Before anyone tries to cut you down by suggesting you're confused
They're welcome to try. And they would be wrong.
I am well aware that there is a difference between copyright fair use and trademark fair use. But neither copyright law or trademark law -- BECAUSE of the principle of fair use -- prevents me from saying, even in print: "GODDAMN! THAT'S EVEN BETTER THAN SAMSUNG!"
The fact that they are very different laws, and that different circumstances apply to them, does not negate the fact that THAT kind of use is allowed under both versions of the fair-use doctrine. Criticism and review (including comparison) are ALLOWED. Period.
".@BradThor Want a real-life hero, but maybe a different kind? Unlike Kyle, @SteveSGoddard REJECTS the bullshit, shows people actual data.
He did something that was very much in the public good. For that I called him (once, and only IN CONTEXT), a hero.
I did not claim he was MY "hero", you distorter of facts, nor that somebody who does good could not also be wrong at times.
You're really, really reaching here. It's like -- wait a minute, it will come to me -- oh, yeah: almost like you don't have any facts but you feel a NEED to attack me anyway, so you manufacture this kind of thing which is nothing more than a lame attempt (and I do mean really lame) to besmirch character.
Have you noticed yet? YOU'RE the one who's always been attacking. WHY? What need of yours does it fulfill?
If you didn't attack me on a regular basis, I'd have nothing to say to you at all. And really, even then I have nothing to say to you, because all of this is really for other people, who might see your attacks and think you might actually have something intelligent to say, if there weren't someone else to point out how much you're just behaving like a spoiled infant.
Oh... there is one more thing I wanted to say. I find it very interesting that you don't seem to be able to conceive of any reason I might not be "doing something" about your verbal attacks.
I certainly am "doing something". And the more you make them, the more I'm doing. But I have to inform you that it doesn't work by your schedule. Still... every time, you make it easier.
Don't be silly, Jane. I've provided many links above where you regurgitated baseless accusations of fraud.
That's a blatant lie. I did no such thing. I have linked to articles and papers. I have not "regurgitated" anything. We've been over this already... I'm amazed how you keep using arguments you've lost many times in the past. As though you think you could "wear me down" or something by repeating the same nonsense I've successfully repelled before.
It's really funny to watch you do this. The more you're losing, the more "out there" your accusations get. It's as if (hint, hint), you might have some kind of emotional inability to admit when you're wrong.
You're just so far gone that you're incapable of admitting that your accusations are baseless
You might be called upon to actually support this statement some day, with actual facts. So far you have not gotten anywhere close. These pages these last few days certainly haven't shown anything.
even the vague accusations you hurled at mainstream climate scientists in general
Oh, so now my "accusations" have been hurled at "climate scientists in general"? Have you understood nothing of what has gone before in this conversation? This is directly contrary to what I stated just above! I don't "hurl accusations at scientists in general". Again, you haven't shown a single instance. Bad things have occurred, but I haven't accused "scientists in general", at all. In fact, it has often been scientists who uncovered the wrongdoing. This is a ridiculous accusation. You're just making shit up again.
Hint again, man: your feelings about what I say are not facts... though I suppose one might count them toward your emotional maturity.
Jane, you've claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard" uncovered "massive" fraud: https://archive.is/HcOkT
Anthony is not "my hero", and I resent that comment. If I were to use similar emotional "reasoning", I might conclude that Macchiavelli is YOUR hero. What do you think of that?
Again, you present my comment out of any context, to try to "prove" your point. It's just plain pathetic.
Link, or it didn't happen.
More hilarity. I have my records. But unlike you, I don't feel obligated (or an emotional need) to "prove" things on Slashdot. The times I have proved you're making a fool of yourself I've done for fun. Because it's easy. But let's make no mistake: I also do it because I feel obligated to defend myself from your false public accusations. It's just that you're so inept at this that defending oneself can also be a bit of fun.
If you want to see my actual records, it will likely have to be in a courtroom. I might let you see a glimpse from time to time. But when I do, it will be when I decide, not you.
You really don't get it do you? Even though I've told you many times. I'm just building up a file. And (rough estimate) about one in 5 times you open your mouth in my direction, you add to that file. (I've a pretty extensive archive, it's just that not much of what you say is very interesting in that regard, to a general audience. But my archive loves it.)
This particular exchange has been a bit of a haul. Not because it's anything new, but because you confirmed certain things I have you on record doing before.
I don't understand why you don't get it. I've told you to go away many, many times. Pretty much everything you've done here is on you, not me. You've even told me you made it your primary work to prove that I'm some kind of dumbass or "denier" or idiot or crazy or something... I really didn't quite catch all of that. You even stated that you felt I was "dangerous" somehow because I was saying things with which you didn't agree. But the funny thing is, the only one attacking anybody here is you.
If that's true, Jane/Lonny Eachus should be able to understand why I'm challenging his baseless accusations of fraud
AFTER BEING ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A "BASELESS" ACCUSATION OF FRAUD!
Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. WHO??? You don't have any examples. I call bullshit. Not one example, after plenty of time to dig through your (rather enormous, it seems) records of my statements.
dishonesty, and incompetence in mainstream climate science. After all, I believe people should know the truth.
Yes. And we have lots of examples of dishonesty and incompetence. Well-documented, as as often as not peer-reviewed. Would you care to try to refute them? Even if you manage to refute any which are on that page, I have files full of more for you to try.
You still have yet to show me guilty of actual dishonesty myself.
You and I both know those weren't the scientists you were originally referring to when you claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard has indeed uncovered some fraud in the data manipulations."
