Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
ideonexus (1257332) writes In January of 2014, the American Traditions Institute (ATI) sought climate scientist Micheal Mann's emails from his time at the University of Virginia, a request that was denied in the courts. Now the Virginia Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that ATI must pay damages for filing a frivolous lawsuit.
Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully.
But it seems that the only way to get emails and not get sued is to, How shall we say, Hack in.
Ha. Haha. Hahahahaha. Yeah, good luck with that. As long as that pesky cabal of climatologists is out to get those poor little fellas in the coal and petrol industries, Climategate will continue rising from the grave.
Evidence against them only makes them stronger.
This is copy-pasted from an earlier comment, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself. You need to get a fucking clue. Anon because no one deserves modpoints for copypasta.
The foundation of AGW is based on the physical properties of CO2, specifically its absorption spectrum. This is measurable both under laboratory conditions and via satellite. Theoretically you could measure it yourself. Sunlight shines on Earth, and Earth re-radiates this same energy at a lower wavelength. This is described by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You can trivially calculate that, based on the incident solar irradiation and Earth's albedo, the planet should be about -18 degrees C. The effect of the atmosphere is to slow radiation leaving the Earth (the atmosphere is mostly transparent to incoming solar radiation). Outgoing radiation is absorbed and re-emitted often before it reaches space -- the mean free path varies with the exact partial pressure, but is generally in the low tens of meters.
The lower atmosphere is already pretty much opaque to outgoing radiation; increased CO2 does not block more radiation than would otherwise be blocked. There was a point where it was theorized that no warming could occur because of this. However, it was determined that the effect of an increased partial pressure of CO2 was to extend the CO2-rich region further into space. That this increases the heat energy on the planet's surface should be obvious. The direct effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is extremely easy to calculate, again using Stefan-Boltzmann, and it comes out to 3.7 W/m^2, which is usually considered to be equivalent to 1 degree C.
Unless you can find a new way to radiate energy to space, or unless everything we know about radiation is wrong, then the Earth must experience at least that degree of warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Anything further than that is a matter for study and scientific debate, and of course the effects in different places. However, given that we have all this H2O lying around the place, it's expected that will contribute more to the warming trend, hence the IPCCs estimates of 2-4 degrees.
Less than a flea bite.
It seems to me that the Climate Skeptics are making the same mistake the anti-eugenics movement made in 1925 with the Scopes Monkey Trial, which fought the teaching of evolution in schools. Most people don't know this, but the anti-evolution activists were horrified by the textbook's use of Evolution to justify Eugenics, but instead of attacking the public policy proposals of the Eugenics Movement, they attacked the science of Evolution, and history remembers them as buffoons for combating the scientific consensus.
Today, Climate Skeptics are fighting the scientific consensus instead of debating the policies being proposed from that consensus. I myself am an adaptationist, I don't care if we do anything about Global Warming for another 20-30 years and at that point I have faith that civilization will start to engineer its way out of the problem... however, I find myself on the side of the environmentalists with their oftentimes draconian public-policy initiatives because I believe in scientific literacy, and the anti-science positions of today's Climate Skeptics threaten to undo the scientific progress on which our civilization depends for its survival.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
Current CO2 concentration is 380 ppm or so. On a geologic scale, that's EXTREMELY low - CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so probably averaged about 1500 to 2000 ppm, with peaks up to 5000 or even 7000 ppm:
CO2 over the past 600 million years.
Your post paints an overly simplistic view.
Why not just release the emails and shut this group up? It seems like they are going to great lengths to hide something.
As far as I can tell, this lawsuit determined that the Freedom of Information Act can't be used to get access to some official email correspondence paid for by public funds. Even if you are really gung-ho on AGW, that's not a result to automatically crow about.
Michael Mann is not my favorite scientist, as he has a pattern of cargo cultist behavior that has annoyed his peers (provoking words like "vomit" and "crock of s**t"). The lawsuit to watch is the one where Mann is suing the National Review (a conservative magazine) and Mark Steyn, a conservative satirist and commentator. Whether or not his overall beliefs about AGW are justified, Professor Mann does have skeletons in his closet, and if the court does its job properly, he will be smacked down hard.
