Slashdot Mirror

There are over a billion Muslims. Mostly in India and Indonesia. If you don't think that the ones committing all the violence are a fringe group, then you are vastly underestimating the damage a billion people could do, if they really wanted to.

Based on polls, it isn't fringe group of muslims who support violence. By definition, fringe group would constitute a fraction of a percentage of the people. Here's just a sampling of the opinion polls:

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam (Wikileaks cable)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/...

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain's Muslim population;
Another 29% would "aggressively defend" Islam;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/0...

There are over a billion Muslims. Mostly in India and Indonesia. If you don't think that the ones committing all the violence are a fringe group, then you are vastly underestimating the damage a billion people could do, if they really wanted to.

Based on polls, it isn't fringe group of muslims who support violence. By definition, fringe group would constitute a fraction of a percentage of the people. Here's just a sampling of the opinion polls:

Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)

Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam (Wikileaks cable)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/...

NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain's Muslim population;
Another 29% would "aggressively defend" Islam;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam
51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/0...

"Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)"
        Torvalds, Linus (1996-07-20).

When they analyze all the data that exists, that's the opposite of cherry picking. [Geoffrey Landis]

Indeed. I made this same point after Jane/Lonny baselessly accused Layzej of "cherry-picking" when Layzej loaded all the UAH data. Jane/Lonny then suggested cherry-picking at 1998, and keeps insisting that this somehow isn't "cherry-picking".

Ironically, I even gave Jane/Lonny R code which calculates trends and accelerations of global mean sea level (GMSL) data. That graph accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5. The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets.

Again, note that this approach avoids cherry-picking by using the entire dataset. Also note that all the best-fit accelerations are positive.

Once again, that's consistent with this NOAA article:

"Sea level is rising at an increasing rate ... There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century. While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century. The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting. Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900. This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year. This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years."

And once again, that's consistent with the 2013 IPCC AR5 SPM:

"Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century."

That's also consistent with the US NAS's statement that "Sea level is rising faster in recent decades".

Would that be the Gibson Guitars with the 13 thousand square metre factory in downtown Memphis, Tennesee?

The very same Gibson guitar foundation that was raided found to have used illegally logged Madagascan Ebony?

Twice?

Protip: If you have to make shit up to support your position, your position is very probably wrong.

If you think the Egyptian Constitution or the Supreme Constitutional Court means anything, you're a fool. By the way, which Constitution is that? The 1971 Constitution that remained in place until the 2011 revolution? Or the interim one adopted afterwards? What about the highly controversial one that, due to the inclusion of a Blasphemy Law (something existing in other Islamic nations but not Egypt), passed with 64% support only 33% of the population, due to the other 67% boycotting the vote? Perhaps you're talking about the latest Constitution "amended" by the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which miraculously passed in 2014 with 98.1% (of 36%) of the voters supporting it? Or maybe it doesn't fucking matter because it's a military dictatorship.

If an Imam speaks out against the army, they will throw his ass in fucking jail, or even kill him, without a second thought. Remember when the army massacred the protesters at the Rabaa Al-Adawiya Mosque in August 2013? By the way, those protesters were calling for the establishment of an Islamic state.

There are laws based on Islam, but there are also civil laws from the era of Napoleon, and even laws left over from British rule. Again, it doesn't fucking matter because it's a military dictatorship. There's a theme here, are you picking up on it yet?

Speaking of the British, did you know their Head of State is also the leader of the Anglican Church? Shit, I guess that makes the UK a theocracy. Oh wait, no it doesn't because sometimes things are more complicated than they seem.

It looks like most plants use a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate. This ref says that molten sodium has been tested.

If you want to poke the establishment in the eye

I love sticking it to the man, and having Monster Hunter Legion get nominated for best novel would make literati snobâ(TM)s heads explode

(just imagine with me⦠Should I vote for the heavy handed message fic about the dangers of fracking and global warming and dying polar bears and robot rape as a bad feminist analogy with a villain who is a thinly veiled Dick Cheney? Or should I vote for the LAS VEGAS EXPLOSION SHOOTING EVERYTHING DRAGON HELICOPTER CHASE ORC SACRIFICING CHICKENS BOOK!?! Grglglgggggsllllâ¦â¦â¦BOOM!)

http://www.webcitation.org/6aR...

