I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same. [Jane Q. Public]
Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.
On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.
It's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedlyclaimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.
When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.
If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?
You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.
Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]
Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.
Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.
... Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file.... [Jane Q. Public]
Thanks for confirming that you asked Lonny Eachus to post the file, because you know him and are possibly his friend. Why are you so ambiguous and evasive about your friendship with Lonny Eachus? It almost sounds like you're ashamed to be his friend. As I've pointed out, you and Lonny Eachus have so much in common that you're clearly soulmates.
Strangely, Lonny Eachus seems to feel the same way about Jane. After I debunked Lonny's claim that dark energy is dead, Lonny went on an evasive rant that seems almost identical to Jane's comments above. Why would Lonny Eachus be ashamed of being friends with Jane, when they have so much in common?
No, I quoted that AC because, as I said, I hadn't heard your lectures on the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.
I have seen you spray nonsense like a firehose on dozens of similarly absurd topics, so I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to see if those particular topics were part of Jane/Lonny Eachus's comedy act.
No, dozens of experimental data points where Jane might have been honestly overwhelmed by his Sauron-class Morton's demon. One control data point where Jane is definitely lying, because he's a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Consider this AC:
"... Jane Q exists to intentionally miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.... On every topic you could imagine, Jane Q insists upon things such as that the earth is hollow, birds evolved from insects, bismuth is a stable element, water shrinks when it freezes, super conductivity is the result of electron tripletting, dark matter is a myth, Thomas Jefferson created judicial review, etc, etc, etc, on and on forever. There is literally no subject upon which Jane Q will not loudly correct the truth with misapprehension...."
While this is an accurate description of Jane and I've also noticed Jane's dark matter claims, I'm curious to hear Jane's lectures about the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.
Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.
Someone (myself or a friend or even just someone I know) posted a file for me that I later linked to for YOUR viewing (I remember the context of the circumstances and you were being your usual [my opinion] asshole self). Who that was is ambiguous. Possibly I am a friend of this person, which is WHY I asked him to post the file.
The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.
Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.
"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous[Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]
Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]
Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.
I would also like to point out again that even if acidification is happening, the RESULTS of that acidification are probably less than alarmists have claimed. Example (2010 article): http://www.rationaloptimist.co...[Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-10]
I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.
Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."
Again, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
If you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
Jane, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
So you're doubling down on your accusations of lies, because your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinced you that you have very damned good reason to believe you were telling the truth. Just like you've doubled down on almost every other absurd claim you've made (an astonishingly vast collection- you're like a nonsense firehose). And like most of those other times, you reasonably should have known that. So once again, I'm not surprised that you can't recognize that your libelous accusations are baseless.
But how could you possibly not recognize that you're Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar posing as a woman on the internet?
Jane could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but Jane's charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if Jane's domain name was also a deliberate message. Was it a cry for help? Part of Jane's comedy act? It couldn't be an unintentional rookie mistake, because Jane's a skilled web developer.
To what "accusations" are you referring? You have kept saying that, but I have no idea what you mean. Certainly, I have criticized climate science, when I thought it deserved criticism. But where are these "accusations" that YOU are accusing ME of making? [Jane Q. Public]
Again, your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and you should have reasonably known that. You made those libelous accusations as Jane Q. Public, and as Lonny Eachus. Because, once again, you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Is that really so difficult to understand, or are you still trying to pretend that you aren't Lonny Eachus?
You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]
Jane's telepathy isn't working correctly, but some very large differences are listed below.
It is pretty easy to show, even on your own blog, that while I have been wrong at times, I have used logic and logical arguments, while your arguments have demonstrated straw-man, ad-hominem, "moving the goalposts", and other logical fallacies to the point of utter ridiculousness. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-11]
"Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. If you really don’t want to be perceived as a “brainwashed idiot”, maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? And yes, that to me means “brainwashed idiot”. get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! since you insist on being spoon-fed There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me."[Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]
"My personal opinion might be that you are an insufferable, hypocritical asshole, and that your arguments are frequently contradictory, facetious, hypocritical, or disingenuous, but actual "fraud" never crossed my mind. An opinion that my claim was "ridiculous" is yours to have if you wish, and I don't give a damn, but stating that I made one or more statements that were "obviously fraudulent" is serious enough that you had best either back it up with evidence NOW, or back the hell off. You have very much gone over the line."[Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-18]
"... you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic... I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you. You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples’ statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a “scientist”. When in fact all it proves is you are a pompous ass."[Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-07]
"Or maybe -- just a guess -- you are trying to be a vindictive asshole again, just as you have been before?"[Jane Q. Public, 2012-09-07]
"... I didn't call you a vindictive asshole because you asked me a question. I called you that because of your habit of being annoying, rude, insulting."...[Jane Q. Public, 2012-10-29]
Once again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. Obviously, this is not an admission that your comments aren't baseless. It's an admission that your Sauron-class Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you'll probably never be able to recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.
