Slashdot Mirror

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

• Andrew Dickson gave a technical 2009 presentation called “Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care?”
• A series of panels at the 2011 AGU discussed declining reef health and tipping points.

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Ridin

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

• Andrew Dickson gave a technical 2009 presentation called “Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care?”
• A series of panels at the 2011 AGU discussed declining reef health and tipping points.

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Ridin

You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.

I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]

Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.

In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:

• Andrew Dickson gave a technical 2009 presentation called “Acidic Oceans: Why Should We Care?”
• A series of panels at the 2011 AGU discussed declining reef health and tipping points.

I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.

Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."

Finally, Robert Ridin

So you're doubling down on your accusations of lies, because your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinced you that you have very damned good reason to believe you were telling the truth. Just like you've doubled down on almost every other absurd claim you've made (an astonishingly vast collection- you're like a nonsense firehose). And like most of those other times, you reasonably should have known that. So once again, I'm not surprised that you can't recognize that your libelous accusations are baseless.

But how could you possibly not recognize that you're Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar posing as a woman on the internet?

In 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Googling things.titanez.net showed that it's Lonny Eachus's website.

Jane could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but Jane's charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if Jane's domain name was also a deliberate message. Was it a cry for help? Part of Jane's comedy act? It couldn't be an unintentional rookie mistake, because Jane's a skilled web developer.

Once again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. Obviously, this is not an admission that your comments aren't baseless. It's an admission that your Sauron-class Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you'll probably never be able to recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

"I am curious: is there something wrong with calling a liar and a bully a liar and a bully? Fact and libel are different things." [Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-08]

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

My behavior is that of someone who's tired of debunking baseless and libelous accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies from Lonny Eachus, who is dishonestly posing as a woman named Jane Q. Public. This shouldn't be hard for Lonny to understand:

"@RatbagsDotCom You're a liar (which you have just proven beyond doubt), and present yourself as something you are not. You're a hypocrite." [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-04]

The statement is false because I explained here on Slashdot not just once but several times that I am not a "birther", and don't pretend to know where Obama was born. My arguments have been about a document from the White House that is publicly available. [Jane Q. Public]

Yes, that's what birthers like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Lord Monckton do, right before they deny being birthers.

I thought you were saying it was false that Jane is Lonny Eachus. Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

I will ask you again where comments like yours come from. Try as you might, you have not managed to show that I even lied. Where are these statements you accuse me of? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, we've already been over this. You're a man named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

The mental contortions you went through to deny that you're posing as a woman were simply awe-inspiring. You implied that you only objected to being called a dude because you're not excessively concerned with clothes, grooming and manners. That doesn't explain why you told hairyfeet to check your name, because "Jane Q. Public" has nothing to do with that, but it is a woman's name. It also doesn't explain why you told Genda to read your name again.

You've also made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer". You evaded this point by arguing with voices in your head and suggesting that "flamers" aren't exclusively guys.

"Don't misunderstand. I'm no homophobe. But I can't stand flamers. If he wants to be that way, he can have surgery." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-16]

Like Jane, Lonny can't stand "flamers" and also seems to imply that they're exclusively guys. Otherwise, what kind of surgery did Lonny mean?

Since men can't be lesbians, only a man posing as a woman would say he's not a lesbian which explains Jane's fantasies about hot guys willing to eat him for lunch.

You've claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, and you have news for guys about how crude women are in the locker room. But since you're a man, you could only get first-hand information by spying in the women's locker room. Is that what you did?

If you're not posing as a woman, why do you refer to yourself using "she" and "her"? You've even pretended that I called you "she" when I didn't.

That's why, despite your attempts at false equivalence, my pseudonyms aren't dishonest because I haven't been posing as a woman, desp

Do you still repeat O'Sullivan's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 emissions now that you know he "forgot" to show the winter fluxes? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

You have mentioned this to me. I don't "know" it because I haven't seen any evidence. But it could be true. I'd have to see the evidence before I made up my mind. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

I already did: "John O’Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but “forgot” to show the fluxes for the rest of the year."

Click on "Figure 3" then scroll down to Figure 3 to verify, but this shouldn't be necessary because a comment by truegoogle on your original "PSI" link already made that point.

You can call it "pedantry" if you want, but I call it "taking your words at face value, and refusing to assume you meant something else when you wrote them". That is a pretty obvious difference between you and me. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

Can we agree that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2?

The "small percentage" I mentioned was in reference to this. You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2 is widely acknowledged to be based on a geometric progression.

