How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.
And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly [archive.is] put [archive.is] those disgusting [archive.is] accusations [slashdot.org] into his [archive.is] own words [archive.is]. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.
Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting.
Lonny, your disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. So your original disgusting statement was either accidentally or deliberately "out of context" of the statements you were replying to. Which is it, Lonny Eachus? Are you honestly confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse others?
That was in reply to your ridiculous argument that exhaling was not an "emission". You are a complete nutcase. An exhalation is an emission in exactly the same way that CO2 from an exhaust pipe is an emission. Organic compounds are "burned" via your metabolism in an analogous way to how ethanol is burned in your automobile. Both are relatively simple organic "cycles"... the CO2 could be from corn in either case.
Your argument that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to whether an exhalation is an "emission" of CO2. That's both dictionary AND common usage of the word. The only reason a dictionary was being cited was because you were being an asshole about it. As usual.
Anyone who's googled EPA ethanol emissions has evidence to refute your statement... which apparently "doesn't exist" and you "flatly deny" making, even as you double-down on it.... The EPA doesn't count that CO2 in their lifecycle GHG emissions calculations...
Which is gross moving of the goalposts, because what I said was that exhalation and tailpipe exhaust are both "emissions". And they ARE counted as emissions. But you've moved the goalposts, as I have explained several times, and again just now. You don't want to admit that I was correct to call them emissions, so now you want to show that EPA doesn't count them the same in meta-calculations. That's invalid argument. And you've done that crap so many times I no longer count.
It may be true that in one technical sense I was wrong, i.e. saying EPA "doesn't distinguish" whether OVERALL emissions are cycled or not. But that wasn't MY point, regardless of what yours was. CO2 emissions are still emissions, whether from a "cycle", or not. I have a hard time believing you really believe the arguments you make. I think you have a phobia about being wrong about anything. That would explain your ridiculous, consistent fallacious arguments like misrepresentation out-of-context and moving the goalposts.
That's the same definition used by every other mainstream scientist who discusses the "'allowable CO2 emissions budget'
Proof of moving the goalposts. Because MY comment wasn't about "allowable budgets". It was about emissions... the commonly understood, technically correct, and dictionary definition of "emission". It wasn't about "budgets", nor were the words Lonny was originally replying to on Twitter.
Don't be ridiculous, Jane. I've repeatedly shown that comment IN CONTEXT.
This is hilarious. Your example above is yet again
Also, if you think that post was something, you should see some of his others over the years.
I have given up telling him to seek help. I have engaged one attorney so far, and he has recommended another, who is more of a specialist in this sort of thing.
While Slashdot tries to pretend it is immune from objections to this sort of behavior, it does have certain obligations it has not seen fit to bother to enforce, and I strongly suspect that should a lawsuit arise, Slashdot will be listed as one of the responsible parties.
Since that didn't actually happen, no, GP was correct. You should GET A LIFE rather than stalking and harassing people for years on end, for personal (and apparently nefarious) reasons of your own.
This person has been harassing me for over 5 years. So far, Slashdot has refused to do anything about it. I have recorded instances of libel, attempted character assassination, deliberate misquotes, and I suspect him of deeds even more foul.
No sane person would take that comment IN CONTEXT, and think it was genuinely a recommendation that anyone commit suicide. And he is fully aware of that.
And yet he continues to present it as truth. I don't know of a better definition of libel. Do you?
Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:
Indeed. And I wonder where he got word of it?
Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.
Why does it matter to you, if it wasn't you? But then, *I* have a suspicion regarding that.
Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.
Sorry... you are mistaken. Even if I admitted to being this person, re-tweeting someone else (akin to quoting) is not the same as endorsement. You should know better.
I have already stated, here on Slashdot, that any comment by me that Cook "dressed" in Nazi uniform is qualified by the likelihood that someone else photoshopped his image. However, there is no evidence that it was anyone attempting to genuinely discredit him, but there IS evidence that it was an attempt by his friends to pull a prank on him.
I have no reason to state otherwise. Your presentation of an prior statements (by me or anyone else) no longer carry any weight. You are attempting to smear someone based on matters that have been settled contrary to you claims.
Again: you are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame.
Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?
I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas?
Further, I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". I simply pointed out that there is no evidence that theses pictures were "hacked" from a non-public forum.
Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.
I might accept those ideas if I had any real evidence of them. But I don't. And neither do you. We've had this discussion before. And continuing to quote yourself, no matter how enamored you are of seeing your own words in print again, is not evidence.