Stop lying. It was a political movement from the very start and never about voting for deserving books, unless you think Monster Hunter Legion is worthy of one of literature's highest awards.

The c denoting the speed of light actually stands for causality. c is the speed of causality.

Where do you guys get this Quatsch? The use of 'c' for velocity was already established when Einstein linked it to causality. Einstein originally used 'V' and (shock, horror) not 'K' for Kausalität.

In an analogy to the automatic dismissal of cold fusion experimentation that Price notes, for more than a century, the US Patent Office automatically rejected patent applications directed to restoring baldness, because it was "inherently unbelievable" and "involved implausible scientific principles". This was the same rejection applied to applications for perpetual motion machines, teleporters, etc. - they can't possibly work, by definition, so the application is claiming a useless invention and is therefore ineligible for a patent.

Of course, then Rogaine and Propecia were invented and proven to cure baldness, and eventually the courts had to step in and tell the patent office that they were wrong and that hair restoration was at least theoretically possible.

Any citation for this story?

No account I have found about the discovery of the hair-growing properties of minoxidil, and its patenting (like this one) mentions any such rejection, or lawsuit. I find lawsuits about patent priority, profit-sharing, about misleading marketing of the drug, and patent infringement, but absolutely nothing about the USPO rejecting the patent or being forced to grant one by any court.

Indeed when Upjohn filed a patent for hair loss prevention in 1971 it was granted right away.

But, ahem, I do see a striking analogy here though between this account, and the accounts supporting Rossi's cold fusion system...

As I told you in the past, I discussed evidence behind a legal case YOU brought up. I wasn't aware of it before that. Discussing evidence behind the case is not "blaming" the victim. As usual, you have distorted my comments out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Again, unlike you I actually gave links to your comments so readers can grasp the context:

... To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. ... Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

If Jane/Lonny Eachus wants to keep insisting that his comments don't constitute blaming O'Sullivan's victim or defending O'Sullivan, no power in the verse could stop him. That's all Jane/Lonny can muster about any topic anyway: bizarre pedantic arguments. This time, Lonny seems to be disputing the definition of phrases like "blaming the victim" and "defending pedophiles" while hoping people don't read the disgusting statements Jane/Lonny actually made defending O'Sullivan. Jane/Lonny also seems to be disputing the term "discussing evidence" because what he actually did was uncritically regurgitate O'Sullivan's "blame the victim" act.

A case in which the defendent was ACQUITTED of all wrongdoing, I might add. When did you become judge and jury? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Seriously, Jane/Lonny Eachus "didn't" defend pedophiles just like he "didn't" defend a homophobe. Again, if Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fac

As I told you in the past, I discussed evidence behind a legal case YOU brought up. I wasn't aware of it before that. Discussing evidence behind the case is not "blaming" the victim. As usual, you have distorted my comments out of context. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Again, unlike you I actually gave links to your comments so readers can grasp the context:

... To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. ... Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

If Jane/Lonny Eachus wants to keep insisting that his comments don't constitute blaming O'Sullivan's victim or defending O'Sullivan, no power in the verse could stop him. That's all Jane/Lonny can muster about any topic anyway: bizarre pedantic arguments. This time, Lonny seems to be disputing the definition of phrases like "blaming the victim" and "defending pedophiles" while hoping people don't read the disgusting statements Jane/Lonny actually made defending O'Sullivan. Jane/Lonny also seems to be disputing the term "discussing evidence" because what he actually did was uncritically regurgitate O'Sullivan's "blame the victim" act.

A case in which the defendent was ACQUITTED of all wrongdoing, I might add. When did you become judge and jury? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-12-01]

Seriously, Jane/Lonny Eachus "didn't" defend pedophiles just like he "didn't" defend a homophobe. Again, if Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fac

Fossil Fuel co. Peabody calls Lindzen, Tol, Spencer, & Happer to testify. @AndrewDessler destroys their claims.goo.gl/m6X4FQ [AGW_Prof]

Why shouldn't they be called to testify, since they represent that party's view? That's the way this stuff works. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-10-01]

It's actually refreshing to witness Lonny Eachus admit that Lindzen, Tol, Spencer, and Happer are representing the views of a fossil fuel company. They're certainly not representing the views of most scientists, any more than Spencer's creationism represents the views of most scientists.

