That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up. Or why the BBC reported its fall 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... blah blah [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]

... Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose! ... why did the OWNER say that it was done on purpose? ... A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell. ... the odds are strongly against the idea that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. ... Does this prove that WTC 7 did not collapse because of the fire? No, of course not. But the credibility of any "official" story by now is very, very thin. [Jane Q. Public, 2008-08-24]

... for example lumping 9/11 together with the moon landing. Those are not even remotely the same class of questions. ... On 9/11, for example, there are some very serious questions, raised by very reputable scientists. Not "conspiracy theorists". [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-10]

Your "examples" should not all be grouped together, since some of them are at vastly different levels of "known", compared to the others. For example, some (but by no means all) of the "9/11 truthers" (a very derogatory phrase) have some good evidence to cite. This is hardly something an area that is "unequivocally known". ... Further, while flouride may not be a communist plot, there are some very serious ethical issues involved with putting it in drinking water. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-24]

... it goes on to say that fluoridated products should NEVER be ingested by children, because of possible adverse effects. Then it goes on further to say that THERE IS EVIDENCE of other harmful effects from fluoride, PARTICULARLY the form that is commonly put in drinking water. Now, I want to emphasize something: I am not a “conspiracy theorist”, and I do not believe there is some giant conspiracy to stupidify America via the drinking water. But this is what I very much **DO** believe: When there are serious, scientifically valid questions about adverse physical effects of a substance (as their are with fluoride), you’re a moron if you want to put it in the drinking water. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-10-19]

... One thing working in the conspiracy theorists' favor is the fact (discovered by reputable scientists with expertise in the subject and no conflict of interest, and independently verified) that the dust from the buildings contained bits of high-tech thermite. Not your everyday garage variety, either, but real high-tech stuff that is usually only available to government and military. ... there is documented, solid and confirmed evidence, by university scientists, that not only was there thermite, it was of a particular, restricted commercial variety. ... The 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a joke. The later NIST report ignores many important factors. ... burning jet fuel cannot "melt" structural steel. It's not even remotely hot enough. It's not even hot enough to seriously weaken it. But don't take my word for it. Regarding the thermite: see my reply and the link I provided a few comments up. Unless you are qualified to refute reputable experts in the field, then the fact remains that it is well-established that not only thermite, but a particular BRAND of thermite, was present in quantity. ... jet fuel does not burn anywhere near that hot. If you can melt a section of 12" steel I-beam with any quantity of jet fuel you want to use -- type A or B, I don't care -- I will personally lobby to get you the Nobel Prize. ... blah blah blah [Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-15]

... there are truckloads of good evidence re: 9/11, yet most people just shrugged it off. ... Like university researchers (not crackpot nobodies) finding specialized, high-tech thermite in dust from 3 different locations. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-23]

This is very interesting. There is A LOT of evidence contradicting government accounts of 9/11. consensus911.org/the-911-consen... [Lonny Eachus, 2013-08-11]

Hint: rabidly claiming that Obama was born elsewhere is what makes somebody a "birther". [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-27]

In True Scotsman style, you can't be a "birther" unless you have rabies. Except you've previously implied that what makes someone a "birther" is claiming Obama's birth certificate is fake:

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

... he's never sorted out that mess about his birth certificate, either. I know that lots of amateurs claimed "fake"... but lots of well-respected professionals have claimed "fake" since then, and no answers have been forthcoming. And probably never will. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Genuine, well-renowned graphics experts have examined Obama's supposed birth certificate, and it's definitely a fake. It's not even a very good fake. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-08]

Obama isn't even eligible to be President. His birth certificate (I'm not talking about the first flap and all the amateurs) is fake. Verified later by actual graphics experts. And not even a very good fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-11-07]

... There is actually quite a bit of very strong evidence of fakery. Having said that: I know of no proof that Obama himself was necessarily behind any of it. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-09]

That isn't "conspiracy theory", it has been proved beyond doubt. Not saying HE did it. But somebody did. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-10]