If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?
That isn't what was meant by "stalkish". Or at least, it's only a very minor part of it.
And whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so.
Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft and blackmail threat and repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.
Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence.
You haven't done so, because you don't have any. This is all just more of your nonsense. And to accuse someone else of attempted character assassination is too cute in the extreme. You, too, seem to need a new mirror. You're projecting your own motives on others.
Washington did that too, about 15 years ago or so. It used to be a "concealed weapons permit", now it's a "concealed pistol permit". I don't like the change.
Considering the year the Constitution was ratified, a baseball bat is also a "thoroughly modern invention". I don't think that argument holds much water.
And yes, 2 years or more ago is "out of time". You have often brought up things I've said 5 and more years ago... which just illustrates your strange, unhealthy, stalkish obsession about me. Which I've also publicly pointed out many times.
You're a weirdo, man. A harassing, lying, out-of-contexting, libeling, whacko. This behavior of yours is NOT normal.
And I don't have to worry about backing that claim up with facts up because I've already done so many times over, and there are records of most of those times.
So what context explains your claim that "most people who bothered to look actually have referred to me as a gal"? Or was that just something every pathological liar said "out of time" way back in the dark ages of... 2013?
Again with the out-of-context. That is something that pathological liars commonly do. Especially when you've had it pointed out to you, easily more than 20 times. Probably several times that by now.
Yes, most people who bothered to look at the name "Jane Q. Public" have referred to me here on Slashdot as a gal.
Jane, in less than an hour you changed from defending "Lonny Eachus' comment" to defending your comment! Are you actually such a pathological liar that you really think you can just shrug off your libelous attacks by saying they were "somebody's comments on Twitter"?
You haven't shown that any of my comments were intentionally libelous. I have already stated to you many times that I am not commenting to you about identity. I make no claims or denials... nor do I have any reason to do so.
But "pathological liar"? That's a libelous statement if I've ever seen one.
You have repeatedly (actually quite consistently, over a period of years) failed to demonstrate that I have intentionally lied about anything. Therefore you have excellent evidence that your frequent claims and insinuations that I am a "pathological liar" are false and libelous.
Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!
Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context.
What is your problem? Why do you refuse to make honest arguments? While again I am not making accusations, but I am certainly beginning to think that this whole "pathological liar" bit is nothing but projection on your part.
No. I'll be honest. I'm not "beginning" to think it. I've been thinking it for a very long time.
Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?
If you are referring to the pictures, I think you need to present some evidence that there was any hacking involved. All the evidence of which I am aware points to a place on sksforum which members thought was private but which actually was not. When informed that the pictures were public, someone at SKS moved them to another (but equally public) place. One would presume that normally, if they were "hacked" photos or uploaded by non-members, they would have been removed from the site, rather than kept around.
So before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence.
If you mean the forum posts where Lubos Motl's name was used, again there is no evidence of which I am aware that any "hacking" was involved. The story is that the blog posts were somehow indexed by search engines (which does happen).
A claim was made that the forum entries were "hacked", but a claim of that sort is not evidence. What it is evidence of, is that the posts were genuine.
And note that I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question.
So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association.
Lonny Eachus, I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop regurgitating all your nasty and baseless accusations?
Whatever name you want to call me: this, from the guy who earlier here on Slashdot cherry-picked quotes from an NAS report I had cited? (And yes I have a record of that, as does Slashdot.) Why should I trust you to NOT cherry-pick yet more quotes from the NAS?
But even if I gave you benefit of the doubt, and accepted this with no immediate evidence that it's in any kind of relevant context (I'm certainly not going to read the whole thing right now), it's still a straw-man argument. The quotes made in Steyn's book, unlike many you have made, are actually IN context and the context is discussed. It isn't about what Mann's conclusions were. It's about his actions, the way he has behaved professionally, and the way he has performed his "science".
They are the opinions of other professionals, not mine. I do not presume to judge whether they are nasty or not. They are real quotes by OTHER PEOPLE. Again, unlike your out-of-context quotes of me and certain other people.
Are you now saying that you already knew that breathing can't raise CO2 levels, but you made your despicable statement anyway? Hopefully not. Think, Lonny! Think!
Since the subject of breathing raising overall CO2 levels was not mentioned or even implied by anyone except you, I have no reason to respond to this. Once again, your out-of-context straw-manning gets you nowhere.