Ridiculous. I know no such thing, since I don't know who you are referring to. You refuse (or are unable) to provide any examples.
Every time you try to pull these ridiculous childish tantrums with no real evidence, you further cement my impression that you're emotionally a grade-schooler, in PhD clothing.
... Do you claim that the Cook et al. paper was NOT a fraud? Simple question. Yes or no?...
I will be fascinated to see your published refutation.
Until then, you can keep getting stuffed. You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud". As for the rest: dishonesty, lies, etc... it has been amply demonstrated and I need no defense.
I did not claim all the scientists are dishonest. But some of them have been proved to be. I did not claim they're all lying. But some of them have been proved to be. I did not claim they're all frauds. But some of them have been proved to be.
Beyond reasonable doubt. And those are the ones I refer to. I include Cook et al. 2013 in that group. And there isn't a soul on Earth to whom I will apologize for that, since it's the demonstrated truth.
Again, why do you insist on accusing scientists of fraud? What is your purpose?
You are being ridiculously obtuse. Or just downright stupid. You have accused me, more than once, of claiming that "good scientists" are guilty of fraud. WHO ARE THEY???
Do you claim that the Cook et al. paper was NOT a fraud? Simple question. Yes or no?
I have already admitted that I called Cook a fraud. And if you want to know my reason, it is this: I believe people should know the truth.
But you and I both know those weren't the scientists you were originally referring to. In fact I can prove it, because the first time you claimed I was "accusing scientists of fraud" was before the Cook paper was even in public circulation.
I can go back into my records and find things too, you know. You're just trying to move the goalposts again, now that you've seen you lost the main argument. And it's laughably infantile.
No more responses. I don't care how many times you choose to put your foot in your mouth. I've made my point.
I'm free most weekends to do any necessary deciding.
That's genuinely funny.
Please give us an example of Obama saying that anybody who wants a gun is by definition crazy. Otherwise, you're just talking shit, pardon my Italiano.
Misunderstanding. What I was referring to was Obama administration's stated intent to deny guns to people judged (by government) to be mentally incapable of using them properly. I assert that government is simply not capable of doing so without letting political bias leak in. (Past history says a lot about government's ability to be unbiased.)
I wasn't trying to claim that Obama administration is trying to claim everybody is crazy... still:
Have you seen DSM-5, used in psychiatry? Do you know that according to this new version, which came out in 2013, most American adults suffer from one or another form of psychiatric disorder during their lives? That it says more than half of Americans suffer from some degree of autism? I could go on.
The problem is that when government has means by which it could claim most of the population has some kind of mental disorder, it shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on that basis. What is normal anyway? If more than half of the populace is "abnormal" in the sense that they have a psychiatric disorder, then who is normal? A select minority? Plus, never forget that there are powerful special interests which would love to get guns out of American hands.
That may sound paranoid to you, but history speaks for itself. Never trust government to make decisions that a reasonable, rational person would not. I'm not claiming any grand conspiracy or anything. But we must always be on the lookout for the possibility of abuse of power. Because once government gets a power, it inevitably, eventually, uses it.
---
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- U.S. Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
Does not matter. The Trademark Dilution Act "Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury."
It's your comment that doesn't matter. Despite other legislation, there is an exception in U.S. law for fair use. Since it was a descriptive article or review, and not an advertisement, the situation clearly falls under fair use, which allows critical discussion and comparisons.
Unless their neighbor has a fracking operation in their back yard.
Not very realistic.
Or refuses to vaccinate his kids.
I don't mind, as long as it's just the 1-2% who have a legitimate beef or health issue with vaccinations. Which means almost exclusively the latter.
Or decides that after changing the oil in his '76 Toyota pickup to pour the old oil down the sewer.
This is certainly valid, because it endangers your own property, drinking water, etc.
The really sad part about the vaccination thing is that it really is a matter of public health, and not being on board because you have some unsubstantiated suspicion that they might be a 1,000,000-to-1 problem with it, is just plain sociopathically selfish.
"Within the boundaries of the law" is exactly what this discussion is about.
But who decides?
It's difficult to allow the argument "crazies shouldn't have one", because who is crazy? That's not an idle question, when you have a horde of conflict-of-interest climate nutcases calling anyone who disagrees with them a nut or delusional.
Next thing you knew, it would be "anybody who wants a gun is by definition crazy", etc.
Don't think it can't happen... Obama and friends have been trying to make it happen for quite a while. And they've been stepping up on it hard just lately because they suspect (probably correctly) that they're going to lose B-I-G in 2016 elections.
Jane, you said "It is incontrovertible evidence that you have been fed a pack of lies. Not mistakes, LIES."
Link 1: I haven't denied saying such things.
Jane/Lonny Eachus is either retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty" or continuing to pretend that this isn't an accusation of "harmful" dishonesty.
No retraction here.
Maybe Lonny Eachus should remind Jane that "fraud" is not necessarily a money scam (link)
Link 2: I am well aware of what fraud means.
But it's especially hilarious that Jane projects his own accusations of fraud for economic gain:
Link 3: You are trying to conflate different statements, separated in time and context, into one. You know damned well that's a fallacious argument. Even if it weren't, who do you claim is being accused there? Do you have a name? Or a particular group? Look at the context. Looks to me like the tweet says fudging data is a scam. It is. Have you been fudging data? Has anyone you know been fudging data? Again: who is being accused?
