"Fantasized about washing balls"??? Not only is that a distortion of what I wrote and why, it was clearly intended maliciously.
More of that would make my archive of your bullshit more juicy, but it rather violates truth.
Your true colors have been coming out lately, and they're pretty ugly. You have explained openly before why you dislike me (which, again, I have on record) but your belief that it is justification for libel or slander or other forms of character assassination you have been attempting, I assure you that the law disagrees.
Just to be clear, in case you yet again want to try to distort, I will be explicit. THIS is the part that is a statement of fact, and not your accusations:
Even creationists have some facts that support their position. Not enough to carry the day, but saying they don't exist is just another kind of denial.
Anyone who claims (as you have) that the creationists and young-earthers have NO evidence, is a reality-denier. They don't have much evidence, and they sure as hell don't have much if any GOOD evidence, but they do have some evidence.
See, the thing that you just don't seem to get -- and about which you have been one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever had the misfortune to meet -- is that YOU are the one who has been making accusations. And it's still up to you to show that your accusations were correct.
It has been days, and you have failed miserably. You've tried misdirection, moving the goalposts, your usual straw-manning and out-of-contexting, and other tactics of the dishonest. But you have yet to show that I made false accusations of others, or unprovoked "attacks", or unprovoked "insults", or any of it.
It is a reasonable conclusion at this point that the only reason you haven't shown those things, is that you are not capable of doing so.
So... I think it is also reasonable, given this exchange, to say that YOU have been guilty of unprovoked attacks on my character, that YOU have been guilty of "unprovoked" insults (I haven't been verbally going after you... it has always been you attacking me), and so on.
You have made rather provocative, and in my opinion libelous, claims. None of which you have shown to be true. And which you should reasonably, given years of past experience, have known to not be true.
In the past you have freely and clearly stated motives for such attacks, having to do with your personal "beliefs".
I think you have given ample evidence, including your own statements, that you feel justified to act according to those beliefs, in the face of real contrary evidence, and that you have caused harm to others by doing so. And further that not only are you fully aware of this, but that it has been your (stated) purpose.
But I am always willing for you to provide more evidence! So if you want to keep spouting such bullshit, I won't say "go ahead!" because I disapprove, but I will certainly keep recording it.
In order for libel laws to be effective, it has to be possible to identify the accuser. Even when it is, the accuser may be beyond the reach of justice, for example by being dead. The major benefit of libel laws, in my opinion, is that they provide a public forum (court) where the issue can be debated and a neutral party (judge or jury) can publicly decide who is right. That doesn't work if the accuser can't be made to defend his position.
That was my point. On the other hand, anonymous speech must be allowed when it ISN'T libelous.
my opinion, the libel laws should apply only to an accuser who is willing to defend his accusation in public.
Just no. If the statement was made publicly, and the the speaker should reasonably have known it was false, then they must be subject to the law. Damage may already be done! You'd give people a pass to hit-and-run.
Without any evidence, Jane insinuates that Dr. Hayhoe is a Young-Earth apologist and tries to smear her as an enemy of science. Yeah Jane, that's another good example of your baseless accusations.
It's also another good example of your rampant psychological projection, because as you recall I made some comments about Young-Earthers in response to your claim: "Even creationists have some facts that support their position. Not enough to carry the day, but saying they don't exist is just another kind of denial."
That is a statement of fact. Claiming (as you have in the past) that ALL evidence supports evolution is what is delusional denial. The vast preponderance of it does, and it's pretty obvious to most thinking people that the theory of evolution is a realistic statement of truth. But to deny the existence of ANY counter-evidence at all is a very good example of realdenial.
The rest of your comment is more of the same old crap. False accusations without evidence of your own.
I have faith in people's intelligence. Maybe I'm wrong,
And history shows pretty clearly that you are.
Libel laws did not arise out of some lawmaker's whim. They developed over a very long time, and for very good societal reasons.
Knowingly and intentionally (not the same things) making false statements about somebody can do real damage to his or her reputation, livelihood, family life, etc. I mean real damage, in the same sense as a broken leg is damage. Once that's done, maybe they won't have the resources to fight back. Clearly that would be a one-sided situation favoring the "false witness". That's why there are legal remedies.
Of course legal remedies aren't a panacea. It takes money, time, and effort to sue somebody. That's why sometimes even if it really is libel, and really can be proved, and the injured party really does want to sue, he or she may not be reasonably able to at any given time for a number of reasons.
Let's be clear about this: if you want to prove your point, and the relevant information about it is not right in front of everybody or commonly known, yes indeed, you should cite references.
But in the situation you are referring to, I made it very clear that I am not interested in proving it to you at this time. Since I'm not trying to prove it, I don't have any obligation to cite anything.
The two situations are not even remotely similar, and your comment is yet another example of your habitual out-of-context fallacy.
Alas, Tennant's writings about baloney also contain their fair share of baloney.
For example, he dismisses the idea that ad hominem includes the case where one party tries to discredit the other party, thereby attempting to undermine the credibility of his argument. It isn't direct ad-hominem, as a direct part of the first party's argument, but it is still an indirect attempt to undermine the second party's argument, and therefore part of the first party's argument.
So since it is part of the first party's argument in debate, and its intent is to weaken the credibility of the second party's argument, it's no less ad-hominem even though it's indirect. Denying that is like saying the car can't have moved when 5 guys pushed it, because they didn't use the engine.
Tennant is also correct, though, that some examples in RationalWiki are so lame as to border on false examples.