No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels.
This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does.
emit v. to send forth (liquid, light, heat, sound, particles, etc.); discharge.
There is nothing there about "increasing levels" or averages. Everbody knows what "emit" means, regardless of your attempts to narrow the definition to your liking. He does emit a rather large amount by himself, according to every common definition of the word "emit". As I illustrated above, CO2 from exhaust pipes from burning ethanol derived from organic sources goes through a very similar cycle to what you described, yet nobody denies that the CO2 coming out of the exhaust pipe is an "emission".
Lonny Eachus, please support your ridiculous accusation that the EPA declares your body a toxic polluter because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. You know, with a quote from an actual link.
There was no "accusation" that EPA declares bodies toxic polluters. 1. Straw-man. 2. Moving the goalposts. Such statement doesn't exist.
Until you provide a quote from an actual link it just seems like you're projecting your ignorance onto yet another organization.
So, you have evidence to refute the statement? You are free to ignore it if you like, but I flatly deny making the statements you claim in this comment, so I have nothing to prove.
Wow! Lonny Eachus, I just gave you an effective defense and you rejected it! You might have a chance if you swear you were just confused about how breathing can't raise CO2 levels, and only said this out of confusion: "@KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2."
There is no need for a defense, since this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves.
I'm not going to argue with you on Slashdot about somebody's comments on Twitter.
I will say that people make mistakes. Like the time you claimed (as shown in one of your links above) that the Wegman report wasn't peer-reviewed. The report had been reviewed by no less than 6 other professional statisticians with no axe to grind, before it was presented.
I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind.
Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now.
Further, those quotes are not from Mark Steyn, they are comments from (mostly) scientists about Michael Mann, and his infamous Hockey Stick. They are not comments by Steyn, at all. In fact many of those quotes are from Mann's own colleagues.
The only person who is being nasty or misrepresenting anything here is you.
Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]
The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principle and fact.
Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.
Apparently you are confused about context. As usual.
Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself.
No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide.
Nobody is "pretending" to be anybody. The only STRANGE thing going on here is someone who "pretends" (or maybe not?) to know what I do with half my time. How much time do YOU spend following what I do?
Slashdot Mirror
How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.
Let's start here, from no more than a few days ago:
And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly [archive.is] put [archive.is] those disgusting [archive.is] accusations [slashdot.org] into his [archive.is] own words [archive.is]. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.
Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting.
Lonny, your disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. So your original disgusting statement was either accidentally or deliberately "out of context" of the statements you were replying to. Which is it, Lonny Eachus? Are you honestly confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse others?
That was in reply to your ridiculous argument that exhaling was not an "emission". You are a complete nutcase. An exhalation is an emission in exactly the same way that CO2 from an exhaust pipe is an emission. Organic compounds are "burned" via your metabolism in an analogous way to how ethanol is burned in your automobile. Both are relatively simple organic "cycles"... the CO2 could be from corn in either case.
Your argument that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to whether an exhalation is an "emission" of CO2. That's both dictionary AND common usage of the word. The only reason a dictionary was being cited was because you were being an asshole about it. As usual.
Anyone who's googled EPA ethanol emissions has evidence to refute your statement... which apparently "doesn't exist" and you "flatly deny" making, even as you double-down on it. ... The EPA doesn't count that CO2 in their lifecycle GHG emissions calculations...
Which is gross moving of the goalposts, because what I said was that exhalation and tailpipe exhaust are both "emissions". And they ARE counted as emissions. But you've moved the goalposts, as I have explained several times, and again just now. You don't want to admit that I was correct to call them emissions, so now you want to show that EPA doesn't count them the same in meta-calculations. That's invalid argument. And you've done that crap so many times I no longer count.
It may be true that in one technical sense I was wrong, i.e. saying EPA "doesn't distinguish" whether OVERALL emissions are cycled or not. But that wasn't MY point, regardless of what yours was. CO2 emissions are still emissions, whether from a "cycle", or not. I have a hard time believing you really believe the arguments you make. I think you have a phobia about being wrong about anything. That would explain your ridiculous, consistent fallacious arguments like misrepresentation out-of-context and moving the goalposts.
That's the same definition used by every other mainstream scientist who discusses the "'allowable CO2 emissions budget'
Proof of moving the goalposts. Because MY comment wasn't about "allowable budgets". It was about emissions... the commonly understood, technically correct, and dictionary definition of "emission". It wasn't about "budgets", nor were the words Lonny was originally replying to on Twitter.