Link 4: Even funnier. A hypothetical about a (probably) fictitious future? Really? You claim this is an "accusation" that somebody is a fraud? And look... the tweet says "alarmism", not "climate science". So who is being accused? Are you an "alarmist"? You know what that word means, don't you? If you don't, go back to gradeschool and read about Chicken Little.
Link 5: Steve Goddard has indeed uncovered some fraud in the data manipulations. I didn't say he's always right (he's not), or that any particular scientist or group of scientists is guilty of fraud. Once again, who is being accused here? Do you claim that there is NO fraud in climate science? We already pretty firmly established above that there has been (Cook, et al. for example. Duarte uses the word "fraud" more than 20 times in his critique of the paper. And he's hardly the only one.) If you want me to claim "no fraud at all" in climate science, Cook, Nuccitelli et al. 2013 would have to be retracted. Until then, there IS fraud in climate science. And don't go telling me Cook is not a "climate science" paper, because it certainly is. The SUBJECT is climate science, it claims to be scientific, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and climate scientists and PR people have quoted it.
But other than Cook et al., who have I accused of fraud? What scientist or scientists?
Jane can probably twist himself into a pretzel mansplaining away his endorsement of those "massive" fraud accusations, but he should pace himself. We still need a condescending lecture about how "scam" is totally different than "fraud":
No, we don't. What you need is a lecture about how to make a valid argument. You make far too many invalid assumptions, you distort comments taken out of context in order to try to prove your point, you move the goalposts, and you straw-man. Not just occasionally, but habitually.
Link 6: Where is the context? What what "scam" does that refer to? That tweet was made months ago, so how do I know? Even if we accept your idea that "scam" and "fraud" are the same thing -- which I don't, necessarily -- just who am I accusing? Impossible to tell without a context.
Link 7: If youâ(TM)re of scientific mind, and not particularly gullible, their own data gives them away. Itâ(TM)s a scam.
Who is "they"? I repeat: unless or until Cook et al. 2013 is retracted, there *IS* scamming going on in climate science. But other than them, WHO am I accusing?
Link 7: Ditto.
Now let's put those goalposts back where they were: you have said many times that I accuse scientists of fraud. It is pretty well established that some fraud has occurred. But other than those already mentioned, WHO have I accused of fraud? Name one. (You ca
Do you know what the word "evidence" means? Are you aware that "incontrovertible evidence" does not mean "proof"?
The evidence is incontrovertible. Whether it constitutes proof or not is another question. Either way, the tweet did not claim "fraud". It said "lies". And unless you're a complete moron, you understand that they are two different statements.
Again, there is no "verbal trickery" here. I have written what I have written, other people have written what they have written. English words have meanings. I (or somebody else) can point to an article that claims "fraud", and say there is evidence in it of lies. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the claim of fraud.
YOU'RE the one desperate to pull meaning out of statements, where no such meaning exists. That's not my fault. In fact, it's a royal pain in the ass, and I wouldn't respond to you at all, except that I want to show people just how full of shit you are. Thankfully, that has been pretty easy to do.
Moving the goalposts? Jane, "fraud" was in the title of the link you called "incontrovertible evidence". Here's that text again, with emphasis to help Jane see that the goalpost has been motionless for years:
I didn't write that article. Did I say I endorsed it? Did I claim it was true?
It's bad enough that you lie to people about things I wrote. Now (for lack of anything better to do, presumably, or maybe because you can't honestly prove your point) you're trying to blame me for things other people write. Get stuffed. It won't fly.
That is simply false. There are an infinite number of algorithms that might contain the (sub)expression X/X for which zero is a valid value of X.
No, there aren't. There are zero algorithms were 0/0 is "valid". 0/0 is simply not a number. You don't get to make up mathematics as you go and make it a number, no matter how convenient you might find that. If your algorithm treats it as a valid number, your algorithm is wrong.
In fact, most compilers and interpreters will barf if you try to feed them that. (Division by zero error, or "NaN", depending.) You'd have to do a bit of trickery to make it work at all.
To assume it's a programming error is sheer unmitigated stupidity that I might expect from a mathematician that has never written a real program in his life.
It isn't an "assumption". It *IS* a programming error. The fact that the result of division by zero is undefined is a fact of life, not just some made-up mathematical construct. You can prove that to yourself with a framing square and a couple of sticks, if you don't believe me.
An algorithm that assumes pi is equal to 3.0 is no more stupid than assuming 0/0 is valid.
Is it really that hard for Jane/Lonny Eachus to understand that he's the one accusing the IPCC of spreading harmful "LIES"?
I didn't claim otherwise. Regardless, that's moving the goalposts.
That's adorable, cupcake. But I'll take my chances. After all, Jane/Lonny Eachus is a snivelling coward who won't ever do anything except whine endlessly. Cue more endless whining...
I don't see anything in this exchange that could honestly be called "whining". Warning, perhaps, but hardly whining.
At least you finally got around to saying what you think. Another one for the file. Not that I understand where you get the idea that I give the slightest damn what you think.
Is Jane/Lonny Eachus retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty"?
(link)
So now YOU are claiming that IPCC concluded what they did for monetary gain? Because that's the only way that one comment could be linked to the other.
So... yes, or no? You are claiming IPCC's reports were created for their economic gain?
You don't get to have it both ways, and you REALLY don't know how this works. I'm not kidding... I'm HONESTLY telling you that it would really be in your own best interest right now to shut the fuck up about me. As of about 2 years ago. Actually longer, but I'm not going to go back that far today.
I will say that in my experience, you don't understand when you've lost. That's DIFFERENT from tough and persistent and tenacious and prevailing in the end. It's just denial of reality.