Until Jane posts that link (which doesn't exist) or retracts his accusation, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar.
I've said what I have to say about this, and your tiresome attempts to goad me won't get you anywhere.
Others might think the greatest insults were Jane falsely accusing Dr. Hayhoe of being a flake who's making "misandrous" claims by saying she receives misogynous emails,
That's a rather huge leap from a couple of separate comments with no context. As per your usual invalid methodology: taking comments separated in time and context, conflating them, and pretending that's proof of your point. Further, the comment about possible misandry wasn't stated as an assertion or "accusation", but only a hypothetical.
and Jane falsely claiming that Dr. Hayhoe has "no credibility"
So now you endorse her "young Earth" dataset chosen specifically for her creationist audience? I pretty much do call that "no credibility". Noting false about that. Especially as she then went on to make demonstrably false claims about that same data.
"so many things she says are just false"
Yep. Demonstrated truth.
and implying that she belongs to a "Globular Warmunist cult" or suspecting that Dr. Hayhoe is "without understanding" of her own field.
Apparently humor and satire are beyond your comprehension.
I have no reason to make any apologies for any of those statements. Except for the satire, which was well-deserved, I certainly did make comments about her work but I would not agree that they're "unprovoked insults". On the contrary; the comments were quite thoroughly provoked, and nearly all of them were hypotheticals or legitimate criticisms.
You're just repeating more of the same nonsense. You haven't made your case. Nor are you going to, because as I say again: it's just false.
He wasn't wrong, because his predictions about famine were conditioned on factors remaining the same--they didn't. We improved crop yields through new varieties, fertilizers, irrigation, etc. and got rid of a lot of smog and pollution.
Yes, he was wrong. Regardless of the ASSUMPTIONS he made, he made public predictions, and they were all rather uproariously wrong.
A lot of those solutions were researched and put into effect because Erlich and people like him pointed out that we were speeding toward a cliff, and stepping on the gas instead of the brake.
Concrete example? Citations?
Even if, as you assert, his failed predictions helped, the fact remains that they are failed predictions. Still, I'd be interested to see any of them causally linked to remediating changes.
Hahaha! This is your "proof"??? I almost gave up after the first one. THIS is supposed to be an "unprovoked insult"??? That's how you labeled it:
@BadAstronomer Do you support Hayhoe's statement? ""Among climate scientists--people who spend their lives researching our world there is no debate regarding the reality of climate change, and the fact that humans are the primary cause."
You somehow have a problem with that? Explain.
Then...
So I could be the most passionate sermonizer in the world about Climate Change, but Hayhoe would still be a flake.
CONTEXT??? You've shown no context. What was the conversation? Where is the surrounding context?
You haven't shown that the comment there was either incorrect or unprovoked. But from here it looks like a hypothetical. Possibly even a question. How would I know?
Then... this is a real hoot.
Interesting. @KHayhoe doesnâ(TM)t show examples of this âoemajorityâ of allegedly misogynous emails.... t occurs to me that without evidence, these claims of hers might be legitimately labeled âoemisandrousâ.
And? That is a plain statement of fact. *IF* there is no evidence, claims "might" be labeled...
Please explain where you disagree with the logic there. More:
@AvaPlaint @tan123 @KHayhoe I also love that she cited skeptical http://science.com/ as a âoescience resourceâ. âoe97%â anybody?
and...
@AvaPlaint @tan123 I was referring to @KHayhoe comment re: skeptical science blog, and Cookâ(TM)s âoe97%â nonsense.
and...
.@KHayhoe can be a captivating and persuasive speaker. Itâ(TM)s too bad so many things she says are just false.
Well, what of those things? You made the claim. You are obligated to show where any of those tweets were falsehoods or "unprovoked insults". There is LOTS of evidence that Keyhoe's statements were scientific falsehoods. But you haven't shown where I met any of the criteria you need to make your point.
I particularly like this one:
There are few people more dangerous than âoesky is fallingâ alarmists who believe their own alarming tales. Smiles and all.
Please explain where that statement is false. Or for that matter, "unprovoked". You haven't done any of that.
Another good one:
Wrong! Simply not true. Cold weather kills FAR more people than hot weather does, worldwide.
Another solid matter of statistics. "Change" has not been shown to kill people. Cold weather does. And it does so at many times the rate that hot weather kills people.
I like this one too. What's the matter? You don't like satire?
How did we get to this point, where political ideology determines whether we agree w scientists on climate change? http://prairiefirenewspaper.co...
Yes, exactly. Why do Leftists belong to this Globular Warmunist cult, when the majority of people donâ(TM)t? Itâ(TM)s a mystery.
This is actually satire. She wonders why political ideology (she is quite clearly referring to the political Right) "determines" whether we agree blah blah...
The satire part comes in because (A) it's a correlation, not a determination, and if she doesn't understand the difference she should turn in her scientist badge, and (B) she doesn't realize that as a staunch Leftist, she contributes as much of that "political divide" as anyone else. And that lack of understanding on her part is just plain knee-slappingly hilarious! But insult? Really? I insulted her less than she did all by herself.
Oops... I almost missed your link. Sorry, a collection of comments by me is not an example. Be specific. WHO did I do these things to? When? In what context?
If you want to prove your accusation, you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. In context. You have included no context to show provocation or lack thereof. You have presented no contest to show my comments were "wrong" or "lecturing wrongly". So far, you've shown us nothing but a collection of words out of context, as has been your usual approach.
I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. Turnabout is fair play. I will not apologize for defending myself or others I know.
