Show us all where I have accused people of outright lying, where I don't have good reason to believe that it is, in fact, a lie.

I have certainly disagreed with some things. But where have I accused anyone of specific lies that aren't actually lies?

I would be interested to know. It isn't wrong to accuse someone of lies, if in fact I have good reason to believe they are lying. That's called "telling the truth".

Not only is this statement false, if you know anything at all about tort law you should reasonably know it to be false. This would be hilarious if it were not such an alarming public accusation. Even when I was wrong (which was not as often as you imply), my comments were far from "baseless", and I have not libeled you or any of your "colleagues".

Do you even know what libel IS? Evidence strongly suggests not. You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences.

I see no reason to further reply to your ranting. I tire of having had to constantly defend myself against your emotional and irrational tirades.

So... you are saying your rather blatant, repeated attempts at character assassination are due to your sense of insult to scientific objectivity? Why do you not see the obvious hypocrisy in this?

You posted your comment as a reply to something that had absolutely nothing to do with any of that, which suggests yet again that reason is a lie. You have been stalking my comments for the singular purpose of insulting me and trying to damage my character. The evidence is overwhelming that you are harassing me for personal reasons, nothing more and nothing less.

You have been doing this to the extent that it is damaging my ability to participate here on Slashdot. And you are doing it for reasons you have already admitted were personal (and rather strongly implied it yet again just above). In fact your claims to discredit me have repeatedly stepped far beyond the bounds of any pretense at scientific objectivity or integrity, so scientific integrity logically cannot be the true reason. Not that I think you have been very logical anyway.

The evidence says either the excuse you give above is untrue, or you simply don't understand the motivations of your own actions.

Why would you think that? I didn't give you any reason to think that was what I was saying. But then, we already know you have a tendency to claim people said things they didn't actually say. I've demonstrated it many times.

Why would I do that? Because you are pestering me about my identity (nobody else is)? Is that justification? I don't think so.

I use the name I use for reasons of my own. Those reasons are none of your damned business. I don't owe you anything.

Further, the use of pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition, and you have been quite deliberately stepping on my ability to try to function normally in this SOCIAL forum, for entirely personal reasons of your own. That is not reasonable behavior.

And I already explained it to you more than once now that you assigned a meaning of your own to those words that didn't actually exist when I wrote them. That's your problem (and it DOES seem to be a problem), but your failure to understand is not my problem, except to the extent you have been making it my problem. YOUR claim about those words in fact turned out to be a "sexist stereotype"... exactly the thing you accused me of.

You just don't seem to get it, and I am pretty goddamned tired of you trying to make that my problem.

And again you make it clear that your issue with me is personal, and apparently based on some kind of slight that you have wholly imagined, or perhaps invented. Yet again, that is not my problem, except to the extent that you have been making it a problem. And I repeat: it is a genuine cause of concern for me that you don't see that. In my opinion, your behavior has been that of a dangerously obsessed person.

The fact that you stated it before, buried somewhere in one of your ridiculous rambling posts, does not mean that I saw what was in the links. Really... do you expect me to take the time of day to follow all the links to links that you post?

The fact remains that I hadn't seen the full figure before. So that was a true statement.

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to assert. But that is very different from what you wrote before.

The statement is false because I explained here on Slashdot not just once but several times that I am not a "birther", and don't pretend to know where Obama was born. My arguments have been about a document from the White House that is publicly available.

You know these statements of yours are simply not true. So why are you posting them? What could be your real reason?

Further, I will state that this appears to be a blatant attempt to "besmirch my character", as the saying goes, by making such statements about me online. Why would you do such a thing?

Could it be because your accusations appear publicly on Google and other search engines?

I will ask you again where comments like yours come from. Try as you might, you have not managed to show that I even lied. Where are these statements you accuse me of?

You can call it "pedantry" if you want, but I call it "taking your words at face value, and refusing to assume you meant something else when you wrote them". That is a pretty obvious difference between you and me.

There you go. If this doesn't meet the definition of libel, I don't know what does.

You know that statement to be false, or at the very least have very good reason to believe it to be false. And my own words here on Slashdot, several times and in several places, show it to be. Yet you present it to the public as truth anyway.

What does that make YOU?

You forgot one, from OP:

I think OP should have ended with the word "DUH."

Pardon me? I don't dispute the moon landing bit of course, but who showed Obama's birth certificate to be real? I do recall claims that artifacts were due to scanning, but that in fact has been proven false.

Now, don't get the idea that I am a "birther", as a certain other person has tried to claim here on Slashdot. I have stated before here at least several times that I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born. And Hawaiian authorities have claimed that the information on the certificate copy presented by the White House is accurate. (You will note, however, that none of those statements actually states that the White House document is a genuine copy of it.)

But none of that has any bearing on the fact that the document presented by the White House (and still available online) as his "birth certificate" is indeed fake. That is all I am saying here... I don't claim Obama is not an American. I'm just saying that the White House, for reasons of its own, has put up a faked document.

Numerous attempts to "debunk" the accusations of a faked document have failed to address some of the key evidence of forgery (which is very strong indeed). Nor does it explain the problems with numerous other identification documents that have come to light.

BUT, this is the key thing: even if the presences of a faked document or documents was proven beyond doubt, that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. There could be a number of explanations.