I'm not telling you to shut up, and there's no threat. Even though I have no good reason, I was trying to help you out. But that's done, at this point. Done, done, and done. You're messing up badly, and if you persist, you might just step into something you can't dig yourself out of.
So you accuse me of making a "false public accusation" that you accuse scientists of fraud, while doubling down on your accusation of lying
An accusation of lying is not an accusation of fraud. It's that simple. You don't get to call one thing the other.
and also insisting that "... there is no way in hell I would retract any statement I may have made about fraud in regard to the Cook et al. 2013 "97%" paper. It's fraudulent garbage..."
That's ONE paper, and the people behind it. You strongly implied -- even stated elsewhere -- that I was in the habit of calling scientists frauds. Those are very strong words. Potentially damaging words. It implies that I am irrational or stupid. It wasn't a statement of opinion, it was stated as though it was fact, and something I did rather "generally".
But that is false.
You STILL don't get how this works. You accused me of calling scientists frauds, then when I asked you for examples, you provided samples of someone saying lots of other things, but not accusing any specific person of fraud. Even if everybody were to accept that I am that person, it still doesn't wash.
When I pointed out to you those were not examples of accusations of fraud, you went fishing again... and came up with exactly one example, which I can easily defend as simple demonstrated truth. Then you threw in lots of other examples of things to which YOU object, as though attempting to besmirch my character substituted for proving your accusation.
You also implied (worded as a question or not) that I was a "pathological liar", which doesn't fly worded as a question, in part because the implication was clear, backed up by the fact that you have also accused me directly of doing the same thing in so many words elsewhere, many times now. (With no corroborating evidence, I might add.)
Look man, I'll explain this as simply as I can, to try to get it through to you: being careful of what I say about other people is not a crime. And it's NOT "verbal trickery", as you seem to think. It's a learned HABIT, and one you would be well advised to learn. A social and (dare I say?) legal skill that you should study and pick up, because it's pretty damned obvious that you still don't know how that works.
I'm done trying to help you again. You don't deserve it. End of conversation.
Jane/Lonny Eachus also calls "alarmism" a hoax, but Jane could probably explain why that's totally different and out of context and blah blah blah...
Won't work. You claimed those PRIOR Twitter statements were accusations of fraud: you provided them in response to my question to you about specifically where I had claimed some "scientist" had committed fraud.
So even if I had made that accusation elsewhere, you still made a false public accusation. You should really watch that, because I also have evidence that you have done so, more than once, in a manner that was pretty obviously malicious. I also have evidence of... well, I'll leave that aside for now. But apparently you don't learn. So just keep sticking your foot in your mouth. If you want to keep implicating yourself, I guess that's your business. I am definitely not giving you permission; it's just that I don't have a good way to stop you at this time.
Link 1 specifically mentions "BS Alarmism". Not just any old alarmism. You have a problem with that? No mention of fraud.
Link 2: No mention of "fraud" anywhere. Also, the mention that WAS made was about "rabid" alarmism. Are you an advocate of "rabid" alarmism?
Link 3: Repeat of Link 2.
Link 4: Haha. More than 3 years ago. The comment is citing someone else's accusation of fraud (in this case, Alex Rawls). For which, by the way, there is quite a bit of good evidence. Also, "looks like" is not an accusation.
Link 5: Accusation of lying is not an accusation of fraud. But again: there's lots of evidence that it's true. Why should anyone apologize for making statements that are based on strong evidence? You claim to do it all the time.
Link 6: The Cook et al. paper IS a fraud. Nobody should apologize for saying so. There is solid proof that they did not even use the methods they claimed they did in the paper. That's fraud. If you're going to try to berate me -- or anyone else -- for calling Cook et al. a fraud, I'm just going to sit here and laugh at you. And so will lots of others.
Link 7: Mention that people had been defrauded. They had, as evidenced by Cook et al. However, in that specific tweet there is no mention of any scientist. To whom did that tweet refer? Your objection is supposed to be about accusing scientists of fraud. So who specifically was being accused in that Tweet?
And presumably all these other times that Jane/Lonny Eachus repeated accusations of fraud, he never agreed with them.
No presumption is necessary, because I may or may not have agreed with tweets that quoted of others. If I didn't specifically say I agreed to some tweet, you have no genuine reason to assume that I did.
I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying?
All and all, you've come up short. You don't show ME actually accusing any SCIENTIST of fraud, unless you count Cook and Nuccitelli as "scientists" who matter in the debate. And even if you did, there is no way in hell I would retract any statement I may have made about fraud in regard to the Cook et al. 2013 "97%" paper. It's fraudulent garbage, and a reasonable, unbiased person who reads about their ACTUAL methods, say here for example, or maybe here, is not likely to come to a different conclusion. Present company possibly excepted, but then I don't consider you to be either reasonable or unbiased.
Truth is absolute defense. The only "scientists" I ever recall saying MYSELF were "frauds", were those behind the Cook and Nuccitelli 2013 paper, and that's because the paper is a fraud. There is proof they didn't use the methodologies they claimed they did in the paper. That's fraud
Slashdot Mirror
Before anyone tries to cut you down by suggesting you're confused
They're welcome to try. And they would be wrong.
I am well aware that there is a difference between copyright fair use and trademark fair use. But neither copyright law or trademark law -- BECAUSE of the principle of fair use -- prevents me from saying, even in print: "GODDAMN! THAT'S EVEN BETTER THAN SAMSUNG!"
