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. [Jane Q. Public]

Yes, that's what birthers like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Lord Monckton do, right before they deny being birthers.

I thought you were saying it was false that Jane is Lonny Eachus. Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

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? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, we've already been over this. You're a man named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

The mental contortions you went through to deny that you're posing as a woman were simply awe-inspiring. You implied that you only objected to being called a dude because you're not excessively concerned with clothes, grooming and manners. That doesn't explain why you told hairyfeet to check your name, because "Jane Q. Public" has nothing to do with that, but it is a woman's name. It also doesn't explain why you told Genda to read your name again.

You've also made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer". You evaded this point by arguing with voices in your head and suggesting that "flamers" aren't exclusively guys.

"Don't misunderstand. I'm no homophobe. But I can't stand flamers. If he wants to be that way, he can have surgery." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-16]

Like Jane, Lonny can't stand "flamers" and also seems to imply that they're exclusively guys. Otherwise, what kind of surgery did Lonny mean?

Since men can't be lesbians, only a man posing as a woman would say he's not a lesbian which explains Jane's fantasies about hot guys willing to eat him for lunch.

You've claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, and you have news for guys about how crude women are in the locker room. But since you're a man, you could only get first-hand information by spying in the women's locker room. Is that what you did?

If you're not posing as a woman, why do you refer to yourself using "she" and "her"? You've even pretended that I called you "she" when I didn't.

That's why, despite your attempts at false equivalence, my pseudonyms aren't dishonest because I haven't been posing as a woman, despite Jane's baseless speculation to that effect. This might finally explain why Jane referred to me as he/she years ago: psychological projection. Jane/Lonny lies about his gender, so he probably figures everyone else does too.

Do you still repeat O'Sullivan's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 emissions now that you know he "forgot" to show the winter fluxes? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

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. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

I already did: "John O’Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but “forgot” to show the fluxes for the rest of the year."

Click on "Figure 3" then scroll down to Figure 3 to verify, but this shouldn't be necessary because a comment by truegoogle on your original "PSI" link already made that point.

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. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

Can we agree that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2?

It makes me annoyed that you've been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies at the same time that you're dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus. Since you've just claimed that statement is false, you're putting all your credibility (and Lonny's) on your claim that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus.

In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

Maybe this blatant psychological projection also explains why Jane/Lonny has been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Just in case this is an exercise in pedantry, I should correct my statement to say that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2.

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.

As I've said, we've increased CO2 by ~40% but your link refers to the CO2 rise between 1900 (290 ppm) to 2000 (369 ppm) which is an increase of ~27.24%. But we're actually living in 2014, and CO2 in real life is now at ~400 ppm because we're increasing it so rapidly that even NOAA websites rapidly go out of date. That's a ~37.93% increase even if you take "1900" to be the start of the the Industrial Revolution.

Also, climate sensitivity is logarithmic, not geometric. But it's hard to remember that our CO2 emissions are probably more rapid than any events in the last 300 million years. Even logarithmic climate sensitivity allows for accelerating warming if the CO2 concentration rises faster than exponentially. Since 1960, atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen faster than exponentially. Tamino showed this by taking the logarithm of the Mauna Loa measurements and noting a statistically significant acceleration.

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

Why do we need to keep that in mind, any more than we need to keep in mind the very small percentage of alcohol or LSD in the bloodstream? The same percentage increase of ~40% also occurs when we notice that before 1850 there were ~4 kg of CO2 over each square meter of Earth's surface. Now there are ~6. We did that.

Okay, so we can never agree on the fundamental fact that our carbon emissions are ~200% larger than the rise in atmospheric CO2.

This is a reply to several comments Jane posted at Dumb Scientist and at the bottom of this thread which shows that Jane Q. Public is a man named Lonny Eachus. I've copied it here because Jane asked to be notified.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you politely requested that I post without replying to you. Now you've switched back to complaining that I don't notify you. And you're recursively complaining that I said you're complaining.

So I suspect that even if I quoted your endless comments in their entirety, you'd just switch to complaining that I quoted your comments in their entirety. After all, the fair use four factors include "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" so larger portions would more strongly affect Lonny Eachus's potential market or value for all his Jane Q. Public gems.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 16:56

(Ed. note: I distorted Jane's words by fixing his blockquotes.)

