Slashdot Mirror

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

Answered here.

By the way:

Bill Nye - a guy I respected a lot when I was younger - caught in inexcusable misinformation about global warming. patriotpost.us/posts/31194 [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-14]

I *used to* respect Nye.
MT @SteveSGoddard: Dear @TheScienceGuy - you've set a high bar for stupidest climate post stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/bil... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-06]

... I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere. Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked. While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit. To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses Bill Nye of being a liar or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but Jane can't even write down a simple energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.

I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.

If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation that Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way for Jane to see that he should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

If Jane can't even master the most basic details about conservation of energy, Jane won't ever be able to analyze how greenhouses work because that depends on understanding conservation of energy.

Jane, you of all people really shouldn't be accusing scientists of being liars or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Answered here.

By the way:

Bill Nye - a guy I respected a lot when I was younger - caught in inexcusable misinformation about global warming. patriotpost.us/posts/31194 [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-14]

I *used to* respect Nye.
MT @SteveSGoddard: Dear @TheScienceGuy - you've set a high bar for stupidest climate post stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/bil... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-06]

... I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere. Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked. While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit. To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses Bill Nye of being a liar or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but Jane can't even write down a simple energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.

I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.

If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation that Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way for Jane to see that he should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

If Jane can't even master the most basic details about conservation of energy, Jane won't ever be able to analyze how greenhouses work because that depends on understanding conservation of energy.

Jane, you of all people really shouldn't be accusing scientists of being liars or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Answered here.

By the way:

Bill Nye - a guy I respected a lot when I was younger - caught in inexcusable misinformation about global warming. patriotpost.us/posts/31194 [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-14]

I *used to* respect Nye.
MT @SteveSGoddard: Dear @TheScienceGuy - you've set a high bar for stupidest climate post stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/bil... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-06]

... I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere. Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked. While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit. To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses Bill Nye of being a liar or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but Jane can't even write down a simple energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.

I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.

If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation that Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way for Jane to see that he should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

If Jane can't even master the most basic details about conservation of energy, Jane won't ever be able to analyze how greenhouses work because that depends on understanding conservation of energy.

Jane, you of all people really shouldn't be accusing scientists of being liars or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Answered here.

By the way:

Bill Nye - a guy I respected a lot when I was younger - caught in inexcusable misinformation about global warming. patriotpost.us/posts/31194 [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-14]

I *used to* respect Nye.
MT @SteveSGoddard: Dear @TheScienceGuy - you've set a high bar for stupidest climate post stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/bil... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-06]

... I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere. Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked. While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit. To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses Bill Nye of being a liar or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but Jane can't even write down a simple energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.

I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.

If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation that Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way for Jane to see that he should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

If Jane can't even master the most basic details about conservation of energy, Jane won't ever be able to analyze how greenhouses work because that depends on understanding conservation of energy.

Jane, you of all people really shouldn't be accusing scientists of being liars or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

Answered here.

By the way:

Bill Nye - a guy I respected a lot when I was younger - caught in inexcusable misinformation about global warming. patriotpost.us/posts/31194 [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-14]

I *used to* respect Nye.
MT @SteveSGoddard: Dear @TheScienceGuy - you've set a high bar for stupidest climate post stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/bil... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-06]

... I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere. Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked. While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit. To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses Bill Nye of being a liar or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but Jane can't even write down a simple energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.

I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.

If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation that Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way for Jane to see that he should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

If Jane can't even master the most basic details about conservation of energy, Jane won't ever be able to analyze how greenhouses work because that depends on understanding conservation of energy.

Jane, you of all people really shouldn't be accusing scientists of being liars or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to. I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

One thing Jane said is true. Jane's never read my entire comments, or the comments by any other physicist.

But everything else Jane said is sadly wrong. Jane solved the problem using his own incompetent misunderstanding of his own textbooks. That's why inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation Jane's still adamantly rejecting.

Another independent way Jane could see that he misunderstood the "textbook way" would be to learn about how to apply conservation of energy. Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

If Jane would ever bother to read entire comments by physicists, or textbooks about basic physics, Jane would quickly learn that only power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

It's just like crayons in a coloring book, Jane.