The fact that they are very different laws, and that different circumstances apply to them, does not negate the fact that THAT kind of use is allowed under both versions of the fair-use doctrine. Criticism and review (including comparison) are ALLOWED. Period.
".@BradThor Want a real-life hero, but maybe a different kind? Unlike Kyle, @SteveSGoddard REJECTS the bullshit, shows people actual data.
He did something that was very much in the public good. For that I called him (once, and only IN CONTEXT), a hero.
I did not claim he was MY "hero", you distorter of facts, nor that somebody who does good could not also be wrong at times.
You're really, really reaching here. It's like -- wait a minute, it will come to me -- oh, yeah: almost like you don't have any facts but you feel a NEED to attack me anyway, so you manufacture this kind of thing which is nothing more than a lame attempt (and I do mean really lame) to besmirch character.
Have you noticed yet? YOU'RE the one who's always been attacking. WHY? What need of yours does it fulfill?
If you didn't attack me on a regular basis, I'd have nothing to say to you at all. And really, even then I have nothing to say to you, because all of this is really for other people, who might see your attacks and think you might actually have something intelligent to say, if there weren't someone else to point out how much you're just behaving like a spoiled infant.
It just isn't worth my time to respond to this bullshit anymore. Goodbye.
It becomes murder only after the government makes YOU one of the robots. (Believe me, it's trying.)
But of course, then it won't be acknowledged.
Oh... there is one more thing I wanted to say. I find it very interesting that you don't seem to be able to conceive of any reason I might not be "doing something" about your verbal attacks.
I certainly am "doing something". And the more you make them, the more I'm doing. But I have to inform you that it doesn't work by your schedule. Still... every time, you make it easier.
Don't be silly, Jane. I've provided many links above where you regurgitated baseless accusations of fraud.
That's a blatant lie. I did no such thing. I have linked to articles and papers. I have not "regurgitated" anything. We've been over this already... I'm amazed how you keep using arguments you've lost many times in the past. As though you think you could "wear me down" or something by repeating the same nonsense I've successfully repelled before.
It's really funny to watch you do this. The more you're losing, the more "out there" your accusations get. It's as if (hint, hint), you might have some kind of emotional inability to admit when you're wrong.
You're just so far gone that you're incapable of admitting that your accusations are baseless
You might be called upon to actually support this statement some day, with actual facts. So far you have not gotten anywhere close. These pages these last few days certainly haven't shown anything.
even the vague accusations you hurled at mainstream climate scientists in general
Oh, so now my "accusations" have been hurled at "climate scientists in general"? Have you understood nothing of what has gone before in this conversation? This is directly contrary to what I stated just above! I don't "hurl accusations at scientists in general". Again, you haven't shown a single instance. Bad things have occurred, but I haven't accused "scientists in general", at all. In fact, it has often been scientists who uncovered the wrongdoing. This is a ridiculous accusation. You're just making shit up again.
Hint again, man: your feelings about what I say are not facts... though I suppose one might count them toward your emotional maturity.
Jane, you've claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard" uncovered "massive" fraud: https://archive.is/HcOkT
Anthony is not "my hero", and I resent that comment. If I were to use similar emotional "reasoning", I might conclude that Macchiavelli is YOUR hero. What do you think of that?
Again, you present my comment out of any context, to try to "prove" your point. It's just plain pathetic.
Link, or it didn't happen.
More hilarity. I have my records. But unlike you, I don't feel obligated (or an emotional need) to "prove" things on Slashdot. The times I have proved you're making a fool of yourself I've done for fun. Because it's easy. But let's make no mistake: I also do it because I feel obligated to defend myself from your false public accusations. It's just that you're so inept at this that defending oneself can also be a bit of fun.
If you want to see my actual records, it will likely have to be in a courtroom. I might let you see a glimpse from time to time. But when I do, it will be when I decide, not you.
You really don't get it do you? Even though I've told you many times. I'm just building up a file. And (rough estimate) about one in 5 times you open your mouth in my direction, you add to that file. (I've a pretty extensive archive, it's just that not much of what you say is very interesting in that regard, to a general audience. But my archive loves it.)
This particular exchange has been a bit of a haul. Not because it's anything new, but because you confirmed certain things I have you on record doing before.
I don't understand why you don't get it. I've told you to go away many, many times. Pretty much everything you've done here is on you, not me. You've even told me you made it your primary work to prove that I'm some kind of dumbass or "denier" or idiot or crazy or something... I really didn't quite catch all of that. You even stated that you felt I was "dangerous" somehow because I was saying things with which you didn't agree. But the funny thing is, the only one attacking anybody here is you.
I don't have any reason to coop
If all OP got out of that was that layers of neural nets make cool pictures...
WHY the hell is it on Slashdot?
That first link should have been this page.
If that's true, Jane/Lonny Eachus should be able to understand why I'm challenging his baseless accusations of fraud
AFTER BEING ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A "BASELESS" ACCUSATION OF FRAUD!
Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. WHO??? You don't have any examples. I call bullshit. Not one example, after plenty of time to dig through your (rather enormous, it seems) records of my statements.
dishonesty, and incompetence in mainstream climate science. After all, I believe people should know the truth.
Yes. And we have lots of examples of dishonesty and incompetence. Well-documented, as as often as not peer-reviewed. Would you care to try to refute them? Even if you manage to refute any which are on that page, I have files full of more for you to try.
You still have yet to show me guilty of actual dishonesty myself.
You and I both know those weren't the scientists you were originally referring to when you claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard has indeed uncovered some fraud in the data manipulations."
