'll be copied here.

Lonny Eachus keeps digging:

I have explained this to Killett multiple times, in various ways, which he continues to misrepresent. Claiming that this textbook explanation is an expression of some kind of "cult physics" or something. Killett's primary tactic of ad-hominem has been "out-of-context + misrepresentation", which he has practiced on me for some years, in part on his "Dumb Scientist" blog.

Lonny Eachus keeps digging:

Per him, in general, a hotter gray body will accept radiative heat transfer from a colder body to become hotter yet. Not only does he assert this, he has hounded and harassed me over it for a long time, won't let it rest.

In brief, he seems to feel the presence of a colder body somehow alters the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative power output of the hotter body. He further asserts this is a result of Kirchhoff's Law, which frankly, would appear to be a direct contradiction or failure to understand it. At equilibrium (which the relevant circumstances are not), Kirchhoff's Law states that absorption effectively results in a shift of output spectra to keep the total radiative output power constant. What the source of his apparent failure to understand these concepts is, I have no idea. The result of this is no NET absorption of energy from the other body, no increased thermodynamic Temp.

This has been the essence of my argument to him: radiative power output unchanged, therefore T via the Stefan-Boltzmann relation, must also remain unchanged. it is a simple logic chain.

My argument also follows directly from the very same cavity experiments which led to Kirchhoff's Law. Per Killett's version of transfer, a sphere in a cavity would spontaneously heat relative to the walls. He has failed to explain why that would NOT happen, if his version of the physics were true. That result would not only be counter to observation, it would violate 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics... which even Wikipedia clearly explains on its page about Kirchhoff's. No radiative physics book needed.

Lonny keeps digging:

Don't be ridiculous, and stop trying to put words in my mouth. I repeat: the timing was suspicious, given past behavior of other people. As I stated before: I am not accusing you... of being a sock-puppet. But I retract my apology for thinking you were, given the timing and circumstances. As I mentioned: I have had to deal with them in the past, and your Twitter history did not inspire confidence. I am aware of this, in fact it contributed to my perception that you could have been a sock-puppet. And I was not aware of a "Liberal Conspiracy" blog, so again I will not apologize for not understanding the reference.

As for who appears to be saying otherwise, his name is Bryan Killett, aka Dumb Scientist. Not that he disagrees with the statement, but he appears to have some custom definition for "net" that allows thermodynamically hotter gray bodies to absorb radiative energy from colder gray bodies, so further heating.

Lonny keeps lecturing physicists about physics, and has another forensic wet dream:

I suspect you are taking someone else's word that there is a disagreement about "net", but that person is not correct. I stated "net", which you can find in the textbooks. If someone disagrees, I suggest you use the textbook definition. I am no longer going to respond to arguments that did not originate on twitter, on twitter. Take them elsewhere. Pardon me, you of dubious provenance: I am busy and I do not recall. What was the context again? Which bodies? You honestly expect a meaningful argument about thermodynamics on Twitter? REALLY? Even if it WEREN'T obvious that this is a sock-puppet account, so you don't have to identify yourself? What possible reason would I have to answer you AT ALL??? Arrogant asshole, thinks everyone else is a fool. Fuck off. By the way: all these exchanges are being recorded, and circumstantial evidence of identity noted. Have a nice day. Evidence is as it is: no avatar, no history, narrow focus, a few comments to "establish account credibility"... comments suspiciously timed with arguments being made elsewhere, etc. You're a forensic wet dream. And what's really hilarious is that I've told you that before but you still don't get it. Explain what possible relevance that has. So you have used this ID elsewhere? So what? Evidence of exactly nothing. What's RELEVANT, is evidence of what use you have made of it NOW, and HERE. Existence elsewhere is weakest straw-man. I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you what is evident.

So.. okay. I did look you up, and you do appear to be a real person. I am a bit set back, because there was A LOT of evidence ... that you were LIKELY someone else. Among that evidence is that person engaged in sock-puppetry regularly. So pardon me if I jumped the gun; but you started arguing about things I hadn't mentioned to you personally... which ... reinforced the idea that you were sock-puppeting for someone else. If I was mistaken, I apologize, but you must ... understand how it looked from my point of view. You have no avatar, you have no established presence on Twitter... and I have been battling someone who has a nasty sock-puppet habit. It has nothing to do with "Liberal Conspiracy". Don't put words in my mouth. The fact remains: if you want to have meaningful discussion of radiative physics, it won't happen on Twitter. So don't insult yourself by asking. "Forensic" evidence you have been conferring with others is still there; they don't put words in my mouth, either. Although certain among them have repeatedly tried. Even so, I would have to ask what is unclear about this, re: this comment and the next. Your meaning is unclear. Honestly, if you act like a sock-puppet (you have), expect to be perceived as a sock-puppet. I retract my apology. If you want to be taken seriously, establish a presence, and don't argue things others NOT here said behind my back. Having said all I said, I am willing to accept that the situation was not intentional on your part. SO... please explain your comment about there being two terms in the calculation of flux. I *WILL* apologize if your argument about net was not prompted by a certain individual who has misrepresented.

https://archive.today/Yg7gq

... as usual, this alarmist paper only covers one aspect of a much larger picture. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-04-02]

That's an incredibly ironic accusation, coming from Jane/Lonny Eachus:

... by beginning at 1979, which you KNOW to be the coldest recent period, you exaggerate the warmer trend. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-09-03]

Naomi Oreskes says "contrarians" cherry-pick data by choosing anomalously hot years. But "warmists" have done the same by starting in 1979. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-05]

Amazing. You reply as Anonymous Coward, to someone who was making the case for repeatable peer-reviewed science, with an accusation that using 1998 is cherry picking, and cite Mother Jones??? Are you for real? I've got news for you: your precious warmism sources consistently start THEIR charts in 1979, and if that isn't cherry-picking, nothing is. The pot calling the kettle black. Actually, it doesn't even deserve that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-22]

Good grief. Jane still seems to fundamentally misunderstand the term "cherry-picking". In the context of using a single dataset, cherry-picking means leaving out part of that dataset for reasons that have nothing to do with data quality, simply to "justify" a pre-determined conclusion.

Jane previously demonstrated that he doesn't understand this basic definition by mistakenly accusing Layzej of cherry-picking after he loaded the entire UAH dataset. Obviously I failed to explain that in the context of using a single dataset, loading the entire dataset is the exact opposite of cherry-picking.

At the time, I thought Jane's baseless accusation of cherry-picking combined with his hilariously ironic suggestion of leaving out data before 1998 might have been some kind of bizarre joke. But Jane's still peddling the same completely backwards bizarro world Jane-logic. Jane's either hopelessly confused about the term "cherry-picking" or he's really committed to his self-deprecating joke.

I guess we won't know until and unless Jane's camera crew pops out and tells us "smile, you're on Candid Camera!"

... as usual, this alarmist paper only covers one aspect of a much larger picture. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-04-02]

That's an incredibly ironic accusation, coming from Jane/Lonny Eachus:

... by beginning at 1979, which you KNOW to be the coldest recent period, you exaggerate the warmer trend. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-09-03]

Naomi Oreskes says "contrarians" cherry-pick data by choosing anomalously hot years. But "warmists" have done the same by starting in 1979. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-05]

Amazing. You reply as Anonymous Coward, to someone who was making the case for repeatable peer-reviewed science, with an accusation that using 1998 is cherry picking, and cite Mother Jones??? Are you for real? I've got news for you: your precious warmism sources consistently start THEIR charts in 1979, and if that isn't cherry-picking, nothing is. The pot calling the kettle black. Actually, it doesn't even deserve that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-22]

Good grief. Jane still seems to fundamentally misunderstand the term "cherry-picking". In the context of using a single dataset, cherry-picking means leaving out part of that dataset for reasons that have nothing to do with data quality, simply to "justify" a pre-determined conclusion.

Jane previously demonstrated that he doesn't understand this basic definition by mistakenly accusing Layzej of cherry-picking after he loaded the entire UAH dataset. Obviously I failed to explain that in the context of using a single dataset, loading the entire dataset is the exact opposite of cherry-picking.

At the time, I thought Jane's baseless accusation of cherry-picking combined with his hilariously ironic suggestion of leaving out data before 1998 might have been some kind of bizarre joke. But Jane's still peddling the same completely backwards bizarro world Jane-logic. Jane's either hopelessly confused about the term "cherry-picking" or he's really committed to his self-deprecating joke.

I guess we won't know until and unless Jane's camera crew pops out and tells us "smile, you're on Candid Camera!"

Lonny leaps into action once again.

Lonny leaps into action.

As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]

... KKK was a Democrat organization. Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]

And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]

... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]

Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?

Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA. ... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]

... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]

Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]

... Lincoln was a racist among racists. Lincoln wanted to end slavery BECAUSE he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. He even tried to implement the plan. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-07]

Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Mo

As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]

... KKK was a Democrat organization. Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]

And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]

... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]

Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?

Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA. ... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]

... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]

Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]

... Lincoln was a racist among racists. Lincoln wanted to end slavery BECAUSE he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. He even tried to implement the plan. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-07]

Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Mo

As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]

... KKK was a Democrat organization. Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]

And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]

... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]

Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?

Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA. ... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]

... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]

Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]

... Lincoln was a racist among racists. Lincoln wanted to end slavery BECAUSE he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. He even tried to implement the plan. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-07]

Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Mo

As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]

... KKK was a Democrat organization. Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]

And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]

... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]

Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?

Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA. ... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]

... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]

Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]

... Lincoln was a racist among racists. Lincoln wanted to end slavery BECAUSE he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. He even tried to implement the plan. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-07]

Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Mo

As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]

... KKK was a Democrat organization. Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]

And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]

... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]

Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?

Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA. ... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]

... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]

Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]

... Lincoln was a racist among racists. Lincoln wanted to end slavery BECAUSE he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. He even tried to implement the plan. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-07]

Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Mo

As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]

... KKK was a Democrat organization. Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]

And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]

... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]

Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?

Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA. ... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]

... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]

Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]

... Lincoln was a racist among racists. Lincoln wanted to end slavery BECAUSE he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. He even tried to implement the plan. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-07]

Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Mo

As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.

... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]

... KKK was a Democrat organization. Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]

And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]

... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]

Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?

Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA. ... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]

... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]

Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]

... Lincoln was a racist among racists. Lincoln wanted to end slavery BECAUSE he wanted to send all the blacks back to Africa. He even tried to implement the plan. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-07-07]

Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Mo