Did Michael Mann's PC crash, and lose them too?
In Mann vs Steyn the NR will be able to troll through all of Mann's emails and data.
Mann is in favor of his proceeding with discovery against Steyn - "The fact that Mr. Steyn has not appealed the denial of the motions to dismiss counsels further against a discovery stay. Mr. Steyn, like Dr. Mann, has made clear his desire to have this Court resolve this lawsuit and to move forward with discovery immediately. As such, there is no reason for this Court to delay discovery further."
On the other hand, Mann is totally opposed to Steyn's proceeding with discovery against him - "While Dr. Mann agrees with Mr. Steyn that discovery should move forward on Dr. Mann's claims, discovery cannot move forward on Mr. Steyn's counterclaims."
"the same mistake the anti-eugenics movement made in 1925 with the Scopes Monkey Trial [wikipedia.org], which fought the teaching of evolution in schools"
All the history of the Butler act I ever read mention they simply feared teaching of evolution would weaken faith, and that they refused our descendance from great apes, as it would shows us as descending from lower beings like animals. At no point the proponent of Butler's act mentioned eugenism, that sound like a modern rewriting of the history. In fact the prominent web sites which promote this thesis are : answeringenesis and creation.com. Fancy that.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The 97% count was always shifty and suspect, and is used improperly to mislead people that "science" agrees we have a catastrophe. The actual agreement includes most skeptics, that CO2 is a GHG, we are making a lot of it, some effect is expected. How much effect is the real debate.
I'm not sure what grounds there are for reciprocal discovery in this instance. A libel suit has never been an opportunity for the defendant to play detective and attempt to prove their accusations.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Please elaborate.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
What on earth are you talking about? If you could cast credible doubt on AGW you'd not only have industry throwing money at you, but once you'd overturned the current consensus in climate science you'd have every major university fighting to get hold of the person who revolutionised the field.
That would be because the AGW scientists don't have real data to back themselves up. If they did, they would be able to publish.
Your post paints an overly simplistic view.
No, it does not. It is not a view, it is fact. When the Earth's atmosphere has a higher partial pressure of CO2 it retains more heat. That is the essential point under consideration, and the exact value of the partial pressure is irrelevant and was not mentioned. We're not talking about the political issues, or the history of the planet, only cold hard measurable facts about [a] the relationship between irradiance and re-radiation, and [b] the absorption spectrum of CO2.
However, on the separate subject you have noted, while we are indeed two orders of magnitude away from the highest CO2 levels, and the highest rates of emission, the previous atmospheric changes happened over the course of millions of years and are usually associated with mass extinctions. We've already been doing pretty well on the mass extinction front; this may not be a good time to rock the boat.
If, as I have been told, conservatives are against change, can we maybe try to not pollute every square inch of the planet? I'm from rural Alaska, and it's getting a bit melty up there. It's not a place that I really enjoy living, but the glaciers were fairly pretty, and have you seen what permafrost does when it melts? Clearly this isn't a problem where you live, but please let's not pretend that it isn't an issue elsewhere. Pollution of any sort is ugly.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The fact is, that ATI has changed their name and is doing everything possible to avoid being responsible or having to pay.
Interestingly, these ppl are the same way about climate as they are about personal responsibility.
I wonder if we can sue, and claim that the veil was broken and go after these ppl personally, and have them thrown in jail for a LONG time.
That would help slow down, or stop frivolous lawsuits.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The sad end will be this coven of trolls claiming it was all based on their 'religious beliefs' and our shit-heel 'supreme' court will given them a free pass. At the current increasing decent into madness, they might even reverse the costs back on Mann.
Insecticides never worked properly again since that.
I do not know about you but I do not do private conversations using my university e-mail address.
Wow. I just noticed your tagline. I wrote my first blog article last night and it included this line: "I think the majority are average thinkers by definition, and crowds tend to be stupider than individuals."
