Slashdot Mirror

I say this as someone who went to grad school for GR

Sorry to intrude, but I just mentioned you in a comment. (Also wanted to say that I nitpicked earlier solely to clarify the issue for others.)

But now that I know you're a GR physicist, I wonder if you'd like to read Outlive the stars and leave a comment?

One modest example is extracting energy from the ocean tides. I've explained that harnessing tidal power would actually move the moon farther away from the Earth, even faster than its current ~3.8cm/year recession rate. Tidal amplitudes are influenced by the coastlines and bathymetry, so in principle we might eventually be able to change the tidal amplitudes in some location (bigger for more tidal power, smaller for easier navigation) by carefully modifying the bathymetry.

Just to clarify the summary, GRACE primarily studies long-term changes in water storage. It's just my research in particular that focuses on high frequency signals like ocean tides. Also, the open source code mentioned in the summary is just used to produce my personal results, not the official GRACE solutions.

-Bryan Killett, aka khayman80, aka Dumb Scientist

Yes, it was totally out of left field. I responded in an internal JPL email, and copied the email to my (other) website.

-Bryan Killett, aka khayman80, aka Dumb Scientist

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-07-16 at 11:33

Another example of cherry-picking what you reproduce here, in order to make yourself look good. You just can’t seem to resist.

After you cited an E&E paper to support the claim that sunspot cycle length is responsible for recent warming, I said: ...

You accused me of not citing my sources, and asked me to provide a peer-reviewed paper supporting my statement, implying that none existed. I did so, per your request. In fact it took me only a very short time to do so, because it was one of many.

You were not satisfied, and pointed out a flaw in the paper. This (as it turned out later) was a legitimate criticism of the paper BUT you did not cite your own sources for that. Instead, I was forced to spend time finding it myself. Which did indeed make you guilty of EXACTLY the same thing you had originally accused me of doing.

But you didn’t put those first parts here. In fact, it appears to me that most everything on this page is somewhat out of context. And I suspect that’s intentional.

I do know about “fair use”. I found it rather laughable that today, on Slashdot, you pointed me to references about libel long after I wrote that I did not intend to sue you. And in fact I stated as much in clear, concise, English, and never, at any point, wrote that I did intend to sue you.

You know very well that I did not “threaten” (your word) to sue you, so why are you linking to libel laws in association with my name? What is the point of bringing it up again in that fashion, unless it is to give readers a false and misleading impression?

Once again, I question your methods and your ethics.

I linked to libel laws in response to your comment:

This high-schooler somehow thinks he/she can protect him/her self from libel and copyright by stating on the blog that “someone” said something, while still partially quoting said “someone”. And then even including a link to the original exchange. Haha. If I were this person, and possessed some intelligence, I would shut this site down. Sadly, it is looking more like he/she is going to end up in Litigation Land. [Jane Q. Public]

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-07-16 at 11:33

Another example of cherry-picking what you reproduce here, in order to make yourself look good. You just can’t seem to resist.

After you cited an E&E paper to support the claim that sunspot cycle length is responsible for recent warming, I said: ...

You accused me of not citing my sources, and asked me to provide a peer-reviewed paper supporting my statement, implying that none existed. I did so, per your request. In fact it took me only a very short time to do so, because it was one of many.

You were not satisfied, and pointed out a flaw in the paper. This (as it turned out later) was a legitimate criticism of the paper BUT you did not cite your own sources for that. Instead, I was forced to spend time finding it myself. Which did indeed make you guilty of EXACTLY the same thing you had originally accused me of doing.

But you didn’t put those first parts here. In fact, it appears to me that most everything on this page is somewhat out of context. And I suspect that’s intentional.

I do know about “fair use”. I found it rather laughable that today, on Slashdot, you pointed me to references about libel long after I wrote that I did not intend to sue you. And in fact I stated as much in clear, concise, English, and never, at any point, wrote that I did intend to sue you.

You know very well that I did not “threaten” (your word) to sue you, so why are you linking to libel laws in association with my name? What is the point of bringing it up again in that fashion, unless it is to give readers a false and misleading impression?

Once again, I question your methods and your ethics.

I linked to libel laws in response to your comment:

This high-schooler somehow thinks he/she can protect him/her self from libel and copyright by stating on the blog that “someone” said something, while still partially quoting said “someone”. And then even including a link to the original exchange. Haha. If I were this person, and possessed some intelligence, I would shut this site down. Sadly, it is looking more like he/she is going to end up in Litigation Land. [Jane Q. Public]

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-07-16 at 11:33

Another example of cherry-picking what you reproduce here, in order to make yourself look good. You just can’t seem to resist.

After you cited an E&E paper to support the claim that sunspot cycle length is responsible for recent warming, I said: ...

You accused me of not citing my sources, and asked me to provide a peer-reviewed paper supporting my statement, implying that none existed. I did so, per your request. In fact it took me only a very short time to do so, because it was one of many.

You were not satisfied, and pointed out a flaw in the paper. This (as it turned out later) was a legitimate criticism of the paper BUT you did not cite your own sources for that. Instead, I was forced to spend time finding it myself. Which did indeed make you guilty of EXACTLY the same thing you had originally accused me of doing.

But you didn’t put those first parts here. In fact, it appears to me that most everything on this page is somewhat out of context. And I suspect that’s intentional.

I do know about “fair use”. I found it rather laughable that today, on Slashdot, you pointed me to references about libel long after I wrote that I did not intend to sue you. And in fact I stated as much in clear, concise, English, and never, at any point, wrote that I did intend to sue you.

You know very well that I did not “threaten” (your word) to sue you, so why are you linking to libel laws in association with my name? What is the point of bringing it up again in that fashion, unless it is to give readers a false and misleading impression?

Once again, I question your methods and your ethics.

I linked to libel laws in response to your comment:

This high-schooler somehow thinks he/she can protect him/her self from libel and copyright by stating on the blog that “someone” said something, while still partially quoting said “someone”. And then even including a link to the original exchange. Haha. If I were this person, and possessed some intelligence, I would shut this site down. Sadly, it is looking more like he/she is going to end up in Litigation Land. [Jane Q. Public]

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your

Oops, the previous comment used relative links that only work on Dumb Scientist. This version uses absolute links.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a pseudonym, then I would have. An

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a pseudonym, then I would have. An

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a pseudonym, then I would have. An

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a pseudonym, then I would have. An

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a pseudonym, then I would have. An

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a p

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a p

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a p

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a p

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a p

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a p

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:00

Wow, Mr. "khayman80". You sure do a wonderful job of distorting other people's statements and inflating your own ego here.

I remember our "discussions". As I recall, you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic, and rather consistently asserted I had stated things that actually I had not.

For example, you link to a statement above and write that I had threatened to sue you, when in fact I did not (as anybody who actually follows the link can see). What I *DID* write was that under different circumstances I would. Not the same thing. I made no "threat".

Your listing here of your own ego-stuffed accomplishments are just full of similar distortions. Which is exactly why 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.

I'm not the first person you've accused of trying to put words into your mouth. Here's an example. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being distorted. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 08:09

Haha. I have just been reading more of the post above by "khayman80". The funny thing is: if you actually follow the links he provides, you can easily see how grossly he distorts and cherry-picks my own statements in an attempt to make himself look good.