... I also have not claimed that Obama was directly involved in the forgery. But one must ask: why would the White House post a fake? And why would they then take it down if it were NOT a fake? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Somebody is lying. I'm not claiming, myself, that it's a forgery. But it HAS been altered. Which (if it were genuine) would be STUPID. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

... EVERY OTHER piece of documentation that Obama has produced to support his citizenship (like his selective service registration) have overt signs of "forgery" written all over them. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... the "birth certificate" released by the White House last year is a fake. And also Obama's Selective Service card. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

One really has to ask: why is it that ALL available documentation of Obama's citizenship appears to be forged? And before you argue with me: yes, there is A LOT of real evidence, and it ALL points to forgery. Explanations offered so far don't wash. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

Those of you who know me may remember that I downloaded a copy of the original birth certificate file myself, and personally confirmed [Lonny Eachus, 2012-07-02]

I got the cert. online myself and looked. Alteration was OBVIOUS. Why Whitehouse would offer it as proof of anything is a mystery. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-21]

... I am certain because I downloaded a copy of it and examined it myself, layer by layer. I did read analyses on the Internet, but I confirmed the truth of some of them myself. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-31]

... I don't claim that he's not a citizen. I have claimed that all the evidence we have strongly suggests that his documents are forgeries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-08-15]

... I did not say Obama was born in a foreign land. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-11-10]

Now, look. I'm not trying to say that Obama was not born in the United States. However, the preponderance of the evidence does suggest that. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

... I do not pretend to know where Obama was or was not born. ... 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. ... that does not in itself prove he's not an American citizen. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

The publisher's website said Obama was born in Kenya until 2 months AFTER he announced he was running for President. exm.nr/LksgJ9 [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-18]

Obama's "Birth Certificate" lists race as African. In 1961, it would have said "Negro". The word "African" was not used to describe race. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-03]

I was not a "birther". But I might have been... I thought the President had already proven his birth situation. Apparently not. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

I was not a "birther". But now I am tempted. Apparently there is pretty good evidence that Obama's new birth certificate is fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

I have to admit: most of my doubts are now gone. The President's birth certificate (shown so prominently on Oprah) is a fake. [Lonny Eachus, 2011-05-01]

"[the real question is] not the sanity of the "birthers", but why the President did not produce his birth certificate long ago." [Lonny Eachus, 2011-04-29]

No, the real question is the sanity of the birthers. But my favorite is Jane/Lonny Eachus's 9/11 Truther conspiracy theory.

... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. ... I know they [the PSI Slayers] will (quite correctly) tear your arguments to shreds, and I even know how they'll do it. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

... I know where you're making at least one mistake, but I already told you that you're going to have to discover it on your own. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-07]

It's fascinating that you'd wrongly implied my previous calculations had units confused somewhere, but haven't pointed out the actual units confusion in the eq. 4 I posted yesterday.

I made a mistake by forgetting to divide by the 1mm thickness "x" of the enclosing shell:

electricity = k*(T_h - T_c)/x (Eq. 4)

Here's the corrected Sage worksheet; the old wrong worksheet is here. I'm sorry for any confusion this caused, and I've corrected the equation at Dumb Scientist.

The corrected temperatures with the aluminum enclosing shell are so close to those with the superconducting shell that the differences don't show up with the four significant figures I'm using. So my original thermal superconductor approximation was even more accurate than I thought.

"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]

Jane, instead of typing all those charming statements, have you considered that it might be quicker and easier to just write down the equation describing conservation of energy around the heated plate at equilibrium? You'd quickly see that adding a passive enclosing plate reduces the net heat flow out, which warms the heated plate.

"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. ... your adolescent, antisocial behavior ... keep making a fool of yourself. ... you're being such a dumbass ... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. ... you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. ... you were too goddamned stupid ..." [Jane Q. Public]

Again, your telepathy isn't working correctly. I don't think you're being stupid. I just think you either haven't thought deeply enough about the equation describing conservation of energy at equilibrium, or that you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

That's why I wanted to stress that admitting mistakes isn't the end of the world. I just admitted a mistake in my most recent calculation, and I'm okay. In fact, one way to convince posterity that you're honestly confused rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation would be to show that you have the courage to stop being wrong.