Ridiculous. I know no such thing, since I don't know who you are referring to. You refuse (or are unable) to provide any examples.
Every time you try to pull these ridiculous childish tantrums with no real evidence, you further cement my impression that you're emotionally a grade-schooler, in PhD clothing.
Yes.
Hahaha. I think that's really hilarious. So you dispute the findings of this paper? And you intend to refute a specialist in scientific validity?
I will be fascinated to see your published refutation.
Until then, you can keep getting stuffed. You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud". As for the rest: dishonesty, lies, etc... it has been amply demonstrated and I need no defense.
I did not claim all the scientists are dishonest. But some of them have been proved to be. I did not claim they're all lying. But some of them have been proved to be. I did not claim they're all frauds. But some of them have been proved to be.
Beyond reasonable doubt. And those are the ones I refer to. I include Cook et al. 2013 in that group. And there isn't a soul on Earth to whom I will apologize for that, since it's the demonstrated truth.
Again, why do you insist on accusing scientists of fraud? What is your purpose?
You are being ridiculously obtuse. Or just downright stupid. You have accused me, more than once, of claiming that "good scientists" are guilty of fraud. WHO ARE THEY???
Do you claim that the Cook et al. paper was NOT a fraud? Simple question. Yes or no?
I have already admitted that I called Cook a fraud. And if you want to know my reason, it is this: I believe people should know the truth.
But you and I both know those weren't the scientists you were originally referring to. In fact I can prove it, because the first time you claimed I was "accusing scientists of fraud" was before the Cook paper was even in public circulation.
I can go back into my records and find things too, you know. You're just trying to move the goalposts again, now that you've seen you lost the main argument. And it's laughably infantile.
No more responses. I don't care how many times you choose to put your foot in your mouth. I've made my point.
I'm free most weekends to do any necessary deciding.
That's genuinely funny.
Please give us an example of Obama saying that anybody who wants a gun is by definition crazy. Otherwise, you're just talking shit, pardon my Italiano.
Misunderstanding. What I was referring to was Obama administration's stated intent to deny guns to people judged (by government) to be mentally incapable of using them properly. I assert that government is simply not capable of doing so without letting political bias leak in. (Past history says a lot about government's ability to be unbiased.)
I wasn't trying to claim that Obama administration is trying to claim everybody is crazy... still:
Have you seen DSM-5, used in psychiatry? Do you know that according to this new version, which came out in 2013, most American adults suffer from one or another form of psychiatric disorder during their lives? That it says more than half of Americans suffer from some degree of autism? I could go on.
The problem is that when government has means by which it could claim most of the population has some kind of mental disorder, it shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on that basis. What is normal anyway? If more than half of the populace is "abnormal" in the sense that they have a psychiatric disorder, then who is normal? A select minority? Plus, never forget that there are powerful special interests which would love to get guns out of American hands.
That may sound paranoid to you, but history speaks for itself. Never trust government to make decisions that a reasonable, rational person would not. I'm not claiming any grand conspiracy or anything. But we must always be on the lookout for the possibility of abuse of power. Because once government gets a power, it inevitably, eventually, uses it.
---
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- U.S. Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
Does not matter. The Trademark Dilution Act "Entitles an owner of a famous mark that is distinctive to an injunction against another person who commences use of a mark of trade name, after it has become famous, in commerce in a manner that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or tarnishment, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual economic injury."
It's your comment that doesn't matter. Despite other legislation, there is an exception in U.S. law for fair use. Since it was a descriptive article or review, and not an advertisement, the situation clearly falls under fair use, which allows critical discussion and comparisons.
You use/>.
(To be clear: I wasn't accusing you of that kind of behavior.)
Unless their neighbor has a fracking operation in their back yard.
Not very realistic.
Or refuses to vaccinate his kids.
I don't mind, as long as it's just the 1-2% who have a legitimate beef or health issue with vaccinations. Which means almost exclusively the latter.
Or decides that after changing the oil in his '76 Toyota pickup to pour the old oil down the sewer.
This is certainly valid, because it endangers your own property, drinking water, etc.
The really sad part about the vaccination thing is that it really is a matter of public health, and not being on board because you have some unsubstantiated suspicion that they might be a 1,000,000-to-1 problem with it, is just plain sociopathically selfish.
"Within the boundaries of the law" is exactly what this discussion is about.
But who decides?
It's difficult to allow the argument "crazies shouldn't have one", because who is crazy? That's not an idle question, when you have a horde of conflict-of-interest climate nutcases calling anyone who disagrees with them a nut or delusional.
Next thing you knew, it would be "anybody who wants a gun is by definition crazy", etc.
Don't think it can't happen... Obama and friends have been trying to make it happen for quite a while. And they've been stepping up on it hard just lately because they suspect (probably correctly) that they're going to lose B-I-G in 2016 elections.
Looks like someone skipped Calculus 101.
Looks like someone took Calculus 101 and didn't understand it.
Jane, you said "It is incontrovertible evidence that you have been fed a pack of lies. Not mistakes, LIES."
Link 1: I haven't denied saying such things.
Jane/Lonny Eachus is either retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty" or continuing to pretend that this isn't an accusation of "harmful" dishonesty.
No retraction here.
Maybe Lonny Eachus should remind Jane that "fraud" is not necessarily a money scam (link)
Link 2: I am well aware of what fraud means.
