Slashdot Mirror

My point is that you've been spreading nonsense like a firehose for years, and each time your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinces you that you're right and the other person isn't very good at refutation. This doesn't just apply to your nonsense about climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Casimir effect and Maxwell's equations, creationists, Obama birthers and 9/11 Truthers.

It also applies to your nonsense about conservation of energy, beta decay, quantum computing, nuclear isomers, Cherenkov radiation, virtual particles, infinities, string theory, cold fusion, R o s s i ' s E - C a t L E N R h o a x, peltier coolers, GPS, bicycle stability, control theory, hyperbolic trajectories,

That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up. Or why the BBC reported its fall 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... blah blah [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]

... Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose! ... why did the OWNER say that it was done on purpose? ... A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. ... Does this prove that WTC 7 did not collapse because of the fire? No, of course not. But the credibility of any "official" story by now is very, very thin. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]

... for example lumping 9/11 together with the moon landing. Those are not even remotely the same class of questions. ... On 9/11, for example, there are some very serious questions, raised by very reputable scientists. Not "conspiracy theorists". [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-10]

Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others. For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". ... Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-24]

... it goes on to say that fluoridated products should NEVER be ingested by children, because of possible adverse effects. Then it goes on further to say that THERE IS EVIDENCE of other harmful effects from fluoride, PARTICULARLY the form that is commonly put in drinking water. Now, I want to emphasize something: I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, and I do not believe there is some giant conspiracy to stupidify America via the drinking water. But this is what I very much **DO** believe: When there are serious, scientifically valid questions about adverse physical effects of a substance (as their are with fluoride), you’re a moron if you want to put it in the drinking water. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-10-19]

... One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military. ... there is documented, solid and confirmed evidence, by university scientists, that not only was there thermite, it was of a particular, restricted commercial variety. ... The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a jok

That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up. Or why the BBC reported its fall 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... blah blah [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]

... Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose! ... why did the OWNER say that it was done on purpose? ... A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. ... Does this prove that WTC 7 did not collapse because of the fire? No, of course not. But the credibility of any "official" story by now is very, very thin. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]

... for example lumping 9/11 together with the moon landing. Those are not even remotely the same class of questions. ... On 9/11, for example, there are some very serious questions, raised by very reputable scientists. Not "conspiracy theorists". [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-10]

Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others. For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". ... Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-24]

... it goes on to say that fluoridated products should NEVER be ingested by children, because of possible adverse effects. Then it goes on further to say that THERE IS EVIDENCE of other harmful effects from fluoride, PARTICULARLY the form that is commonly put in drinking water. Now, I want to emphasize something: I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, and I do not believe there is some giant conspiracy to stupidify America via the drinking water. But this is what I very much **DO** believe: When there are serious, scientifically valid questions about adverse physical effects of a substance (as their are with fluoride), you’re a moron if you want to put it in the drinking water. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-10-19]

... One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military. ... there is documented, solid and confirmed evidence, by university scientists, that not only was there thermite, it was of a particular, restricted commercial variety. ... The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a jok

Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

Why would you think the experiment has changed? Of course it's still in vacuum. It's the same experiment I described here, based on Dr. Spencer's description of the passive plate enclosing the heated plate. Maybe you should read it again, then explain why you think it just changed.

I've repeatedly explained that net heat flows from the electrical heater to the heated plate, to the enclosing shell. I've repeatedly explained that adding the enclosing shell reduces the net heat flow away from the heated plate, which warms it. I've explained that your bizarre focus on the exact final outer temperature of the enclosing shell relative to the initial temperature of the heated plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.

The only way you'll be able to understand this is if you write down the equation governing equilibrium temperature. That's why I did that for you. If you still insist that the heated plate doesn't warm when it's enclosed, then write down the equation that you think describes the equilibrium temperature of the heated plate after the enclosing shell is added. If your equation is different than mine, explain why.

As long as you keep insisting that the heated plate doesn't warm when the passive enclosing plate is added, my argument is with you, so I'll keep asking you why you're spreading this civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate ow.ly/Av6AX [CFACT, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

"Climate science” isn’t “settled”, at all. On the contrary, it’s very Unsettled. ow.ly/Av6AX [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

Lonny's link claims that:

"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."

I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:

"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increa

Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate ow.ly/Av6AX [CFACT, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

"Climate science” isn’t “settled”, at all. On the contrary, it’s very Unsettled. ow.ly/Av6AX [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

Lonny's link claims that:

"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."

I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:

"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increa

Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate ow.ly/Av6AX [CFACT, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

"Climate science” isn’t “settled”, at all. On the contrary, it’s very Unsettled. ow.ly/Av6AX [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

Lonny's link claims that:

"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."

I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:

"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increa

Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate ow.ly/Av6AX [CFACT, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

"Climate science” isn’t “settled”, at all. On the contrary, it’s very Unsettled. ow.ly/Av6AX [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

Lonny's link claims that:

"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."