"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]

... Pathetic. You've tried to argue with people who really matter (I don't claim to be one of them, but I've seen it a number of times) and you've come out the loser in every case. Even if you had the courage (haha... that's a laugh) of your convictions, you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-27]

... since you mention power... are you sure you don't have your units confused somewhere? But oops... I told you I wouldn't give you any more hints. It is now triply hilarious to me that now I have stopped guiding you by the nose through this problem, you have turned hostile and ad-hominem again. Why do you need my guidance? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

You either need guidance, or you've betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

... Regarding your calculations: you're making mistakes that others have already made -- and which have subsequently been shot down -- when trying to refute Latour. I could point a couple of them out now, but I'm not going to. This was amusing at first but I'm done babysitting you. You really need to do your homework. I know you think you're right. But among other things, you're conflating... oops but I said I wouldn't do that. So good bye. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

You won't point out mistakes because you can't.

Jesus, you're a dumbshit. (That's just a statement of opinion. But an honest one.) I told you before I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong. But here's another hint you don't deserve: I don't dispute your Equation 1, and never have (in a hypothetical ideal context, that is). You're just applying it in a way that doesn't actually apply. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]

You won't point out how this simple equation 1 doesn't apply because you can't.

Oh, hell. I'll just give it away, since you're being such a dumbass (my opinion). Among other mistakes, you're making the same one that Watts did when he tried to refute Latour. I have noticed a couple of other mistakes, but that by itself shows you are wrong. [Jane Q. Public]

You won't point out other mistakes because you can't.

... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. Here's another hint: I have told you several times where you're wrong, but you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. Go where this has been debated before if you want your answers. Because you keep demanding them from me even though you were too goddamned stupid to realize that I gave you the clue a long time ago. No more replies. I am through. Again. [Jane Q. Public]

Again, I'd rather not go to that pedophile's website and debate with a child rapist. That seems even more unpleasant and unproductive than talking with Jane/Lonny Eachus.

Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?

I have done nothing of the sort. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-20]

This is one reason why "conversations" with you are so stressful and unproductive. As usual, you're either lying or suffering from premature dementia. Of course you claimed the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures (power in = power out) is irrelevant. Of course you've wrongly insisted that enclosing a heated plate doesn't warm it.

Which is it? Have you betrayed humanity by lying and deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation, or are you suffering from premature dementia? Sadly, the result isn't too different either way.

"... non-person... disingenuous and intended to mislead ... he is either lying ... dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... intellectually dishonest ... Khayman80's intellectual dishonesty ... Pathetic. ... you've come out the loser in every case... you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times. Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person. ... cowardice ... odious person ... you look like a fool ... utterly and disgustingly transparent ... Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell. ... You are simply proving you don't know what you're talking about. ... Jesus, get a clue. This is just more bullshit. ... spewing bullshit ... You're making yourself look like a fool. ... Hahahahahaha!!! Jesus, you're a fool. ... a free lesson in humility... you either misunderstand, or you're lying. After 2 years of this shit, I strongly suspect it is the latter. ... Now I KNOW you're just spouting bullshit. ... if we assume you're being honest (which I do not in fact assume) ... I wouldn't mind a bit if the whole world saw your foolishness as clearly as I do. ... stream of BS... idiot ... Your assumptions are pure shit. ... I'm done babysitting you..." [Jane Q. Public]

"Jesus, you're a dumbshit. ... your adolescent, antisocial behavior ... keep making a fool of yourself. ... you're being such a dumbass ... your analysis of it is a total clusterfuck. ... you're so damned arrogant you think I'm the one being stupid. ... you were too goddamned stupid ..." [Jane Q. Public]

Getting on the road for Burning Man. Probably won't get another chance to check in. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you if you want to continue the dialogue, but I probably won't be able to respond for two weeks.

Why would you think the experiment has changed? Of course it's still in vacuum. It's the same experiment I described here, based on Dr. Spencer's description of the passive plate enclosing the heated plate. Maybe you should read it again, then explain why you think it just changed.