AEI, for one. $10k for any paper that attacks the IPCC reports. There's other public offers out there, too. And I'm sure they're outnumbered 100 times over by not-so-public ones.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
Go right ahead and point me to where a decline in Antarctic ice was a forecast of AGW.
You do know that - below freezing - there's an inverse correlation between temperature and snowfall, don't you? And I really hope you know that it's very rare that temperatures rise above freezing in the vast majority of Antarctica, whether you add a couple degrees to the temperature or not, right? Or did you not know / ever consider that?
Just because you didn't realize something that should have been really bloody obvious to you doesn't mean it was a scientific prediction by your straw-man scientists.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.
Maybe this blatant psychological projection also explains why Jane/Lonny has been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies.
Yes, credible doubt is a good thing. It means the models are wrong, which in turn suggests our understanding of the problem is incomplete.
Troll mod from someone who disagrees is definitely an undeserved mod.
The problem as I see it, is it isn't even about the science anymore. It has become too politicized. Of course there is climate change, change is after all the only constant. Do we contribute? If so, how much? Likely (IMHO) only a few percentage points. (I do believe we are accelerating an otherwise natural process...I just don't think it is as much as claimed because of the reasons you stated)
The models are wrong. Our understanding is incomplete. Yet everyone (on both sides) runs around spouting their 'conclusive proof' while cherry picking the data.
Therefore, I have the upmost respect for someone who can cast credible doubt without standing firmly on one side or the other, as that tells me that person is looking at both sides. Unfortunately those in the middle are largely ignored by the loud, uninformed and politically motivated on both sides.
Business would be perfectly happy returning to 1960's Los Angeles. We used to joke 'what happens when the smog lifts over Los Angeles? UCLA! (I lived there for a time in the 60's....Ugh!)
Some regulation is good, too much is an economy killer. No regulation is just as bad (unless your fond of yellow air). But everyone wants it all one way or the other. No compromise, no listening to dissenting opinion, no discussion.
AGW has become a disease. It has become a symbol of political divisiveness.
It seems to me it's not a fight over actual AGW, it's a fight over regulation. AGW is just the boogeyman to push political interests both ways, much like other non issues like gay marriage.
The truth is We Don't Know.
Protect my air, water, and food. Don't obstruct growth with needless feel good legislation that accomplishes nothing.
So, how to we take the emotion out of this and have a level intelligent discussion when the ranks of both sides are filled with zealots?
(braces for karma hit....)
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
I'm not sure what grounds there are for reciprocal discovery in this instance. A libel suit has never been an opportunity for the defendant to play detective and attempt to prove their accusations.
I don't think you understand how this works. Discovery in civil litigation, by its very nature, is reciprocal. Barring one party from engaging in discovery on the other would require some absolutely bizarre, rare, and likely improper order absent an evidence/issue/terminating sanction against a party for engaging in repeated and egregious discovery abuse.
The second comment regarding a libel suit is also wrong. Truth is an absolute defense to a claim of defamation, and is routinely asserted by defendants in such cases. Therefore, discovery that would tend to establish the truth of the statements made by the accused defendant is absolutely relevant. It is absolutely the time for the defendant to "play detective" to prove the veracity of their comments.
I am a lawyer, but this does not mean we now have an attorney-client relationship, this is not legal advice, so on, so forth.
You need people's emails when you're digging for something (anything really) you can use to discredit someone personally (apart from any scientific merit). Besides which, some of those emails are personal.
The Virginia court ruled that filing a lawsuit just to get those emails constitutes harassment, which in turn is a frivolous use of the court's time. A sensible conclusion in my opinion.
And yes, there do seem to be consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits.
This is the saddest part about the AGW debate. From my viewpoint, it looks like the pro-AGW people pushed back against criticism overwhelming their "opponents" with data and consensus, and tried to extinguish them via marginalizing them.
That was absolutely the worst thing that could have been done, for the reasons you note above. On the other hand, if they had embraced and extended, the whole debate could have been extinguished.
We could be working with alternate energy sources for reasons of dominance in international trade, national security / energy independence, etc. Instead, we've actively been pushed backward by the the pro-AGW agenda, and they deserve some of the blame for that.