As I've said, we've increased CO2 by ~40% but your link refers to the CO2 rise between 1900 (290 ppm) to 2000 (369 ppm) which is an increase of ~27.24%. But we're actually living in 2014, and CO2 in real life is now at ~400 ppm because we're increasing it so rapidly that even NOAA websites rapidly go out of date. That's a ~37.93% increase even if you take "1900" to be the start of the the Industrial Revolution.

Also, climate sensitivity is logarithmic, not geometric. But it's hard to remember that our CO2 emissions are probably more rapid than any events in the last 300 million years. Even logarithmic climate sensitivity allows for accelerating warming if the CO2 concentration rises faster than exponentially. Since 1960, atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen faster than exponentially. Tamino showed this by taking the logarithm of the Mauna Loa measurements and noting a statistically significant acceleration.

We also need to keep in mind, though, what percentage that is of the overall atmosphere: (CO2 % of all atmosphere [wikimedia.org]. Which is a very small percentage indeed, even though Wikipedia puts it higher than NCDC does in the above page.

Why do we need to keep that in mind, any more than we need to keep in mind the very small percentage of alcohol or LSD in the bloodstream? The same percentage increase of ~40% also occurs when we notice that before 1850 there were ~4 kg of CO2 over each square meter of Earth's surface. Now there are ~6. We did that.

It might be a romantic coincidence that Jane and Lonny Eachus are both Sky Dragon Slayers, 9/11 Truthers, and Obama Birthers who deny the existence of dark matter/energy and dislike the word homophobe. Jane isn't a lesbian, Lonny Eachus isn't gay, and both Jane and Lonny Eachus have ferrets and talk about asshole diameter. So if you two lovebirds aren't already hooking up, you really should!

Lonny Eachus went on a similar rant about that exact survey just last night. What a coincidence!

I would have to collect some formulas together and actually do some math... but in general, as temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases. So I am curious how alarmists are claiming both that the temperature will go up, and the amount of dissolved CO2 will also go up. Those two things would seem to work against each other. [Jane Q. Public]

They do work against each other, but our CO2 emissions are so rapid that they overwhelm the solubility effect. Once again, what you're dismissing as "alarmism" is actually mainstream science. Temperatures are going up, and dissolved CO2 is also going up.

I tried to explain this point at WUWT, to no avail: Use Henry’s Law to calculate the CO2 due to the ~0.8C surface warming since the Industrial Revolution. You’ll find that only ~20ppm of the actual ~100ppm rise could even hypothetically be explained by the ocean outgassing

So the reason CO2 in the ocean can increase at the same time surface temperatures increase is because that CO2 comes from our use of fossil fuels, not ocean outgassing. And we're adding to the atmosphere much faster than the warming oceans can lose their dissolved CO2 due to Henry's Law.

"Ocean Acidification” is an up-and-coming buzz phrase used by global warming alarmists. They say it will harm sea life like coral. [Lonny Eachus]

Caused by CO2, of course. The problem with that theory is that coral evolved when CO2 concentration was *70 TIMES* what it is now. [Lonny Eachus]

"Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today’s CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable. I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today. ... [Jane Q. Public]

If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.

Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

Further, it has been shown that DAILY VARIATION of ocean pH at a given location is greater than any change attributable to CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2. [Jane Q. Public]

Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?

Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era with CO2 7-20X higher than today. "Ocean acidificiation" is just another scam. pic.twitter.com/AufWkV57hR ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus]

No Lonny, it's not a scam. Extremely ra

"Ocean Acidification” is an up-and-coming buzz phrase used by global warming alarmists. They say it will harm sea life like coral. [Lonny Eachus]

Caused by CO2, of course. The problem with that theory is that coral evolved when CO2 concentration was *70 TIMES* what it is now. [Lonny Eachus]

"Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today’s CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable. I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today. ... [Jane Q. Public]

If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.

Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

Further, it has been shown that DAILY VARIATION of ocean pH at a given location is greater than any change attributable to CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2. [Jane Q. Public]

Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?

Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era with CO2 7-20X higher than today. "Ocean acidificiation" is just another scam. pic.twitter.com/AufWkV57hR ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus]

No Lonny, it's not a scam. Extremely ra

"Ocean Acidification” is an up-and-coming buzz phrase used by global warming alarmists. They say it will harm sea life like coral. [Lonny Eachus]

Caused by CO2, of course. The problem with that theory is that coral evolved when CO2 concentration was *70 TIMES* what it is now. [Lonny Eachus]

"Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today’s CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable. I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today. ... [Jane Q. Public]

If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.

Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

Further, it has been shown that DAILY VARIATION of ocean pH at a given location is greater than any change attributable to CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2. [Jane Q. Public]

Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?

Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era with CO2 7-20X higher than today. "Ocean acidificiation" is just another scam. pic.twitter.com/AufWkV57hR ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus]

No Lonny, it's not a scam. Extremely ra

"Ocean Acidification” is an up-and-coming buzz phrase used by global warming alarmists. They say it will harm sea life like coral. [Lonny Eachus]

Caused by CO2, of course. The problem with that theory is that coral evolved when CO2 concentration was *70 TIMES* what it is now. [Lonny Eachus]

"Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today’s CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable. I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today. ... [Jane Q. Public]

If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.

Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

Further, it has been shown that DAILY VARIATION of ocean pH at a given location is greater than any change attributable to CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2. [Jane Q. Public]

Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?

Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era with CO2 7-20X higher than today. "Ocean acidificiation" is just another scam. pic.twitter.com/AufWkV57hR ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus]

No Lonny, it's not a scam. Extremely ra

"Ocean Acidification” is an up-and-coming buzz phrase used by global warming alarmists. They say it will harm sea life like coral. [Lonny Eachus]

Caused by CO2, of course. The problem with that theory is that coral evolved when CO2 concentration was *70 TIMES* what it is now. [Lonny Eachus]

"Warmists" like to scare over things like death of coral due to ocean acidification from CO2. Coral evolved at a time of 70x today’s CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable. I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today. ... [Jane Q. Public]

If atmospheric CO2 increases slowly, ocean pH doesn't change significantly because it's buffered by carbonates and land weathering on long time scales. See Fig. 2 in Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF):

"When CO2 dissolves in seawater, it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which then dissociates to bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydrogen ions. The higher concentration of hydrogen ions makes seawater acidic, but this process is buffered on long time scales by the interplay of seawater, seafloor carbonate sediments, and weathering on land."

It's incredibly ironic that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus both point to paleoclimate evidence to support their dismissal of ocean acidification. Honisch et al. 2012 also discusses the observed consequences of releasing CO2 more quickly, such as during the end-Permian and PETM.

Paleoclimate evidence shows that ocean acidification depends on the rate of CO2 emissions, not the amount in the atmosphere.

Further, it has been shown that DAILY VARIATION of ocean pH at a given location is greater than any change attributable to CO2. [Lonny Eachus]

Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2. [Jane Q. Public]

Daily variations can be ~10C or more, but during the end-Permian a ~10C rise in the long term global average temperature coincidentally happened when ~90% of all species went extinct. Furthermore, the marine extinction pattern has ocean acidification's fingerprints on it. Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF) showed that during the end-Permian extinction, ~85% of genuses like coral with aragonite (CaCO3) skeletons went extinct, but only ~5% of genuses like fish with other skeletons went extinct. The rapid CO2 increase during the PETM also led to a similar albeit less severe marine extinction pattern. Again by coincidence?

Corals evolved during the Cambrian Era with CO2 7-20X higher than today. "Ocean acidificiation" is just another scam. pic.twitter.com/AufWkV57hR ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus]

No Lonny, it's not a scam. Extremely ra

Netscape Navigator cost $49. Look at this article from 1996: http://www.fastcompany.com/277.... Back when Netscape had as dominant a marketshare as IE later had. Note how the author seemed to just assume that a browser than didn't cost any money couldn't be any good.

Nowadays, Netscape Navigator has been forked a couple times and the surviving branch is called Firefox, and at $0 its price went down significantly.

The original IE did not come bundled with the OS, it was a free add-on. There was a version for Windows and a version for Mac at this point.

Fast forward to 1998: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001.... January 1998, you will note. Windows 98, which was the first Windows that bundled IE in it, wouldn't be released until May 1998. So it would be difficult to argue that bundling had anything to do with it.

Later, Opera would follow suit, going from a price of $39 to also offering an ad-supported version in 2000: http://archive.today/201205291.... It only went ad-free 5 years later. At this time, people were getting sick of IE6, since it once was a decent browser (seriously!) but it had been stagnant far too long. However Firefox was starting to rise and it was taking all the people Opera could have gotten.

My links show that NASA, the NAS, and dozens of other scientific organizations accept the mainstream climate science that Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus dismiss as "alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist, alarmist."

.@JunkScience Timothy Egan of NYT displays total ignorance of science; calls alarmist "science" "indisputable". [Lonny Eachus]

I'd already told Lonny Eachus that the National Academy of Sciences said "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable." So Lonny Eachus does seem to imply that the NAS displays total ignorance of science.