Don't be ridiculous, Jane. I've repeatedly shown that comment IN CONTEXT.
This is hilarious. Your example above is yet again
Also, if you think that post was something, you should see some of his others over the years.
I have given up telling him to seek help. I have engaged one attorney so far, and he has recommended another, who is more of a specialist in this sort of thing.
While Slashdot tries to pretend it is immune from objections to this sort of behavior, it does have certain obligations it has not seen fit to bother to enforce, and I strongly suspect that should a lawsuit arise, Slashdot will be listed as one of the responsible parties.
Since that didn't actually happen, no, GP was correct. You should GET A LIFE rather than stalking and harassing people for years on end, for personal (and apparently nefarious) reasons of your own.
And yes, I do have proof.
This person has been harassing me for over 5 years. So far, Slashdot has refused to do anything about it. I have recorded instances of libel, attempted character assassination, deliberate misquotes, and I suspect him of deeds even more foul.
No sane person would take that comment IN CONTEXT, and think it was genuinely a recommendation that anyone commit suicide. And he is fully aware of that.
And yet he continues to present it as truth. I don't know of a better definition of libel. Do you?
Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:
Indeed. And I wonder where he got word of it?
Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.
Why does it matter to you, if it wasn't you? But then, *I* have a suspicion regarding that.
Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.
Sorry... you are mistaken. Even if I admitted to being this person, re-tweeting someone else (akin to quoting) is not the same as endorsement. You should know better.
I have already stated, here on Slashdot, that any comment by me that Cook "dressed" in Nazi uniform is qualified by the likelihood that someone else photoshopped his image. However, there is no evidence that it was anyone attempting to genuinely discredit him, but there IS evidence that it was an attempt by his friends to pull a prank on him.
I have no reason to state otherwise. Your presentation of an prior statements (by me or anyone else) no longer carry any weight. You are attempting to smear someone based on matters that have been settled contrary to you claims.
Again: you are simply being your usual dishonest self. Shame.
Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?
I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas?
Further, I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". I simply pointed out that there is no evidence that theses pictures were "hacked" from a non-public forum.
Be honest, Jane. You're so thoroughly brainwashed that you'd NEVER accept that "hacking" took place. Just like you'll never accept that scientists' emails were hacked.
I might accept those ideas if I had any real evidence of them. But I don't. And neither do you. We've had this discussion before. And continuing to quote yourself, no matter how enamored you are of seeing your own words in print again, is not evidence.
If you aren't brainwashed, why can't you see the overwhelming hypocrisy when you whine about how "stalkish" it is when I bring up public comments from years ago, while you regurgitate accusations based on private comments from years ago?
That isn't what was meant by "stalkish". Or at least, it's only a very minor part of it.
And whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so.
Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft and blackmail threat and repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.
Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence.
You haven't done so, because you don't have any. This is all just more of your nonsense. And to accuse someone else of attempted character assassination is too cute in the extreme. You, too, seem to need a new mirror. You're projecting your own motives on others.
The bat-and-ball game came to North America around approximately 1830. Further, they didn't use anything resembling a modern baseball bat.
Washington did that too, about 15 years ago or so. It used to be a "concealed weapons permit", now it's a "concealed pistol permit". I don't like the change.
Considering the year the Constitution was ratified, a baseball bat is also a "thoroughly modern invention". I don't think that argument holds much water.
And yes, 2 years or more ago is "out of time". You have often brought up things I've said 5 and more years ago... which just illustrates your strange, unhealthy, stalkish obsession about me. Which I've also publicly pointed out many times.
You're a weirdo, man. A harassing, lying, out-of-contexting, libeling, whacko. This behavior of yours is NOT normal.
And I don't have to worry about backing that claim up with facts up because I've already done so many times over, and there are records of most of those times.
So what context explains your claim that "most people who bothered to look actually have referred to me as a gal"? Or was that just something every pathological liar said "out of time" way back in the dark ages of... 2013?
Again with the out-of-context. That is something that pathological liars commonly do. Especially when you've had it pointed out to you, easily more than 20 times. Probably several times that by now.
Yes, most people who bothered to look at the name "Jane Q. Public" have referred to me here on Slashdot as a gal.
Why do you have such a problem with that?
