Slashdot Mirror

You cited a non-peer-reviewed crackpot website which claims:

"...the fact that the CO2 increase is linear, while at the same time the amount of CO2 released by humans has grown exponentially, is the primary proof that humans are NOT responsible for the change in CO2 concentration..." [Robert Clemenzi]

I tried to tell you that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. You even seemed to agree, calling Clemenzi's claim "ridiculous".

Before I waste time debunking the rest of that nonsense you cited, I'm wondering if you're regressing again. Hopefully I don't have to prove we're responsible for the CO2 rise again. If you still consider it "ridiculous" to deny that basic fact, do you see how Clemenzi might not be the best source of science education?

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with? [Jane Q. Public]

So you didn't name or even make the file you linked in a public comment at my website. You didn't name or even make the screenshot of our conversation, which you defended after quoting me saying that you made the screenshot. You didn't name the file "asshole-pseudo-scientist.png" and that doesn't refer to me, despite the fact that you've been calling me an asshole for years. And still are.

Again, you're being absurdly evasive, just like every time your misinformation is challenged. Except this time you're blatantly lying. Are you also deliberately lying when you spread all your civilization-paralyzing misinformation? If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same. [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.

On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.

It's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.

When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.

If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?

I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same. [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.

On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.

It's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.

When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.

If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?

I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same. [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.

On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.

It's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.

When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.

If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?

You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]

Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.

Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.

You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]

Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.

Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.

You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]

Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.

Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.

You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]

Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.

Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.

You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]

Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.

Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.

You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]

Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.

Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.

No, it constitutes proof that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

"And lying about it. I am not big on attempts to re-write history. That in itself is evil." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-01]

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

Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

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

Thanks for your concerns. Link to whatever you want. Again, I'm talking about the fact that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Again, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?

If you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.

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.

You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

Jane's telepathy isn't working correctly, but some very large differences are listed below.

It is pretty easy to show, even on your own blog, that while I have been wrong at times, I have used logic and logical arguments, while your arguments have demonstrated straw-man, ad-hominem, "moving the goalposts", and other logical fallacies to the point of utter ridiculousness. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-11]

"Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. If you really don’t want to be perceived as a “brainwashed idiot”, maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? And yes, that to me means “brainwashed idiot”. get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! since you insist on being spoon-fed There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me." [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

"My personal opinion might be that you are an insufferable, hypocritical asshole, and that your arguments are frequently contradictory, facetious, hypocritical, or disingenuous, but actual "fraud" never crossed my mind. An opinion that my claim was "ridiculous" is yours to have if you wish, and I don't give a damn, but stating that I made one or more statements that were "obviously fraudulent" is serious enough that you had best either back it up with evidence NOW, or back the hell off. You have very much gone over the line." [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-18]

"... you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic ... I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you. You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples’ statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a “scientist”. When in fact all it proves is you are a pompous ass." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-07]

"Or maybe -- just a guess -- you are trying to be a vindictive asshole again, just as you have been before?" [Jane Q. Public, 2012-09-07]

"... I didn't call you a vindictive asshole because you asked me a question. I called you that because of your habit of being annoying, rude, insulting." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-10-29]

"... you're a clueless asshole. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-09-15]

"... you're such a flaming, large-bore asshole. ... " [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-21]

"... you just make yourself look more like an ass. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-01-18]

It is not reasonable or logical to say in one sentence that it is "obvio

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]

This is a reply to several comments Jane posted at Dumb Scientist and at the bottom of this thread which shows that Jane Q. Public is a man named Lonny Eachus. I've copied it here because Jane asked to be notified.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my com

This is a reply to several comments Jane posted at Dumb Scientist and at the bottom of this thread which shows that Jane Q. Public is a man named Lonny Eachus. I've copied it here because Jane asked to be notified.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my com

This is a reply to several comments Jane posted at Dumb Scientist and at the bottom of this thread which shows that Jane Q. Public is a man named Lonny Eachus. I've copied it here because Jane asked to be notified.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my com

Since Jane asked to be notified, I'm also posting this comment here.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you

Since Jane asked to be notified, I'm also posting this comment here.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you

Since Jane asked to be notified, I'm also posting this comment here.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 13:06

And yet again, you neglect to post the comment to which you were replying:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5334673&cid=47334247

but I have to say I am glad you did link to that exchange. because in that exchange you make it abundantly clear that your beef with me is PERSONAL. And apparently quite obsessive.

Which makes any pretense of objectivity about me on this blog appear to be a pathetic joke.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:57

I just love how above you juxtapose something I wrote one day right next to things I wrote 2 and 3 years later, both in a different forum and in different contexts, in a blog post you wrote another year after that, and appear to be trying to present it as some kind of coordinated “misinformation” campaign.

You do post the dates, but you present these things in a manner that suggests I would still make the same argument if asked today. But of course the only place that 3- or 4-year-old arguments of mine can easily be found anywhere these days are right here on your blog. One might almost think you have some kind of fetish about me. Just an impression I get.

Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time? If so, how did you get your degree if you didn’t learn something over 3-4 years? (Actually I’m wondering about that one anyway, given the nature of these little “speeches” of yours.) And I’m not even going to go into into the context thing again except to point out that you have thoroughly mixed and conflated them, improperly.

The important part here is: yet again you demonstrate your habit of “arguing” here on your personal blog with something someone else said years ago, in a different forum and about which they might have changed their minds (or they might have even learned something in the interim). And you (apparently deliberately) juxtapose them with more recent statements about something else, giving the impression that the various comments somehow go together, in some context that you have purely invented.

I see no way to interpret this as anything but yet another attempt at self-aggrandizement at the expense of your victims.

Here’s another little “gem”:

“(Ed. note: This comment was copied from here.)”

You copied it from another quote of YOURS which was quoting me. Which again does contain a link, but again, you are forcing people to follow links to links to see the actual exchange, when you could have just linked to it directly.

What is your motive for doing this? When I pointed it out to you before, you complained about time, blog space, etc. but that doesn’t explain why you seem to have done it pretty much whenever it makes you look better, but not at other times.

Most of these observations about what I consider to be grossly unprofessional behavior are not new. I have mentioned them to you before at various times. I have seen no noticeable improvement.

Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time?

I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:

"Carbon Pollution" is nothing more than a FICTION created

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 13:06

And yet again, you neglect to post the comment to which you were replying:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5334673&cid=47334247

but I have to say I am glad you did link to that exchange. because in that exchange you make it abundantly clear that your beef with me is PERSONAL. And apparently quite obsessive.

Which makes any pretense of objectivity about me on this blog appear to be a pathetic joke.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:57

I just love how above you juxtapose something I wrote one day right next to things I wrote 2 and 3 years later, both in a different forum and in different contexts, in a blog post you wrote another year after that, and appear to be trying to present it as some kind of coordinated “misinformation” campaign.

You do post the dates, but you present these things in a manner that suggests I would still make the same argument if asked today. But of course the only place that 3- or 4-year-old arguments of mine can easily be found anywhere these days are right here on your blog. One might almost think you have some kind of fetish about me. Just an impression I get.

Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time? If so, how did you get your degree if you didn’t learn something over 3-4 years? (Actually I’m wondering about that one anyway, given the nature of these little “speeches” of yours.) And I’m not even going to go into into the context thing again except to point out that you have thoroughly mixed and conflated them, improperly.

The important part here is: yet again you demonstrate your habit of “arguing” here on your personal blog with something someone else said years ago, in a different forum and about which they might have changed their minds (or they might have even learned something in the interim). And you (apparently deliberately) juxtapose them with more recent statements about something else, giving the impression that the various comments somehow go together, in some context that you have purely invented.

I see no way to interpret this as anything but yet another attempt at self-aggrandizement at the expense of your victims.

Here’s another little “gem”:

“(Ed. note: This comment was copied from here.)”

You copied it from another quote of YOURS which was quoting me. Which again does contain a link, but again, you are forcing people to follow links to links to see the actual exchange, when you could have just linked to it directly.

What is your motive for doing this? When I pointed it out to you before, you complained about time, blog space, etc. but that doesn’t explain why you seem to have done it pretty much whenever it makes you look better, but not at other times.

Most of these observations about what I consider to be grossly unprofessional behavior are not new. I have mentioned them to you before at various times. I have seen no noticeable improvement.

Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time?

I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:

"Carbon Pollution" is nothing more than a FICTION created

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 11:37

I see your habit of attempting self-aggrandizement at the expense of others hasn’t changed over time. I also find it amusing how (your 06/24 comment for example) you continue to use methods of argument such as trying to use the very set of data being disputed as proof of itself. I would like to clarify another point: my comments that you characterize as “complaining” are nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out where your behavior was out of line, and apparently INTENDED to irritate and aggravate. I have no need to “complain” when all is said and done, others will decide. But I did have reason to point it out.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:22

In reply to the “notification” you claim to have made, here were your exact words. Which you could easily have quoted yourself, but I’ve noticed that you like to hide things behind links when you could easily quote them yourself but from what I’ve seen you only do that when you think it’s in your favor:

Hmm.. okay. Well, anyway, it’s been interesting. Just FYI, I’ll be linking to your comments and quoting them when I finally get around to writing a blog article about my experiences debating climate change with the general public. It’s usually helpful to see opposing points of view, and so far your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position.

Interesting here that you mention writing “an article” about “educated and polite” comments. But nowhere did you mention entire sections of your blog devoted to ripping my comments out of context without informing me at the time, then “arguing” with them here when I don’t even know they exist to rebut. Interesting also that you say you casually mentioned this “long before” ever doing it, but then didn’t see fit to properly notify me when you actually did it. (Until much later, that is.)

Do you honestly expect me to daily search your page to make sure you haven’t created yet another mischaracterization of my words?

Here is a practice that I have noticed on your blog, which makes it very difficult for someone to responsibly rebut many things you say: it’s a maze of links to links (some of which go in circles) that often make it difficult for anyone to see the full exchange. I do credit you with (often) linking to an actual exchange, but even then you link to a part of it, not the whole thing. On the surface, you appear to be giving the nod to opposing viewpoints, but the reality is that you link when you feel like it and quote when you feel like it in such a way as to skew the impression in your favor.