So do your due diligence, and SHOW us actual examples of what you accused me of. Real examples. Explanation. Demonstration that it wasn't provoked. Go ahead... as you have shown, you have access to all my tweets. So show us.
I don't think you can. I think if you could, you would have done so already. Your maliciousness toward me is well-known and often demonstrated. So I highly doubt YOU are being "coy", as you so egregiously misuse the word. I think you're just incapable.
Again, if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist.
I told you: you can continue insisting on this here all you like. I don't much care.
If Jane/Lonny is honest, he'd have to retract his accusation after doing a few seconds of due diligence through his records from way back when.
I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it.
Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?
Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.
As I've told you before: I'm not immune from mistakes, but I do go by evidence. And the evidence is against you in regard to Cook et al. 2013. By a long way.
Where should we start? Which person or group that I mentioned do you deny harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing?
Considering that you haven't shown us even a glimpse at a single example yet, maybe you can decide. But in all honesty, I just expect more amusement. I may come back here to see what you have to offer (if anything), maybe not. It depends in part on how much of a glutton for punishment you want to be.
You and I, sir, are apparently of like minds, even if we are brothers only in our cynicism; I, unfortunately, completely agree with your asessment: Humanity, in general, is suffering from a case of extreme, chronic myopia, and it could very likely end in discovering we're about to walk off a cliff only after we've walked off it.
Seriously? You base this on a prediction from Paul Erlich, the guy who is famous for always being wrong about his pronouncements of gloom and doom?
Just run a simple search on your archived tweets for "97%" and you'll uncover dozens of examples where you've been "lecturing scientists about what scientists think": https://archive.is/https://twi...
Nope. You lose again. Saying that the "97%" claim has been debunked and is in fact junk science, is not the same as saying I know what the actual percentage is. Nor have I tried to tell people what it is. But I have very good reasons to believe it's far smaller than that... like for example other surveys that were not fraudulent.
It's like you just put whatever old spin you want on my comments and call them something else... another bad habit you have that I've pointed out before.
Or, you know, just read all the baseless accusations of fraud that you've repeated in this very thread on that topic.
Why do you say that ANY of my comments were "baseless"? Please demonstrate that. It's a bald (and quite false) claim.
That comment wasn't anywhere else either, because it doesn't exist. As usual, Jane's hopelessly confused about comments that took place after Cook et al. was out: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
That was one, sure. But there have been others. Going back years. Apparently I kept some records that you did not, from way back when. But that's okay. As I said before, I don't much feel like bothering to prove that to you, and it's hardly much of an "accusation", so I wonder why you care. So go ahead and claim it doesn't exist. I won't agree with you, but I'm not going to bother to argue with you much about it, either.
By the way, since you brought it up: is John Cook a "colleague" of yours? I find it very interesting that you would choose to call someone who has been -- to use someone else's words -- "serially debunked", a colleague of yours. But then it shouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
How ironic that Jane says this while harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.
Oh... now you're expanding your claim to harassment, too? Before you've ever come up with an example of any of the other things yet?
Well, I'll put the same conditions on it that I put on your other claims (because I can): show us all where I have "harassed" any of those people when they didn't harass me or someone else first. Show us all where I have "attacked" any of those people when they did not attack me or someone else first. Show us all where I have "insulted" any of those people when they did not insult me or someone else first. Show us all where I was "wrongly lecturing" any of those people -- at all. But you have to demonstrate that it was somehow wrong.
You haven't done any of those things. Except for Cook et al., I don't recall ever naming any of them as "frauds". And I won't apologize for calling the Cook 2013 paper a fraud because from the evidence it has very clearly been shown to be, beyond reasonable doubt. I don't expect you to be reasonable, but you should at least recognize what is reasonable and what is not, no matter how much you want to be a "reality denier".
Maybe you shouldn't be lecturing scientists about what scientists think if you can't even run a simple search on your own tweets: (link)
I'm still not sure what you mean by "lecturing scientists about what scientists think". Example?
But as for a Twitter search... I can do that easily. I find it interesting that you use such a crude tool to do it. Why is that? Oh... wait. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you got blocked on Twitter about 3 minutes after you were discovered to be stalking people there?
Do you think that was done for no reason?
Regardless, that comment you made to me which I referenced earlier, wasn't on Twitter.
All and all, it just seems that you have an objection to my own stated objections about weak science. Which is okay, as far as that goes. You can harbor personal objections to my speech all you like. You can indulge in red-faced rage all you like.
What you don't get to do, without eventual consequences, is harass people and make false public accusations.
As I suspected, if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist. And if Jane actually weren't being "coy" he would've deleted that self-indulgent nonsense before submitting it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which you so conveniently ignore when it suits you. I have reasons for not wanting to bring that up, and I don't choose to go into that now. I don't care to explain those reasons and your baiting doesn't bother me. Nothing "self-indulgent" about it... but I have learned over time that you have a hard time conceiving that other people are not driven by the same motivations you are.
I don't owe you anything, and I don't have some weird emotional need to prove myself perfect to the Slashdot-reading public. Some things can remain safely in my archive, pending some hypothetical time when I might actually need them.
Maybe you shouldn't be lecturing scientists about what scientists think if you can't even run a simple search on your own tweets:
Now I'm lecturing scientists about what scientists think? How many more new accusations are you going to make? Example?
And now, after you have failed to demonstrate examples of your claim that I have "generally" accused climate scientists of fraud, you now make more specific accusations, and you won't even try to back them up at all?