I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:

"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increa

The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. 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 fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smears against Michael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.

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

The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. 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 fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smears against Michael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.

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

The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. 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 fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smears against Michael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.

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

The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. 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 fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smears against Michael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.

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

The argument had nothing to do with any other "member" of a "group". As he already knows. It had to do with Pierre Latour's science only, not some "group". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

You told me to "make these same arguments to Latour and his friends" in his "little group" but I'd rather not, because his "friends" include pedophiles and a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. 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 fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

John O'Sullivan is CEO of the PSI Slayers, and his behavior makes his smears against Michael Mann an unbelievably ironic example of psychological projection. Even for a climate contrarian.

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

If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

If Jane could answer this simple question, he wouldn't have spent the time since my last comment regurgitating more nonsense from "Steve Goddard" and issuing "Public Service Announcements" like Jane did at the beginning of this thread.

Once again. A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

A large body of scientists who are PHYSICISTS agree with me. A large body of scientists who are CLIMATE RESEARCHERS disagree. ... which group should I listen to? The ones whose SPECIALTY it is, or the tyros? Go learn a little humility yourself. Like for example learning to admit when you're wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

I showed Jane statements from the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, and the European Physical Society. Spoiler alert: mainstream physicists don't agree with the Slayers.

Maybe Jane doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?

... None of your citations even mention Latour, much less try to refute him. You are just making your usual straw-man arguments again. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

All those professional physics societies agree that our CO2 emissions are causing warming, which Dr. Latour and the Slayers deny. Jane's claimed that physicists are "the experts" when it comes to physics, and that Jane "takes the physicists' word for it." I'm skeptical.

... To the best of my knowledge -- and I have been following the issue -- not one physicist has even attempted to refute LaTour's analysis, while a number of physicists have backed him up. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-30]

rgbatduke is Prof. Brown, a physicist who'd refuted Dr. Latour's analysis directly to Jane, but as usual Jane just doubled down. On a Slayer blog post about Prof. Brown, Lonny Eachus even repeated Jane's arguments to physicist Joel Shore, who refuted Lonny.

Maybe Jane/Lonny Eachus doesn't actually take the physicists' word for it?

... As for your heating the walls, the argument all along has been about something that is warmed from a cooler state to equilibrium. Whether your point about heating the walls is correct or not isn't part of it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

Of course it is. The heated plate reaches equilibrium at 150F with the chamber walls at 0F, then the chamber walls are warmed to 149F and the heated plate warms from a cooler state to a warmer equilibrium. This is a simple way to see that Slayer claims like these are wrong:

... Do you understand the second law of thermodynamics? Do you understand that it is not possible for a cooler body to increase the heat of a warmer body via infrared radiation? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-27]

... An object that is radiating at a certain black-body temperature WILL NOT absorb a less-energetic photon from an outside source. This is am extremely well-known corollary of the Secon

I've explained that in equilibrium, power in = power out.

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

.. physicists are now saying "Climate scientists should start listening to physicists about physics." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

Does Jane listen to physicists about physics?

.. A cooler object cannot increase the temperature of a warmer object via thermal radiation. It just doesn't happen. Ask any physicist. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-17]

.. An article by Spencer linked to elsewhere in this discussion (look for "Yes, Virginia") describes this concept of back-radiation, which is central to many of the AGW models. The article that I linked to above is by a Ph.D. physicist, refuting the first article. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-18]

Does Jane think PhD physicists are credible regarding physics?

And yet the "climate scientists" themselves have not been asking the statisticians about the math or physicists about the physics. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-20]

Does Lonny Eachus ask physicists about the physics?

.. climate scientists themselves have not been consulting .. physicists about the physics! [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-02]

Does Jane consult physicists about the physics?

.. How many of the CO2 models rely on the concept of "back radiation" to explain the radiative forcings? There's a bit of a problem with that: "back radiation" is physically impossible. Again see that link to the article by Latour (a physicist) who shows very clearly exactly why that is so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-10]

So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Does Jane actually take the physicists' word for it?

.. now it's physicists saying that they've got the physics wrong. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

.. They have been accused of getting the physics of their models wrong by professional, well-respected physicists. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist..

.. physicists are now saying "Climate scientists should start listening to physicists about physics." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

Does Jane listen to physicists about physics?

.. A cooler object cannot increase the temperature of a warmer object via thermal radiation. It just doesn't happen. Ask any physicist. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-17]

.. An article by Spencer linked to elsewhere in this discussion (look for "Yes, Virginia") describes this concept of back-radiation, which is central to many of the AGW models. The article that I linked to above is by a Ph.D. physicist, refuting the first article. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-18]

Does Jane think PhD physicists are credible regarding physics?

And yet the "climate scientists" themselves have not been asking the statisticians about the math or physicists about the physics. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-20]

Does Lonny Eachus ask physicists about the physics?