At least he had the integrity to actually link to them... apparently (and probably correctly) assuming that other people would take him at his word and not actually follow them.

I've copied an example below, so other people don't have to follow the links. Also, here's my "grossly cherry-picked" version of a conversation we had regarding dark matter. Compare that to the originals that are available by following the links. I think this wastes my readers' time, but they can judge for themselves whether your statements are being cherry-picked in an attempt to make myself look good. Anyone else who's bored by this can skip ahead LINK LATER to more science.

***

Jane Q. Public posted on 2012-06-07 at 09:50

"khayman80":

(To others: please pardon the multiple posts, but this is something that needs to be stated.)

As other people can clearly see if they actually follow your links, our exchange included an accusation by you that my comments were "fraudulent". And that was not stated as an opinion but as a claim of "obvious" fact.

As I mentioned to you then: the fact that this is internet does not constitute safe haven from libel. Other people have been sued in the real world for less, and lost. And I would probably throw in some of your public mis-characterizations of my other comments, just to add some spice.

I did not threaten to sue you, but I did state that if the accusation had been against my real name rather than a p

Rewording slightly at Dumb Scientist to include: The residual strong force is mediated by massive pions, which are composed of gluons and a color-neutral quark-anti-quark pair. They mass ~135 MeV, which is less than 2/3's that of a proton's mass of 938 MeV, which seems like a clue that quark masses don't significantly affect the masses of hadrons like baryons (nucleons, etc.) and mesons (pions, etc.).

Flush your GI tract with some Fleet's and a antibiotic chaser. Are you still 90% bacteria? No. So obviously "we" are not made of bacteria.

You're also not going to be able to properly digest food, and the population will recover within a few days. The fact that you can temporarily reduce the population of microflora in your large intestine doesn't mean that normal, healthy humans don't require the presence of these symbiotes to extract energy from food efficiently. That's why the ScienceDaily article says "healthy adult human" and the Savage article said "normal human organism". If you actually managed to completely eliminate intestinal microflora permanently, I suspect that would result in serious health consequences.

If I love to call you a dogmatist, then surely you can find at least one quote from me supporting that accusation?

"I try very hard not to be a dogmatist." -ShakaUVM

"I think you need to keep trying." -Khayman80

Care to print a retraction? No? Of course not.

How depressingly repetitive all these conversations are. Remember that Jane Q. Public threw around accusations of fraud like it was going out of style. Then she misinterpreted my description of her accusations of fraud as though I was accusing her of fraud, and threatened to sue me. When I mentioned this incident to you, you had some choice words to say about her behavior.

So let's look at the exchange you actually quoted, the way I actually wrote it:

I think I finally understand your confusion with me. I try very hard not to be a dogmatist. ...

I think you need to keep trying. In the meantime, I'll start to address all the weird assumptions you wrote right after that statement, but I'll have to group them with all the other similar statements you've made that I haven't addressed. So this might take a while.

Notice that I was saying "I think you need to keep trying to understand my 'confusion' with you," not "I think you need to keep trying to not be a dogmatist."

In fact, if you read your original comment, you'll notice that after you finished musing about Galileo and praising yourself for not being a dogmatist, you continued: Your mind is overly reductive, though. You equate someone looking at an issue from an oblique angle, and reduce that to one side or another. If I come up with a way to test ID as a scientific theory, you reduce that to mean that I'm an IDer (I'm not, I simply think it'd be fun to test). You see me say that Watts contributed something with his surface station survey? You reduce that to mean that I agree with Watts on every issue. You see me take issue with predictions of the Greenland ice melt, you reduce that to me thinking all predictions are nonsense.

In other words, you were accusing me of being "overly reductive", contrasting that with your noble non-dogmatic approach, and saying that you finally understood me. So I pointed out that your understanding was wrong; you need to keep trying to understand why I don't like being called a dishonest idiot dogmatist by every programmer with an axe to grind. Hint: it isn't that I'm not trying as hard as you to not be a dogmatist.

How could I accuse you of making strawman arguments, when you're obviously conflating my arguments with that of a person (Jane Q Public) that I've never even heard of?

As I just said, you definitely have

Flush your GI tract with some Fleet's and a antibiotic chaser. Are you still 90% bacteria? No. So obviously "we" are not made of bacteria.

You're also not going to be able to properly digest food, and the population will recover within a few days. The fact that you can temporarily reduce the population of microflora in your large intestine doesn't mean that normal, healthy humans don't require the presence of these symbiotes to extract energy from food efficiently. That's why the ScienceDaily article says "healthy adult human" and the Savage article said "normal human organism". If you actually managed to completely eliminate intestinal microflora permanently, I suspect that would result in serious health consequences.

If I love to call you a dogmatist, then surely you can find at least one quote from me supporting that accusation?

"I try very hard not to be a dogmatist." -ShakaUVM

"I think you need to keep trying." -Khayman80

Care to print a retraction? No? Of course not.

How depressingly repetitive all these conversations are. Remember that Jane Q. Public threw around accusations of fraud like it was going out of style. Then she misinterpreted my description of her accusations of fraud as though I was accusing her of fraud, and threatened to sue me. When I mentioned this incident to you, you had some choice words to say about her behavior.

So let's look at the exchange you actually quoted, the way I actually wrote it:

I think I finally understand your confusion with me. I try very hard not to be a dogmatist. ...

I think you need to keep trying. In the meantime, I'll start to address all the weird assumptions you wrote right after that statement, but I'll have to group them with all the other similar statements you've made that I haven't addressed. So this might take a while.

Notice that I was saying "I think you need to keep trying to understand my 'confusion' with you," not "I think you need to keep trying to not be a dogmatist."

In fact, if you read your original comment, you'll notice that after you finished musing about Galileo and praising yourself for not being a dogmatist, you continued: Your mind is overly reductive, though. You equate someone looking at an issue from an oblique angle, and reduce that to one side or another. If I come up with a way to test ID as a scientific theory, you reduce that to mean that I'm an IDer (I'm not, I simply think it'd be fun to test). You see me say that Watts contributed something with his surface station survey? You reduce that to mean that I agree with Watts on every issue. You see me take issue with predictions of the Greenland ice melt, you reduce that to me thinking all predictions are nonsense.

In other words, you were accusing me of being "overly reductive", contrasting that with your noble non-dogmatic approach, and saying that you finally understood me. So I pointed out that your understanding was wrong; you need to keep trying to understand why I don't like being called a dishonest idiot dogmatist by every programmer with an axe to grind. Hint: it isn't that I'm not trying as hard as you to not be a dogmatist.

How could I accuse you of making strawman arguments, when you're obviously conflating my arguments with that of a person (Jane Q Public) that I've never even heard of?

As I just said, you definitely have

If our muscle cells were 90% bacteria running around in disguise, then we'd lose a significant portion of our weight when we took antibiotics.

Sadly, I need to repeat that this would only be true if bacteria weren't thousands of times less massive than human cells. And that nobody you're talking to is talking about muscle cells.

Funny, it was my college biology professor that made the point that - in a number of significant ways of looking at it - our GI tract and other things are treated by our bodies as being exterior to our body.