What's the matter? You had another tantrum and your keyboard "mouthed off" again before you could stop it?
You made the claim. Back it up. Show some SPECIFIC, in-context for a change, instances where I "attacked" climate scientists who didn't similarly attack others first. Show where I "insulted" specific climate scientists who didn't similarly insult other people first. Show where I "wrongly lectured" some specific scientists, and precisely why you think it was "wrong". Examples, and evidence, man. Or... well... get stuffed. But then, I said that before.
You made the public accusations. Back them up. Show us you're really the person of honesty and integrity you want people to believe you are.
I'd have nothing to say to you at all if you didn't attack/insult/wrongly lecture
You know, one of the amazing things about you is how you manage to pack so many falsehoods into a few short statements. That's why I have often found myself going back and realizing you had made even MORE accusations than my first quick scan picked up. Admittedly, it's partly because I have grown so tired of your BS I don't pay very close attention anymore.
I'd have nothing to say to you at all if you didn't attack/insult/wrongly lecture
You've made a claim. Time to back it up. Be specific, because I'm not going to allow your usual bullshit.
Show, specifically, how I "attacked", "insulted", or "wrongly lectured" those people.
Let's be clear: It has to be an unprovoked attack (I won't debate with you about a right to defend myself). It has to be an insult that wasn't, similar to the prior clause, a riposte to an earlier insult aimed at me or others. And you must show that if I lectured, it was "wrongly".
Good luck. But of course I mean that facetiously. Wouldn't want you to claim I meant something else later, as is your usual wont.
These latest touches of yours are really the icing on your cake. I am glad you're finally letting it all out and ranting your incoherence at everyone.
Now... aside from your angry rantings about all these people you seem to revere as flawless angels, as I have little doubt you do yourself, do you again have any SPECIFIC accusations to make?
I am aware of your apparent affection for the Cook paper and its authors, but I won't apologize for calling it fraud because the facts say that it was fraud.
You have quite a list of other people there, none of whom I have (at least, as far as you have been able to show, despite a rather ridiculous amount of effort) called "frauds". At any time.
You claim my cries of "fraud" refer to other people, but you haven't shown that, to me or anybody.
And in fact, this great list of people makes it appear that you strongly object to ANY objection to things ANY of them did.
Well, unless you show me a fucking saint... and you sure as hell aren't one... I don't know anybody who is above criticism of some kind or other, and I have no apologies at this time to make to you, or them.
I make it my policy to state the truth as I know it, and I will not apologize for doing so, to God or anybody else... and you would be last on the list.
I have made mistakes, but unlike you, when I was shown I actually made a mistake, I admitted it. The problem here, is that after ALL THIS BULLSHIT, you haven't managed to show me (or probably anybody else) that I was actually wrong in any of this.
And that is truly the last I have to say here. Rant all you like.
John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.
These are "mainstream climate scientists in general"? And -- to put the goalposts back where they were -- I have accused them of fraud? Please show us all where.
As I have stated several times already, aside from the Cook et al. paper, which has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to have defrauded the public about their methodology?
WHO ELSE have I accused of fraud, dimwit? Name one.
Criticized? Sure. No apologies. But fraud? Where have I accused any of these other people of fraud?
NOW you want me to "defend myself" from ever criticizing any of these people about ever doing anything wrong? REALLY? And many of them aren't even scientists.
Holy shit. You really are an intellectual infant. You want me to apologize to these people for any criticisms I ever made?
You're out of your mind.
Look, moron: we all understand that you're angry about being so goddamned wrong so often. But most of us also understand that it's just too bad, and not only are you going to have to get over it, you're going to have to figure out why.
Jane/Lonny Eachus wouldn't ever be able to provide that link, even in his fantasy courtroom, because it doesn't exist.
No, actually, that's one of the times I was actually addressing you, not other people. I'm not bragging, because I have no reason to. I'm simply telling YOU. As I have told you before. I keep archives of these "exchanges", and over time it has become apparent to me that... oops, almost gave away something. (Seriously, I'm not being "coy", to use the word you are so fond of using incorrectly. I almost did give away something there.)
A long time ago, this was simply a public discussion. But it's not anymore. The vast majority of the time the only time I write anything at you publicly is when I'm defending myself from your bullshit accusations. And not even then to YOU... only so that other people can see that you are distorting the truth.
As far as the rest of it goes, I feel no obligation to provide proof to you on Slasdot, because unlike your own apparent motivation, I don't have any childish need to prove myself here. I don't need to "convince" anybody. If you think that equates to my not having any proof... well, I really don't care what you think, either. In fact, I'd be quite happy if you just kept on thinking that. Why should I care? But it's not MY memory that is coming up short here. I can guarantee you that.
Slashdot Mirror
Another good one for the records.
"Fantasized about washing balls"??? Not only is that a distortion of what I wrote and why, it was clearly intended maliciously.
More of that would make my archive of your bullshit more juicy, but it rather violates truth.
Your true colors have been coming out lately, and they're pretty ugly. You have explained openly before why you dislike me (which, again, I have on record) but your belief that it is justification for libel or slander or other forms of character assassination you have been attempting, I assure you that the law disagrees.
Even creationists have some facts that support their position. Not enough to carry the day, but saying they don't exist is just another kind of denial.
Anyone who claims (as you have) that the creationists and young-earthers have NO evidence, is a reality-denier. They don't have much evidence, and they sure as hell don't have much if any GOOD evidence, but they do have some evidence.