Jane and Lonny Eachus’s conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

So, you are pretending here that I meant something OTHER THAN the simple fact that carbon and CO2 are different things? But if so, where did I say that? By now you seem incapable of doing anything BUT distorting my meanings.

My point — as I made very clear — was that putting CARBON (not CO2) into the environment has not caused a significant global pollution problem. You are proving beyond doubt now that you have distorted my meaning. I was referring to the POLITICAL MOTIVATION for conflating carbon with CO2.

Do you deny that regulating CO2 output would be a significant increase in governmental control of private industry? Yes or no?

Do you also deny that our progressive government would love to have this control? Yes or no?

I was discussing two: [A] that carbon is not CO2. [B] that there is a clear motivation for this administration’s habitual conflation of carbon and CO2: simple political exigency. Conspiracy was YOUR word, not mine. I neither said it or meant it.

THEN, you kind of non-sequitur straw-man my point about “oxygen pollution”. No, the reason people don’t talk about oxygen pollution is not because oxygen concentration is decreasing (because most people have no idea whether it is). People don’t talke about oxygen pollution because under normal everyday circumstances, oxygen isn’t considered a pollutant. Just as under normal everyday circumstances, carbon isn’t considered a pollutant. Even if YOU consider CO2 to be.

Your comment is in fact a great example of how you distort other people’s words to fit your own ego. And I have no reason to think it was accidental. (Especially since it was a reply to a comment about something else altogether.) It appears to be nothing more than a very transparent attempt at ad-hominem, as a response to a legitimate criticism.

Which has — alas — backfired. It merely served to prove my point yet again.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 17:29

I will also add — just to prevent the possibility of someone DELIBERATELY misconstruing my words again — that I was referring to carbon pollution not being a problem FOR MOST COUNTRIES, TODAY.

It CAN be if for example fine particulates are spewed into the air in large quantities. But first, that is a rather special case (it’s not the same, for example, as just dumping it in a pile outside), and second, our current pollution controls have it well under control in most industrialized nations.

So, I say again: under NORMAL, EVERYDAY modern circumstances, carbon is simply not considered a pollutant.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-02 at 09:44

BURNING organic substances can create CO2. So much is clear. But that still doesn’t make carbon a pollutant. Burning is a chemical process, and many, many chemical processes that use carbon can create polluting chemicals. That still doesn’t make carbon a pollutant. Via reductio ad absurdum, the argument that it is leads to YOU being a pollutant.

As I have mentioned before, the only other way that carbon is NORMALLY considered a pollutant to any significant degree is when it is turned into fine particulates and dispersed into the air in large quantities. That kind of pollution USED TO BE a big problem in many industrialized areas. But today’s stack scrubbers and other such procedures have generally rendered it far less of a problem today.

But even if it is somewhat of a problem in some areas, the point is that it is a “special case”, and does not support the argument that carbon is a “pollutant” because almost anything that can be turned into fine particulates and dispersed into the air in large quantities can be a pollutant. Sulfur compounds are one example, but it even applies to common rocks which anyone who has ever experienced volcanic fallout can tell you first-hand. And in fact, in many ways its worse than carbon. So carbon is nothing special in that regard, and I’d like to see someone try to argue that most common rocks are “pollutants”.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-02 at 11:45

You make a good point about Humlum. Or at least you seem to. It’s hard to tell, and the reason for that deserves a comment:

Not only the Humlum paper itself, but all the criticisms I have found that claim to be actually substantive are behind paywalls. So how does one who does not have academic or professional access to these publications access them and properly evaluate them without spending a fortune?

So people “on the outside” — who will ultimately decide on these issues — have no choice but to take someone else’s word on the credibility of the papers.

You say:

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

A real skeptic would try to read the paper, in order to personally evaluate the methodologies used. That avenue was not available to me (and many others) at the time. Or even now. Unless I want to spend a good bit of money.

So who to believe in that case? 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.

The point I am getting at here is that this reflects the oft-lamented lack of openness in science today. That is a situation that is in sore need of improvement.

As a side note, you mention Watts and his characterization of PSI as “a cult”. I was aware of this and find it rather amusing, since Watts tried to perform the thermodynamic experiment challenge posed by Latour and O’Sullivan, and completely botched both attempts. Because HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND the principles the challenge was intended to demonstrate.