This is depressingly typical. I quoted and linked peer-reviewed articles showing that only 10% of the cells in the human body contain the human genome. Those articles are very clearly using the definition that the GI tract is part of the human body. Then you make a vague reference to a professor saying something contrary, without naming the professor or referencing his peer-reviewed paper or showing why it's relevant to the articles that I linked.

Your problem is that while you love to call me a dogmatist, the simple truth of the matter is you can't bend your mind around different ways of looking at things, even if they are true.

Wow! If I love to call you a dogmatist, then surely you can find at least one quote from me supporting that accusation?

I just explained that you were wrong to call me and my colleagues dishonest idiot dogmatists (not to mention all the other libelous smears you've thrown at us). Bizarrely, you then claimed that I was calling you an idiot dogmatist, when I'd just explained to you and to Jane Q. Public that obtaining a graduate-level understanding of the physics of the climate requires... well... taking actual graduate level courses in physics related to the climate. A non-physicist who doesn't understand graduate-level physics isn't an idiot, as I carefully explained to Jane Q. Public. However, a professional physicist has no such excuse, which is why Jane's accusations (and your incessant accusations) that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community are lying and/or making ridiculously incompetent mistakes really are accusations that we're dishonest idiots.

If history is any guide, this is the point where you claim that you've never made any of these accusations, and that I'm making up strawman arguments. Please do that. I plan to eventually collect all your accusations of dishonesty, and then display them next to all your statements that you're not accusing scientists of dishonesty. Adding more examples will make the cognitive dissonance more amusing.

Think about why semen is salty some time. I'll let you get back to me on that one.

I'll pass, thanks. Is this really the legacy you want to leave behind?

If our muscle cells were 90% bacteria running around in disguise, then we'd lose a significant portion of our weight when we took antibiotics.

Sadly, I need to repeat that this would only be true if bacteria weren't thousands of times less massive than human cells. And that nobody you're talking to is talking about muscle cells.

Funny, it was my college biology professor that made the point that - in a number of significant ways of looking at it - our GI tract and other things are treated by our bodies as being exterior to our body.

This is depressingly typical. I quoted and linked peer-reviewed articles showing that only 10% of the cells in the human body contain the human genome. Those articles are very clearly using the definition that the GI tract is part of the human body. Then you make a vague reference to a professor saying something contrary, without naming the professor or referencing his peer-reviewed paper or showing why it's relevant to the articles that I linked.

Your problem is that while you love to call me a dogmatist, the simple truth of the matter is you can't bend your mind around different ways of looking at things, even if they are true.

Wow! If I love to call you a dogmatist, then surely you can find at least one quote from me supporting that accusation?

I just explained that you were wrong to call me and my colleagues dishonest idiot dogmatists (not to mention all the other libelous smears you've thrown at us). Bizarrely, you then claimed that I was calling you an idiot dogmatist, when I'd just explained to you and to Jane Q. Public that obtaining a graduate-level understanding of the physics of the climate requires... well... taking actual graduate level courses in physics related to the climate. A non-physicist who doesn't understand graduate-level physics isn't an idiot, as I carefully explained to Jane Q. Public. However, a professional physicist has no such excuse, which is why Jane's accusations (and your incessant accusations) that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community are lying and/or making ridiculously incompetent mistakes really are accusations that we're dishonest idiots.

If history is any guide, this is the point where you claim that you've never made any of these accusations, and that I'm making up strawman arguments. Please do that. I plan to eventually collect all your accusations of dishonesty, and then display them next to all your statements that you're not accusing scientists of dishonesty. Adding more examples will make the cognitive dissonance more amusing.

Think about why semen is salty some time. I'll let you get back to me on that one.

I'll pass, thanks. Is this really the legacy you want to leave behind?

If our muscle cells were 90% bacteria running around in disguise, then we'd lose a significant portion of our weight when we took antibiotics.

Sadly, I need to repeat that this would only be true if bacteria weren't thousands of times less massive than human cells. And that nobody you're talking to is talking about muscle cells.

Funny, it was my college biology professor that made the point that - in a number of significant ways of looking at it - our GI tract and other things are treated by our bodies as being exterior to our body.

This is depressingly typical. I quoted and linked peer-reviewed articles showing that only 10% of the cells in the human body contain the human genome. Those articles are very clearly using the definition that the GI tract is part of the human body. Then you make a vague reference to a professor saying something contrary, without naming the professor or referencing his peer-reviewed paper or showing why it's relevant to the articles that I linked.

Your problem is that while you love to call me a dogmatist, the simple truth of the matter is you can't bend your mind around different ways of looking at things, even if they are true.

Wow! If I love to call you a dogmatist, then surely you can find at least one quote from me supporting that accusation?

I just explained that you were wrong to call me and my colleagues dishonest idiot dogmatists (not to mention all the other libelous smears you've thrown at us). Bizarrely, you then claimed that I was calling you an idiot dogmatist, when I'd just explained to you and to Jane Q. Public that obtaining a graduate-level understanding of the physics of the climate requires... well... taking actual graduate level courses in physics related to the climate. A non-physicist who doesn't understand graduate-level physics isn't an idiot, as I carefully explained to Jane Q. Public. However, a professional physicist has no such excuse, which is why Jane's accusations (and your incessant accusations) that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community are lying and/or making ridiculously incompetent mistakes really are accusations that we're dishonest idiots.

If history is any guide, this is the point where you claim that you've never made any of these accusations, and that I'm making up strawman arguments. Please do that. I plan to eventually collect all your accusations of dishonesty, and then display them next to all your statements that you're not accusing scientists of dishonesty. Adding more examples will make the cognitive dissonance more amusing.

Think about why semen is salty some time. I'll let you get back to me on that one.

I'll pass, thanks. Is this really the legacy you want to leave behind?

If our muscle cells were 90% bacteria running around in disguise, then we'd lose a significant portion of our weight when we took antibiotics.

Sadly, I need to repeat that this would only be true if bacteria weren't thousands of times less massive than human cells. And that nobody you're talking to is talking about muscle cells.

Funny, it was my college biology professor that made the point that - in a number of significant ways of looking at it - our GI tract and other things are treated by our bodies as being exterior to our body.

This is depressingly typical. I quoted and linked peer-reviewed articles showing that only 10% of the cells in the human body contain the human genome. Those articles are very clearly using the definition that the GI tract is part of the human body. Then you make a vague reference to a professor saying something contrary, without naming the professor or referencing his peer-reviewed paper or showing why it's relevant to the articles that I linked.

Your problem is that while you love to call me a dogmatist, the simple truth of the matter is you can't bend your mind around different ways of looking at things, even if they are true.

Wow! If I love to call you a dogmatist, then surely you can find at least one quote from me supporting that accusation?

I just explained that you were wrong to call me and my colleagues dishonest idiot dogmatists (not to mention all the other libelous smears you've thrown at us). Bizarrely, you then claimed that I was calling you an idiot dogmatist, when I'd just explained to you and to Jane Q. Public that obtaining a graduate-level understanding of the physics of the climate requires... well... taking actual graduate level courses in physics related to the climate. A non-physicist who doesn't understand graduate-level physics isn't an idiot, as I carefully explained to Jane Q. Public. However, a professional physicist has no such excuse, which is why Jane's accusations (and your incessant accusations) that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community are lying and/or making ridiculously incompetent mistakes really are accusations that we're dishonest idiots.