Funny, Cool, and Educational. How can you do better than that? Correlation does not equal causation: http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Important note, folks: the preceding tweet shows exactly what Climate Alarmists do to scare you. Yes, really. http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Don't forget to point out THIS. Alarmists have made a very big habit out of taking anything that might correlate to increase in CO2 and call it "proof". That's just nonsense. A positive correlation does not imply cause. Period. It can only suggest, and often not even that. [Jane Q. Public]

@JunkScience @SteveSGoddard Like this. It’s almost too good. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=2719 [Lonny Eachus]

HERE is another example, and HERE is another. Look! Correlation of 0.99! Obviously, golf causes consumption of cheese, and pets cause football. [Jane Q. Public]

$$ spent, spectator sports (US) vs $$ spent, pets (US) Correlation: 0.997203 Obviously, pets cause football. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=8 [Lonny Eachus]

Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus wrongly imply that NASA and dozens of scientific organizations display total ignorance of science.

Funny, Cool, and Educational. How can you do better than that? Correlation does not equal causation: http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Important note, folks: the preceding tweet shows exactly what Climate Alarmists do to scare you. Yes, really. http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Don't forget to point out THIS. Alarmists have made a very big habit out of taking anything that might correlate to increase in CO2 and call it "proof". That's just nonsense. A positive correlation does not imply cause. Period. It can only suggest, and often not even that. [Jane Q. Public]

@JunkScience @SteveSGoddard Like this. It’s almost too good. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=2719 [Lonny Eachus]

HERE is another example, and HERE is another. Look! Correlation of 0.99! Obviously, golf causes consumption of cheese, and pets cause football. [Jane Q. Public]

$$ spent, spectator sports (US) vs $$ spent, pets (US) Correlation: 0.997203 Obviously, pets cause football. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=8 [Lonny Eachus]

Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus wrongly imply that NASA and dozens of scientific organizations display total ignorance of science.

Funny, Cool, and Educational. How can you do better than that? Correlation does not equal causation: http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Important note, folks: the preceding tweet shows exactly what Climate Alarmists do to scare you. Yes, really. http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Don't forget to point out THIS. Alarmists have made a very big habit out of taking anything that might correlate to increase in CO2 and call it "proof". That's just nonsense. A positive correlation does not imply cause. Period. It can only suggest, and often not even that. [Jane Q. Public]

@JunkScience @SteveSGoddard Like this. It’s almost too good. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=2719 [Lonny Eachus]

HERE is another example, and HERE is another. Look! Correlation of 0.99! Obviously, golf causes consumption of cheese, and pets cause football. [Jane Q. Public]

$$ spent, spectator sports (US) vs $$ spent, pets (US) Correlation: 0.997203 Obviously, pets cause football. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=8 [Lonny Eachus]

Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus wrongly imply that NASA and dozens of scientific organizations display total ignorance of science.

Funny, Cool, and Educational. How can you do better than that? Correlation does not equal causation: http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Important note, folks: the preceding tweet shows exactly what Climate Alarmists do to scare you. Yes, really. http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Don't forget to point out THIS. Alarmists have made a very big habit out of taking anything that might correlate to increase in CO2 and call it "proof". That's just nonsense. A positive correlation does not imply cause. Period. It can only suggest, and often not even that. [Jane Q. Public]

@JunkScience @SteveSGoddard Like this. It’s almost too good. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=2719 [Lonny Eachus]

HERE is another example, and HERE is another. Look! Correlation of 0.99! Obviously, golf causes consumption of cheese, and pets cause football. [Jane Q. Public]

$$ spent, spectator sports (US) vs $$ spent, pets (US) Correlation: 0.997203 Obviously, pets cause football. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=8 [Lonny Eachus]

Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus wrongly imply that NASA and dozens of scientific organizations display total ignorance of science.

Funny, Cool, and Educational. How can you do better than that? Correlation does not equal causation: http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Important note, folks: the preceding tweet shows exactly what Climate Alarmists do to scare you. Yes, really. http://tylervigen.com [Lonny Eachus]

Don't forget to point out THIS. Alarmists have made a very big habit out of taking anything that might correlate to increase in CO2 and call it "proof". That's just nonsense. A positive correlation does not imply cause. Period. It can only suggest, and often not even that. [Jane Q. Public]

@JunkScience @SteveSGoddard Like this. It’s almost too good. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=2719 [Lonny Eachus]

HERE is another example, and HERE is another. Look! Correlation of 0.99! Obviously, golf causes consumption of cheese, and pets cause football. [Jane Q. Public]

$$ spent, spectator sports (US) vs $$ spent, pets (US) Correlation: 0.997203 Obviously, pets cause football. http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=8 [Lonny Eachus]

Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus wrongly imply that NASA and dozens of scientific organizations display total ignorance of science.