That’s not a “complaint”, it’s merely yet another observation about how much of your behavior has been, in my opinion, far short of professional.

It is also quite evident that time has supported many of the arguments I made to you in earlier years. For some reason, it appears to me that this has made you angry.

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article. Maybe Jane’s observing that a few hours is “much later” to a mayfly. I get it: we should treasure every hour we have. That’s very Zen. Thanks Jane!

My statement that “your posts are among the m

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 11:37

I see your habit of attempting self-aggrandizement at the expense of others hasn’t changed over time. I also find it amusing how (your 06/24 comment for example) you continue to use methods of argument such as trying to use the very set of data being disputed as proof of itself. I would like to clarify another point: my comments that you characterize as “complaining” are nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out where your behavior was out of line, and apparently INTENDED to irritate and aggravate. I have no need to “complain” when all is said and done, others will decide. But I did have reason to point it out.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:22

In reply to the “notification” you claim to have made, here were your exact words. Which you could easily have quoted yourself, but I’ve noticed that you like to hide things behind links when you could easily quote them yourself but from what I’ve seen you only do that when you think it’s in your favor:

Hmm.. okay. Well, anyway, it’s been interesting. Just FYI, I’ll be linking to your comments and quoting them when I finally get around to writing a blog article about my experiences debating climate change with the general public. It’s usually helpful to see opposing points of view, and so far your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position.

Interesting here that you mention writing “an article” about “educated and polite” comments. But nowhere did you mention entire sections of your blog devoted to ripping my comments out of context without informing me at the time, then “arguing” with them here when I don’t even know they exist to rebut. Interesting also that you say you casually mentioned this “long before” ever doing it, but then didn’t see fit to properly notify me when you actually did it. (Until much later, that is.)

Do you honestly expect me to daily search your page to make sure you haven’t created yet another mischaracterization of my words?

Here is a practice that I have noticed on your blog, which makes it very difficult for someone to responsibly rebut many things you say: it’s a maze of links to links (some of which go in circles) that often make it difficult for anyone to see the full exchange. I do credit you with (often) linking to an actual exchange, but even then you link to a part of it, not the whole thing. On the surface, you appear to be giving the nod to opposing viewpoints, but the reality is that you link when you feel like it and quote when you feel like it in such a way as to skew the impression in your favor.

That’s not a “complaint”, it’s merely yet another observation about how much of your behavior has been, in my opinion, far short of professional.

It is also quite evident that time has supported many of the arguments I made to you in earlier years. For some reason, it appears to me that this has made you angry.

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article. Maybe Jane’s observing that a few hours is “much later” to a mayfly. I get it: we should treasure every hour we have. That’s very Zen. Thanks Jane!

My statement that “your posts are among the m

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 11:37

I see your habit of attempting self-aggrandizement at the expense of others hasn’t changed over time. I also find it amusing how (your 06/24 comment for example) you continue to use methods of argument such as trying to use the very set of data being disputed as proof of itself. I would like to clarify another point: my comments that you characterize as “complaining” are nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out where your behavior was out of line, and apparently INTENDED to irritate and aggravate. I have no need to “complain” when all is said and done, others will decide. But I did have reason to point it out.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:22

In reply to the “notification” you claim to have made, here were your exact words. Which you could easily have quoted yourself, but I’ve noticed that you like to hide things behind links when you could easily quote them yourself but from what I’ve seen you only do that when you think it’s in your favor:

Hmm.. okay. Well, anyway, it’s been interesting. Just FYI, I’ll be linking to your comments and quoting them when I finally get around to writing a blog article about my experiences debating climate change with the general public. It’s usually helpful to see opposing points of view, and so far your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position.

Interesting here that you mention writing “an article” about “educated and polite” comments. But nowhere did you mention entire sections of your blog devoted to ripping my comments out of context without informing me at the time, then “arguing” with them here when I don’t even know they exist to rebut. Interesting also that you say you casually mentioned this “long before” ever doing it, but then didn’t see fit to properly notify me when you actually did it. (Until much later, that is.)

Do you honestly expect me to daily search your page to make sure you haven’t created yet another mischaracterization of my words?

Here is a practice that I have noticed on your blog, which makes it very difficult for someone to responsibly rebut many things you say: it’s a maze of links to links (some of which go in circles) that often make it difficult for anyone to see the full exchange. I do credit you with (often) linking to an actual exchange, but even then you link to a part of it, not the whole thing. On the surface, you appear to be giving the nod to opposing viewpoints, but the reality is that you link when you feel like it and quote when you feel like it in such a way as to skew the impression in your favor.

That’s not a “complaint”, it’s merely yet another observation about how much of your behavior has been, in my opinion, far short of professional.

It is also quite evident that time has supported many of the arguments I made to you in earlier years. For some reason, it appears to me that this has made you angry.

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article. Maybe Jane’s observing that a few hours is “much later” to a mayfly. I get it: we should treasure every hour we have. That’s very Zen. Thanks Jane!