Posting as AC means you likely won't get my response. But here goes:

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...
http://www.webcitation.org/5xk...

I call BS. I specifically do work in my community in de-radicalisation efforts, and also liaise with other efforts internationally. I seek out people like this, and I have to tell you, they're pretty hard to find. Admittedly, I'm in Australia, but if there are anything like double digit percentage chunks of our community who sympathize with bombers, I'd know about it. I'd be surprised of the number of Muslims who condone terrorism is above 1%.

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report...

The mosque I usually attend is mainly a Turkish community. My wife is Turkish, and I've spent time there specifically discussing global politics with them. Once again, there's no way almost 1 in 3 support suicide attacks in any form against anyone. Suicide attacks are, in any Islam 101 class, specifically ruled out, and the fact that brainwashed youngsters are conned into it doesn't change that fact. No mainstream Muslim who has had a modicum of Islamic education would condone a prohibited act. ...

Looking down the rest of these "surveys", I can only speculate that they are the result of very skewed research, or perhaps loose interpretation of the answers to leading questions. Also, looking into the actual paper referenced in the one that states "World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans" I found that the actual research results showed that only 8% of Egyptians approved of attacks on Americans in America, and 7% approved of attacks on Americans working abroad (I'd have thought it'd go the other way, but meh). I was not able to find 61% approval of attacks anywhere.

At this point, I shall terminate evaluating that site, it's clearly (and I'm being charitable with my wording here) badly mistaken in the facts it is presenting.

... Even if that Manuel guy had been a member, he isn't a "convicted child raper". And since you saw the charges against him (YOU showed them to me!), you already know that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

As usual, the most charitable explanation is that Jane/Lonny keeps defending Oliver K. Manuel because he hasn't actually clicked on the links I've showed him. So before you continue, click here and tell everyone what crime Manuel was convicted of, and how old the victim was.

Then read the first two paragraphs here and tell everyone how many of his children said he abused them, and at what ages.

Then read this courageous testimony and tell everyone why Manuel's children finally decided enough was enough. It had to do with a little girl, right? Tell everyone how old she was.

Again, hopefully Jane just hadn't actually clicked on any of those links before continuing to defend Manuel. Can Jane/Lonny prove that he knows the facts by answering those simple questions? If so, could Jane/Lonny really look all those victims in the eyes and keep defending Manuel?

I think Mr. O'Sullivan would be interested to know about your claim that he is a "psychopathic pedophile" ... "Psychopathic pedophile" is not exactly a friendly phrase, and once again I have to wonder why you're using it, even for someone else, when I have no association with that group, and I personally do not know a single person, either in or out of that group, who has been shown to be a "psychotic pedophile" or "child raper". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-10]

Jane, you've already been shown that John O'Sullivan wrote (and illustrated!) a book shamelessly bragging about his erotic obsession with an underage schoolgirl. And yet you still refuse to apologize for helping O'Sullivan blame his victim.

Jane, read O'Sullivan's own words and then ask yourself if you really want to keep defending this psychopathic pedophile:

... on my own particular indiscretion my friend still had a further question for me.
"Didn't you say you had some theory that a man can't really be a kiddie fiddler if the object of his affections was a female with the fully-ripened body of a woman?"
Now he was broaching on a facet of this matter I felt peculiarly pertinent to the positing of paedophilia.
"I did indeed. It's all in the hip-to-waist formula! I have my facts to aid my theoretical arguments, too!"
I put my case to him thus: a girl becomes a woman from the time the distribution her body fat attains that Darwinian perfection of a waist to hip ratio of 0.7. That is what makes the fertile female human form so unique. He looked somewhat askance at the implausibility of my opening gambit but I continued with my theory.
"By looking at the female waist to hip ratio, you know when a female is of the right age for reproduction. At that time, and if the mind is mature enough you can argue that you are dealing with a woman and not a child. If nature says she a woman then she is a woman-it's not arbitrary like the age of consent laws that vary so wildly throughout the wor

Jane, remember that you spent years and hundreds of pages desperately regurgitating Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense.