It does prove once again, though, that he IS a manipulative liar.

I stand corrected then. I was under the impression that they moved the fuselage assembly away when they moved headquarters.

You are refusing to acknowledge the whole issue that I originally raised: while it may be "easier than", the fact is that you still have to demonstrate, prior to any judicial proceedings, evidence that you are "innocent" before your SPEECH can be restored. This is not a theoretical argument; we know by now of a vast many people who have had their websites taken down unjustly and with no real evidence, and have had trouble getting them restored.

We also know that the "actual damages" you refer to are more theoretical than real, and require yet another judicial action to initiate.

The fact remains that the DMCA has shifted the burden not just a little, but hugely, onto the defending party. And I repeat: that's not what America is about. We know, from hundreds of years of experience, that is a bad approach to law and justice.

First, as I mentioned to you before elsewhere, it isn't an "article". It doesn't meet any standard definition of "article". It's a rambling, ongoing diatribe that reads like little more than a monument to your ego.

Second, as I have clearly explained to you several times, when I discussed this with you after that time I was also referring to LATER posts of yours, not the first one. Not that it really matters, because afterward is still afterward. You might disagree with my interpretation of "much later" in regard to the original post, but that's your opinion.

After that you gave me no notice at all of most of your distortions, in which you took even more comments of mine out of context, assigned wholly imagined meanings and motivations to them, and "argued" with them all by yourself, where you didn't have any fear of being contradicted. (Why? Because I don't care about you and don't visit your website every day... nor should I be forced to do so in order to incessantly correct your mis-characterizations of my words.)

The rest of your rant is loaded with similar bullshit. Yet again you are trying to mislead people for personal, and apparently rather strange, reasons of your own.

I will repeat what I wrote in another thread: all you are doing by indulging in this obsession is making yourself look foolish. I understand that you don't seem to think so, but that causes me some concern. Others have written about it before here, too.

This is a classic example of your attempts to distort my comments. First, I might have ignorantly denied that C02 increases were due to human activity, years ago. I have not intentionally made any such statement in recent years, since I do not believe any such thing. But more to the point is this:

The "small percentage" I mentioned was in reference to this. You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2 is widely acknowledged to be based on a geometric progression.

We also need to keep in mind, though, what percentage that is of the overall atmosphere: (CO2 % of all atmosphere. Which is a very small percentage indeed, even though Wikipedia puts it higher than NCDC does in the above page.

Further, you appear to be claiming that we have contributed about "200% of the CO2 increase" ourselves, when that is simply not logically possible. While we might have produced 200% as much CO2, if so obviously much of it has been absorbed in one way or another by the environment. While you might have a problem with that, it is a completely separate argument. It is not possible for us to have contributed "200% of the increase", because only 100% of the increase actually exists. Once again you demonstrate a bizarrely weak grasp of logic for someone who presents himself as a scientist.

If my memory serves (and it may not), I linked to that page once in the past. As for accusations of fraud, those are the words of others, not my own. It is possible that Dr. Salby was mistaken in his analysis (I have seen the criticisms of his claims.) On the other hand, I find it highly interesting that Salby's analysis constitutes basically the same criticism that Anthony Watts made of "Steve Goddard's" work. I think it is likely that one is correct, or the other, but not both. I wonder which? I'll take a "wait and see" approach to that one.

You have mentioned this to me. I don't "know" it because I haven't seen any evidence. But it could be true. I'd have to see the evidence before I made up my mind. There is still the fact, however, that nobody has so far effectively refuted the thermodynamic argument presented by Latour at PSI. When Watts tried he bungled it badly.

So while PSI may make mistakes, and even if O'Sullivan is guilty of SkepticalScience-style deliberate distortion of facts (see the "97%" debacle), they still have some strong unrefuted science on their side of the debate.

This is yet another example of the implied distortions you make, when you're not making them explicitly. This question is at the very least grossly misleading. As you admit yourself above, I discussed the Humlum situation with you on your website, and made it very clear that I have no reason to believe either Humlum OR his critics, since all reliable information I have found is behind science-journal paywalls. So since I DID mention this to you, implying that I might repeat his claims is a rather subtle but real and public insult, which I am not inclined to take lightly. THAT is NOT admirable.

Unless you want to pay for copies of those papers and send them to me so I can evaluate them you have no argument with me over this and vice versa. But based on your past behavior I am sure as hell not going to just take your word for it.

Well then we will never agree, because again, logically, we can only discuss 100% of the rise, since 100% is by definition the only rise that exists. In all honestly I don't even know what you're trying to say here. It doesn't make any sense.

But I am going to say this again, and keep repeating it until you get the point: publicly distorting my words and their clear intended meaning is WRONG. It is unethical, and socially unacceptable. You have tried to continue to argue here and on your sebsite with things I wrote 5 years ago. What do you think that accomplishes?

And yet in all this, you did not address even one thing I wrote in my actual Slashdot comment. So despite your pretense at civility and objectivity, you make it crystal clear yet again that your problem with me is personal, not scientific. If you want to have a scientific argument, then address the comments I actually make. Instead, you argue with other things that have taken place elsewhere, and at other times, in many cases years ago. For what appears to be no other reason than to try to make me look bad. But I repeat again that all you are accomplishing is to make yourself look bad.