Jane, in less than an hour you changed from defending "Lonny Eachus' comment" to defending your comment! Are you actually such a pathological liar that you really think you can just shrug off your libelous attacks by saying they were "somebody's comments on Twitter"?
You haven't shown that any of my comments were intentionally libelous. I have already stated to you many times that I am not commenting to you about identity. I make no claims or denials... nor do I have any reason to do so.
But "pathological liar"? That's a libelous statement if I've ever seen one.
You have repeatedly (actually quite consistently, over a period of years) failed to demonstrate that I have intentionally lied about anything. Therefore you have excellent evidence that your frequent claims and insinuations that I am a "pathological liar" are false and libelous.
Your accusations are wrong in every way, not just in a legal sense. The graphs you're endlessly whining about aren't misleading. And you don't need to read anyone's mind to see that your absurd accusations were already disproved over a decade ago by the very paper you're lecturing about!
Excuse me? What accusation did I make in my previous comment above? I don't see one. And you continue to present comments out of context.
What is your problem? Why do you refuse to make honest arguments? While again I am not making accusations, but I am certainly beginning to think that this whole "pathological liar" bit is nothing but projection on your part.
No. I'll be honest. I'm not "beginning" to think it. I've been thinking it for a very long time.
I have no idea how the link to sksforum.org ended up aiming at Slashdot but it was just that: sksforum.org.
Is Jane/Lonny Eachus coyly referring to comments made in a private forum which later became public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in and released those comments after publicly considering blackmail? Now that Jane/Lonny knows about this crime, can he agree that it's "definitely not okay" to accuse someone of "identity theft" because of private comments made in a mock debate which are only public because a script kiddie illegally hacked in?
If you are referring to the pictures, I think you need to present some evidence that there was any hacking involved. All the evidence of which I am aware points to a place on sksforum which members thought was private but which actually was not. When informed that the pictures were public, someone at SKS moved them to another (but equally public) place. One would presume that normally, if they were "hacked" photos or uploaded by non-members, they would have been removed from the site, rather than kept around.
So before I entertain your notion that any of it was due to "hacking", I would need to see some real evidence.
If you mean the forum posts where Lubos Motl's name was used, again there is no evidence of which I am aware that any "hacking" was involved. The story is that the blog posts were somehow indexed by search engines (which does happen).
A claim was made that the forum entries were "hacked", but a claim of that sort is not evidence. What it is evidence of, is that the posts were genuine.
And note that I did not claim, as some others have, that it was "identity theft". The worst anyone you are vilifying here has done was quote someone else who asked the question.
So again: nothing that really needs any defending... except from your distortions aimed at insult, character assassination, and guilt by association.
Lonny Eachus, I just showed you a quote from NAS. That's not good enough for you to finally stop regurgitating all your nasty and baseless accusations?
Whatever name you want to call me: this, from the guy who earlier here on Slashdot cherry-picked quotes from an NAS report I had cited? (And yes I have a record of that, as does Slashdot.) Why should I trust you to NOT cherry-pick yet more quotes from the NAS?
But even if I gave you benefit of the doubt, and accepted this with no immediate evidence that it's in any kind of relevant context (I'm certainly not going to read the whole thing right now), it's still a straw-man argument. The quotes made in Steyn's book, unlike many you have made, are actually IN context and the context is discussed. It isn't about what Mann's conclusions were. It's about his actions, the way he has behaved professionally, and the way he has performed his "science".
They are the opinions of other professionals, not mine. I do not presume to judge whether they are nasty or not. They are real quotes by OTHER PEOPLE. Again, unlike your out-of-context quotes of me and certain other people.
Are you now saying that you already knew that breathing can't raise CO2 levels, but you made your despicable statement anyway? Hopefully not. Think, Lonny! Think!
Since the subject of breathing raising overall CO2 levels was not mentioned or even implied by anyone except you, I have no reason to respond to this. Once again, your out-of-context straw-manning gets you nowhere.
No, Lonny. Your despicable statement was morally and scientifically wrong. He doesn't emit "a rather large amount all by himself" because breathing simply can't raise CO2 levels.
This is a CLASSIC straw-man argument. There was no claim that he raised CO2 levels. Only that he emits CO2. He does.
emit v. to send forth (liquid, light, heat, sound, particles, etc.); discharge.