"I am curious: is there something wrong with calling a liar and a bully a liar and a bully? Fact and libel are different things."[Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-08]
Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.
This would be funny if it weren't such utter bullshit. We JUST had an exchange about that, and you admitted that my comments weren't "baseless". But now you make the same accusation again. Which is it? What are you trying to claim? [Jane Q. Public]
Link to the exchange with that admission, because it sounds like you're talking to imaginary voices again. Yet again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. I've been consistently saying that your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and that you reasonably should have known that.
I am a person using a pseudonym, just as you are. I am no more a liar than you are. From the evidence, in fact, I'd guess I'm a good bit less of one.... You haven't been able to demonstrate even one instance of my actually lying. So stuff it up there where the sun doesn't shine, as they say.
Again, you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Unlike most of the misinformation you spew, this point is so simple and non-technical that your Sauron-classMorton's demon isn't an excuse.
The conclusion that Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar raises a disturbing question. I've previously defended contrarians like Jane/Lonny against suggestions that they're knowingly spreading misinformation:
"... You’ve previously asserted that contrarians know more than they let on, but I’ll defend Hanlon’s razor and the information deficit model to the dumb, naive, non-psychologist death. I refuse to believe that anyone who truly groks the Great Dying and the rate limits on adaptation via migration or evolution could keep spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.
I suspect that Morton's demon is far stronger than most people realize. For example, even Morton himself was later consumed by this demon in such a depressing way that I won’t link it....
... I refuse to believe that some know more than they let on. Considering the stakes involved, that hypothetical informed contrarian (who I don’t believe exists) would have betrayed humanity. Even arsonists usually have a personal escape route, but knowingly spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation has no plausible escape route. From my moral and pragmatic perspectives, the information deficit model seems to be correct.
Even as their numbers dwindle, I’ll keep defending the morality of contrarians. There’s no shame in being insufficiently informed about a complex scientific topic, as long as one eventually stops spreading misinformation that threatens the future of our civilization.
There are more enjoyable hobbies. Hobbies that don’t stain one’s legacy. Video games, reading, scuba diving, etc."
Jane, I've been defending people like you for years, insisting that you're not knowingly lying. I've insisted that you're spreading misinformation not because you're dishonest but because you're unable to overcom
Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.
You have repeatedly and publicly accused me of being a pathological liar... [Jane Q. Public]
You're only a pathological liar if you're really a man named Lonny Eachus posing as a woman on the internet. Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus.
... I -- *I* as in me... I -- and other people... [Jane Q. Public]
You're strongly implying that Jane isn't Lonny Eachus, so it shouldn't be that hard to clearly state that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus.
And your claim that using a pseudonym constitutes "lying" is just plain ridiculous. I repeat: pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition. You use one yourself. [Jane Q. Public]
If you're actually a woman, then you're not lying about your own gender. If you state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus, then I'll accept that Jane Q. Public isn't Lonny Eachus.
"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]
"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently.... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics...." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]
"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]
"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]
"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people?..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]
"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though."[Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]
"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"."[Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]
"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH"[Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]
"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe
... are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"? If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
... can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you?... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
... you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
... I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud". I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
... How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making?... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
"This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]
"... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]
"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]
"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently.... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics...." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]
"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]
"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]
"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people?..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]
"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though."[Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]
"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"."[Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]
"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH"[Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]
... are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"? If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
... can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you?... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
... you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter.... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
... I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud". I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
... How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making?... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]
"This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]
"... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]
Do you deny that you've been accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies, rather than just "disagreeing"? Obviously you're incapable of recognizing that all your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, but don't you see how that's different than "disagreeing"? Should I really have to link you to your own libelous accusations, Lonny Eachus?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks Jane/Lonny Eachus.
Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.
On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.
It's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.
When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.
If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?
You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.
Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.
Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.
Thanks for confirming that you asked Lonny Eachus to post the file, because you know him and are possibly his friend. Why are you so ambiguous and evasive about your friendship with Lonny Eachus? It almost sounds like you're ashamed to be his friend. As I've pointed out, you and Lonny Eachus have so much in common that you're clearly soulmates.