My statement that “your posts are among the m

And once again, you are distorting my comment, which was an admission that I did not know the answer, and characterizing it instead as some kind of denial. You have deserved this at least a hundred times: fuck off, until you figure out how to actually have a discussion with someone rather than insulting them and claiming they said something they didn't. You sorely lack social skills, man. I mean the minimum kind needed to have a rational debate. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-08]

Given the content of your reply, I am going to give you some credit for relevance. But I do so only very cautiously, in light of your past behavior. I say up front: if you have science to present, then present it. Facts and figures, with references. Otherwise, you have nothing to say to me. I have been very tolerant, and even so I do not like you, or your behavior, or your methods. But if you can produce real science, I will look at it. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-09]

Charming, as usual. It's strange that you ask for real science to support the "alarmist" fact that humans caused the rise in CO2 because we're burning carbon to release CO2 faster than the warming oceans can outgas their dissolved CO2. Is anyone we know of disputing that? Is it even part of the "debate"?

"Humans releases more gas then can be absorbed in the same time period as the release." [geekoid]

Yes, we know that. Nobody I know of is disputing that. It's not even part of the debate. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-09]

The misinformation campaign masquerading as a "debate" certainly does include people disputing the fact that humans caused the ~40% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.

"Do you also believe that atmospheric co2 levels reaching 400 ppm isn't an [anthropogenic] effect?" [tolkienfan]

Why would I believe anything like that? Have you seen me anywhere claiming that I do? Don't be ridiculous. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-27]

Since Jane asked:

What you've done is proven that CO2 levels may be rising. You haven't proven what has caused those rises. Correlation doesn't equal causation. ... [Archangel Michael, 2010-12-31]

Agree with Archangel Michael. Human-caused CO2 is about 0.28% of the total. Even if the oceans are getting significantly more acidic or not, it's pretty damned hard to pin that on human activity. Not only is it not "case closed", it's "what case?" [Jane Q. Public, 2010-12-31]

Jane agrees with Michael's claim that we don't know what caused CO2 levels to rise. Jane's "0.28%" meme disputes the fact that simple accounting (

It hardly seems credible that with all that world record cold virtually everywhere (except for the Pacific El Nino event), that May could have ALSO been a "record warm" month. It just doesn't add up. Just like so many of NOAA's other figures. ... When you have huge areas of the globe showing normal to historical record lows, then in order for the Earth to be "warmer than normal", much less record warm, you would also have to have large areas that were extraordinarily hot during the same period. I have seen no evidence of such. Do you have some? TFA certainly did not provide any. [Jane Q. Public]

The linked NOAA article certainly did provide maps of May temperature anomalies and May temperature percentiles. Far from showing "world record cold virtually everywhere" they show absolutely no "record coldest" grids, and quite a few "record warmest" grids.

The entire continental U.S., even when you factor in the areas in the Pacific that were experiencing El Nino, experienced record cold for the entire first 5 months of 2014. USHCN's own raw data.

Again, no. I've previously told you that we're not experiencing El Nino yet, but obviously you ignored NOAA in favor of your uncited "neighborhood meteorologist". NOAA still states that "ENSO-neutral conditions continue" but forecasts a 70% chance of an El Nino this summer.

And again, May temperature percentiles show that only Louisiana and south Texas were even "cooler than average" (not "much cooler than average" or "record coldest"). The rest of the continental U.S. was either near average, warmer than average, or much warmer than average (especially Alaska).

There's also plenty of time to bash my head against a wall. That would be more fun and more productive than "talking" with you.

You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?

False. Antarctic land ice mass is decreasing, and reliable estimates of Antarctic sea ice volume (or mass) aren't available.

Even if you meant to refer to Antarctic sea ice extent (not mass), you already ignored me when I told you that this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: " sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

But maybe you'll listen to the National Academy of Sciences, if you honestly don't think the National Academy of Sciences is "alarmist". Again, their recent report is educational. They address Antarctic sea ice in question 12.

The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?

Jane and Lonny Eacus have repeatedly ignored me whenever I've told you that there's been no statistically significant change in the surface warming rate. But if you honestly doesn't think the NAS is alarmist, you might learn something from their answers to questions 9 and 10. This point is particularly relevant: "More than 90% of the heat added to Earth is absorbed by the oceans and penetrates only slowly into deep water. A faster rate of heat penetration into the deeper ocean will slow the warming seen at the surface and in the atmosphere, but by itself will not change the long-term warming that will occur from a given amount of CO2."

I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.

No, that's not science the way it's practiced by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Scientists, the American Quaternary Association, the American Society of Agronomy, the

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.

Arctic ice extent is expanding again... [Jane Q. Public]

Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level, UAH and surface temperatures follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat.

... the Antarctic summer is colder than usual, with even more sea ice.

So, consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... all the while, we've been experiencing a weak "El Nino" event. So even with ENSO on the warming side, it has been very cold in much of the world.

The last point on NOAA's MEI index is -0.312, which is on the La Nina side but effectively neutral.