My behavior is that of someone who's tired of debunking baseless and libelous accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies from Lonny Eachus, who is dishonestly posing as a woman named Jane Q. Public. This shouldn't be hard for Lonny to understand:
"@RatbagsDotCom You're a liar (which you have just proven beyond doubt), and present yourself as something you are not. You're a hypocrite." [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-04]
So the copious amounts of greenhouse gasses humans are pumping into the stratosphere don't affect global temperatures at all despite the overwhelming evidence that the earth is indeed getting warmer? No extinction level events are happening? Just a localized anomaly huh?
zosxavius photography
I'm sorry, I just read through that paper, and nowhere in it does it say that a decline in Antarctic ice is a forecast of AGW. That's one of the worst examples of "proof by ghost reference" I've ever seen. Not to mention that the paper is mainly focused on the Antarctic Peninsula, the one place that actually gets melt on more than super-rare occasions and juts into a different climate zone.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
Just to be clear: are you saying that antarctic sea ice decline wasn't a forecast of AGW? How is it the supposedly "pro-science" AGW believers can have their facts so horribly mangled? You probably don't remember the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 either.
An Initial Assessment of Antarctic Sea Ice Extent in the CMIP5 Models "...all of the models have a negative trend in SIE [sea ice extent] since the mid-nineteenth century."
Oops.
As a left-leaning, somewhat green Canadian and former believer in CAGW, I used to think "our side" would come right out and admit it when we were wrong. How wrong I was.
First, that's a paper from 2010. How was a paper from 2010 supposed to be "predicting" anything about what scientists in the past thought?
Secondly, and more importantly, I had been responding to Archangel Michael, who was talking about the thickness of the Antarctic ice sheet, not Antarctic sea ice. So your link about pack ice is totally irrelevant.
But hey, let's switch topics totally and talk about sea ice, since you seem to want to. Here's how the IPCC sums up all papers on the modelling of antarctic sea ice, including this one:
Weak trend, short observed record, and high internal variability in the simulations. Which shouldn't be surprising, sea ice is a lot harder to model than ice sheet thickness, which really only has three main parameters - snowfall, melt/sublimation, and outflow, and the short observed record is due to how few people historically have navigated antarctic waters vs. arctic.
But again, to reiterate the primary point: the conversation you jumped into was about ice sheet thickness, not sea ice.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
I'm pretty sure Archangel Michael was talking about sea ice. The antarctic ice sheet on land, as far as I know, has less total ice, not more. Correct me if I am wrong. I am not as well read in this department and don't have time at the moment to research it further. I have not read any papers that show how the +/- half degree of warming attributed to CO2 significantly increases the current glacial ice cap melt. (Assuming the +/- half degree figure is even accurate, since it is based on incorrect climate models.)
Your post on sea ice agrees with mine. The IPCC has "low confidence" in the ability to predict antarctic sea ice precisely because the CMIP5 predictions failed. The 2010 paper was evaluating the failed CMIP5 predictions. They suggest that "the processes responsible for the observed increase over the last 30 years are not being simulated correctly." Pretty obvious after the fact.
Since the "dangerous global warming" scare is based largely on predictions that have failed, why is there still such widespread belief in it?
He said ice sheet. So we're supposed to ignore what he actually said and assume he meant something completely different? Um, no.
"I am not well read in this department" - wait a minute, you can give exact cites for research papers on sea ice, but don't even have a *general* conception of what percentage of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining versus what is losing? Something tells me you're just grabbing cites you've never even read from denier websites.
Let me help you out with ice sheet. Pretty much all of the East Antarctic ice sheet is gaining, while pretty much the only area losing is the Antarctic peninsula and surrounding areas in West Antarctica. Now, they're losing *mass* a lot faster per unit area than the east is gaining mass, but in terms of area, the overwhelming majority of Antarctica is gaining ice. Because it almost never gets above freezing there, even in a warming world.