If history is any guide, this is the point where you claim that you've never made any of these accusations, and that I'm making up strawman arguments. Please do that. I plan to eventually collect all your accusations of dishonesty, and then display them next to all your statements that you're not accusing scientists of dishonesty. Adding more examples will make the cognitive dissonance more amusing.

Think about why semen is salty some time. I'll let you get back to me on that one.

I'll pass, thanks. Is this really the legacy you want to leave behind?

Hi cj,

I think think the idea's got legs.

You can see some of my thoughts on this via the comments by Marble on someone else's blog.. (You'll have to scroll down / ctrl-f for gravity).

I gave up arguing not because he convinced me otherwise - but lets just say he has a greater belief in the infallibilty of published science that I (or history I believe) can afford to give it.

Cheers, Marble.

The records are all there if people care to read them. If you want to state your official position is "I don't care about empiricism", then so be it. There's lots of room in climatology for people that don't work empirically.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If you actually tried to copy and paste phrases from that conversation, you'd notice that I was explicitly saying that there had already been multiple independent empirical studies of the temperature record. Watts simply didn't do a thorough literature search before declaring himself to be the only person empirically studying the temperature network. If he were the first person to try to study the surface stations empirically, or if his "survey" added anything new to the sum of human knowledge, then I would agree with you because you're wrong to imply that I don't care about empiricism. So you can holster the Feynman quotes; I've already got quite a collection.

I'll add the rest of that comment to the perpetually-expanding list of accusations you've made that I haven't yet addressed. Again, this could take a while.

Which I applied to both sides, in case you can't read the quotes you're quoting.

What's your point? I've already disagreed with those accusations against "the other side": I most certainly do not think you're an idiot. At worst, I think you're making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It’d be a different story if I were saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life’s work

I think it's wrong to say that climate change contrarians are dishonest idiot dogmatists. They're just examples of the modified salem hypothesis. In other words, they're honest people who aren't necessarily idiots or steeped in dogmatism. They're just trying to lecture about a highly advanced scientific subject, while not noticing that their background (programming, engineering, etc) isn't sufficient to understand the nuances of that subject. Ironically, I said this in an attempt to try as hard as possible to avoid writing down the kind of insults you are, but you seem to determined to see this as an insult, while innocently wondering why calling someone a dishonest idiot dogmatist is offensive.

I think I finally understand your confusion with me. I try very hard not to be a dogmatist. ...

I think you need to keep trying. In the meantime, I'll start to address all the weird assumptions you wrote right after that statement, but I'll have to group them with all the other similar statements you've made that I haven't addressed. So this might take a while.

You see me say that Watts contributed something with his surface station survey?

Again, I find it interesting that you only seem to remember writing "Watts contributed something with his surface station survey"... it's funny how you don't seem to remember writing "None of the issues surrounding energy production and global warming aren’t [sic] particularly hard to understand – the only reason it is so time consuming is that figuring out who is bullshitting on which point of contention takes a while. For example, the issues surrounding bad station data is rather complex. RC.org hand-waves the issue, saying that they have “taken it into their calculations”, but on this issue, it seems obvious that RC.org is bullshitting."

This comment is depressingly similar to the bizarre version of our conversation that you just posted. Remember when you said you could copy and paste links to make me look stupid? Remember that I just encouraged you to try do that? The key words here are copy and paste. When you try to actually copy and paste phrases from that conversation, you'll find that you were accusing scientists of bullshitting about temperature records, and that I was consistently saying that Watts's "survey" wasn't original and didn't support your repetitive accusations of bullshitting. That's still my position, and it's bizarre that you keep crowing about "dragging me kicking and screaming" to admit that Watts's work had any value. I still think his

Which I applied to both sides, in case you can't read the quotes you're quoting.

What's your point? I've already disagreed with those accusations against "the other side": I most certainly do not think you're an idiot. At worst, I think you're making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It’d be a different story if I were saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life’s work

I think it's wrong to say that climate change contrarians are dishonest idiot dogmatists. They're just examples of the modified salem hypothesis. In other words, they're honest people who aren't necessarily idiots or steeped in dogmatism. They're just trying to lecture about a highly advanced scientific subject, while not noticing that their background (programming, engineering, etc) isn't sufficient to understand the nuances of that subject. Ironically, I said this in an attempt to try as hard as possible to avoid writing down the kind of insults you are, but you seem to determined to see this as an insult, while innocently wondering why calling someone a dishonest idiot dogmatist is offensive.

I think I finally understand your confusion with me. I try very hard not to be a dogmatist. ...

I think you need to keep trying. In the meantime, I'll start to address all the weird assumptions you wrote right after that statement, but I'll have to group them with all the other similar statements you've made that I haven't addressed. So this might take a while.

You see me say that Watts contributed something with his surface station survey?

Again, I find it interesting that you only seem to remember writing "Watts contributed something with his surface station survey"... it's funny how you don't seem to remember writing "None of the issues surrounding energy production and global warming aren’t [sic] particularly hard to understand – the only reason it is so time consuming is that figuring out who is bullshitting on which point of contention takes a while. For example, the issues surrounding bad station data is rather complex. RC.org hand-waves the issue, saying that they have “taken it into their calculations”, but on this issue, it seems obvious that RC.org is bullshitting."

This comment is depressingly similar to the bizarre version of our conversation that you just posted. Remember when you said you could copy and paste links to make me look stupid? Remember that I just encouraged you to try do that? The key words here are copy and paste. When you try to actually copy and paste phrases from that conversation, you'll find that you were accusing scientists of bullshitting about temperature records, and that I was consistently saying that Watts's "survey" wasn't original and didn't support your repetitive accusations of bullshitting. That's still my position, and it's bizarre that you keep crowing about "dragging me kicking and screaming" to admit that Watts's work had any value. I still think his

Which I applied to both sides, in case you can't read the quotes you're quoting.

What's your point? I've already disagreed with those accusations against "the other side": I most certainly do not think you're an idiot. At worst, I think you're making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It’d be a different story if I were saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life’s work

I think it's wrong to say that climate change contrarians are dishonest idiot dogmatists. They're just examples of the modified salem hypothesis. In other words, they're honest people who aren't necessarily idiots or steeped in dogmatism. They're just trying to lecture about a highly advanced scientific subject, while not noticing that their background (programming, engineering, etc) isn't sufficient to understand the nuances of that subject. Ironically, I said this in an attempt to try as hard as possible to avoid writing down the kind of insults you are, but you seem to determined to see this as an insult, while innocently wondering why calling someone a dishonest idiot dogmatist is offensive.

I think I finally understand your confusion with me. I try very hard not to be a dogmatist. ...

I think you need to keep trying. In the meantime, I'll start to address all the weird assumptions you wrote right after that statement, but I'll have to group them with all the other similar statements you've made that I haven't addressed. So this might take a while.

You see me say that Watts contributed something with his surface station survey?