Jane/Lonny Eachus hasn't retracted his endless Sky Dragon Slayer claims, and continues to spread Slayer misinformation. Years don't fix this problem, Lonny. Not unless you retract your Slayer claims and find it in your heart to stop spreading Slayer misinformation.

But that's probably asking the impossible, because Jane/Lonny Eachus is so brainwashed that he went above and beyond the call of duty by joining Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan in blaming his teenage victim, and wrongly insisted that none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (John O'Sullivan's Sky Dragon Slayer club) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing. If Jane/Lonny Eachus really isn't a Sky Dragon Slayer, at the very least he'd retract his mistaken claim that no Slayers have been convicted of sexual wrongdoing, and admit that Slayer CEO John O'Sullivan is an admitted pedophile.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting ... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]

Once again, absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5

If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.

The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

Obama: "sea level rise" is "hitting ... across the country". Absolute bullshit. Sea has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-03]

Once again, absolute bullshit. Once again, I did the math by calculating trends and accelerations for Church and White 2011 reconstructed sea level data. This PDF was made using my R code which accounts for autocorrelation- the red lines are 2 sigma uncertainties. The trends and accelerations are calculated over periods which all end at 2009.5

If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then the estimated trends on page 1 should have exactly the same value regardless of the starting year. But that's not true. More recent trends are higher than trends starting in the 1880s.

The second page also fits an acceleration term to those sea level data. If the sea "has been rising at exactly the same rate for 300 years" then those accelerations should be zero or at least average to zero. But that's not true. Every single best-fit acceleration is positive. Using the entire dataset, the acceleration since ~1880 is positive and statistically significant.

What rise there has been shown has not varied from the same rate of rise the last 300 years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

As usual, Jane/Lonny Eachus just keeps making up numbers rather than actually doing the math.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. But it’s rising at the same average < 1mm per year rate for hundreds of years. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Nonsense. The best estimate of the rate of global sea level rise hasn't ever been as low as Lonny claims, not even starting in 1880. More importantly, recent trends like those starting in 1990 are almost three times higher than the made-up "< 1mm per year rate" which Lonny Eachus wrongly assures us has not varied for hundreds of years.

The most charitable explanation is that Lonny Eachus is such a busy professional that he doesn't have time to download global sea level data and run the code I've given him. So...

The new significance.zip (backup copies) contains my R statistics folder, including many data sets and the R code which produced that sea level acceleration PDF.

The new significance.r (backup copies) can load many datasets, one (and only one) of

No what you did was suggest academics and universities were getting paid. They aren't, and you seem incapable of admitting you were very much in error. All you are doing now is trying to obscure your error in sophistry. As for where the money goes have you read anything?

http://www.webcitation.org/64j....

You three morons do realize that the Hadley Climate Research Center is based in the UK and that in 2001 they did say that the UK would see little snow?
http://www.webcitation.org/5uR...
Had you thought back to 2001 you would remember the stories, which were plentiful.

You do realize that the person you are trashing is obviously British?
And fairly accurate in his statement.

Fair enough - browse the document here:
http://www.webcitation.org/5gY...

I just looked at it again, and I find environmentalists listed. Animal rights activists. Hacktivists. Note that this is merely a "reference aid" - there is other material that accompanied this little handout.. You may choose the red pill, or the blue pill. How deep does the rabbit hole go?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jane, before you try to lecture people about orbital mechanics, you should first make sure you understand more fundamental concepts like "conservation of energy".

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

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.

Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?

So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.

For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. The resulting equations can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.

After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:

... You can draw the boundary right around the heat source. Electric power comes in, radiative power goes out.

Jane, before you try to lecture people about orbital mechanics, you should first make sure you understand more fundamental concepts like "conservation of energy".

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

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.

Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?

So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.