If you'd actually read the paper, which you clearly haven't, you'd know that they themselves did the CMIP5 runs, it's not CMIP5 runs that had been done earlier. Do you even have a clue what CMIP5 stands for? Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5. As in, "there were four freaking phases that came before this one". CMIP5 is comprised of all of the latest models from all over the world. They didn't even start planning CMIP5 unitl September 2008. Your notion that this is some sort of review of old climate predictions just shows how terrible your understanding is of what you're talking about and how you don't actually read the papers that you cite, that you're just simply grabbing them from whatever denialist trash websites you read.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
Apparently admitting what I don't know is a fault in your book. Yes, I am not well read on the land ice mass issue. But thank you for providing more information. It weakens what some AGW proponents are saying, and helps balance my understanding. There appear to be conflicting reports. Someone should tell the guys at skeptical science to get their shit together.
Re: CMIP5, I suppose that's why it's called "An Initial" assessment of the models they were using? I double checked elsewhere before posting to satisfy myself that the CMIP5 models did in fact predict less sea ice, and were in fact wrong. The whole point was to dispute your statement: "Go right ahead and point me to where a decline in Antarctic ice was a forecast of AGW", which is plainly wrong if we were talking about Antarctic sea ice extent. I see now that you misinterpreted A.Michael's post.
Do you agree that Antarctic sea ice was falsely predicted to decline?
Kind of like how anybody who could publish a reliable paper demonstrating antigravity is prevented from publishing, you can only get grant money for experiments which prove gravity exists. In the latest issue of PNAS alone, there are papers demonstrating what happens when you drop an empty beer bottle, an elephant, a quinoa and kale salad, a top quark, and the planet Mercury. What a surprise, they are all demonstrated to fall. Damn scientific fundamentalists!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Discovery is reciprocal, but it's not carte blanche to request any and all documentation you might feel like having a look at. In that context, a "truth" defence would require some specific evidence that they're supposed to look for, or at least a general sense that there was something in the defendant's records that they seek. A defendant can't simply request the entirety of a plaintiff's records in the hope of finding something that proves one's claims.
Given the broadness and non-specificity of the NR's claims - Steyn has made it very clear in public statements that he views this as an opportunity to attack Mann on anything and everything he has said on climate - it seems unlikely to me that their request for discovery will succeed.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Of course, I get your point that *some* sort of reciprocal discovery will take place - for the unassailable procedural principles you point out - but the kind of sweeping access to records that Mann's opponents are chomping for simply isn't going to happen.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
So you're doubling down on your accusations of lies, because your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinced you that you have very damned good reason to believe you were telling the truth. Just like you've doubled down on almost every other absurd claim you've made (an astonishingly vast collection- you're like a nonsense firehose). And like most of those other times, you reasonably should have known that. So once again, I'm not surprised that you can't recognize that your libelous accusations are baseless.
But how could you possibly not recognize that you're Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar posing as a woman on the internet?
In 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
Googling things.titanez.net showed that it's Lonny Eachus's website.
Jane could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but Jane's charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if Jane's domain name was also a deliberate message. Was it a cry for help? Part of Jane's comedy act? It couldn't be an unintentional rookie mistake, because Jane's a skilled web developer.
Thanks for your concerns. Link to whatever you want. Again, I'm talking about the fact that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
Again, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
If you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.
Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.
In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:
I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.
Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."
Finally, Robert Ridin
Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
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.
Lonny Eachus isn't ambiguous.
The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.
Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.
No, dozens of experimental data points where Jane might have been honestly overwhelmed by his Sauron-class Morton's demon. One control data point where Jane is definitely lying, because he's a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Consider this AC:
"... Jane Q exists to intentionally miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite. ... On every topic you could imagine, Jane Q insists upon things such as that the earth is hollow, birds evolved from insects, bismuth is a stable element, water shrinks when it freezes, super conductivity is the result of electron tripletting, dark matter is a myth, Thomas Jefferson created judicial review, etc, etc, etc, on and on forever. There is literally no subject upon which Jane Q will not loudly correct the truth with misapprehension. ..."