This was from my friendly neighborhood meteorologist, last Monday. It is possible he is wrong, but he is a recognized expert in his field, not a "meteorologist" on TV. I suppose we shall see.

No link and no name = argument from inscrutable authority. In reality, we might have an El Nino by July which will serve as the basis for the talking point I mentioned at WUWT.

Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact.

Yes, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane.

Arctic ice extent is expanding again... [Jane Q. Public]

Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level, UAH and surface temperatures follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat.

... the Antarctic summer is colder than usual, with even more sea ice.

So, consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... all the while, we've been experiencing a weak "El Nino" event. So even with ENSO on the warming side, it has been very cold in much of the world.

The last point on NOAA's MEI index is -0.312, which is on the La Nina side but effectively neutral.

This was from my friendly neighborhood meteorologist, last Monday. It is possible he is wrong, but he is a recognized expert in his field, not a "meteorologist" on TV. I suppose we shall see.

No link and no name = argument from inscrutable authority. In reality, we might have an El Nino by July which will serve as the basis for the talking point I mentioned at WUWT.

Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact.

Yes, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane.

Arctic ice extent is expanding again... [Jane Q. Public]

Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level, UAH and surface temperatures follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat.

... the Antarctic summer is colder than usual, with even more sea ice.

So, consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... all the while, we've been experiencing a weak "El Nino" event. So even with ENSO on the warming side, it has been very cold in much of the world.

The last point on NOAA's MEI index is -0.312, which is on the La Nina side but effectively neutral.

This was from my friendly neighborhood meteorologist, last Monday. It is possible he is wrong, but he is a recognized expert in his field, not a "meteorologist" on TV. I suppose we shall see.

No link and no name = argument from inscrutable authority. In reality, we might have an El Nino by July which will serve as the basis for the talking point I mentioned at WUWT.

Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact.

Yes, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane.

Arctic ice extent is expanding again... [Jane Q. Public]

Here we go again. Jane's comments on sea level, UAH and surface temperatures follow a pattern. First, Jane plucks a short term trend from the noise and waves it around. Scientists then point out that Jane's trend is so short that it just represents weather noise, not climate signal. Jane then insists that waving around short term trends isn't meant to imply anything about the long term trend. Rinse, repeat.

... the Antarctic summer is colder than usual, with even more sea ice.

So, consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

... all the while, we've been experiencing a weak "El Nino" event. So even with ENSO on the warming side, it has been very cold in much of the world.

The last point on NOAA's MEI index is -0.312, which is on the La Nina side but effectively neutral.

This was from my friendly neighborhood meteorologist, last Monday. It is possible he is wrong, but he is a recognized expert in his field, not a "meteorologist" on TV. I suppose we shall see.

No link and no name = argument from inscrutable authority. In reality, we might have an El Nino by July which will serve as the basis for the talking point I mentioned at WUWT.

Some of those who disagree did so from the very beginning, on the premise that it's the Sun and other natural factors that drives climate change, not CO2. Just a fact.

Yes, many contrarians operate under the premise that climate change is natural and not driven by human CO2 emissions. In contrast, scientists measure contributions from many natural factors, and many human factors. Scientists don't start from either biased premise, but obviously contrarians do. Thanks for finally being honest, Jane.

Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):

That is what ideologues do. They can't stand to even hear you disagree. THOSE are real NJ, and why they must not win. Another example: Reddit just banned any discussion that does not agree with "climate change" from their science forum. They claimed that "deniers" were rude, aggressive, and not actually discussing science. Funny, but I've seen exactly the opposite: THEIR "side" doing that. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

... says Lonny Eachus, who is rude, aggressive, and doesn't actually discuss science. Perhaps Lonny Eachus refers to Jane Q. Public's rude, aggressive comments that don't actually discuss science. After all, Jane insists he's NOT a contrarian, so maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Jane Q. Public is on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?

Here's what Dr. Nathan Allen, reddit science forum moderator, actually said. My emphasis:

...no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial

Lonny Eachus responds to a tweet using the acronym RWNJ with a rant about "Nut Jobs" (NJ):

That is what ideologues do. They can't stand to even hear you disagree. THOSE are real NJ, and why they must not win. Another example: Reddit just banned any discussion that does not agree with "climate change" from their science forum. They claimed that "deniers" were rude, aggressive, and not actually discussing science. Funny, but I've seen exactly the opposite: THEIR "side" doing that. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]

... says Lonny Eachus, who is rude, aggressive, and doesn't actually discuss science. Perhaps Lonny Eachus refers to Jane Q. Public's rude, aggressive comments that don't actually discuss science. After all, Jane insists he's NOT a contrarian, so maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Jane Q. Public is on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny refers to my visit to WUWT, when David M. Hoffer suggested at 3:16pm that I should be referred to as "it". His suggestion obviously appealed to ATheoK, who agreed at 7:44pm that I don't deserve a human pronoun. Other WUWT commenters called me a corrupt lying Godless Anti-American murderer, which WUWT regular geronimo found so distasteful that he assumed Anthony Watts would apologize... until I pointed out that Watts already knew and had responded by banning me from WUWT. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Anthony Watts and WUWT commenters are on the side of mainstream science?

Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Foxgoose whose egregious victimization rippled back in time. Or maybe Lonny Eachus refers to Geoff Chambers's blog, where commenters like Foxgoose called me and others lying borderline insane cult member guard dogs committing savage attacks. Maybe Lonny Eachus wrongly thinks Foxgoose and Geoff Chambers are on the side of mainstream science?

Here's what Dr. Nathan Allen, reddit science forum moderator, actually said. My emphasis:

...no topic consistently evokes such rude, uninformed, and outspoken opinions as climate change.

Instead of the reasoned and civil conversations that arise in most threads, when it came to climate change the comment sections became a battleground. Rather than making thoughtful arguments based on peer-reviewed science to refute man-made climate change, contrarians immediately resorted to aggressive behaviors. On one side, deniers accused any of the hard-working scientists whose research supported and furthered our understanding of man-made climate change of being bought by "Big Green." On the other side, deniers were frequently insulted and accused of being paid to comment on reddit by "Big Oil."

After some time interacting with the regular denier posters, it became clear that they could not or would not improve their demeanor. These problematic users were not the common "internet trolls" looking to have a little fun upsetting people. Such users are practically the norm on reddit. These people were true believers, blind to the fact that their arguments were hopelessly flawed, the result of cherry-picked data and conspiratorial

... I was probably arguing against something other than what you actually meant. ... I think we are again discussing two different things. I wasn't trying to argue that creationism was falsifiable. Or any of those other things you have brought in to the conversation. ... you have done an awful lot of arguing over things I have NOT said.

No, I debunked these things you said:

... All currently known life forms have structures based on DNA or RNA. This is a fact. Creationists argue that because we know of no actual examples of the evolution of DNA or RNA from simpler molecules, then DNA (or RNA at least) were created and did not evolve. NOTE: I do NOT claim it is evidence of creation, only that it is evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as supporting a creationist's arguments. (By the way: the claim of the existence of organisms that use arsenic rather than phosphorus has not been substantiated.) Now, let's be clear: I also did not and do not claim that this argument is sound. I am simply saying that it is not an inherently silly argument, it is based on genuine observable evidence, and I am not aware of counter-evidence. (Though I do not deny that some may exist. The very same evidence might be interpreted as supporting the argument for evolution, for all I know, but I am not sure how at this time.) Therefore I have found a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument. [Jane Q. Public, 201]

You were wrong. Again. You didn't find "a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument." As I explained, you found evidence that supports evolution.

In the case of the evolution argument, I have nothing further to say after this. My original comment was clear and I stick by it for, as I explained to you very plainly before, statistical reasons. You may have misunderstood what I meant, and that happens. But getting into whether creationism is falsifiable, or what your arguments are for or against it, stray far from the mark. They have next to nothing to do with my original point, which was that very few areas of science (or any ideology, for that matter) have ALL of the evidence on their side.

You were wrong. Again. You didn't find "a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument." As I explained, you found evidence that supports evolution.

... my original comment was: "some facts exist that are evidence of creationism". (Or close enough as makes no difference.) But that was all I meant. I said or implied nothing else; only that some facts can support the argument of creationism... whether it is valid "science", or not. Something they can use to argue. I didn't even say that the argument had to hold up under scrutiny... only that there is evidence for it.

Thanks for finally being honest. You're not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. You've used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesn't hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:

"... each contrarian is more effective at superficial "science communication" than the average scientist. ... Once you get a contrarian started, a stream of regurgitated-but-superficially-plausible nonsense spews forth. Just consider Jane Q. Public. ..."

... why you insist on continuing to bring these things [dark matter] up after they have been beaten into the ground baffles me.

First, you are not using technically accurate terms. DNA is DNA. RNA is RNA. Different sequences of DNA are possible and have been observed. Same for RNA. To date, however, no substitutes for DNA or RNA have been confirmed.

Your accusation is baseless; I haven't confused DNA and RNA. In fact, I've explained how different types of shadow biospheres might or might not keep the same RNA bases while using different DNA bases.

The notion that different molecules could be used as DNA analogs is certainly testable.

Yes, that's exactly my point. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion.

In fact, if you recall, there was a recent claim that some bacteria used arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA... which would make it "not DNA". I am not aware of any reason to believe that "alternate DNA" would be any more or less susceptible to evolution than our known DNA. Therefore this hypothesis is just as testable as the other. The only difference is that it is not currently, actively testable given our state of technology, and we currently know of no examples.

Nobody's suggesting that alternate DNA would be any more or less susceptible to evolution. I'm just pointing out that we couldn't have evolved from creatures using alternative DNA bases. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've explained:

"You’re talking about a shadow biosphere. It’s possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn’t falsify evolution. What I’m talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it’s possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science."

Frankly I am not convinced that your argument "evolution is only compatible with 'all life uses the same DNA'", is any more plausible than the argument that "evolution is possible given a suitable alternative analog of DNA". The only difference I see is that only one of them is testable today. The flap over the "arsenic DNA" in Mono Lake shows that the other idea is at least plausible to many scientists.