Again, I find it interesting that you only seem to remember writing "Watts contributed something with his surface station survey"... it's funny how you don't seem to remember writing "None of the issues surrounding energy production and global warming aren’t [sic] particularly hard to understand – the only reason it is so time consuming is that figuring out who is bullshitting on which point of contention takes a while. For example, the issues surrounding bad station data is rather complex. RC.org hand-waves the issue, saying that they have “taken it into their calculations”, but on this issue, it seems obvious that RC.org is bullshitting."

This comment is depressingly similar to the bizarre version of our conversation that you just posted. Remember when you said you could copy and paste links to make me look stupid? Remember that I just encouraged you to try do that? The key words here are copy and paste. When you try to actually copy and paste phrases from that conversation, you'll find that you were accusing scientists of bullshitting about temperature records, and that I was consistently saying that Watts's "survey" wasn't original and didn't support your repetitive accusations of bullshitting. That's still my position, and it's bizarre that you keep crowing about "dragging me kicking and screaming" to admit that Watts's work had any value. I still think his

Which I applied to both sides, in case you can't read the quotes you're quoting.

What's your point? I've already disagreed with those accusations against "the other side": I most certainly do not think you're an idiot. At worst, I think you're making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It’d be a different story if I were saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life’s work

I think it's wrong to say that climate change contrarians are dishonest idiot dogmatists. They're just examples of the modified salem hypothesis. In other words, they're honest people who aren't necessarily idiots or steeped in dogmatism. They're just trying to lecture about a highly advanced scientific subject, while not noticing that their background (programming, engineering, etc) isn't sufficient to understand the nuances of that subject. Ironically, I said this in an attempt to try as hard as possible to avoid writing down the kind of insults you are, but you seem to determined to see this as an insult, while innocently wondering why calling someone a dishonest idiot dogmatist is offensive.

I think I finally understand your confusion with me. I try very hard not to be a dogmatist. ...

I think you need to keep trying. In the meantime, I'll start to address all the weird assumptions you wrote right after that statement, but I'll have to group them with all the other similar statements you've made that I haven't addressed. So this might take a while.

You see me say that Watts contributed something with his surface station survey?

Again, I find it interesting that you only seem to remember writing "Watts contributed something with his surface station survey"... it's funny how you don't seem to remember writing "None of the issues surrounding energy production and global warming aren’t [sic] particularly hard to understand – the only reason it is so time consuming is that figuring out who is bullshitting on which point of contention takes a while. For example, the issues surrounding bad station data is rather complex. RC.org hand-waves the issue, saying that they have “taken it into their calculations”, but on this issue, it seems obvious that RC.org is bullshitting."

This comment is depressingly similar to the bizarre version of our conversation that you just posted. Remember when you said you could copy and paste links to make me look stupid? Remember that I just encouraged you to try do that? The key words here are copy and paste. When you try to actually copy and paste phrases from that conversation, you'll find that you were accusing scientists of bullshitting about temperature records, and that I was consistently saying that Watts's "survey" wasn't original and didn't support your repetitive accusations of bullshitting. That's still my position, and it's bizarre that you keep crowing about "dragging me kicking and screaming" to admit that Watts's work had any value. I still think his

Which I applied to both sides, in case you can't read the quotes you're quoting.

What's your point? I've already disagreed with those accusations against "the other side": I most certainly do not think you're an idiot. At worst, I think you're making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It’d be a different story if I were saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life’s work

I think it's wrong to say that climate change contrarians are dishonest idiot dogmatists. They're just examples of the modified salem hypothesis. In other words, they're honest people who aren't necessarily idiots or steeped in dogmatism. They're just trying to lecture about a highly advanced scientific subject, while not noticing that their background (programming, engineering, etc) isn't sufficient to understand the nuances of that subject. Ironically, I said this in an attempt to try as hard as possible to avoid writing down the kind of insults you are, but you seem to determined to see this as an insult, while innocently wondering why calling someone a dishonest idiot dogmatist is offensive.

I think I finally understand your confusion with me. I try very hard not to be a dogmatist. ...

I think you need to keep trying. In the meantime, I'll start to address all the weird assumptions you wrote right after that statement, but I'll have to group them with all the other similar statements you've made that I haven't addressed. So this might take a while.

You see me say that Watts contributed something with his surface station survey?

Again, I find it interesting that you only seem to remember writing "Watts contributed something with his surface station survey"... it's funny how you don't seem to remember writing "None of the issues surrounding energy production and global warming aren’t [sic] particularly hard to understand – the only reason it is so time consuming is that figuring out who is bullshitting on which point of contention takes a while. For example, the issues surrounding bad station data is rather complex. RC.org hand-waves the issue, saying that they have “taken it into their calculations”, but on this issue, it seems obvious that RC.org is bullshitting."

This comment is depressingly similar to the bizarre version of our conversation that you just posted. Remember when you said you could copy and paste links to make me look stupid? Remember that I just encouraged you to try do that? The key words here are copy and paste. When you try to actually copy and paste phrases from that conversation, you'll find that you were accusing scientists of bullshitting about temperature records, and that I was consistently saying that Watts's "survey" wasn't original and didn't support your repetitive accusations of bullshitting. That's still my position, and it's bizarre that you keep crowing about "dragging me kicking and screaming" to admit that Watts's work had any value. I still think his

Which I applied to both sides, in case you can't read the quotes you're quoting.

What's your point? I've already disagreed with those accusations against "the other side": I most certainly do not think you're an idiot. At worst, I think you're making mistakes while talking about a highly advanced subject that lies far outside of your own professional experience. Everyone does that. It’d be a different story if I were saying that you were pathetically wrong about your own life’s work

I think it's wrong to say that climate change contrarians are dishonest idiot dogmatists. They're just examples of the modified salem hypothesis. In other words, they're honest people who aren't necessarily idiots or steeped in dogmatism. They're just trying to lecture about a highly advanced scientific subject, while not noticing that their background (programming, engineering, etc) isn't sufficient to understand the nuances of that subject. Ironically, I said this in an attempt to try as hard as possible to avoid writing down the kind of insults you are, but you seem to determined to see this as an insult, while innocently wondering why calling someone a dishonest idiot dogmatist is offensive.

I think I finally understand your confusion with me. I try very hard not to be a dogmatist. ...

I think you need to keep trying. In the meantime, I'll start to address all the weird assumptions you wrote right after that statement, but I'll have to group them with all the other similar statements you've made that I haven't addressed. So this might take a while.

You see me say that Watts contributed something with his surface station survey?

Again, I find it interesting that you only seem to remember writing "Watts contributed something with his surface station survey"... it's funny how you don't seem to remember writing "None of the issues surrounding energy production and global warming aren’t [sic] particularly hard to understand – the only reason it is so time consuming is that figuring out who is bullshitting on which point of contention takes a while. For example, the issues surrounding bad station data is rather complex. RC.org hand-waves the issue, saying that they have “taken it into their calculations”, but on this issue, it seems obvious that RC.org is bullshitting."

This comment is depressingly similar to the bizarre version of our conversation that you just posted. Remember when you said you could copy and paste links to make me look stupid? Remember that I just encouraged you to try do that? The key words here are copy and paste. When you try to actually copy and paste phrases from that conversation, you'll find that you were accusing scientists of bullshitting about temperature records, and that I was consistently saying that Watts's "survey" wasn't original and didn't support your repetitive accusations of bullshitting. That's still my position, and it's bizarre that you keep crowing about "dragging me kicking and screaming" to admit that Watts's work had any value. I still think his

Posted here by ShakaUVM.