Recent federal GAO report: $106 BILLION dollars spend on "climate change" research by 2010. Four years ago. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

... $106 BILLION (GAO rpt.) by 2010 for AGW was wasted. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-02]

... according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]

A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research. If you figure that was through the end of 2010, that was still 4 years ago, so the number is now much larger. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-30]

US GAO report last year said govt spent $106 BILLION on climate change research by 2010. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-07]

... According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010. Five years later, that figure is no doubt by now much higher. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

I've already pointed out that research is different from propaganda, but I'd have better luck educating my coffee table about that. So let's focus on a more tangible question.

I clicked on the actual report Jane referenced above, and clicked on Accessible Text to view the full report. There is no reference to $106 billion in that report. If there were, it would be easy for Jane/Lonny Eachus to quote it. Instead, Jane tells us to "begin by totaling up the annual expenditures as shown in the GAO report."

However, totaling up the annual expenditures in the GAO report's "Funding Category: Total;" sums to: $80.529 billion.

Not $106 billion. Where did Jane/Lonny Eachus get that total from?

Recent federal GAO report: $106 BILLION dollars spend on "climate change" research by 2010. Four years ago. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

... $106 BILLION (GAO rpt.) by 2010 for AGW was wasted. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-02]

... according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]

A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research. If you figure that was through the end of 2010, that was still 4 years ago, so the number is now much larger. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-30]

US GAO report last year said govt spent $106 BILLION on climate change research by 2010. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-07]

... According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010. Five years later, that figure is no doubt by now much higher. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

I've already pointed out that research is different from propaganda, but I'd have better luck educating my coffee table about that. So let's focus on a more tangible question.

I clicked on the actual report Jane referenced above, and clicked on Accessible Text to view the full report. There is no reference to $106 billion in that report. If there were, it would be easy for Jane/Lonny Eachus to quote it. Instead, Jane tells us to "begin by totaling up the annual expenditures as shown in the GAO report."

However, totaling up the annual expenditures in the GAO report's "Funding Category: Total;" sums to: $80.529 billion.

Not $106 billion. Where did Jane/Lonny Eachus get that total from?

Recent federal GAO report: $106 BILLION dollars spend on "climate change" research by 2010. Four years ago. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

... $106 BILLION (GAO rpt.) by 2010 for AGW was wasted. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-02]

... according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]

A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research. If you figure that was through the end of 2010, that was still 4 years ago, so the number is now much larger. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-30]

US GAO report last year said govt spent $106 BILLION on climate change research by 2010. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-07]

... According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010. Five years later, that figure is no doubt by now much higher. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

I've already pointed out that research is different from propaganda, but I'd have better luck educating my coffee table about that. So let's focus on a more tangible question.

I clicked on the actual report Jane referenced above, and clicked on Accessible Text to view the full report. There is no reference to $106 billion in that report. If there were, it would be easy for Jane/Lonny Eachus to quote it. Instead, Jane tells us to "begin by totaling up the annual expenditures as shown in the GAO report."

However, totaling up the annual expenditures in the GAO report's "Funding Category: Total;" sums to: $80.529 billion.

Not $106 billion. Where did Jane/Lonny Eachus get that total from?

I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations. If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation". And those emails were almost certainly not "hacked". Evidence strongly suggests the leak was an "inside job", as the saying goes See what I mean, folks?. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Good grief, Jane. Of course Sky Dragon Slayers like you mistakenly believe the emails were almost certainly not "hacked". And since you're almost completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong, you'll never be reasoned out of that position.

But surely even Jane can see that unless the scientists Jane was quoting and attacking "leaked" the emails, then Jane was using private emails to attack scientists. And apparently that's cool, but responding to public comments is illegal, unethical, despicable lowlife sociopathic behavior.

Janeland is a funny place. For instance:

... I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load? Some of those comments are from someone he thinks is me, and not even from Slashdot. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

It's so adorable how Jane keeps hiding behind a pole.

... call it revenge for not getting to name Charon "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-07]

... If left up to me, I would have really, honestly, named new 9th planet "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

... You're talking to somebody who thought that other rock should have been named "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

I want the definition to go back the way it was. That way, maybe we will finally get to name its companion "Goofy", rather than that dumbass Charon moniker. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-28]

Dumbass Charon moniker? James Christy named Charon because his wife's nickname is "Char".