See, the thing that you just don't seem to get -- and about which you have been one of the biggest hypocrites I've ever had the misfortune to meet -- is that YOU are the one who has been making accusations. And it's still up to you to show that your accusations were correct.
It has been days, and you have failed miserably. You've tried misdirection, moving the goalposts, your usual straw-manning and out-of-contexting, and other tactics of the dishonest. But you have yet to show that I made false accusations of others, or unprovoked "attacks", or unprovoked "insults", or any of it.
It is a reasonable conclusion at this point that the only reason you haven't shown those things, is that you are not capable of doing so.
So... I think it is also reasonable, given this exchange, to say that YOU have been guilty of unprovoked attacks on my character, that YOU have been guilty of "unprovoked" insults (I haven't been verbally going after you... it has always been you attacking me), and so on.
You have made rather provocative, and in my opinion libelous, claims. None of which you have shown to be true. And which you should reasonably, given years of past experience, have known to not be true.
In the past you have freely and clearly stated motives for such attacks, having to do with your personal "beliefs".
I think you have given ample evidence, including your own statements, that you feel justified to act according to those beliefs, in the face of real contrary evidence, and that you have caused harm to others by doing so. And further that not only are you fully aware of this, but that it has been your (stated) purpose.
But I am always willing for you to provide more evidence! So if you want to keep spouting such bullshit, I won't say "go ahead!" because I disapprove, but I will certainly keep recording it.
In order for libel laws to be effective, it has to be possible to identify the accuser. Even when it is, the accuser may be beyond the reach of justice, for example by being dead. The major benefit of libel laws, in my opinion, is that they provide a public forum (court) where the issue can be debated and a neutral party (judge or jury) can publicly decide who is right. That doesn't work if the accuser can't be made to defend his position.
That was my point. On the other hand, anonymous speech must be allowed when it ISN'T libelous.
my opinion, the libel laws should apply only to an accuser who is willing to defend his accusation in public.
Just no. If the statement was made publicly, and the the speaker should reasonably have known it was false, then they must be subject to the law. Damage may already be done! You'd give people a pass to hit-and-run.
I will not endorse such a scheme.
Without any evidence, Jane insinuates that Dr. Hayhoe is a Young-Earth apologist and tries to smear her as an enemy of science. Yeah Jane, that's another good example of your baseless accusations.
There is plenty of evidence. She said herself, in an interview, she created the dataset for people who believe the earth is young. You seem to think that just because it isn't spoon-fed to you, it doesn't exist. Lazy ass.
It's also another good example of your rampant psychological projection, because as you recall I made some comments about Young-Earthers in response to your claim: "Even creationists have some facts that support their position. Not enough to carry the day, but saying they don't exist is just another kind of denial."
That is a statement of fact. Claiming (as you have in the past) that ALL evidence supports evolution is what is delusional denial. The vast preponderance of it does, and it's pretty obvious to most thinking people that the theory of evolution is a realistic statement of truth. But to deny the existence of ANY counter-evidence at all is a very good example of realdenial.
The rest of your comment is more of the same old crap. False accusations without evidence of your own.
I have faith in people's intelligence. Maybe I'm wrong,
And history shows pretty clearly that you are.
Libel laws did not arise out of some lawmaker's whim. They developed over a very long time, and for very good societal reasons.
Knowingly and intentionally (not the same things) making false statements about somebody can do real damage to his or her reputation, livelihood, family life, etc. I mean real damage, in the same sense as a broken leg is damage. Once that's done, maybe they won't have the resources to fight back. Clearly that would be a one-sided situation favoring the "false witness". That's why there are legal remedies.
Of course legal remedies aren't a panacea. It takes money, time, and effort to sue somebody. That's why sometimes even if it really is libel, and really can be proved, and the injured party really does want to sue, he or she may not be reasonably able to at any given time for a number of reasons.
Let's be clear about this: if you want to prove your point, and the relevant information about it is not right in front of everybody or commonly known, yes indeed, you should cite references.
But in the situation you are referring to, I made it very clear that I am not interested in proving it to you at this time. Since I'm not trying to prove it, I don't have any obligation to cite anything.
The two situations are not even remotely similar, and your comment is yet another example of your habitual out-of-context fallacy.
Same old out-of-context bullshit.
Alas, Tennant's writings about baloney also contain their fair share of baloney.
For example, he dismisses the idea that ad hominem includes the case where one party tries to discredit the other party, thereby attempting to undermine the credibility of his argument. It isn't direct ad-hominem, as a direct part of the first party's argument, but it is still an indirect attempt to undermine the second party's argument, and therefore part of the first party's argument.
So since it is part of the first party's argument in debate, and its intent is to weaken the credibility of the second party's argument, it's no less ad-hominem even though it's indirect. Denying that is like saying the car can't have moved when 5 guys pushed it, because they didn't use the engine.
Tennant is also correct, though, that some examples in RationalWiki are so lame as to border on false examples.
Until Jane posts that link (which doesn't exist) or retracts his accusation, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar.
I've said what I have to say about this, and your tiresome attempts to goad me won't get you anywhere.
Others might think the greatest insults were Jane falsely accusing Dr. Hayhoe of being a flake who's making "misandrous" claims by saying she receives misogynous emails,
That's a rather huge leap from a couple of separate comments with no context. As per your usual invalid methodology: taking comments separated in time and context, conflating them, and pretending that's proof of your point. Further, the comment about possible misandry wasn't stated as an assertion or "accusation", but only a hypothetical.
and Jane falsely claiming that Dr. Hayhoe has "no credibility"
So now you endorse her "young Earth" dataset chosen specifically for her creationist audience? I pretty much do call that "no credibility". Noting false about that. Especially as she then went on to make demonstrably false claims about that same data.