Fascinating. I'll respond to this (and all your other accusations that I haven't yet addressed) whenever I get the time.

I finally looked at the gigantic wall of text you’ve erected in my honor.

Khayman, I find it hilarious you request comments be at “DH4 level or above, when you go and accuse me of being a Rush Limbaugh that apparently wants to draw and quarter climate scientists. (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2388172&cid=37183020)

I love how many quotes you have of mine that are cherrypicked out of context. For example, you state that “ShakaUVM claims that “intelligent design” is falsifiable science.” What I said is that it is *possible* to formulate ID as a falsifiable scientific theory, by restating it as a statistical interference with normal evalutionary processes. By cherrypicking that quote though, you’re attempting to libelously categorize me as an IDer (I’m not) or worse, a YECer.

To the ten people that actually read this blog, ignore Khayman’s cherrypicking. Here are my beliefs:

1) AGW is real, and a serious problem. (Yes, see, I’m just like Rush Limbaugh!)

2) Evolution is probably right, but it could be fun to scientifically test ID to see if there’s any evidence for it. We’ll need statistical tests to determine design *anyway* (as we move forward into a future with more and more bioengineering), so we might as well apply them to the historical record as well.

3) Climategate was mostly overblown hype by the anti-AGWers, but there were some serious issues discovered involving Phil Jones dodging FOIA requests so that AGW deniers couldn’t get access to the same data he shared with everyone else. Scientific inquiry needs a free exchange of data, and yes, this includes people you don’t like. He shouldn’t be drawn and quartered, but losing his chairmanship is appropriate, considering it could be argued he broke the law.

Note: the inquiry board agreed with me (the data should be free), which is in contrast to what Khayman and RC.org both said (they claimed it justified Phil’s actions), and the CRU recently did, in fact, make their data freely available.

4) For this and other reasons, Khayman (aka Dumb Scientist) and RC.org are biased sources of information. It’s not like I think they’re wrong in most cases, but they engage in partisanship. When RC.org reviews An Inconvenient Truth, it lightly brushes over the several major mistakes Al Gore made in the film, as well as the outright lies about the Drowning Polar Bear Myth. But when they criticize things made by AGW deniers, they’ll take them to task for failing to capitalize and punctuate every sentence correctly.

Khayman/Dumb Scientist engaged in a long, drawn out, teeth-pulling debate with me over if the Surface Station Survey was valuable or not. The cognitive dissonance was so strong in his head, that he couldn’t wrap his brain around the fact that even though 1) Watts may very well be a AGW-denying loon that 2) He might have something valuable to contribute to science.

I had to ask Khayman, over and over again, quote, “Look, let me simplify the whole issue down to one question: Politics aside, is it better or not to know the quality of your surface stations?”

Khayman could not give a straight answer to save his life, always dodging the question asked, answering one of two things: 1) Watts Is A Crazy, or 2) Even using the “good” stations from Watts, it doesn’t change the climate record.

This went on for several days, with me trying to get him to actually answer the question I asked, as opposed to making a non-sequitor (and non-sequitors they were). I even pointed out various climatologists that thanked Watts for his work. To the keen-eyed observer, it should be clear that Khayman/Dumb Scientist

I try to not read anything on your blog. It's got one of the worse layouts I've ever seen - a tiny font, with you cherrypicking quotes from people from *other* blogs and responding to them... and then you expect for me to respond to them, there? As I've said repeatedly, if you have any criticisms of me here, make them against my posts here. Your blog sucks monkey balls. [ShakaUVM]

Charming. That's why I posted the original comment at Slashdot as a reply to one of your comments, as I do with all the other comments I write... but that little detail hasn't stopped you from repeating the same charming and constructive criticisms. Again, read the original comment on Slashdot and let posterity know whether or not you regret your baseless attacks.

An honest skeptic would look at the Greenland melt data and say that there wasn't enough evidence. An honest Al Gore would have looked at the Greenland melt and put large error bars around his predictions. Dishonest people on either side refuse any results that disagree with their presumptions. I recall watching CSPAN and seeing climatologists talking about how the Greenland melt rate would be 10 times greater than we'd expected, because of the wet pancake effect or something. I'm not an AGW skeptic, though I *am* critical of idiots like that, that claim more evidence than there is. He's up there scaring senators, and... he's wrong. (Or probably is - the Greenland melt is an active area of research.) I'm also critical of people like Sarah Palin who think that human beings can't possibly, ever, affect the climate. Unfortunately, it seems most people are dishonest dogmatists for one side or another. [ShakaUVM]

When you accused me and my colleagues of being dishonest idiot dogmatists based on Dr. Xiaoping Wu's paper, I made my disagreement quite clear. Since you never responded to my points, I can only assume you didn't read my original comment. Please read it and let posterity know whether or not you regret your baseless attacks. [Dumb Scientist]

I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh on this issue - I certainly don't think that climate scientists should be "drawn and quartered" ... I certainly don't think climatology should be defunded and the practitioners thrown in jail, like some Republicans do, apparently. ... accusing me of wanting to murder climatologists is about on Imus' level. [ShakaUVM]

Compare your original comment to my reply, and look for evidence that I've accused you of wanting to murder climatologists or throw them in jail. In reality, I've already pointed out that you've accused climatologists of being fascinated with plans that will kill people... in fact, one of your comments implies that 6 billion people would die, which is closer to genocide than it is to murder.

If I said that I think it's harder to estimate Greenland ice losses than people think, that doesn't mean that I want to kill you, and your little dog, too. [ShakaUVM]

Again, look for evidence that I've accused you of wanting to kill me and my "little dog, too".

I try to not read anything on your blog. It's got one of the worse layouts I've ever seen - a tiny font, with you cherrypicking quotes from people from *other* blogs and responding to them... and then you expect for me to respond to them, there? As I've said repeatedly, if you have any criticisms of me here, make them against my posts here. Your blog sucks monkey balls. [ShakaUVM]

Charming. That's why I posted the original comment at Slashdot as a reply to one of your comments, as I do with all the other comments I write... but that little detail hasn't stopped you from repeating the same charming and constructive criticisms. Again, read the original comment on Slashdot and let posterity know whether or not you regret your baseless attacks.

An honest skeptic would look at the Greenland melt data and say that there wasn't enough evidence. An honest Al Gore would have looked at the Greenland melt and put large error bars around his predictions. Dishonest people on either side refuse any results that disagree with their presumptions. I recall watching CSPAN and seeing climatologists talking about how the Greenland melt rate would be 10 times greater than we'd expected, because of the wet pancake effect or something. I'm not an AGW skeptic, though I *am* critical of idiots like that, that claim more evidence than there is. He's up there scaring senators, and... he's wrong. (Or probably is - the Greenland melt is an active area of research.) I'm also critical of people like Sarah Palin who think that human beings can't possibly, ever, affect the climate. Unfortunately, it seems most people are dishonest dogmatists for one side or another. [ShakaUVM]

When you accused me and my colleagues of being dishonest idiot dogmatists based on Dr. Xiaoping Wu's paper, I made my disagreement quite clear. Since you never responded to my points, I can only assume you didn't read my original comment. Please read it and let posterity know whether or not you regret your baseless attacks. [Dumb Scientist]

I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh on this issue - I certainly don't think that climate scientists should be "drawn and quartered" ... I certainly don't think climatology should be defunded and the practitioners thrown in jail, like some Republicans do, apparently. ... accusing me of wanting to murder climatologists is about on Imus' level. [ShakaUVM]

Compare your original comment to my reply, and look for evidence that I've accused you of wanting to murder climatologists or throw them in jail. In reality, I've already pointed out that you've accused climatologists of being fascinated with plans that will kill people... in fact, one of your comments implies that 6 billion people would die, which is closer to genocide than it is to murder.