**

You make a good point about Humlum. Or at least you seem to. It’s hard to tell... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Thank you. All progress is admirable. The ability to admit a mistake and move on is the mark of a true scientist.

Not only the Humlum paper itself, but all the criticisms I have found that claim to be actually substantive are behind paywalls. So how does one who does not have academic or professional access to these publications access them and properly evaluate them without spending a fortune? ... A real skeptic would try to read the paper, in order to personally evaluate the methodologies used. That avenue was not available to me (and many others) at the time. Or even now. Unless I want to spend a good bit of money. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Googling the title along with "PDF" leads to a free PDF of Humlum et al. 2013.

You fail to distinguish between carbon and CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. ... I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Only Jane/Lonny Eachus could quote my explanation that oxygen is decreasing because the CO2 rise is due to our burning carbon rather than ocean outgassing, then ask if I deny that elemental or molecular carbon is different from CO2. I deny that "carbon" always has to refer to fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon, instead of the carbon in CO2.

JPL's new Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) studies CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon, and it's nearly identical to OCO-1 which was lost in a failed launch just over a month after Obama was sworn in. So the first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was built and named before Obama took office.

Folks, re: Obama's "energy policy": CARBON is NOT a pollutant. Even if you believe the global warming hype, it's still CO2, NOT CARBON. Even if you buy everything the AGW supporters say, then it's still only CO2 that is a pollutant, not "carbon". Obama is calling for more regulation of COMPLETELY FICTIONAL "carbon pollution". CARBON IS NOT A POLLUTANT. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-28]

Obama is still talking about "carbon pollution" as though it were a real thing. What a tool. Carbon is simply not a pollutant. Period. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-31]

... there is a clear motivation for this administration’s habitual conflation of carbon and CO2: simple political exigency. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-01]

Obama clearly travelled back in time to force JPL to "incorrectly" name OCO-1, then decades into the past to force scientists to discuss the "carbon cycle" which refers to atmospheric CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon in the atmosphere. After reading Jane's endless comments, it's clear that Jane/Lonny Eachus can't admit he's advocating a conspiracy theory. But that conspiracy is even bigger. Obama also clearly travelled into the past to force Jane to refer to carbon when Jane was actually referring to CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon in the atmosphere.

That's another reason to worry that Jane is backsliding further from reality. Ideally, learning curves point up.

Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

I pointed out decreasing oxygen for three reasons. First, it answers Jane's questions about ocean solubility. It's another independent way to see that our carbon emissions overwhelm ocean outgassing.

Second, decreasing oxygen is another independent way to see that Humlum et al. 2013 was wrong to claim that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

Again, Humlum et al. made a calculus mistake. But if Lonny Eachus doesn't find that point convincing or doesn't have access to the papers, consider this. If Humlum et al. were right, their "substantial" ocean outgassing would increase CO2 without using up oxygen. If this were happening, the O2 vs. CO2 measurements on p206 would be "substantially" horizontal. They're not.

Third, the fact that the O2 vs. CO2 measurements actually point down at such a steep angle is yet another independent way (in addition to simple accounting, etc.) to see that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Not a "few percent" like Jane and many others have claimed.

That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Again, I first asked that question after debunking misinformation you and Lonny Eachus have been spreading.

Do you still dismiss flat statements like "the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity" as disingenuous and claim that we're only contributing a small percentage despite the fact that ~200% of the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Do you still link to "PSI" blog posts accusing scientists of fraud because Dr. Salby said accumulation of human emitted CO2 is somehow unphysical? Do you acknowledge these "PSI" accusations of fraud are baseless, or do you think they're honest, true and correct?

Do you still repeat O'Sullivan's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 emissions now that you know he "forgot" to show the winter fluxes? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Do you still repeat Humlum's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 lags now that you know he ignored decreasing O2 and made a calculus mistake which caused him to "discover" summer and winter? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Addressing more complex questions would be pointless unless we can agree on the fundamental fact that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the CO2 rise.

Since Jane asked to be notified, I'm also posting this comment here.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:17

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.

First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.

I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 15:26

I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.

The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.

First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.

Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?

Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you politely requested that I post without replying to you. Now you've switched back to complaining that I don't notify you. And you're recursively complaining that I said you're complaining.