"so many things she says are just false"
Yep. Demonstrated truth.
and implying that she belongs to a "Globular Warmunist cult" or suspecting that Dr. Hayhoe is "without understanding" of her own field.
Apparently humor and satire are beyond your comprehension.
I have no reason to make any apologies for any of those statements. Except for the satire, which was well-deserved, I certainly did make comments about her work but I would not agree that they're "unprovoked insults". On the contrary; the comments were quite thoroughly provoked, and nearly all of them were hypotheticals or legitimate criticisms.
You're just repeating more of the same nonsense. You haven't made your case. Nor are you going to, because as I say again: it's just false.
He wasn't wrong, because his predictions about famine were conditioned on factors remaining the same--they didn't. We improved crop yields through new varieties, fertilizers, irrigation, etc. and got rid of a lot of smog and pollution.
Yes, he was wrong. Regardless of the ASSUMPTIONS he made, he made public predictions, and they were all rather uproariously wrong.
A lot of those solutions were researched and put into effect because Erlich and people like him pointed out that we were speeding toward a cliff, and stepping on the gas instead of the brake.
Concrete example? Citations?
Even if, as you assert, his failed predictions helped, the fact remains that they are failed predictions. Still, I'd be interested to see any of them causally linked to remediating changes.
@BadAstronomer Do you support Hayhoe's statement? ""Among climate scientists--people who spend their lives researching our world there is no debate regarding the reality of climate change, and the fact that humans are the primary cause."
You somehow have a problem with that? Explain.
Then...
So I could be the most passionate sermonizer in the world about Climate Change, but Hayhoe would still be a flake.
CONTEXT??? You've shown no context. What was the conversation? Where is the surrounding context? You haven't shown that the comment there was either incorrect or unprovoked. But from here it looks like a hypothetical. Possibly even a question. How would I know?
Then... this is a real hoot.
Interesting. @KHayhoe doesnâ(TM)t show examples of this âoemajorityâ of allegedly misogynous emails. ... t occurs to me that without evidence, these claims of hers might be legitimately labeled âoemisandrousâ.
And? That is a plain statement of fact. *IF* there is no evidence, claims "might" be labeled...
Please explain where you disagree with the logic there. More:
@AvaPlaint @tan123 @KHayhoe I also love that she cited skeptical http://science.com/ as a âoescience resourceâ. âoe97%â anybody?
and...
@AvaPlaint @tan123 I was referring to @KHayhoe comment re: skeptical science blog, and Cookâ(TM)s âoe97%â nonsense.
and...
.@KHayhoe can be a captivating and persuasive speaker. Itâ(TM)s too bad so many things she says are just false.
Well, what of those things? You made the claim. You are obligated to show where any of those tweets were falsehoods or "unprovoked insults". There is LOTS of evidence that Keyhoe's statements were scientific falsehoods. But you haven't shown where I met any of the criteria you need to make your point.
I particularly like this one:
There are few people more dangerous than âoesky is fallingâ alarmists who believe their own alarming tales. Smiles and all.
Please explain where that statement is false. Or for that matter, "unprovoked". You haven't done any of that.
Another good one:
Wrong! Simply not true. Cold weather kills FAR more people than hot weather does, worldwide.
Another solid matter of statistics. "Change" has not been shown to kill people. Cold weather does. And it does so at many times the rate that hot weather kills people.
I like this one too. What's the matter? You don't like satire?
How did we get to this point, where political ideology determines whether we agree w scientists on climate change? http://prairiefirenewspaper.co...
Yes, exactly. Why do Leftists belong to this Globular Warmunist cult, when the majority of people donâ(TM)t? Itâ(TM)s a mystery.
This is actually satire. She wonders why political ideology (she is quite clearly referring to the political Right) "determines" whether we agree blah blah...
The satire part comes in because (A) it's a correlation, not a determination, and if she doesn't understand the difference she should turn in her scientist badge, and (B) she doesn't realize that as a staunch Leftist, she contributes as much of that "political divide" as anyone else. And that lack of understanding on her part is just plain knee-slappingly hilarious! But insult? Really? I insulted her less than she did all by herself.
Nice lineu
Oops... I almost missed your link. Sorry, a collection of comments by me is not an example. Be specific. WHO did I do these things to? When? In what context?
If you want to prove your accusation, you will have to actually show me doing one of those things to one of those people, unprovoked. In context. You have included no context to show provocation or lack thereof. You have presented no contest to show my comments were "wrong" or "lecturing wrongly". So far, you've shown us nothing but a collection of words out of context, as has been your usual approach.
I won't apologize to you or anybody if I did in fact do any of those things, if the other people involved did them first. Turnabout is fair play. I will not apologize for defending myself or others I know.
So do your due diligence, and SHOW us actual examples of what you accused me of. Real examples. Explanation. Demonstration that it wasn't provoked. Go ahead... as you have shown, you have access to all my tweets. So show us.
I don't think you can. I think if you could, you would have done so already. Your maliciousness toward me is well-known and often demonstrated. So I highly doubt YOU are being "coy", as you so egregiously misuse the word. I think you're just incapable.
Again, if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist.
I told you: you can continue insisting on this here all you like. I don't much care.
If Jane/Lonny is honest, he'd have to retract his accusation after doing a few seconds of due diligence through his records from way back when.