I've repeatedly explained that net heat flows from the electrical heater to the heated plate, to the enclosing shell. I've repeatedly explained that adding the enclosing shell reduces the net heat flow away from the heated plate, which warms it. I've explained that your bizarre focus on the exact final outer temperature of the enclosing shell relative to the initial temperature of the heated plate is completely irrelevant to the fact that enclosing the heated plate warms it.

The only way you'll be able to understand this is if you write down the equation governing equilibrium temperature. That's why I did that for you. If you still insist that the heated plate doesn't warm when it's enclosed, then write down the equation that you think describes the equilibrium temperature of the heated plate after the enclosing shell is added. If your equation is different than mine, explain why.

As long as you keep insisting that the heated plate doesn't warm when the passive enclosing plate is added, my argument is with you, so I'll keep asking you why you're spreading this civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

Why did you wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? If you actually understand how conservation of energy at equilibrium works, then you must be able to recognize that enclosing a heated plate warms it. So why do you keep insisting otherwise? Do you need physics lessons, or have you betrayed humanity by deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation?

More importantly, can we agree that in equilibrium, power in = power out?

No. I am not aware of any "conservation of power" law. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

Energy is conserved, which means that if you draw a boundary around some system (like the heated plate), power going in minus power going out equals the rate at which energy inside that boundary changes. At equilibrium, that rate is zero because the system doesn't change. So at equilibrium, power in = power out. Jane replied:

... I already told you I was being an ass about your "power in equals power out" thing. Trying to lecture me about conservation of energy is particularly pointless, since I need no such lesson. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-04]

Jane claims he needs no such lesson because he said:

I admit to being an ass there. Mea culpa. But it's irrelevant. As long as the power used by the source and the power used by the cooler are constant as required, any relationship between them has no bearing on the experiment. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-08-02]

No, the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures isn't irrelevant. Anyone making that claim either needs a lesson about conservation of energy, or is deliberately spreading misinformation.

The basis of all my calculations is the very relevant principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. I've never even mentioned the power used by the cooler of the chamber walls, so Jane either needs a lesson about conservation of energy or Jane's deliberately spreading misinformation. Which is it?

Remember that conservation of energy at equilibrium let us calculate the 233.8F equilibrium temperature of a heated plate enclosed by a superconducting shell. But we can also account for the finite thermal conductivity of an aluminum shell using this same relevant principle by drawing a boundary within the enclosing shell.

The same relevant principle applies: in equilibrium, power in = power out. Again, electrical power flows in. But all the other boundaries we drew were in vacuum, so heat transfer was by radiation. This time the boundary is inside aluminum, so heat transfer out is by thermal conduction.

electricity = k*(T_h - T_c) (Eq. 4)

For aluminum, thermal conductivity k = 215 W/(m*K). Sage solves this equation for an equilibrium inner shell temperature of 149.9F rather than 149.6F for a superconducting shell. This warms the enclosed plate to 234.0F rather than 233.8F for a superconducting shell.

Hopefully this exercise shows how useful it is to start with the widely applicable principle that in equilibrium, power in = power out. Hopefully it's also clear that none of these equations has anything to do with the power used by the cooler. Hopefully it's also clear that Jane's also wrong to claim that the power used by the cooler is required to be constant. The chamber wall temperature is held constant, so the power used by the cooler temporarily decreases after the enclosing plate is added, until it reaches equilibrium.

Why does Jane wrongly claim that the fundamental principle used to determine equilibrium temperatures is "irrelevant"? Does Jane need a lesson about conservation of energy, or is he deliberately spreading misinformation?

"If you don't think that's relevant, then you don't know what's relevant." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-09]

Once again, a blackbody plate is heated by constant electrical power flowing in. Blackbody cold walls at 0F (T_c = 255K) also radiate power in. The heated plate at 150F (T_h = 339K) radiates power out. Using irradiance (power/m^2) simplifies the equation:

electricity + sigma*T_c^4 = sigma*T_h^4 (Eq. 1)

Suppose the chamber walls are suddenly warmed from T_c = 0F to 149F. What will happen to the heated plate if the electrical power heating the plate remains constant?