In fact, "Charon is informally pronounced "SHAR-on," similar to the name of the discoverer's wife, Charlene."

The man who discovered Pluto wanted to name its moon after his wife, and astronomers pronounce it "SHAR-on" to honor his choice. Why does Jane/Lonny Eachus call this a dumbass moniker?

I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations. If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation". And those emails were almost certainly not "hacked". Evidence strongly suggests the leak was an "inside job", as the saying goes See what I mean, folks?. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Good grief, Jane. Of course Sky Dragon Slayers like you mistakenly believe the emails were almost certainly not "hacked". And since you're almost completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong, you'll never be reasoned out of that position.

But surely even Jane can see that unless the scientists Jane was quoting and attacking "leaked" the emails, then Jane was using private emails to attack scientists. And apparently that's cool, but responding to public comments is illegal, unethical, despicable lowlife sociopathic behavior.

Janeland is a funny place. For instance:

... I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load? Some of those comments are from someone he thinks is me, and not even from Slashdot. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

It's so adorable how Jane keeps hiding behind a pole.

... call it revenge for not getting to name Charon "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-07]

... If left up to me, I would have really, honestly, named new 9th planet "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

... You're talking to somebody who thought that other rock should have been named "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

I want the definition to go back the way it was. That way, maybe we will finally get to name its companion "Goofy", rather than that dumbass Charon moniker. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-28]

Dumbass Charon moniker? James Christy named Charon because his wife's nickname is "Char".

In fact, "Charon is informally pronounced "SHAR-on," similar to the name of the discoverer's wife, Charlene."

The man who discovered Pluto wanted to name its moon after his wife, and astronomers pronounce it "SHAR-on" to honor his choice. Why does Jane/Lonny Eachus call this a dumbass moniker?

I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations. If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation". And those emails were almost certainly not "hacked". Evidence strongly suggests the leak was an "inside job", as the saying goes See what I mean, folks?. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Good grief, Jane. Of course Sky Dragon Slayers like you mistakenly believe the emails were almost certainly not "hacked". And since you're almost completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong, you'll never be reasoned out of that position.

But surely even Jane can see that unless the scientists Jane was quoting and attacking "leaked" the emails, then Jane was using private emails to attack scientists. And apparently that's cool, but responding to public comments is illegal, unethical, despicable lowlife sociopathic behavior.

Janeland is a funny place. For instance:

... I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load? Some of those comments are from someone he thinks is me, and not even from Slashdot. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

It's so adorable how Jane keeps hiding behind a pole.

... call it revenge for not getting to name Charon "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-07]

... If left up to me, I would have really, honestly, named new 9th planet "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

... You're talking to somebody who thought that other rock should have been named "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

I want the definition to go back the way it was. That way, maybe we will finally get to name its companion "Goofy", rather than that dumbass Charon moniker. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-28]

Dumbass Charon moniker? James Christy named Charon because his wife's nickname is "Char".

In fact, "Charon is informally pronounced "SHAR-on," similar to the name of the discoverer's wife, Charlene."

The man who discovered Pluto wanted to name its moon after his wife, and astronomers pronounce it "SHAR-on" to honor his choice. Why does Jane/Lonny Eachus call this a dumbass moniker?

Apparently you feel that you have a right to be offended, but not I. [Lonny Eachus, 2010-12-06]

There is no "right to not be offended". The very notion is a mockery of American values. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-22]

Some folks got this weird idea they have a right to not be offended. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-28]

THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO NOT BE OFFENDED. THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YOU OFFEND EGREGIOUSLY, THOUGHTLESSLY, OR GRATUITOUSLY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-03]

I’ve met lot of people who seem to think “Right To Not Be Offended” is in the 1st Amendment. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-24]

This is very sad. It implies that people have some kind of “right” to not be offended, which is ludicrous. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-03]

Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have some kind of "right" to not be offended. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.

Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No, Jane. You might think you're seeing "that kind of crap" almost every day, but as usual you're just putting words in peoples' mouths.