Strangely, Lonny Eachus seems to feel the same way about Jane. After I debunked Lonny's claim that dark energy is dead, Lonny went on an evasive rant that seems almost identical to Jane's comments above. Why would Lonny Eachus be ashamed of being friends with Jane, when they have so much in common?
No, I quoted that AC because, as I said, I hadn't heard your lectures on the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.
I have seen you spray nonsense like a firehose on dozens of similarly absurd topics, so I wouldn't be surprised. I just wanted to see if those particular topics were part of Jane/Lonny Eachus's comedy act.
No, dozens of experimental data points where Jane might have been honestly overwhelmed by his Sauron-class Morton's demon. One control data point where Jane is definitely lying, because he's a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Consider this AC:
"... Jane Q exists to intentionally miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite. ... On every topic you could imagine, Jane Q insists upon things such as that the earth is hollow, birds evolved from insects, bismuth is a stable element, water shrinks when it freezes, super conductivity is the result of electron tripletting, dark matter is a myth, Thomas Jefferson created judicial review, etc, etc, etc, on and on forever. There is literally no subject upon which Jane Q will not loudly correct the truth with misapprehension. ..."
While this is an accurate description of Jane and I've also noticed Jane's dark matter claims, I'm curious to hear Jane's lectures about the hollow earth, birds evolving from insects, bismuth being a stable element, water shrinking when it freezes, and super conductivity being the result of electron tripletting.
Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.
Lonny Eachus isn't ambiguous.
The next obvious google search showed that in 2009 Jane Q. Public asked about the "money siphon system" scam a few hours before Lonny Eachus bought into it. Those are the only posts Jane Q. Public and Lonny Eachus left on that forum. They both disappeared after those posts, presumably by ambiguous coincidence.
No, it constitutes proof that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
No, the links I've provided link to the things I assert. Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
Again, whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. You're behaving in exactly the same way. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.
"If an honest man is wrong, after it is demonstrated that he is wrong, he either stops being wrong or he stops being honest." -- Anonymous [Lonny Eachus, 2013-09-27]
"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]
"And lying about it. I am not big on attempts to re-write history. That in itself is evil." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-01]
Again, in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
Suppose you're being honest when you deny being Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. If you're actually an honest woman, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
Again, if you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
Ocean acidification is independent of climate sensitivity, and it's another reason to be concerned about the unprecedented rapidity of our CO2 emissions.
Lonny Eachus also linked to that misinformation from Matt Ridley, a journalist with a long history of distorting climate science.
In contrast, I quoted from Honisch et al. 2012 (PDF), Knoll et al. 2007 (PDF), and Ken Caldeira’s 2012 AGU lecture. That last link was from my videos section which also includes:
I'm not a chemist or a marine biologist/ecologist, so I read peer-reviewed papers and go to conferences like the AGU to watch lectures by scientists who do specialize and publish in those fields. For instance, consider that 2011 AGU panel on declining reef health. Nina Keul observed one species of foramanifera Glas et al. 2012 (PDF) growing faster as carbonate ion concentration decreases (which happens when CO2 increases). She provided context by noting that this is one species from one experiment, noting that this is like looking at one puzzle piece of a big puzzle.
Then Adina Paytan provides further context by noting that most species aren't like this. She shows Fig. 2 from Crook et al. 2012 (PDF) which shows that only ~3 out of 9 species of coral are present in locations with naturally low pH and notes that "Because these three species are rarely major contributors to Caribbean reef framework, these data may indicate that today’s more complex frame-building species may be replaced by smaller, possibly patchy, colonies of only a few species along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef."
Finally, Robert Ridin
Thanks for your concerns. Link to whatever you want. Again, I'm talking about the fact that in 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
Again, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
If you hacked in, Lonny Eachus should probably be notified.
Jane, how were you able to upload a screenshot to Lonny Eachus's website? Did you hack in, or did Lonny Eachus upload your charmingly named screenshot for you?
So you're doubling down on your accusations of lies, because your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinced you that you have very damned good reason to believe you were telling the truth. Just like you've doubled down on almost every other absurd claim you've made (an astonishingly vast collection- you're like a nonsense firehose). And like most of those other times, you reasonably should have known that. So once again, I'm not surprised that you can't recognize that your libelous accusations are baseless.
But how could you possibly not recognize that you're Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar posing as a woman on the internet?