If I said that I think it's harder to estimate Greenland ice losses than people think, that doesn't mean that I want to kill you, and your little dog, too. [ShakaUVM]

Again, look for evidence that I've accused you of wanting to kill me and my "little dog, too".

I try to not read anything on your blog. It's got one of the worse layouts I've ever seen - a tiny font, with you cherrypicking quotes from people from *other* blogs and responding to them... and then you expect for me to respond to them, there? As I've said repeatedly, if you have any criticisms of me here, make them against my posts here. Your blog sucks monkey balls. [ShakaUVM]

Charming. That's why I posted the original comment at Slashdot as a reply to one of your comments, as I do with all the other comments I write... but that little detail hasn't stopped you from repeating the same charming and constructive criticisms. Again, read the original comment on Slashdot and let posterity know whether or not you regret your baseless attacks.

An honest skeptic would look at the Greenland melt data and say that there wasn't enough evidence. An honest Al Gore would have looked at the Greenland melt and put large error bars around his predictions. Dishonest people on either side refuse any results that disagree with their presumptions. I recall watching CSPAN and seeing climatologists talking about how the Greenland melt rate would be 10 times greater than we'd expected, because of the wet pancake effect or something. I'm not an AGW skeptic, though I *am* critical of idiots like that, that claim more evidence than there is. He's up there scaring senators, and... he's wrong. (Or probably is - the Greenland melt is an active area of research.) I'm also critical of people like Sarah Palin who think that human beings can't possibly, ever, affect the climate. Unfortunately, it seems most people are dishonest dogmatists for one side or another. [ShakaUVM]

When you accused me and my colleagues of being dishonest idiot dogmatists based on Dr. Xiaoping Wu's paper, I made my disagreement quite clear. Since you never responded to my points, I can only assume you didn't read my original comment. Please read it and let posterity know whether or not you regret your baseless attacks. [Dumb Scientist]

I don't agree with Rush Limbaugh on this issue - I certainly don't think that climate scientists should be "drawn and quartered" ... I certainly don't think climatology should be defunded and the practitioners thrown in jail, like some Republicans do, apparently. ... accusing me of wanting to murder climatologists is about on Imus' level. [ShakaUVM]

Compare your original comment to my reply, and look for evidence that I've accused you of wanting to murder climatologists or throw them in jail. In reality, I've already pointed out that you've accused climatologists of being fascinated with plans that will kill people... in fact, one of your comments implies that 6 billion people would die, which is closer to genocide than it is to murder.

If I said that I think it's harder to estimate Greenland ice losses than people think, that doesn't mean that I want to kill you, and your little dog, too. [ShakaUVM]

Again, look for evidence that I've accused you of wanting to kill me and my "little dog, too".

Dear Rush Limbaugh, ShakaUVM, and many other climate change contrarians,

Last year, Dr. Xiaoping (Frank) Wu et al. published a paper which claimed that the present day mass trends (PDMTs) of regions such as Antarctica and Greenland had been overestimated in previous studies because their glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) corrections weren't large enough.

... [Dr. Wu's] “GIA estimated” uses GPS and GRACE to simultaneously solve for GIA and PDMT. For Greenland, "GIA estimated" has a PDMT of -104 +- 23 Gt/yr. [Dr. Wu's] "GIA corrected" uses GRACE alone to solve for PDMT, correcting for GIA using the widespread ICE-5G model. For Greenland, "GIA corrected" has a PDMT of -161 +- 35 Gt/yr. These new estimates are compared to Velicogna's Greenland PDMT of -234 +- 33 Gt/yr over the same timespan.

In that same comment, I explained that Dr. Wu's estimates of Greenland's mass loss rate conflict with several other GRACE estimates, measurements that subtract ice discharge from surface mass balance, laser altimetry, radar interferometry, and other empirical evidence regarding ice history since the Last Glacial Maximum. I even suggested some potential areas of improvement in Dr. Wu's algorithm, including the statement "I suspect this effective sensitivity kernel wouldn’t be smooth, and that the “GIA corrected” PDMT estimate is too small because (for instance) it overweights the mass gain in the interior and/or underweights mass loss on the coasts."

Then, at the GRACE science team meeting earlier this month, Xiaoping Wu revised his numbers. For Greenland, "GIA estimated" now has a PDMT of -144 +- 27 Gt/yr. For Greenland, "GIA corrected" now has a PDMT of -219 +- 33 Gt/yr.

After his presentation, I asked Dr. Wu what changed in his methodology to make his new numbers more closely match those of Velicogna, Chen, Luthcke, and all the other non-GRACE measurement techniques. He said that he expanded his sensitivity kernel to 0.5 degrees off the coast of Greenland because secular trends in the ocean are very small compared to land. Thus his new inversion doesn't underweight the mass loss (as much), because it's occurring primarily on the coasts.

So after Dr. Wu fixed one of the issues I mentioned, his "GIA corrected" PDMT increased from 68% to 93% of Velicogna's Greenland PDMT. His "GIA estimated" PDMT has increased from 44% to 61% of Velicogna's Greenland PDMT.

Rush Limbaugh, do you regret calling GRACE research a "sham" and a "hoax" (four times) based on numbers that are being corrected as we speak? Do you regret calling for climate scientists to be drawn and quartered because you fell for the overhyped and manufactured drama called climategate? Do you regret weaving that conspiracy theory into your attacks against me and my colleagues by saying that we "forgot to hide the decline"?

So you're saying I'm right, then. "-144 +- 27 Gt/yr" is nowhere close to "-219 +- 33 Gt/yr" [ShakaUVM]

1. You probably meant to compare Dr. Wu's -144 +- 27 Gt/yr "GIA estimated" PDMT to Velicogna's -234 +- 33 Gt/yr Greenland PDMT. The comparison you actually wrote makes no sense; you're comparing the revised numbers from one of Dr. Wu's techniques (GIA estimated) to the revised numbers from another of Dr. Wu's techniques (GIA corrected).
2. This is the fourth time you've claimed that I agree with your libelous smears. I've already asked you to stop. Please do so.
3. When you accused

Dear Rush Limbaugh, ShakaUVM, and many other climate change contrarians,

Last year, Dr. Xiaoping (Frank) Wu et al. published a paper which claimed that the present day mass trends (PDMTs) of regions such as Antarctica and Greenland had been overestimated in previous studies because their glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) corrections weren't large enough.