Apparently you feel that you have a right to be offended, but not I. [Lonny Eachus, 2010-12-06]

There is no "right to not be offended". The very notion is a mockery of American values. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-22]

Some folks got this weird idea they have a right to not be offended. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-28]

THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO NOT BE OFFENDED. THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YOU OFFEND EGREGIOUSLY, THOUGHTLESSLY, OR GRATUITOUSLY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-03]

I’ve met lot of people who seem to think “Right To Not Be Offended” is in the 1st Amendment. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-24]

This is very sad. It implies that people have some kind of “right” to not be offended, which is ludicrous. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-03]

Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have some kind of "right" to not be offended. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.

Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No, Jane. You might think you're seeing "that kind of crap" almost every day, but as usual you're just putting words in peoples' mouths.

Apparently you feel that you have a right to be offended, but not I. [Lonny Eachus, 2010-12-06]

There is no "right to not be offended". The very notion is a mockery of American values. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-22]

Some folks got this weird idea they have a right to not be offended. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-28]

THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO NOT BE OFFENDED. THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YOU OFFEND EGREGIOUSLY, THOUGHTLESSLY, OR GRATUITOUSLY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-03]

I’ve met lot of people who seem to think “Right To Not Be Offended” is in the 1st Amendment. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-24]

This is very sad. It implies that people have some kind of “right” to not be offended, which is ludicrous. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-03]

Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have some kind of "right" to not be offended. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.

Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No, Jane. You might think you're seeing "that kind of crap" almost every day, but as usual you're just putting words in peoples' mouths.

Apparently you feel that you have a right to be offended, but not I. [Lonny Eachus, 2010-12-06]

There is no "right to not be offended". The very notion is a mockery of American values. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-22]

Some folks got this weird idea they have a right to not be offended. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-28]

THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO NOT BE OFFENDED. THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YOU OFFEND EGREGIOUSLY, THOUGHTLESSLY, OR GRATUITOUSLY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-03]

I’ve met lot of people who seem to think “Right To Not Be Offended” is in the 1st Amendment. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-24]

This is very sad. It implies that people have some kind of “right” to not be offended, which is ludicrous. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-03]

Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have some kind of "right" to not be offended. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.

Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No, Jane. You might think you're seeing "that kind of crap" almost every day, but as usual you're just putting words in peoples' mouths.

Apparently you feel that you have a right to be offended, but not I. [Lonny Eachus, 2010-12-06]

There is no "right to not be offended". The very notion is a mockery of American values. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-22]

Some folks got this weird idea they have a right to not be offended. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-28]

THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO NOT BE OFFENDED. THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YOU OFFEND EGREGIOUSLY, THOUGHTLESSLY, OR GRATUITOUSLY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-03]

I’ve met lot of people who seem to think “Right To Not Be Offended” is in the 1st Amendment. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-24]

This is very sad. It implies that people have some kind of “right” to not be offended, which is ludicrous. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-03]

Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have some kind of "right" to not be offended. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.

Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No, Jane. You might think you're seeing "that kind of crap" almost every day, but as usual you're just putting words in peoples' mouths.

Apparently you feel that you have a right to be offended, but not I. [Lonny Eachus, 2010-12-06]

There is no "right to not be offended". The very notion is a mockery of American values. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-22]

Some folks got this weird idea they have a right to not be offended. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-28]

THERE IS NO “RIGHT” TO NOT BE OFFENDED. THERE IS AN OBLIGATION TO BE HUMBLE WHEN YOU OFFEND EGREGIOUSLY, THOUGHTLESSLY, OR GRATUITOUSLY. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-03]

I’ve met lot of people who seem to think “Right To Not Be Offended” is in the 1st Amendment. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-24]

This is very sad. It implies that people have some kind of “right” to not be offended, which is ludicrous. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-03]

Some people need to get over the ridiculous notion that they have some kind of "right" to not be offended. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No one is complaining that they should have the "right" not to be offended.

Wrong. LOTS of people do it. I see that kind of crap from one person or another on social media almost every day. And I have gotten it at work, too. Not for a long time, but it did happen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

No, Jane. You might think you're seeing "that kind of crap" almost every day, but as usual you're just putting words in peoples' mouths.