While this is an accurate description of Jane and I've also noticed Jane's dark matter claims, I'm curious to hear Jane's lectures about the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.
No, I quoted that AC because, as I said, I hadn't heard your lectures on the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.
I have seen you spray nonsense like a firehose on dozens of similarly absurd topics, so I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to see if those particular topics were part of Jane/Lonny Eachus's comedy act.
Thanks for confirming that you asked Lonny Eachus to post the file, because you know him and are possibly his friend. Why are you so ambiguous and evasive about your friendship with Lonny Eachus? It almost sounds like you're ashamed to be his friend. As I've pointed out, you and Lonny Eachus have so much in common that you're clearly soulmates.
Strangely, Lonny Eachus seems to feel the same way about Jane. After I debunked Lonny's claim that dark energy is dead, Lonny went on an evasive rant that seems almost identical to Jane's comments above. Why would Lonny Eachus be ashamed of being friends with Jane, when they have so much in common?
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.
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.
Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.
On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.
It's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.
When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.
If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?
Thanks Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Since I already linked and quoted all the places where you'd "explained" your mistake before I debunked you, your complete lack of links to these genuinely vindicating admissions speaks volumes. But if I asked for a link, that would merely be the prelude to the Layzej link gambit where you'd accuse me of being a sociopath. Instead, could we please skip to the part where you provide the vindicating link where you actually admitted your mistake? Otherwise it still seems ironically meta for you to keep arguing endlessly that you admit your mistakes. (Seriously, read that Layzej link and soak it in.)
Fourth time's the charm, maybe? It's fascinating that you wrongly accused me of wanting to ask you 20 questions (then 7 billion!) about your identity when I've only been asking one. Repeatedly. Are you Lonny Eachus? By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people. When you get to 20, will you finally say whether or not you're Lonny Eachus?
Again, that was the last quote in my debunking that you repeatedly and wrongly claimed I missed.
Do you really not remember the other three? Are you a goldfish?
So when you repeatedly claimed I'd missed where you admitted you were wrong, you meant that I'd quoted you and explained that you'd manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. I also explained that at the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers. That's why you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it?
So when you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" you actually meant that I had repeated that part and responded to it?
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]
One two three four.
But since you're struggling I'll throw you a bone. Some of the AC's on number four are a different matter. Seen a new squirrel you've never seen before? Squirrel!
Just like you "admitted you made mistakes" in the three examples I gave above? Have you also forgotten that you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet while accusing scientists of fraudulent bullshit lies, or do I have to link to that again too? (Go ahead, pretend you don't remember any of this so I have to link it all again. Your absurd evasions are adorable.)
I don't know why I didn't think of it earlier, but it finally occurred to me that I can change the topic header away from the one YOU originally put on this little... um... show of yours.
_EXTENT_ of ice is not the same as _VOLUME_ of ice.
As landbased ice moves into the sea faster, the icecaps get thinner, but the (insubstantially thin by comprison(*)) "skirt" of sea ice spreads out further because it's being pushed out faster (it's still melting in the same amount of time once in the water, there's just more ice getting into the water in the first place - and to add to the fun, faster flow results in larger icebergs (they come from glaciers) which take a bit longer to melt, and are drifting further towards the equator before completely melting - increasing hazards to shipping.
The volume of ice in the water is FAR less than the volume of ice being lost above sea level off the land - and as with ice in a glass, once it's in the water it's already raised the water level whether it melts or not.
Changes in volume of sea ice only matter if they are changes in the volume of sea ice which formed IN THE SEA - and that particular number is going down, not up, once the entire antarctic coastline is taken into account.
(*) Land ice is thousands of feet deep in antarctica. There are 4000 foot high mountain peaks covered by another 4000 feet of ice plains in many areas. Seasonal sea ice seldom exceeds 6 feet thick and even the ice shelves are only a few hundred feet at the absolute deepest for the most part (these are mostly glacier tongues anyway. Some go a lot deeper but only in spaces a few miles wide, which is inconsequential compared to thousands of miles of coastline. These deep ones are the ones which produce megabergs, once enough water gets under them to snap off the tongue.)