In 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.
Googling things.titanez.net showed that it's Lonny Eachus's website.
Jane could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but Jane's charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if Jane's domain name was also a deliberate message. Was it a cry for help? Part of Jane's comedy act? It couldn't be an unintentional rookie mistake, because Jane's a skilled web developer.
Again, your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and you should have reasonably known that. You made those libelous accusations as Jane Q. Public, and as Lonny Eachus. Because, once again, you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Is that really so difficult to understand, or are you still trying to pretend that you aren't Lonny Eachus?
Jane's telepathy isn't working correctly, but some very large differences are listed below.
"Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. If you really don’t want to be perceived as a “brainwashed idiot”, maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? And yes, that to me means “brainwashed idiot”. get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! since you insist on being spoon-fed There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me." [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]
"My personal opinion might be that you are an insufferable, hypocritical asshole, and that your arguments are frequently contradictory, facetious, hypocritical, or disingenuous, but actual "fraud" never crossed my mind. An opinion that my claim was "ridiculous" is yours to have if you wish, and I don't give a damn, but stating that I made one or more statements that were "obviously fraudulent" is serious enough that you had best either back it up with evidence NOW, or back the hell off. You have very much gone over the line." [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-18]
"... you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic ... I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you. You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples’ statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a “scientist”. When in fact all it proves is you are a pompous ass." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-07]
"Or maybe -- just a guess -- you are trying to be a vindictive asshole again, just as you have been before?" [Jane Q. Public, 2012-09-07]
"... I didn't call you a vindictive asshole because you asked me a question. I called you that because of your habit of being annoying, rude, insulting." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-10-29]
"... you're a clueless asshole. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-09-15]
"... you're such a flaming, large-bore asshole. ... " [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-21]
"... you just make yourself look more like an ass. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-01-18]
Once again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. Obviously, this is not an admission that your comments aren't baseless. It's an admission that your Sauron-class Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you'll probably never be able to recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.
"I am curious: is there something wrong with calling a liar and a bully a liar and a bully? Fact and libel are different things." [Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-08]
Link to the exchange with that admission, because it sounds like you're talking to imaginary voices again. Yet again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. I've been consistently saying that your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and that you reasonably should have known that.
Again, you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Unlike most of the misinformation you spew, this point is so simple and non-technical that your Sauron-class Morton's demon isn't an excuse.
The conclusion that Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar raises a disturbing question. I've previously defended contrarians like Jane/Lonny against suggestions that they're knowingly spreading misinformation:
"... You’ve previously asserted that contrarians know more than they let on, but I’ll defend Hanlon’s razor and the information deficit model to the dumb, naive, non-psychologist death. I refuse to believe that anyone who truly groks the Great Dying and the rate limits on adaptation via migration or evolution could keep spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. I suspect that Morton's demon is far stronger than most people realize. For example, even Morton himself was later consumed by this demon in such a depressing way that I won’t link it. ...
Even as their numbers dwindle, I’ll keep defending the morality of contrarians. There’s no shame in being insufficiently informed about a complex scientific topic, as long as one eventually stops spreading misinformation that threatens the future of our civilization.
There are more enjoyable hobbies. Hobbies that don’t stain one’s legacy. Video games, reading, scuba diving, etc."
Jane, I've been defending people like you for years, insisting that you're not knowingly lying. I've insisted that you're spreading misinformation not because you're dishonest but because you're unable to overcom
Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.
You're only a pathological liar if you're really a man named Lonny Eachus posing as a woman on the internet. Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus.
You're strongly implying that Jane isn't Lonny Eachus, so it shouldn't be that hard to clearly state that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus.
Once again, pseudonyms don't constitute lying. But lying about your own gender is lying.
If you're actually a woman, then you're not lying about your own gender. If you state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus, then I'll accept that Jane Q. Public isn't Lonny Eachus.
This comment was also posted here.
"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]
"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]
"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]
"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]
"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]
"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]
"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]
"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]
"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]
"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]
"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]
"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpe
This comment was also posted here.
"This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]
"... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]
"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]
"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]
"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]
"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]
"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]
"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]
"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]
"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]
"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]
"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]
"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]
"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]
"This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]
"... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]
Do you deny that you've been accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies, rather than just "disagreeing"? Obviously you're incapable of recognizing that all your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, but don't you see how that's different than "disagreeing"? Should I really have to link you to your own libelous accusations, Lonny Eachus?