I worked in an office that the women basically ran, and believe me, they were sexist tyrants! They could tell jokes, men could not. I was told that ANYTHING they found offensive (in any way) would be considered sexual harassment. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-04-30]

... While discussing harassment at the workplace, the bookkeeper (who I found to be a pretty offensive person herself) said "ANYTHING I consider to be offensive is sexual harassment." Thinking she didn't mean that quite the way she said it, I said "You mean anything sexual you find offensive is sexual harassment." She gave me a rather nasty look and said: "No. ANYTHING I find offensive is sexual harassment." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

Poor Jane/Lonny Eachus. Was this why you started posing as a woman on the internet? To get back at the sexist tyrant women by making all women look bad?

I worked in an office that the women basically ran, and believe me, they were sexist tyrants! They could tell jokes, men could not. I was told that ANYTHING they found offensive (in any way) would be considered sexual harassment. [Lonny Eachus, 2009-04-30]

... While discussing harassment at the workplace, the bookkeeper (who I found to be a pretty offensive person herself) said "ANYTHING I consider to be offensive is sexual harassment." Thinking she didn't mean that quite the way she said it, I said "You mean anything sexual you find offensive is sexual harassment." She gave me a rather nasty look and said: "No. ANYTHING I find offensive is sexual harassment." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-22]

Poor Jane/Lonny Eachus. Was this why you started posing as a woman on the internet? To get back at the sexist tyrant women by making all women look bad?

So you dispute my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, while simultaneously insisting that you don't dispute the standard physics definition?

... There is no net radiative heat transfer from cold to hot. That’s a violation of 1st & 2nd Thermo Laws. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-01]

Good grief. For months, I've repeatedly explained that Jane's Sky Dragon Slayer equation violates conservation of energy. I've repeatedly asked Jane to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms. Jane/Lonny Eachus adamantly refuses to take the very first step in applying the first law of thermodynamics to this problem, but as usual he's willing to endlessly insist that he's right.

... Your "solution" broke the laws of thermodynamics 2 different ways. If you want to prove yourself right, you'll have to prove those textbooks wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-17]

Once again, no matter how many times Slayers are told that the second law of thermodynamics isn't violated because more power is radiated from hot to cold than vice-versa, that fact never seems to penetrate their skulls.

Once again, Jane has 4 textbooks that say "radiative power out per square meter = (e*s)*T^4". Since I've repeatedly agreed with that statement, those textbooks don't disagree with me.

Once again, Jane/Lonny Eachus just has 4 textbooks that say "radiative power out = (epsilon * sigma)*T^4*area". I bet Jane $100 that his textbooks don't claim that electrical heating power = radiative power out. That's Jane's incorrect Slayer assumption. Even Jane should be able to recognize that his 4 unnamed textbooks don't support him, because deep down even Jane should be able to tell that he's just endlessly blustering to cover up the fact that he can't produce any textbook quotes saying that electrical heating power = radiative power out.

Did you see my RT re: NASA budget? NASA environment spending went up 41%, space only 7%. goo.gl/ixcstK [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-12]

... NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.

After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.

On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.

Did you see my RT re: NASA budget? NASA environment spending went up 41%, space only 7%. goo.gl/ixcstK [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-12]

... NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.

After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.

On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.

Did you see my RT re: NASA budget? NASA environment spending went up 41%, space only 7%. goo.gl/ixcstK [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-12]

... NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.

After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.

On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.

Did you see my RT re: NASA budget? NASA environment spending went up 41%, space only 7%. goo.gl/ixcstK [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-12]

... NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.

After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.

On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.

Did you see my RT re: NASA budget? NASA environment spending went up 41%, space only 7%. goo.gl/ixcstK [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-12]

... NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.

After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.

On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.

Did you see my RT re: NASA budget? NASA environment spending went up 41%, space only 7%. goo.gl/ixcstK [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-12]

... NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.

After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.

On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.

Did you see my RT re: NASA budget? NASA environment spending went up 41%, space only 7%. goo.gl/ixcstK [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-12]

... NASA's climate study budget has gone up 41% while their space budget only went up 7%. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-16]

Sure, let's ask Sky Dragon Slayers how many satellites should observe and protect our home planet. As soon as they finish mocking NASA's director because Slayers claim that "global warming" is nonexistent. But even when Slayers insist that "NASA needs to pull its head out of faulty climate science and get back to space," they should remember that not even space is compatible with Sky Dragon Slayerism.

After all, what if NASA just sends more missions to Venus and Mercury? Again, if CO2 isn't the reason, then why is Venus hotter than Mercury? Is Venus hotter than Mercury because of CO2, gray Oreos, or basketball player gloves?