.. climate scientists themselves have not been consulting .. physicists about the physics! [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-02]

Does Jane consult physicists about the physics?

.. How many of the CO2 models rely on the concept of "back radiation" to explain the radiative forcings? There's a bit of a problem with that: "back radiation" is physically impossible. Again see that link to the article by Latour (a physicist) who shows very clearly exactly why that is so. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-10]

So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

.. the CO2-warming model rely on the concept of "back radiation", which physicists (not climate scientists) have proved to be impossible. I'm happy to leave actual climate science to climate scientists. But when THEIR models rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, I'll take the physicists' word for it, thank you very much. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Does Jane actually take the physicists' word for it?

.. now it's physicists saying that they've got the physics wrong. .. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

.. They have been accused of getting the physics of their models wrong by professional, well-respected physicists. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-07-05]

Actually, the rules aren't even well-known. The majority of CO2 warming models rely on a concept of "back radiation" that (according to physicists) does not even exist..

Clicking "Try Sage Online" doesn't require downloading or installing Sage on your computer. But more importantly:

More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law. [Jane Q. Public]

Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out.

That's the basis of all these calculations, which is why I've repeatedly asked if we could agree on it.

Once again, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

For the moment, I'll assume we can. If not, please explain why you don't agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out.

I'm sorry that I didn't realize earlier that we have such a fundamental disagreement. I should've been building a common understanding of equilibrium and conservation of energy rather than solving increasingly complicated thought experiments. So let's take this step by step and see if we can agree on anything.

Let's start with conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium: power in = power out.

A blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

(Eq. 1 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

Yes/No: can we agree that Eq. 1 is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann law and correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

If yes, the next step is to solve Eq. 1 for the constant electrical input using a calculator or the Sage worksheet I provided.

If no, could you please write down the equation you think correctly describes conservation of energy just inside the chamber walls at equilibrium?

Earlier I made an offhand remark that enclosing the heated plate is like suddenly warming the chamber walls. This simpler scenario might be more helpful. Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant? If you claim it would remain at 150F, think carefully about energy conservation at equilibrium. When the walls were at 0F, the plate was in equilibrium because power in = power out. But now the net power radiating out is much smaller, which means power in > power out. So what happens to the heated plate?

Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. Because you well know that even "arbitrarily small" is not zero. And any deviation from zero is enough to make the difference between T and T0 (or however you want to designate them) non-zero. A non-zero difference is all we need, no matter how "arbitrarily small" you try to make it. ... he USES "mainstream" physics to show that in reality it does not warm infinitely, and therefore Spencer's argument was wrong. I mean you're just absolutely trying to reverse the real argument here. But I really don't expect you to see that, because if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume), you don't even see the enormous gaping holes in your own argument which you made above. IN REALITY, the enclosing plate will be somewhat cooler. That's not even advanced physics, it's simple math. Repeat: why can a layman so easily poke holes in your "physics" arguments? I'm not a physicist, and haven't claimed to be one. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-01]

Jane's insistence that "a non-zero difference is all we need" between the heated plate's initial temperature of 150F and the enclosing plate's final temperature of ~150F was interesting. In this thought experiment, the enclosing plate was initially cooler than 100F.

... your analysis above actually verifies what I stated earlier. I've been wasting my time with (my opinion) an idiot. 0.2% is not zero. Therefore T0 (if that is the outward extent of earth system) has a surface area of T * 1.002, and its temperature will be measurably lower than that of heat source T. Therefore we have a net heat transfer proportional to T - T0, which is a non-zero quantity. You've proved nothing here except to verify my point. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-01]

The outward surface S0 (if that is the outward extent of earth system) has a surface area of 1.002 * Earth's non-atmosphere surface), and therefore its temperature will be measurably lower than that of heat source T. And therefore we have a net heat transfer proportional to T - T0, which is a non-zero quantity. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

Jane continues to focus on the difference between the heated plate's initial temperature of 150F and the enclosing plate's final temperature of ~150F, while the enclosing plate's initial temperature was below 100F. For all the thought experiments we've discussed, the heated plate at time "t" has always been warmer than the enclosing plate at the same time.

As long as it's warmer than the chamber walls, the exact final equilibrium temperature of the enclosing plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.

The experiment requires the passive plate to be some unspecified distance from the heat source. (This is a condition of the experiment; no contact is allowed since this is only about radiative transfer.) ... We also know that the passive plate P will always be at a temperature less than that of the source... T(p) will be lower than T(s). The amount is of no consequence, as long as it is non-zero (and it is). ... An elementary, obvious, and perfectly sound conclusion from this is that the source is not made hotter under any of these conditions. Even if plate P completely encloses source S, we know for at least two different reasons (greater radiative area, and the simple fact that it does radiate outward to the wall, which cools it) that T(p) w