I have some pretty strong evidence that I have kept some records you haven't. I don't care to say any more about it.
Once again, Jane's telepathy is broken. What's a "reality d***er" and what makes Jane/Lonny think I want to be one?
Simple: you made a point of claiming that Cook et al. 2013 was not produced fraudulently. There seems to be more than enough evidence to convince a jury (if, of course, there were ever call for a jury to decide it) that it was, indeed, produced fraudulently.
As I've told you before: I'm not immune from mistakes, but I do go by evidence. And the evidence is against you in regard to Cook et al. 2013. By a long way.
Where should we start? Which person or group that I mentioned do you deny harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing?
Considering that you haven't shown us even a glimpse at a single example yet, maybe you can decide. But in all honesty, I just expect more amusement. I may come back here to see what you have to offer (if anything), maybe not. It depends in part on how much of a glutton for punishment you want to be.
Second.
BUT... I agree with GP that it isn't the government's place to do this.
You and I, sir, are apparently of like minds, even if we are brothers only in our cynicism; I, unfortunately, completely agree with your asessment: Humanity, in general, is suffering from a case of extreme, chronic myopia, and it could very likely end in discovering we're about to walk off a cliff only after we've walked off it.
Seriously? You base this on a prediction from Paul Erlich, the guy who is famous for always being wrong about his pronouncements of gloom and doom?
Just run a simple search on your archived tweets for "97%" and you'll uncover dozens of examples where you've been "lecturing scientists about what scientists think": https://archive.is/https://twi...
Nope. You lose again. Saying that the "97%" claim has been debunked and is in fact junk science, is not the same as saying I know what the actual percentage is. Nor have I tried to tell people what it is. But I have very good reasons to believe it's far smaller than that... like for example other surveys that were not fraudulent.
It's like you just put whatever old spin you want on my comments and call them something else... another bad habit you have that I've pointed out before.
Or, you know, just read all the baseless accusations of fraud that you've repeated in this very thread on that topic.
Why do you say that ANY of my comments were "baseless"? Please demonstrate that. It's a bald (and quite false) claim.
That comment wasn't anywhere else either, because it doesn't exist. As usual, Jane's hopelessly confused about comments that took place after Cook et al. was out: http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
That was one, sure. But there have been others. Going back years. Apparently I kept some records that you did not, from way back when. But that's okay. As I said before, I don't much feel like bothering to prove that to you, and it's hardly much of an "accusation", so I wonder why you care. So go ahead and claim it doesn't exist. I won't agree with you, but I'm not going to bother to argue with you much about it, either.
By the way, since you brought it up: is John Cook a "colleague" of yours? I find it very interesting that you would choose to call someone who has been -- to use someone else's words -- "serially debunked", a colleague of yours. But then it shouldn't surprise me, I suppose.
How ironic that Jane says this while harassing/attacking/insulting/wrongly lecturing: John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.
Oh... now you're expanding your claim to harassment, too? Before you've ever come up with an example of any of the other things yet?
Well, I'll put the same conditions on it that I put on your other claims (because I can): show us all where I have "harassed" any of those people when they didn't harass me or someone else first. Show us all where I have "attacked" any of those people when they did not attack me or someone else first. Show us all where I have "insulted" any of those people when they did not insult me or someone else first. Show us all where I was "wrongly lecturing" any of those people -- at all. But you have to demonstrate that it was somehow wrong.
You haven't done any of those things. Except for Cook et al., I don't recall ever naming any of them as "frauds". And I won't apologize for calling the Cook 2013 paper a fraud because from the evidence it has very clearly been shown to be, beyond reasonable doubt. I don't expect you to be reasonable, but you should at least recognize what is reasonable and what is not, no matter how much you want to be a "reality denier".
Maybe you shouldn't be lecturing scientists about what scientists think if you can't even run a simple search on your own tweets: (link)
I'm still not sure what you mean by "lecturing scientists about what scientists think". Example?
But as for a Twitter search... I can do that easily. I find it interesting that you use such a crude tool to do it. Why is that? Oh... wait. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you got blocked on Twitter about 3 minutes after you were discovered to be stalking people there?
Do you think that was done for no reason?
Regardless, that comment you made to me which I referenced earlier, wasn't on Twitter.
All and all, it just seems that you have an objection to my own stated objections about weak science. Which is okay, as far as that goes. You can harbor personal objections to my speech all you like. You can indulge in red-faced rage all you like.
What you don't get to do, without eventual consequences, is harass people and make false public accusations.
As I suspected, if Jane/Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar, he'd simply ignore the fact that this link doesn't exist. And if Jane actually weren't being "coy" he would've deleted that self-indulgent nonsense before submitting it.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which you so conveniently ignore when it suits you. I have reasons for not wanting to bring that up, and I don't choose to go into that now. I don't care to explain those reasons and your baiting doesn't bother me. Nothing "self-indulgent" about it... but I have learned over time that you have a hard time conceiving that other people are not driven by the same motivations you are.
I don't owe you anything, and I don't have some weird emotional need to prove myself perfect to the Slashdot-reading public. Some things can remain safely in my archive, pending some hypothetical time when I might actually need them.
Maybe you shouldn't be lecturing scientists about what scientists think if you can't even run a simple search on your own tweets:
Now I'm lecturing scientists about what scientists think? How many more new accusations are you going to make? Example?
... well ... get stuffed. But then, I said that before.
And now, after you have failed to demonstrate examples of your claim that I have "generally" accused climate scientists of fraud, you now make more specific accusations, and you won't even try to back them up at all?