Note that this problem doesn't have multiple steps or confusing area changes. It's just one equation. T_c just increased and electricity is constant. Continuing to insist that T_h stays constant would just make it harder for posterity to believe Jane/Lonny Eachus is honestly confused, rather than deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation.

If we increase the left hand side of Eq. 1, how could the right hand side not increase?

Now go look at the down-modded ones as well. As I said - anything not toeing the line is at 1 or 2.

I did. I spent about half an hour looking at the downmodded ones, and trying to see something that I could easily point to, and I didn't find it. But let me remind you of your original reply and my original assertion:

>> 2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.
>>
>> If you're saying 2, we should take action. But first, citation needed, because I think you are mistaken.
>
> http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...
>
> I await your action and apology. Very clear pattern of up-mods for misogynistic crap and down-mods for anything not toeing the line.

You claim you were confirming my item 2, which makes an assertion about upmods and and misogyny being the dominant sentiment. It seems you cannot show that using the +5 rated comments. Therefore, I believe that we have already shown that your contradiction of my post, and demand that I apologize, was unjustified.

Now you are backing off to the less stringent, and harder to quantify, claim that comments which don't "toe the party line" were more likely to be downmodded. I suspect that misogynistic comments are relatively easy to categorize. Posts which don't "toe the party line" is a fuzzier issue, since I am not sure I know what you are saying "the party line" is. I'm not sure if you mean misogynistic comments are the party line, or if you are saying that the party line is a lack of support for affirmative action programs to balance the unequal treatment of women in STEM. Which is to say I think that the "party line" issue will be harder to show empirically.

But if you want to classify all the posts into misogynist versus not misogynist, or party-line-toeing versus party-line-anti-toeing, and upmodded versus downmodded, and present the data, I'd love to see it. It just seems like it would take a lot of work to get an objective answer. You presented a single example in your post. Individual anecdotes are extremely susceptible to confirmation bias.

While we're on the subject of confirmation bias, and your accusation that I have fallen victim; I think you are off base.

First, my assertion was that this forum does not have a dominant theme of misogyny demonstrated by the majority of misogynistic comments being upmodded. I think that looking at the +5 comments and trying to find a significant number which are misogynistic is an eminently fair test for that hypothesis.

Second, it would be rather hard for me to be a victim of it, since I do not have a strongly held belief of what the outcome will be. I haven't seen a strong pattern of misogyny here, but I've said, earlier in this thread, that I may simply be missing it, and I want to understand if that is the case. That is why I have been asking these questions in an unbiased and respectful manner. (though admittedly, you are testing my patience with your shifting of the specific facts in question and your impugning of my integrity)

Finally, it would also be difficult for me to be a victim of confirmation bias on the affirmative action question, because I am in favor of affirmative action programs to balance the unequal representation of women in STEM. I think that, much like the addition of women to the industrial labor force in the wake of WWII, increasing equality of women in STEM would be good for our nation both at the pragmatic economic level and in terms of the substantial ethical issue that is at stake.

But I do not see the objectively quantified empirical evidence of a pattern of misogynistic rhetoric on this site. Worse yet, I think that spurious suspicion of misogyny, particularly of people like me who want to see these kinds of programs move forward, is harmful to their advancement.

If that is because I do not understand what misogyny is, I am hoping you can enlighten me. But if I am not seeing it because upmodded misogynistic comments are actually not very common, perhaps that is an equally significant observation.