But it's especially hilarious that Jane projects his own accusations of fraud for economic gain:
Link 3: You are trying to conflate different statements, separated in time and context, into one. You know damned well that's a fallacious argument. Even if it weren't, who do you claim is being accused there? Do you have a name? Or a particular group? Look at the context. Looks to me like the tweet says fudging data is a scam. It is. Have you been fudging data? Has anyone you know been fudging data? Again: who is being accused?
Link 4: Even funnier. A hypothetical about a (probably) fictitious future? Really? You claim this is an "accusation" that somebody is a fraud? And look... the tweet says "alarmism", not "climate science". So who is being accused? Are you an "alarmist"? You know what that word means, don't you? If you don't, go back to gradeschool and read about Chicken Little.
Link 5: Steve Goddard has indeed uncovered some fraud in the data manipulations. I didn't say he's always right (he's not), or that any particular scientist or group of scientists is guilty of fraud. Once again, who is being accused here? Do you claim that there is NO fraud in climate science? We already pretty firmly established above that there has been (Cook, et al. for example. Duarte uses the word "fraud" more than 20 times in his critique of the paper. And he's hardly the only one.) If you want me to claim "no fraud at all" in climate science, Cook, Nuccitelli et al. 2013 would have to be retracted. Until then, there IS fraud in climate science. And don't go telling me Cook is not a "climate science" paper, because it certainly is. The SUBJECT is climate science, it claims to be scientific, it was published in a peer-reviewed journal, and climate scientists and PR people have quoted it.
But other than Cook et al., who have I accused of fraud? What scientist or scientists?
Jane can probably twist himself into a pretzel mansplaining away his endorsement of those "massive" fraud accusations, but he should pace himself. We still need a condescending lecture about how "scam" is totally different than "fraud":
No, we don't. What you need is a lecture about how to make a valid argument. You make far too many invalid assumptions, you distort comments taken out of context in order to try to prove your point, you move the goalposts, and you straw-man. Not just occasionally, but habitually.
Link 6: Where is the context? What what "scam" does that refer to? That tweet was made months ago, so how do I know? Even if we accept your idea that "scam" and "fraud" are the same thing -- which I don't, necessarily -- just who am I accusing? Impossible to tell without a context.
Link 7: If youâ(TM)re of scientific mind, and not particularly gullible, their own data gives them away. Itâ(TM)s a scam.
Who is "they"? I repeat: unless or until Cook et al. 2013 is retracted, there *IS* scamming going on in climate science. But other than them, WHO am I accusing?
Link 7: Ditto.
Now let's put those goalposts back where they were: you have said many times that I accuse scientists of fraud. It is pretty well established that some fraud has occurred. But other than those already mentioned, WHO have I accused of fraud? Name one. (You ca
Do you know what the word "evidence" means? Are you aware that "incontrovertible evidence" does not mean "proof"?
The evidence is incontrovertible. Whether it constitutes proof or not is another question. Either way, the tweet did not claim "fraud". It said "lies". And unless you're a complete moron, you understand that they are two different statements.
Again, there is no "verbal trickery" here. I have written what I have written, other people have written what they have written. English words have meanings. I (or somebody else) can point to an article that claims "fraud", and say there is evidence in it of lies. That doesn't mean we are endorsing the claim of fraud.
YOU'RE the one desperate to pull meaning out of statements, where no such meaning exists. That's not my fault. In fact, it's a royal pain in the ass, and I wouldn't respond to you at all, except that I want to show people just how full of shit you are. Thankfully, that has been pretty easy to do.
Moving the goalposts? Jane, "fraud" was in the title of the link you called "incontrovertible evidence". Here's that text again, with emphasis to help Jane see that the goalpost has been motionless for years:
I didn't write that article. Did I say I endorsed it? Did I claim it was true?
It's bad enough that you lie to people about things I wrote. Now (for lack of anything better to do, presumably, or maybe because you can't honestly prove your point) you're trying to blame me for things other people write. Get stuffed. It won't fly.
That is simply false. There are an infinite number of algorithms that might contain the (sub)expression X/X for which zero is a valid value of X.
No, there aren't. There are zero algorithms were 0/0 is "valid". 0/0 is simply not a number. You don't get to make up mathematics as you go and make it a number, no matter how convenient you might find that. If your algorithm treats it as a valid number, your algorithm is wrong.
In fact, most compilers and interpreters will barf if you try to feed them that. (Division by zero error, or "NaN", depending.) You'd have to do a bit of trickery to make it work at all.
To assume it's a programming error is sheer unmitigated stupidity that I might expect from a mathematician that has never written a real program in his life.
It isn't an "assumption". It *IS* a programming error. The fact that the result of division by zero is undefined is a fact of life, not just some made-up mathematical construct. You can prove that to yourself with a framing square and a couple of sticks, if you don't believe me.
An algorithm that assumes pi is equal to 3.0 is no more stupid than assuming 0/0 is valid.
Is it really that hard for Jane/Lonny Eachus to understand that he's the one accusing the IPCC of spreading harmful "LIES"?
I didn't claim otherwise. Regardless, that's moving the goalposts.
That's adorable, cupcake. But I'll take my chances. After all, Jane/Lonny Eachus is a snivelling coward who won't ever do anything except whine endlessly. Cue more endless whining...
I don't see anything in this exchange that could honestly be called "whining". Warning, perhaps, but hardly whining.
At least you finally got around to saying what you think. Another one for the file. Not that I understand where you get the idea that I give the slightest damn what you think.
Is Jane/Lonny Eachus retracting his previous claim that "fraud = harmful dishonesty"?
(link)
So now YOU are claiming that IPCC concluded what they did for monetary gain? Because that's the only way that one comment could be linked to the other.