What's the matter? You had another tantrum and your keyboard "mouthed off" again before you could stop it?
You made the claim. Back it up. Show some SPECIFIC, in-context for a change, instances where I "attacked" climate scientists who didn't similarly attack others first. Show where I "insulted" specific climate scientists who didn't similarly insult other people first. Show where I "wrongly lectured" some specific scientists, and precisely why you think it was "wrong". Examples, and evidence, man. Or
You made the public accusations. Back them up. Show us you're really the person of honesty and integrity you want people to believe you are.
Seriously?
BACK IT UP.
I know you won't be able to, but telling everybody else to do it is great amusement. We're all sure you're not really that stupid.
I'd have nothing to say to you at all if you didn't attack/insult/wrongly lecture
You know, one of the amazing things about you is how you manage to pack so many falsehoods into a few short statements. That's why I have often found myself going back and realizing you had made even MORE accusations than my first quick scan picked up. Admittedly, it's partly because I have grown so tired of your BS I don't pay very close attention anymore.
I'd have nothing to say to you at all if you didn't attack/insult/wrongly lecture
You've made a claim. Time to back it up. Be specific, because I'm not going to allow your usual bullshit.
Show, specifically, how I "attacked", "insulted", or "wrongly lectured" those people.
Let's be clear: It has to be an unprovoked attack (I won't debate with you about a right to defend myself). It has to be an insult that wasn't, similar to the prior clause, a riposte to an earlier insult aimed at me or others. And you must show that if I lectured, it was "wrongly".
Good luck. But of course I mean that facetiously. Wouldn't want you to claim I meant something else later, as is your usual wont.
These latest touches of yours are really the icing on your cake. I am glad you're finally letting it all out and ranting your incoherence at everyone.
Now... aside from your angry rantings about all these people you seem to revere as flawless angels, as I have little doubt you do yourself, do you again have any SPECIFIC accusations to make?
I am aware of your apparent affection for the Cook paper and its authors, but I won't apologize for calling it fraud because the facts say that it was fraud.
You have quite a list of other people there, none of whom I have (at least, as far as you have been able to show, despite a rather ridiculous amount of effort) called "frauds". At any time.
You claim my cries of "fraud" refer to other people, but you haven't shown that, to me or anybody.
And in fact, this great list of people makes it appear that you strongly object to ANY objection to things ANY of them did.
Well, unless you show me a fucking saint... and you sure as hell aren't one... I don't know anybody who is above criticism of some kind or other, and I have no apologies at this time to make to you, or them.
I make it my policy to state the truth as I know it, and I will not apologize for doing so, to God or anybody else... and you would be last on the list.
I have made mistakes, but unlike you, when I was shown I actually made a mistake, I admitted it. The problem here, is that after ALL THIS BULLSHIT, you haven't managed to show me (or probably anybody else) that I was actually wrong in any of this.
And that is truly the last I have to say here. Rant all you like.
John Cook, Katharine Hayhoe, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, John Holdren, Andrew Dessler, Naomi Oreskes, Richard Muller, Brian Cox, Tamsin Edwards, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Dana Nuccitelli, Zeke Hausfather, Victor Venema, Karl et al., Mark Boslough, Robert Brown, Joel Shore, David Brin, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Bill Nye, Wil Wheaton, the IPCC, Skeptical Science, Real Climate, Scientific American, National Geographic, and mainstream climate scientists in general.
These are "mainstream climate scientists in general"? And -- to put the goalposts back where they were -- I have accused them of fraud? Please show us all where.
As I have stated several times already, aside from the Cook et al. paper, which has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to have defrauded the public about their methodology?
WHO ELSE have I accused of fraud, dimwit? Name one.
Criticized? Sure. No apologies. But fraud? Where have I accused any of these other people of fraud?
NOW you want me to "defend myself" from ever criticizing any of these people about ever doing anything wrong? REALLY? And many of them aren't even scientists.
Holy shit. You really are an intellectual infant. You want me to apologize to these people for any criticisms I ever made?
You're out of your mind.
Look, moron: we all understand that you're angry about being so goddamned wrong so often. But most of us also understand that it's just too bad, and not only are you going to have to get over it, you're going to have to figure out why.
Jane/Lonny Eachus wouldn't ever be able to provide that link, even in his fantasy courtroom, because it doesn't exist.
No, actually, that's one of the times I was actually addressing you, not other people. I'm not bragging, because I have no reason to. I'm simply telling YOU. As I have told you before. I keep archives of these "exchanges", and over time it has become apparent to me that ... oops, almost gave away something. (Seriously, I'm not being "coy", to use the word you are so fond of using incorrectly. I almost did give away something there.)
A long time ago, this was simply a public discussion. But it's not anymore. The vast majority of the time the only time I write anything at you publicly is when I'm defending myself from your bullshit accusations. And not even then to YOU... only so that other people can see that you are distorting the truth.
As far as the rest of it goes, I feel no obligation to provide proof to you on Slasdot, because unlike your own apparent motivation, I don't have any childish need to prove myself here. I don't need to "convince" anybody. If you think that equates to my not having any proof... well, I really don't care what you think, either. In fact, I'd be quite happy if you just kept on thinking that. Why should I care? But it's not MY memory that is coming up short here. I can guarantee you that.
Oh... haha. Then I went and did what you did not. Mea culpa.
You were quite right, and I reacted before I read your comment fully.
Copyright fair use and trademark fair use do differ in detail, but they still both allow commentary.