Shouldn't Sky Dragon Slayers be able to answer such simple questions before determining NASA's aims and goals?

Furthermore, Jane should explain why he emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net". If Jane/Lonny Eachus ever accepts the standard physics definition of the term "net", he'd find that the Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense he's been regurgitating for years is based on a misunderstanding of a basic physics definition.

On that glorious day, Jane/Lonny Eachus would finally have a more credible case for influencing NASA's aims and goals.

So when you took these photos of topless women posing with a CGI hobbit, did the live models sign an industry-standard contract waiving their rights to the pictures?

So when you took these photos of topless women posing with a CGI hobbit, did the live models sign an industry-standard contract waiving their rights to the pictures?

So when you took these photos of topless women posing with a CGI hobbit, did the live models sign an industry-standard contract waiving their rights to the pictures?

So when you took these photos of topless women posing with a CGI hobbit, did the live models sign an industry-standard contract waiving their rights to the pictures?

So when you took these photos of topless women posing with a CGI hobbit, did the live models sign an industry-standard contract waiving their rights to the pictures?

So when you took these photos of topless women posing with a CGI hobbit, did the live models sign an industry-standard contract waiving their rights to the pictures?

I'm getting a "B" as well - very odd. When I follow the link, I see this. Notice any other differences in the report?

There's a 4chan foundation and an LLC. If moot is stepping down from it, who runs the show now? I don't see anyone discussing this.

And here is some context that I don't see anyone discussing either: moot was demanding copies of his moderators' photo IDs, and that caused a bit of a revolt. There is also a rumor that his computer was hacked and all of his moderators' IDs were leaked onto the darknet. No idea if that's true or not.

Another question, where was moot getting his shitty legal advice that led him to demand photo IDs of his mod team?

Sigh.

Gjoni did not *claim* that Zoe got a positive review in exchange for sex, at any point. He did not "later admit that didn't happen"; he later clarified that he never made such a claim, even though it was already perfectly obvious, to anyone who actually *read the blog post*, that he never made such a claim. He only claimed that the relationship happened, which is not in dispute (even Totilo's response cedes this).

Gjoni's blog post was not in any reasonable sense "a long attack screed", which again is obvious to anyone who actually read it. He did not at any point post the story to "the *chan boards"; he posted it on the Something Awful forums and Penny Arcade forums, and then moved it to a Wordpress blog after those posts were deleted. 4chan found the link on their own. It was ( http://theflounce.com/harassme... ) a recounting of gaslighting and emotional abuse that he suffered in that relationship, that I am 110% confident would have been taken seriously by you and everyone who thinks like you if the genders were reversed.

Some people, other than Gjoni, have erroneously claimed that such a review happened, because of a combination of it fitting the evidence / their mental models, and the natural corruption of rumors. What *did* happen is that Grayson painted an unusually positive picture of Quinn's involvement in the GAME_JAM debacle ( https://archive.today/qErD0 ), noting her as the creator of DQ in that article (at a point when neither she nor her game was notable), two days before joining her on a trip to Las Vegas; gave DQ top billing on a list of 50 newly greenlit games on Steam ( https://archive.today/iS4Ru ) - the only one to include a screenshot; and beta-tested DQ (his name is listed in the credits in the HTML source) without ever disclosing this fact in any of his coverage. Twitter search results confirm that he has at least known Quinn on a personal level since at least June of 2012 ( https://archive.today/j5DW0 ).

(More info: http://wiki.gamergate.me/index... )

As for criticism of Sarkeesian, if you think that's all the criticism amounts to, you are *seriously* delusional. The content of many games has been blatantly misrepresented; for example, she spoke about how Hitman:Absolution rewards and expects certain behaviour (shooting the strippers in a strip club in one particular mission), over top of footage that shows the player being *explicitly penalized* for it, and which LPers of the game overwhelmingly don't do. More to the point, she argues from a framework wherein any act of violence against a woman in a game is inherently evidence of misogyny and proof of encouragement of "violence against women", while literally orders of magnitude more violence against male characters in the same games is completely ignored. But you don't even have to look at the videos to criticize her for the fact that in spite of receiving over 25 times the funding she asked for on Kickstarter, she is halfway through a series that is now *over two years overdue* ( https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... ). There are also over 3,000 people to whom she owes "your name in the video credits".