For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. The resulting equations can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.

After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:

... You can draw the boundary right around the heat source. Electric power comes in, radiative power goes out.

Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.

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

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.

Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?

So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.

For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.

After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:

Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.

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

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.

Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?

So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.

For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.

After I asked Jane to explain exactly where his boundary would be drawn, Jane replied:

Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.

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

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.

Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?

So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.

For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.

After I asked Jane to expl

Jane's "interest" in that NAS report evaporated after I showed that Jane had been fooled by "Steven Goddard" once again. So let's return to Jane's confusion about basic thermodynamics.

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

NO!!!!! As I have explained to you innumerable times now, you can also consider your heat source, by itself, that "sphere". The only NET radiative power out comes from the electrical power in. Further, the cooler walls do not contribute any of that NET power out. That's what net means. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-16]

I've already pointed out that Jane's hopelessly confused about the word "net", but that's just one of the mistakes Jane packed into these few sentences.

Jane's also wrong to imply that energy conservation across one choice of boundary could somehow contradict energy conservation across another boundary choice. That's impossible. Many boundary choices are inconvenient but they all have to be consistent. Otherwise, how could we possibly tell which boundary choice was correct?

So Jane can't object to the simple energy conservation equation I derived by claiming that some other boundary choice would somehow contradict my equation. That's completely impossible, and if Jane doesn't understand that point then he should learn about conservation of energy: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell after reading those introductions, here's how to apply conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:

power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Since power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls = radiative power out from the heat source

I put the boundary around the heat source so the boundary is in vacuum. That's because radiation can't travel through opaque solids like the heat source. So the only way to obtain an energy conservation equation with radiative terms is to place the boundary around the heat source.

For example, I calculated the enclosing shell's inner temperature by drawing the boundary within the enclosing shell. This boundary was inside aluminum, so heat transfer through it was by thermal conduction, not radiation. Notice that even this boundary choice leads to a conduction equation where electrical heating power depends on the cooler chamber wall temperature. That's because all boundary choices have to be consistent. They can't contradict each other unless one of them is wrong.

After I asked Jane to expl

You're regurgitating complete nonsense. Once again, here’s figure 1 from Peterson et al. 2008. Notice that papers predicting warming vastly outnumbered those predicting cooling, even in the 1970s. Ironically:

• The term “global warming” was first used in a 1975 Science article by Wally Broecker called “Are we on the brink of a pronounced global warming?”.
• Sawyer 1972 estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C, and Schneider 1975 gave a preliminary range of 1.5C to 3.0C.
• Manabe and Wetherald, 1975: “The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model.”
• In 1977, Freeman Dyson wrote that the “prevailing opinion is that the dangers [of the rise in CO2] greatly outweigh the benefits.”
• In 1977, Robert M. White, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, wrote a report for the National Academy of Sciences that said “We now understand that industrial wastes, such as the carbon dioxide released in the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable risk to future society.” [White, Robert, 1978, Oceans and Climate Introduction, Oceanus, 21:2-3]
• The 1979 JASON report “The long-term impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide on climate” estimated climate sensitivity as 2.4C to 2.8C.
• The National Academy of Science’s 1979 Charney report estimated climate sensitivity as 1.5C to 4.5C and said “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we] find no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.”

While Jane is reading those papers, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example

If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

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

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

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

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

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

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

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

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.

The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?

It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:

• Dr. Fred Singer finds it "surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence." The comments prove his point.
• Dr. Roy Spencer "clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) reduce the Earth's ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or strawman arguments in the comments section, below, will be able to get around this fact."
• Anthony Watts banned one of the original authors because of his nutty comments and later called the argument

... Would you all like to see his dumbass failure at trying to school me in thermodynamics? All you have to do is follow his comments back a ways. A long ways... because he kept making the same nonsense arguments, over, and over, and over again, even after he had been shown how wrong they were. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-22]

Jane keeps insisting that this Sky Dragon Slayer equation describes electrical heating power:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Once again, that violates conservation of energy. Draw a boundary around the heat source:
power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from the chamber walls
power out = radiative power out from the heat source

Jane's equation wrongly cancels "radiative power in" with a nonexistent term.