There is nothing there about "increasing levels" or averages. Everbody knows what "emit" means, regardless of your attempts to narrow the definition to your liking. He does emit a rather large amount by himself, according to every common definition of the word "emit". As I illustrated above, CO2 from exhaust pipes from burning ethanol derived from organic sources goes through a very similar cycle to what you described, yet nobody denies that the CO2 coming out of the exhaust pipe is an "emission".
Lonny Eachus, please support your ridiculous accusation that the EPA declares your body a toxic polluter because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. You know, with a quote from an actual link.
There was no "accusation" that EPA declares bodies toxic polluters. 1. Straw-man. 2. Moving the goalposts. Such statement doesn't exist.
Until you provide a quote from an actual link it just seems like you're projecting your ignorance onto yet another organization.
So, you have evidence to refute the statement? You are free to ignore it if you like, but I flatly deny making the statements you claim in this comment, so I have nothing to prove.
Wow! Lonny Eachus, I just gave you an effective defense and you rejected it! You might have a chance if you swear you were just confused about how breathing can't raise CO2 levels, and only said this out of confusion: "@KenCaldeira should commit suicide immediately. He emits 40,000 ppm CO2."
There is no need for a defense, since this comment was clearly taken out of context and subsequently misrepresented. Anyone who cares to look can see that for themselves.
I'm not going to argue with you on Slashdot about somebody's comments on Twitter.
I will say that people make mistakes. Like the time you claimed (as shown in one of your links above) that the Wegman report wasn't peer-reviewed. The report had been reviewed by no less than 6 other professional statisticians with no axe to grind, before it was presented.
I do not, at this time, think Rahmstorf is a criminal in any legal sense. I do think that using graphs that are created to mislead in order to press an agenda is "criminal" in the sense of "harmful to society", apart from the law. But I'm not about to say here that was what Rahmstorf did. I didn't read his mind.
If you weren't just pretending and you actually believe that then you're even more delusional than I thought. Which is really saying something.
Your persistent attempts to misrepresent my statements out of context and out of time say a lot more about you than they do about me.
You have been consistently and persistently dishonest over a period of years. And yes, I can back that up.
Since no sane person could read my comment IN CONTEXT and honestly mistake it for "telling someone to commit suicide", it is obvious that this is just another of your attempts at harassment and character assassination, via out-of-context misrepresentation of my comments, for which you are rather famous by now.
Further, those quotes are not from Mark Steyn, they are comments from (mostly) scientists about Michael Mann, and his infamous Hockey Stick. They are not comments by Steyn, at all. In fact many of those quotes are from Mann's own colleagues.
The only person who is being nasty or misrepresenting anything here is you.
If your reference point is the ground at takeoff, as it obviously is in this context, altitude is still correct.
Altitude is always relative to some point. There is no single reference. Mean Sea Level is just one that happens to be convenient in many contexts.
Well, do you truly understand that EPA's proposed regulations (truly, no joke) declare your body a toxic polluter? Because you exhale 40,000 ppm CO2. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-27]
The EPA does not distinguish among sources, or whether it is "circulation". Emission is emission. Emission from vehicles burning ethanol is also "circulation", via a very real and rather simple cycle, yet EPA still classes it as emission. So you are wrong in principle and fact.
Apparently Lonny is still pretending to be confused about the fact that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.
Apparently you are confused about context. As usual.
Lonny Eachus' comment was a remark about the logical fallacy of Caldeira's statement that "no amount" of CO2 emission is safe or acceptable, when he emits a rather large amount all by himself.
No SANE, rational person could read it in context, and honestly think it was a call for anybody to actually commit suicide.
You can't even get this right. What a loser.
Nobody is "pretending" to be anybody. The only STRANGE thing going on here is someone who "pretends" (or maybe not?) to know what I do with half my time. How much time do YOU spend following what I do?
The drone owner actually posted a YouTube video of the drone's gps progress on a map. That was at least 5 days ago, I'm pretty sure.
The drone's telemetry says it was at about 273 feet altitude, and you can see exactly where it was when it was hit and went down.
Its total flight time was only slightly more than a minute. There wasn't any time to be spying on anybody, especially from 270+ feet altitude.
Not that it really matters, and the damned things aren't very accurate or secure anyway.
That myth was busted on Mythbusters a number of years ago, and the technology hasn't really changed significantly since.
So Jane Q. Public really is the man-child named Lonny Eachus who appears in social media dressed as a Nazi: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
No comment on identity, but I can certainly say with confidence that this post's sole purpose is obviously attempted character assassination.