Of course it's plausible. That's what I've been saying for years, so you obviously didn't understand my point. If every species in existence had different DNA bases, life on Earth couldn't have had a common ancestor. Again, this is one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've tweeted:

Creationism isn't even wrong. Evolution is science: it can be falsified by Precambrian apes, or if all species had different DNA bases, etc.

Just as, for years, there were no known methods to test for the existence of dark matter. Yet that did not stop many scientists from creating models based on it, nor did it get them ejected from the halls of science.

Here we go again. As I've repeatedly (and apparently pointlessly) explained to you, the first method of testing for the existence of dark matter was developed in 1933. I then tried to explain some of the following tests, but obviously I would've had better luck trying to educate my coffee table. At least it doesn't accuse me of being a

First, you are not using technically accurate terms. DNA is DNA. RNA is RNA. Different sequences of DNA are possible and have been observed. Same for RNA. To date, however, no substitutes for DNA or RNA have been confirmed.

Your accusation is baseless; I haven't confused DNA and RNA. In fact, I've explained how different types of shadow biospheres might or might not keep the same RNA bases while using different DNA bases.

The notion that different molecules could be used as DNA analogs is certainly testable.

Yes, that's exactly my point. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion.

In fact, if you recall, there was a recent claim that some bacteria used arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA... which would make it "not DNA". I am not aware of any reason to believe that "alternate DNA" would be any more or less susceptible to evolution than our known DNA. Therefore this hypothesis is just as testable as the other. The only difference is that it is not currently, actively testable given our state of technology, and we currently know of no examples.

Nobody's suggesting that alternate DNA would be any more or less susceptible to evolution. I'm just pointing out that we couldn't have evolved from creatures using alternative DNA bases. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've explained:

"You’re talking about a shadow biosphere. It’s possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn’t falsify evolution. What I’m talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it’s possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science."

Frankly I am not convinced that your argument "evolution is only compatible with 'all life uses the same DNA'", is any more plausible than the argument that "evolution is possible given a suitable alternative analog of DNA". The only difference I see is that only one of them is testable today. The flap over the "arsenic DNA" in Mono Lake shows that the other idea is at least plausible to many scientists.

Of course it's plausible. That's what I've been saying for years, so you obviously didn't understand my point. If every species in existence had different DNA bases, life on Earth couldn't have had a common ancestor. Again, this is one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've tweeted:

Creationism isn't even wrong. Evolution is science: it can be falsified by Precambrian apes, or if all species had different DNA bases, etc.

Just as, for years, there were no known methods to test for the existence of dark matter. Yet that did not stop many scientists from creating models based on it, nor did it get them ejected from the halls of science.

Here we go again. As I've repeatedly (and apparently pointlessly) explained to you, the first method of testing for the existence of dark matter was developed in 1933. I then tried to explain some of the following tests, but obviously I would've had better luck trying to educate my coffee table. At least it doesn't accuse me of being a

First, you are not using technically accurate terms. DNA is DNA. RNA is RNA. Different sequences of DNA are possible and have been observed. Same for RNA. To date, however, no substitutes for DNA or RNA have been confirmed.

Your accusation is baseless; I haven't confused DNA and RNA. In fact, I've explained how different types of shadow biospheres might or might not keep the same RNA bases while using different DNA bases.

The notion that different molecules could be used as DNA analogs is certainly testable.

Yes, that's exactly my point. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion.

In fact, if you recall, there was a recent claim that some bacteria used arsenic instead of phosphorus in their DNA... which would make it "not DNA". I am not aware of any reason to believe that "alternate DNA" would be any more or less susceptible to evolution than our known DNA. Therefore this hypothesis is just as testable as the other. The only difference is that it is not currently, actively testable given our state of technology, and we currently know of no examples.

Nobody's suggesting that alternate DNA would be any more or less susceptible to evolution. I'm just pointing out that we couldn't have evolved from creatures using alternative DNA bases. That's one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've explained:

"You’re talking about a shadow biosphere. It’s possible that abiogenesis happened several times, so finding two types of DNA wouldn’t falsify evolution. What I’m talking about is the scenario where every species in existence has a different set of nucleic acids in their DNA. Millions of separate abiogenesis events would completely destroy evolution. Ergo, it’s possible to find evidence which would disprove evolution. Ergo, evolution is falsifiable science."

Frankly I am not convinced that your argument "evolution is only compatible with 'all life uses the same DNA'", is any more plausible than the argument that "evolution is possible given a suitable alternative analog of DNA". The only difference I see is that only one of them is testable today. The flap over the "arsenic DNA" in Mono Lake shows that the other idea is at least plausible to many scientists.

Of course it's plausible. That's what I've been saying for years, so you obviously didn't understand my point. If every species in existence had different DNA bases, life on Earth couldn't have had a common ancestor. Again, this is one reason why evolution is testable science, while creationism is religion. As I've tweeted:

Creationism isn't even wrong. Evolution is science: it can be falsified by Precambrian apes, or if all species had different DNA bases, etc.