The BASIS of “greenhouse warming” -- back radiation -- has been SCIENTIFICALLY shown to be a load of hogwash. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

No, Jane/Lonny Eachus's Slayer nonsense has been scientifically shown to violate conservation of energy. Unless, of course, Jane/Lonny can finally write down an energy conservation equation before wrongly "cancelling" terms?

It's fascinating that Jane/Lonny Eachus keeps insisting that mainstream physics is a hogwash dumbass failure. Jane/Lonny just needs to inform "dumbasses" like Prof. Brown, Dr. Joel Shore, physicists in the National Academies of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the Australian Institute of Physics, the European Physical Society, etc.

Jane/Lonny's Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense is so ridiculous that even prominent climate contrarians are rational enough to back away from the Slayers:

• Dr. Fred Singer finds it "surprising that this simplistic argument is used by physicists, and even by professors who teach thermodynamics. One can show them data of downwelling infrared radiation from CO2, water vapor, and clouds, which clearly impinge on the surface. But their minds are closed to any such evidence." The comments prove his point.
• Dr. Roy Spencer "clearly demonstrates that IR absorbing gases (greenhouse gases) reduce the Earth's ability to cool to outer space. No amount of obfuscation or strawman arguments in the comments section, below, will be able to get around this fact."
• Anthony Watts banned one of the original authors because of his nutty comments and later called the argument

They do, but [...]

Nuh uh

... you KNOW Latour was correct. And it isn't just him. TEXTBOOKS about practical applications of thermodynamics say so. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

Again, I already showed you that MIT's equation reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies, and is consistent with these equations and Eq. 1 in Goodman 1957. I've stressed that this thought experiment has been tested for decades in the real world. Radiation shields allow for more accurate measurements of gas temperatures using thermocouples:

"The greatest problem with measuring gas temperatures is combatting radiation loss. ... surround the probe with a radiation shield ... The thermocouple bead radiates to the shield which is much hotter than the surrounding walls. Thus the radiative loss and hence temperature error is significantly reduced. The shield itself radiates to the walls."

These radiation shields have been used since at least Daniels 1968 (PDF), and they work like Dr. Spencer's insulating plate. They slow radiative heat loss from the hotter thermocouple. If Jane and Dr. Latour's Sky Dragon Slayer misinformation is correct, why have accurate thermocouples used radiation shields since at least 1968? Isn't that an example of a "real world" situation that's ultimately what we're talking about?

But its inner temperature ISN'T 149.6F [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-30]

After twice pretending that I'd claimed the inner temperature wasn't equal to its outer temperature of 149.6F... now you make that incorrect claim yourself? Bizarrely, I have to point out that a thermal superconductor enclosing shell will have an inner temperature equal to its outer temperature, exactly as I originally said.

This reminds me of your other similar mistake that you haven't acknowledged:

A plate near the heat source is NOT even remotely the same as closing the drain on a bathtub, because the total power out of the system (it's a closed system with heat being removed, remember?) remains constant, as you have so conveniently observed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-28]

Completely backwards, as usual. I've never observed any such ridiculous nonsense. That's actually Jane's ridiculous "observation" which I've already tried to correct:

"... Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium."

I've repeat

... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. ... I know they [the PSI Slayers] will (quite correctly) tear your arguments to shreds, and I even know how they'll do it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

... I know where you're making at least one mistake, but I already told you that you're going to have to discover it on your own. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-07]

It's fascinating that you'd wrongly implied my previous calculations had units confused somewhere, but haven't pointed out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted yesterday.

I made a mistake by forgetting to divide by the 1mm thickness "x" of the enclosing shell:

electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)

Here's the corrected Sage worksheet; the old wrong worksheet is here. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and I've corrected the equation at Dumb Scientist.

The corrected temperatures with the aluminum enclosing shell are so close to those with the superconducting shell that the differences don't show up with the four significant figures I'm using. So my original thermal superconductor approximation was even more accurate than I thought.