Sigh.

Gjoni did not *claim* that Zoe got a positive review in exchange for sex, at any point. He did not "later admit that didn't happen"; he later clarified that he never made such a claim, even though it was already perfectly obvious, to anyone who actually *read the blog post*, that he never made such a claim. He only claimed that the relationship happened, which is not in dispute (even Totilo's response cedes this).

Gjoni's blog post was not in any reasonable sense "a long attack screed", which again is obvious to anyone who actually read it. He did not at any point post the story to "the *chan boards"; he posted it on the Something Awful forums and Penny Arcade forums, and then moved it to a Wordpress blog after those posts were deleted. 4chan found the link on their own. It was ( http://theflounce.com/harassme... ) a recounting of gaslighting and emotional abuse that he suffered in that relationship, that I am 110% confident would have been taken seriously by you and everyone who thinks like you if the genders were reversed.

Some people, other than Gjoni, have erroneously claimed that such a review happened, because of a combination of it fitting the evidence / their mental models, and the natural corruption of rumors. What *did* happen is that Grayson painted an unusually positive picture of Quinn's involvement in the GAME_JAM debacle ( https://archive.today/qErD0 ), noting her as the creator of DQ in that article (at a point when neither she nor her game was notable), two days before joining her on a trip to Las Vegas; gave DQ top billing on a list of 50 newly greenlit games on Steam ( https://archive.today/iS4Ru ) - the only one to include a screenshot; and beta-tested DQ (his name is listed in the credits in the HTML source) without ever disclosing this fact in any of his coverage. Twitter search results confirm that he has at least known Quinn on a personal level since at least June of 2012 ( https://archive.today/j5DW0 ).

(More info: http://wiki.gamergate.me/index... )

As for criticism of Sarkeesian, if you think that's all the criticism amounts to, you are *seriously* delusional. The content of many games has been blatantly misrepresented; for example, she spoke about how Hitman:Absolution rewards and expects certain behaviour (shooting the strippers in a strip club in one particular mission), over top of footage that shows the player being *explicitly penalized* for it, and which LPers of the game overwhelmingly don't do. More to the point, she argues from a framework wherein any act of violence against a woman in a game is inherently evidence of misogyny and proof of encouragement of "violence against women", while literally orders of magnitude more violence against male characters in the same games is completely ignored. But you don't even have to look at the videos to criticize her for the fact that in spite of receiving over 25 times the funding she asked for on Kickstarter, she is halfway through a series that is now *over two years overdue* ( https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... ). There are also over 3,000 people to whom she owes "your name in the video credits".

Sigh.

Gjoni did not *claim* that Zoe got a positive review in exchange for sex, at any point. He did not "later admit that didn't happen"; he later clarified that he never made such a claim, even though it was already perfectly obvious, to anyone who actually *read the blog post*, that he never made such a claim. He only claimed that the relationship happened, which is not in dispute (even Totilo's response cedes this).

Gjoni's blog post was not in any reasonable sense "a long attack screed", which again is obvious to anyone who actually read it. He did not at any point post the story to "the *chan boards"; he posted it on the Something Awful forums and Penny Arcade forums, and then moved it to a Wordpress blog after those posts were deleted. 4chan found the link on their own. It was ( http://theflounce.com/harassme... ) a recounting of gaslighting and emotional abuse that he suffered in that relationship, that I am 110% confident would have been taken seriously by you and everyone who thinks like you if the genders were reversed.

Some people, other than Gjoni, have erroneously claimed that such a review happened, because of a combination of it fitting the evidence / their mental models, and the natural corruption of rumors. What *did* happen is that Grayson painted an unusually positive picture of Quinn's involvement in the GAME_JAM debacle ( https://archive.today/qErD0 ), noting her as the creator of DQ in that article (at a point when neither she nor her game was notable), two days before joining her on a trip to Las Vegas; gave DQ top billing on a list of 50 newly greenlit games on Steam ( https://archive.today/iS4Ru ) - the only one to include a screenshot; and beta-tested DQ (his name is listed in the credits in the HTML source) without ever disclosing this fact in any of his coverage. Twitter search results confirm that he has at least known Quinn on a personal level since at least June of 2012 ( https://archive.today/j5DW0 ).