Global-warming proponents betray science by shutting down debate ow.ly/Av6AX [CFACT, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

"Climate science” isn’t “settled”, at all. On the contrary, it’s very Unsettled. ow.ly/Av6AX [Lonny Eachus, 2014-08-19]

Lonny's link claims that:

"... Most discussion on the science of AGW revolves around the climatic effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. How it got there in the first place- the assumption being that increased carbon dioxide arises overwhelmingly from human activities- is often taken for granted. Yet Salby believed that he had uncovered clear evidence that this was not the case, as his trip to Europe was designed to expose. ... the IPCC declared in its fourth assessment report, in 2007: “The increase in atmospheric CO2 is known to be caused by human activities.” Salby contends that the IPCC’s claim isn’t supported by observations. ... In Salby’s view, the evidence actually suggests that the causality underlying AGW should be reversed. Rather than increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere triggering global temperatures to rise, rising global temperatures come first- and account for the great majority of changes in net emissions of CO2... temperature appears more likely to be the cause, rather than the effect, of observed atmospheric changes. Further, Salby presents satellite observations showing that the highest levels of CO2 are present not over industrialized regions but over relatively uninhabited and nonindustrialized areas, such as the Amazon. ... Salby also contends that temperature alone can largely account for the rise in atmospheric CO2 through the earlier part of the twentieth century... University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. ..."

I told Jane that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. Jane even seemed to agree, calling contrary claims "ridiculous". But today Jane/Lonny regressed again, linking to an article making these ridiculous claims even after Jane said:

"I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? ... not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? ... it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you."

But Jane/Lonny Eachus is still arguing about the fact that we're responsible for the CO2 rise by linking to that absurd rant and claiming it makes climate science "very Unsettled". The rant Jane/Lonny linked repeats Salby's ridiculous argument, Humlum's ridiculous calculus mistake, and John O'Sullivan's ridiculous misinformation about satellite observations. I've told Jane that they’re ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increasing CO2 in the oceans, isotope ratios, etc.

And yet Lonny Eachus keeps spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation by linking to these ridiculous claims, even after acknowledging they're ridiculous. Jane/Lonny has either betrayed humanity, or he has the memory and scientific literacy of a goldfish.

"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]

>> 2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.

> http://apple.slashdot.org/stor...
>
> I await your action and apology. Very clear pattern of up-mods for misogynistic crap and down-mods for anything not toeing the line.

I read through the top rated comments, and it was not as clear to me as you suggest it is. It is possible that I do not understand what constitutes misogyny. I read this entry in Wikipedia, and am still not sure I see the cases that match that definition. There are 21 comments modded +5. To show that the dominant sentiment is misogyny, could you please link the 10 that you feel are most misogynistic?

Pick any random story about equality and it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches.

Clarify this for me: Are you saying:
1. Such posts exist, and some get upmodded.
- or -
2. The majority of such comments get upmodded and misogyny is the dominant sentiment in this community.

If you're saying 2, we should take action. But first, citation needed, because I think you are mistaken. If you're saying 1, it is better to allow a few fools to express their opinion -- and better yet for us to discuss it without rancor and help them get a clue -- than to become a community that does not speak freely.

Back when the whole Mozilla controversy was going on there were endless posts about how "just not liking gays" was somehow a perfectly okay position to take, and blaming them for daring to demand equality and human rights.

Clarify this for me; are you saying:

1. That the dominant meme in the Mozilla conversation was that it is perfectly okay to not like gays?
- or -
2. That a dominant meme was that he has a right to be a bigot, even though bigotry is wrong.

The latter is what I saw in the Mozilla issue, and it is an important distinction.

I am a hard-core equal rights advocate. Nothing good comes from hate. I argued in that thread for him to be dismissed, and believe it was right for him to "choose to resign".

But here's the thing about "nothing good comes from hate" -- it cuts both ways. Nothing good comes from hate, even when the target of the hate is a bigot. While I may find a person's opinion repugnant, and I do not hesitate to tell such people their view is flawed, I will defend to the death their right to express it.

Therein lies the behavior modification. Good and bad aside, you damn sure learn not to place your stingables in harm's way of another scorpion.

Seems reasonable. What's the next step; how do you recommend we do it? In this case, the stingable is the market economy, and the scorpion is collusive trade. How do we move our economic system out of the way of Bezos' actions?

Bezos is dealing with the challenge of ushering the decaying giant into the new World, and in some fashion, that includes monetizing the operation. A button for Amazon purchases? Were you expecting a Rakuten link?

Identifying and understanding the reason that an inefficient trade agreement occurs does not make it efficient. I know why a scorpion stings me, but I do not consider it a good thing.