Just as, for years, there were no known methods to test for the existence of dark matter. Yet that did not stop many scientists from creating models based on it, nor did it get them ejected from the halls of science.

Here we go again. As I've repeatedly (and apparently pointlessly) explained to you, the first method of testing for the existence of dark matter was developed in 1933. I then tried to explain some of the following tests, but obviously I would've had better luck trying to educate my coffee table. At least it doesn't accuse me of being a

Well, it was a retraction of that example. I'm not going to retract my more general claim, because it is not incorrect. And you are already well aware that statistically speaking, it is almost certainly true.

Maybe that was a bad retraction, and maybe you're not retracting your more general claim even though it's absurdly incorrect, and maybe you're accusing me of being "well aware" that your more general claim is "almost certainly true" even though I've been emphatically denying your absurd claim.

... All currently known life forms have structures based on DNA or RNA. This is a fact. Creationists argue that because we know of no actual examples of the evolution of DNA or RNA from simpler molecules, then DNA (or RNA at least) were created and did not evolve. NOTE: I do NOT claim it is evidence of creation, only that it is evidence that can reasonably be interpreted as supporting a creationist's arguments. (By the way: the claim of the existence of organisms that use arsenic rather than phosphorus has not been substantiated.) Now, let's be clear: I also did not and do not claim that this argument is sound. I am simply saying that it is not an inherently silly argument, it is based on genuine observable evidence, and I am not aware of counter-evidence. (Though I do not deny that some may exist. The very same evidence might be interpreted as supporting the argument for evolution, for all I know, but I am not sure how at this time.) Therefore I have found a bit of evidence that supports the creationism argument.

No, you haven't, and you obviously didn't read the link I just gave you:

It's strange that all life we've studied uses the same DNA bases– a crucial requirement of common descent. However, a Creator who wanted to leave an indisputable proof of intelligent design could have given every species a unique biochemistry that couldn't possibly have arisen through common descent. This is why I was confused when Brett mentioned Message Theory. It seems like the Creator either used evolution to create life (Catholics take this position) or the Creator manually fine-tuned all life on Earth to look like it had evolved from a common ancestor even though it really didn't. Again, notice that intelligent design is compatible with any experimental outcome, whereas evolution would have been abandoned if every other creature we studied had different nucleic acids.

Your second example was actually bad too, because it shows evolution is falsifiable science while creationism is just religion. Try again.

Yes, or no. Do you deny that given the size of the body of evidence, the probability of ALL available evidence being against the ideas of creationism or "young Earth" is very close to zero? Do you deny that a corollary if this is that SOME evidence must almost certainly be supportive of creationism?

Yes, I deny that any fact supports young earth or old earth creationism. Yes, I deny that there is any evidence supporting young earth or old earth creationism. I'm a denier.

You've repeatedly claimed that some facts support the creationist position. Again, you can either find an example that isn't ridiculously wrong, retract your absurd claim, or keep pulling a "Jane" by doing neither. Since you probably won't surprise us on this account, perhaps lowered expectations are in order. Earlier, you claimed:

Just one example: The fact that radiometric dating relies on certain assumptions has been one of their favorite talking points. Are those assumptions reasonable? I think so. But they ARE assumptions, and that is a fact. Therefore, there do exist facts that can be said to support (or at least not refute) the creationists' arguments. ...

I replied by saying "No, isochron dating only relies on nuclear decay rates being constant, which has been confirmed by SN1987a, etc. Try again." and your response was "Okay, maybe it was a bad example."

Any example may be a bad example, so that wasn't a retraction. Your example actually was a bad example, and anyone who understood my point would have the intellectual integrity to admit that without weasel words. So perhaps my website was down; here's the relevant part:

Isochron dating results of old rocks depend only on nuclear decay rates being constant in time. Isochron dating isn’t dependent on initial quantities of elements, and the analysis method automatically produces error bars on the obtained age. The oldest rocks we have agree that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old, plus or minus 100 million years or so.

Just to be clear, we can’t be sure that nuclear decay rates are exactly constant. But experiments have placed constraints on the size of any variation in decay rates:

1. Supernovae produce many radioactive elements which slowly decay after the explosion. At first they shine brightly in a spectroscopically unique manner, but over the course of several weeks they fade to half their previous brightness. The amount of time it takes the brightness to fade is a direct measurement of the nuclear decay rate. The best example is supernova 1987A, which lies ~169,000 LY away. That means that when scientists looked at that light in 1987, they were measuring the nuclear decay rate as it was around 169,000 years ago. The results were experimentally indistinguishable from current decay rates, and have been confirmed by similar experiments on SN1991T, which is 60,000,000 light years away.
2. The Oklo natural nuclear reactor left evidence that can be used to determine the fine structure constant and neutron capture rates, both intimately entwined with quantum mechanics’ predictions of nuclear decay rates. This experiment is more ambiguous and as a result the error bars are much larger than the SN1987A constraint, but it’s also consistent with a constant nuclear decay rate. Since the Oklo reactor was active 1.8 billion years ago, the Oklo evidence only supports a change in the fine structure constant of one part in 10 mil