(More info: http://wiki.gamergate.me/index... )

As for criticism of Sarkeesian, if you think that's all the criticism amounts to, you are *seriously* delusional. The content of many games has been blatantly misrepresented; for example, she spoke about how Hitman:Absolution rewards and expects certain behaviour (shooting the strippers in a strip club in one particular mission), over top of footage that shows the player being *explicitly penalized* for it, and which LPers of the game overwhelmingly don't do. More to the point, she argues from a framework wherein any act of violence against a woman in a game is inherently evidence of misogyny and proof of encouragement of "violence against women", while literally orders of magnitude more violence against male characters in the same games is completely ignored. But you don't even have to look at the videos to criticize her for the fact that in spite of receiving over 25 times the funding she asked for on Kickstarter, she is halfway through a series that is now *over two years overdue* ( https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... ). There are also over 3,000 people to whom she owes "your name in the video credits".

There was also this article that PROMOTED her game. The only people that call it a "review" are people trying to derail the conversion. Calling it a "review" allows them to argue about semantics if/when someone posts the actual article. Oh, and Nathan Grayson ADDMITTED to sleeping with ZQ, but claimed it happened several days after the last article (GameJam) he wrote featuring her... Never mind the fact that Nathan Grayson is thanked in the credits of ZQ's game this whole mess started over. So even if he didn't sleep with her, he didn't disclose he was friends or that he was essentially promoting a game HE worked on.

This conversation usually goes:
aGG: Why do you hate Zoe? Her sex life blah blah blah, journalist never slept with her or wrote about her. (denies articles exist)
GG: Here are the articles
aGG: Well he never reviewed her game so :P (argues about "review")
GG: I didn't say he did, but he did write about it and did suspiciously choose it out of 50 other steam greenlite games
aGG: Well it's not a review and he only mentioned the game (claims it's insignificant)
GG: Nathan is also thanked in the games credits as someone that worked on the game he mentions.
aGG: *BLOCKED* (blocks after being proven wrong)
aGG: You're just a stupid misogynerd neck beard (Continues insulting and taunting...)

Don't forget the other faces of anti-GG. Like Wu, who just turned around and supported the doxer of Milo Yiannopoulos. These people and their CON are just plain fucked up in the head.

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full...

https://archive.today/4O5wx

http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full...
https://archive.today/4O5wx

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

NO!!!!! .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

After Jane emphatically rejected the standard physics definition of the term "net", it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the term "net". Sadly, this is typical for Jane/Lonny Eachus and other climate contrarians.

After it became clear that Jane is hopelessly confused about the very term "net" which he keeps screaming in ALL CAPS, I explained conservation of energy in a way that didn't require using that troublesome word. At this point, a real skeptic would either try to address this disagreement about a fundamental definition, or agree to disagree about the definition and solve the problem like I did without using the disputed word. But not Jane/Lonny Eachus:

.. No NET incoming radiation from cooler bodies is absorbed, therefore no NET radiation is crossing your boundary FROM those cooler bodies. It comes in and goes right back out. .. no NET cooler radiation is absorbed in the first place.. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-01]

Instead, Jane kept repeatedly screaming "NET" in ALL CAPS, completely ignoring the fact that his emphatic rejection of its standard physics definition reduces his rant to gibberish. Jane/Lonny Eachus also ignored me after I asked him simple questions about the definition of the word "net", so there doesn't seem to be any way to correct Jane's fundamental misconception.

I try to be tolerant of those who appear to suffer from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, but one can only be so patient. :o) [Lonny Eachus, 2015-01-09]

Jane/Lonny tries to be tolerant of those he thinks suffer from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but only if "tolerant" includes endless cussing and screaming garnished with ball washing fantasies. If Jane/Lonny wonders what a Dunning-Kruger victim looks like, he need only look in a mirror:

.. I'm really not sorry to say this after your past behavior, but showing you're wrong is just plain dirt simple. And not JUST wrong, but so ridiculously wrong that I can (and will, believe me!) use it as entertainment for certain of my friends. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-02]

.. It feels as though I'm explaining to a high-school student who has never seen a physics problem before. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-09-04]

I keep finding myself in a position where I feel I should explain, but I am at a loss as to why I should have to, becau