"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]

Jane, instead of typing all those charming statements, have you considered that it might be quicker and easier to just write down the equation describing conservation of energy aroun

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

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

To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. If Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

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

Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win

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

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

To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. If Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

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

Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win

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

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

To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. If Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

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

Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win

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

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

To the best of my knowledge, none of the members of "Principia Scientific" (which seems from the context is pretty obviously who he is referring to) have ever been convicted of any sexual wrongdoing of any kind. O'Sullivan was once accused of improper sexual conduct by a known troubled (and repeatedly IN trouble) teenager his family was trying to help. He was acquitted of all charges, as khayman80 already knows. If he knew about the charges, it is only reasonable to believe he knew about the acquittal as well. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-08]

Looks like Jane believes John O'Sullivan's disgusting blame the victim act. If Jane knew about the acquittal, it is only reasonable to believe he knew that John O'Sullivan later wrote "Vanilla Girl: A fact-based crime story of a teacher's struggle to control his erotic obsession with a schoolgirl."

John O'Sullivan even illustrated "Vanilla Girl" but think twice before clicking that link. Not just because it depicts child nudity, but also because you'll have to wash your eyes with bleach to banish the image of a nude John O'Sullivan leering at a topless girl. That leer doesn't seem too different from O'Sullivan's "serious" expression.

"Vanilla Girl" is much more fact-based than "Slaying the Sky Dragon" so Jane might want to read John O'Sullivan's fact-based book before defending him any further. Keep a barf bag handy, though. It's a disturbing glimpse into the mind of a psychopathic pedophile.

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

Khayman80 refuses to refute someone's science to his face -- or even properly read up on the topic -- because (he says) the people involved are reprehensible lowlifes. But not only is that not science, that charge is blatantly false. To publicly call someone a pedophile and "child rapist" based on NO real evidence is a serious breach indeed. He didn't mention any actual names, but that is no excuse because from the context it is very apparent that he meant John O'Sullivan, and if I were him (I am not) I would sue khayman80's ass without a second thought. And probably win

We've determined equilibrium temperatures in a simple example, so let's solve a more general example.

Jane's concerned that the enclosing plate is bigger than the heated plate. But Earth's mean radius is 6371 km, and the effective radiating level is ~7 km higher, so these surface areas are only ~0.2% different. Of course, in a thought experiment this difference can be made arbitrarily smaller. Despite Jane's protests, this doesn't change the fact that enclosing the heated plate makes it warmer.

More importantly, I treated the plates as blackbodies where absorptivity alpha = 1 and emissivity epsilon = 1. This is a reasonable approximation for plates made of carbon nanotube arrays (PDF) which have alpha = ~0.99955. But more conventional plates have alpha and epsilon considerably less than 1.

The next step is to treat the plates as graybodies where absorptivity and emissivity are independent of wavelength, so they appear gray. Kirchoff's Law states that absorptivity = emissivity for graybodies.

MIT calculates heat transfer between graybody plates using an infinite sum of emission, reflection and absorption. Using my variable names, their final expression is:

net heat flow = sigma*(T_h^4 - T_c^4)/(1/epsilon_h + 1/epsilon_c - 1) (Eq. 2)

(Again, Eq. 2 looks better in LaTeX, but hopefully this version is legible.)

At equilibrium, net heat flow equals the electrical input. Note that MIT's Eq. 2 reduces to my Eq. 1 for blackbodies where epsilon_h = epsilon_c = 1.

Suppose the plates and chamber walls are made of oxidized aluminum with emissivity = 0.11. In this case, Sage solves Eq. 2 for a constant electric input of 29.6 W/m^2, which is lower than before because aluminum doesn't radiate as well as a blackbody.

Using Eq. 2 and the same reasoning as before, fully enclosing the heated plate warms it to the same equilibrium temperature of 235F (386K). Fully exposing the plate to the cosmic microwave background radiation cools it to 13F (263K), which is lower than before because the CMBR is a blackbody and aluminum chamber walls aren't.

So even for graybody plates, MIT's mainstream physics refutes Dr. Latour's nonsensical claim that the enclosed heated plate remains at 150F. They also use this equation to explain how thermos bottles insulate drinks, and describe the same radiation shields used since at least

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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