... [Dr. Wu's] “GIA estimated” uses GPS and GRACE to simultaneously solve for GIA and PDMT. For Greenland, "GIA estimated" has a PDMT of -104 +- 23 Gt/yr. [Dr. Wu's] "GIA corrected" uses GRACE alone to solve for PDMT, correcting for GIA using the widespread ICE-5G model. For Greenland, "GIA corrected" has a PDMT of -161 +- 35 Gt/yr. These new estimates are compared to Velicogna's Greenland PDMT of -234 +- 33 Gt/yr over the same timespan.

In that same comment, I explained that Dr. Wu's estimates of Greenland's mass loss rate conflict with several other GRACE estimates, measurements that subtract ice discharge from surface mass balance, laser altimetry, radar interferometry, and other empirical evidence regarding ice history since the Last Glacial Maximum. I even suggested some potential areas of improvement in Dr. Wu's algorithm, including the statement "I suspect this effective sensitivity kernel wouldn’t be smooth, and that the “GIA corrected” PDMT estimate is too small because (for instance) it overweights the mass gain in the interior and/or underweights mass loss on the coasts."

Then, at the GRACE science team meeting earlier this month, Xiaoping Wu revised his numbers. For Greenland, "GIA estimated" now has a PDMT of -144 +- 27 Gt/yr. For Greenland, "GIA corrected" now has a PDMT of -219 +- 33 Gt/yr.

After his presentation, I asked Dr. Wu what changed in his methodology to make his new numbers more closely match those of Velicogna, Chen, Luthcke, and all the other non-GRACE measurement techniques. He said that he expanded his sensitivity kernel to 0.5 degrees off the coast of Greenland because secular trends in the ocean are very small compared to land. Thus his new inversion doesn't underweight the mass loss (as much), because it's occurring primarily on the coasts.

So after Dr. Wu fixed one of the issues I mentioned, his "GIA corrected" PDMT increased from 68% to 93% of Velicogna's Greenland PDMT. His "GIA estimated" PDMT has increased from 44% to 61% of Velicogna's Greenland PDMT.

Rush Limbaugh, do you regret calling GRACE research a "sham" and a "hoax" (four times) based on numbers that are being corrected as we speak? Do you regret calling for climate scientists to be drawn and quartered because you fell for the overhyped and manufactured drama called climategate? Do you regret weaving that conspiracy theory into your attacks against me and my colleagues by saying that we "forgot to hide the decline"?

So you're saying I'm right, then. "-144 +- 27 Gt/yr" is nowhere close to "-219 +- 33 Gt/yr" [ShakaUVM]

1. You probably meant to compare Dr. Wu's -144 +- 27 Gt/yr "GIA estimated" PDMT to Velicogna's -234 +- 33 Gt/yr Greenland PDMT. The comparison you actually wrote makes no sense; you're comparing the revised numbers from one of Dr. Wu's techniques (GIA estimated) to the revised numbers from another of Dr. Wu's techniques (GIA corrected).
2. This is the fourth time you've claimed that I agree with your libelous smears. I've already asked you to stop. Please do so.
3. When you accused

Last year, Dr. Xiaoping (Frank) Wu et al. published a paper which claimed that the present day mass trends (PDMTs) of regions such as Antarctica and Greenland had been overestimated in previous studies:

... [Dr. Wu's] “GIA estimated” uses GPS and GRACE to simultaneously solve for GIA and PDMT. For Greenland, "GIA estimated" has a PDMT of -104 +- 23 Gt/yr. [Dr. Wu's] "GIA corrected" uses GRACE alone to solve for PDMT, correcting for GIA using the widespread ICE-5G model. For Greenland, "GIA corrected" has a PDMT of -161 +- 35 Gt/yr. These new estimates are compared to Velicogna's Greenland PDMT of -234 +- 33 Gt/yr over the same timespan.

At the GRACE science team meeting earlier this month, Xiaoping Wu revised his numbers. For Greenland, "GIA estimated" now has a PDMT of -144 +- 27 Gt/yr. For Greenland, "GIA corrected" now has a PDMT of -219 +- 33 Gt/yr.

After his presentation, I asked Dr. Wu what changed in his methodology to make his new numbers more closely match those of Velicogna, Chen, Luthcke, and all the other non-GRACE measurement techniques. He said that he expanded his sensitivity kernel to 0.5 degrees off the coast of Greenland because secular trends in the ocean are very small compared to land. Thus his new inversion doesn't underweight the mass loss (as much), because it's occurring primarily on the coasts.

I took a picture of the slide in his presentation which contains these revisions, but it's illegible. When the GRACE meeting slides appear on the web (hopefully later this month), I'll share the address of these slides and the exact slide number so my report of his revisions can be verified.

No. I've already discussed this. Harnessing tidal energy increases drag on the tidal bulges, which will move the Moon away from the Earth more quickly.

If we see the evolution of a new, more advanced, interesting species, then ID is proven false.

If? You say this as though we haven't already observed many speciation events. Or is "advanced, interesting" code for that absurd argument about information in the genome?

DNA sequencing is now mainstream science. We don't need a panopticon of ancient DNA for the method to work.

Since most of the structures Behe and Dembski point to evolved in the distant past, it certainly seems like they wouldn't be included in the reasonable people you spoke of: "Of course, any given designer might have given up designing and taken a day off, but if species emerge through statistically normal events, then most reasonable people would assume that the rest of evolution could have happened through similarly unshocking means."

In fact, based on the fact that creationists/intelligent design advocates already come up with creative ways to ignore the speciation going on right in front of our eyes, I doubt that decreasing the error bars on modern evolution would affect their views on ancient evolution in the slightest.

The point is we need a statistical test developed for this sort of stuff regardless of the whole evolution debate, and when we have one developed, we could apply it to the DNA record for the past and see what it turns up.

As I said, if we had a Jurassic park time machine to collect DNA samples from the past, that might be feasible. But without a time machine, DNA simply doesn't last long enough for any sort of rigorous analysis. Even using a time machine to collect DNA samples, it's not clear that it would be possible to distinguish a rapid change in natural selection pressures from the work of a supernatural designer.

I doubt it would support ID, but it does make ID falsifiable.

I've previously listed a few experiments that already could have falsified evolution. Your fantasy doesn't count because it's too vague and requires technology that doesn't exist and may very well be impossible. That's why you wouldn't be able to publish it in a reputable evolutionary biology journal, but if this bill goes through maybe your chances will improve.

Here's a good analogy. When I was debating Brett, I proposed a "crazy hypothesis of a non-biologist" to falsify abiogenesis. I think your argument is similar to mine (albeit more vague- I didn't see you describe the exact steps necessary to identify a statistically abnormal mutation).

But I was describing abiogenesis, which scientists consider more tentative and mysterious than evolution (a separate topic.) And I later became more skeptical of my own proposed falsification, calling it an example of my "ignorance of exobiology". These sorts of musings shouldn't be conflated with the actual falsifications that have been repeatedly applied to evolution.

But all this is beside the point anyway, because Beelzebud was right to point out that "intelligent design" argues that "irreducably complex" structures like flagella can't possibly have evolved naturally. The list of these "irreducably complex" grows without bound, because it's a scientifically useless concept that embodies the "argument from incredulity".