So... yes, or no? You are claiming IPCC's reports were created for their economic gain?
You don't get to have it both ways, and you REALLY don't know how this works. I'm not kidding... I'm HONESTLY telling you that it would really be in your own best interest right now to shut the fuck up about me. As of about 2 years ago. Actually longer, but I'm not going to go back that far today.
I will say that in my experience, you don't understand when you've lost. That's DIFFERENT from tough and persistent and tenacious and prevailing in the end. It's just denial of reality.
I'm not telling you to shut up, and there's no threat. Even though I have no good reason, I was trying to help you out. But that's done, at this point. Done, done, and done. You're messing up badly, and if you persist, you might just step into something you can't dig yourself out of.
So you accuse me of making a "false public accusation" that you accuse scientists of fraud, while doubling down on your accusation of lying
An accusation of lying is not an accusation of fraud. It's that simple. You don't get to call one thing the other.
and also insisting that "... there is no way in hell I would retract any statement I may have made about fraud in regard to the Cook et al. 2013 "97%" paper. It's fraudulent garbage..."
That's ONE paper, and the people behind it. You strongly implied -- even stated elsewhere -- that I was in the habit of calling scientists frauds. Those are very strong words. Potentially damaging words. It implies that I am irrational or stupid. It wasn't a statement of opinion, it was stated as though it was fact, and something I did rather "generally".
But that is false.
You STILL don't get how this works. You accused me of calling scientists frauds, then when I asked you for examples, you provided samples of someone saying lots of other things, but not accusing any specific person of fraud. Even if everybody were to accept that I am that person, it still doesn't wash.
When I pointed out to you those were not examples of accusations of fraud, you went fishing again... and came up with exactly one example, which I can easily defend as simple demonstrated truth. Then you threw in lots of other examples of things to which YOU object, as though attempting to besmirch my character substituted for proving your accusation.
You also implied (worded as a question or not) that I was a "pathological liar", which doesn't fly worded as a question, in part because the implication was clear, backed up by the fact that you have also accused me directly of doing the same thing in so many words elsewhere, many times now. (With no corroborating evidence, I might add.)
Look man, I'll explain this as simply as I can, to try to get it through to you: being careful of what I say about other people is not a crime. And it's NOT "verbal trickery", as you seem to think. It's a learned HABIT, and one you would be well advised to learn. A social and (dare I say?) legal skill that you should study and pick up, because it's pretty damned obvious that you still don't know how that works.
I'm done trying to help you again. You don't deserve it. End of conversation.
Jane/Lonny Eachus also calls "alarmism" a hoax, but Jane could probably explain why that's totally different and out of context and blah blah blah...
Won't work. You claimed those PRIOR Twitter statements were accusations of fraud: you provided them in response to my question to you about specifically where I had claimed some "scientist" had committed fraud.
... well, I'll leave that aside for now. But apparently you don't learn. So just keep sticking your foot in your mouth. If you want to keep implicating yourself, I guess that's your business. I am definitely not giving you permission; it's just that I don't have a good way to stop you at this time.
So even if I had made that accusation elsewhere, you still made a false public accusation. You should really watch that, because I also have evidence that you have done so, more than once, in a manner that was pretty obviously malicious. I also have evidence of
Link 1 specifically mentions "BS Alarmism". Not just any old alarmism. You have a problem with that? No mention of fraud.
Link 2: No mention of "fraud" anywhere. Also, the mention that WAS made was about "rabid" alarmism. Are you an advocate of "rabid" alarmism?
Link 3: Repeat of Link 2.
Link 4: Haha. More than 3 years ago. The comment is citing someone else's accusation of fraud (in this case, Alex Rawls). For which, by the way, there is quite a bit of good evidence. Also, "looks like" is not an accusation.
Link 5: Accusation of lying is not an accusation of fraud. But again: there's lots of evidence that it's true. Why should anyone apologize for making statements that are based on strong evidence? You claim to do it all the time.
Link 6: The Cook et al. paper IS a fraud. Nobody should apologize for saying so. There is solid proof that they did not even use the methods they claimed they did in the paper. That's fraud. If you're going to try to berate me -- or anyone else -- for calling Cook et al. a fraud, I'm just going to sit here and laugh at you. And so will lots of others.
Link 7: Mention that people had been defrauded. They had, as evidenced by Cook et al. However, in that specific tweet there is no mention of any scientist. To whom did that tweet refer? Your objection is supposed to be about accusing scientists of fraud. So who specifically was being accused in that Tweet?
And presumably all these other times that Jane/Lonny Eachus repeated accusations of fraud, he never agreed with them.
No presumption is necessary, because I may or may not have agreed with tweets that quoted of others. If I didn't specifically say I agreed to some tweet, you have no genuine reason to assume that I did.
I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying?
All and all, you've come up short. You don't show ME actually accusing any SCIENTIST of fraud, unless you count Cook and Nuccitelli as "scientists" who matter in the debate. And even if you did, there is no way in hell I would retract any statement I may have made about fraud in regard to the Cook et al. 2013 "97%" paper. It's fraudulent garbage, and a reasonable, unbiased person who reads about their ACTUAL methods, say here for example, or maybe here, is not likely to come to a different conclusion. Present company possibly excepted, but then I don't consider you to be either reasonable or unbiased.
Truth is absolute defense. The only "scientists" I ever recall saying MYSELF were "frauds", were those behind the Cook and Nuccitelli 2013 paper, and that's because the paper is a fraud. There is proof they didn't use the methodologies they claimed they did in the paper. That's fraud