So I suspect that even if I quoted your endless comments in their entirety, you'd just switch to complaining that I quoted your comments in their entirety. After all, the fair use four factors include "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole" so larger portions would more strongly affect Lonny Eachus's potential market or value for all his Jane Q. Public gems.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 16:56

(Ed. note: I distorted Jane's words by fixing his blockquotes.)

Jane and Lonny Eachus’s conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2.

So, you are pretending here that I meant something OTHER THAN the simple fact that carbon and CO2 are different things? But if so, where did I say that? By now you seem incapable of doing anything BUT distorting my meanings.

My point — as I made very clear — was that putting CARBON (not CO2) into the environment has not caused a significant global pollution problem. You are proving beyond doubt now that you have distorted my meaning. I was referring to the POLITICAL MOTIVATION for conflating carbon with CO2.

Do you deny that regulating CO2 output would be a significant increase in governmental control of private industry? Yes or no?

Do you also deny that our progressive government would love to have this control? Yes or no?

I was discussing two: [A] that carbon is not CO2. [B] that there is a clear motivation for this administration’s habitual conflation of carbon and CO2: simple political exigency. Conspiracy was YOUR word, not mine. I neither said it or meant it.

THEN, you kind of non-sequitur straw-man my point about “oxygen pollution”. No, the reason people don’t talk about oxygen pollution is not because oxygen concentration is decreasing (because most people have no idea whether it is). People don’t talke about oxygen pollution because under normal everyday circumstances, oxygen isn’t considered a pollutant. Just as under normal everyday circumstances, carbon isn’t considered a pollutant. Even if YOU consider CO2 to be.

Your comment is in fact a great example of how you distort other people’s words to fit your own ego. And I have no reason to think it was accidental. (Especially since it was a reply to a comment about something else altogether.) It appears to be nothing more than a very transparent attempt at ad-hominem, as a response to a legitimate criticism.

Which has — alas — backfired. It merely served to prove my point yet again.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 17:29

I will also add — just to prevent the possibility of someone DELIBERATELY misconstruing my words again — that I was referring to carbon pollution not being a problem FOR MOST COUNTRIES, TODAY.

It CAN be if for example fine particulates are spewed into the air in large quantities. But first, that is a rather special case (it’s not the same, for example, as just dumping it in a pile outside), and second, our current pollution controls have it well under control in most industrialized nations.

So, I say again: under NORMAL, EVERYDAY modern circumstances, carbon is simply not considered a pollutant.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-02 at 09:44

BURNING organic substances can create CO2. So much is clear. But that still doesn’t make carbon a pollutant. Burning is a chemical process, and many, many chemical processes that use carbon can create polluting chemicals. That still doesn’t make carbon a pollutant. Via reductio ad absurdum, the argument that it is leads to YOU being a pollutant.

As I have mentioned before, the only other way that carbon is NORMALLY considered a pollutant to any significant degree is when it is turned into fine particulates and dispersed into the air in large quantities. That kind of pollution USED TO BE a big problem in many industrialized areas. But today’s stack scrubbers and other such procedures have generally rendered it far less of a problem today.

But even if it is somewhat of a problem in some areas, the point is that it is a “special case”, and does not support the argument that carbon is a “pollutant” because almost anything that can be turned into fine particulates and dispersed into the air in large quantities can be a pollutant. Sulfur compounds are one example, but it even applies to common rocks which anyone who has ever experienced volcanic fallout can tell you first-hand. And in fact, in many ways its worse than carbon. So carbon is nothing special in that regard, and I’d like to see someone try to argue that most common rocks are “pollutants”.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-02 at 11:45

You make a good point about Humlum. Or at least you seem to. It’s hard to tell, and the reason for that deserves a comment:

Not only the Humlum paper itself, but all the criticisms I have found that claim to be actually substantive are behind paywalls. So how does one who does not have academic or professional access to these publications access them and properly evaluate them without spending a fortune?

So people “on the outside” — who will ultimately decide on these issues — have no choice but to take someone else’s word on the credibility of the papers.

You say:

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

A real skeptic would try to read the paper, in order to personally evaluate the methodologies used. That avenue was not available to me (and many others) at the time. Or even now. Unless I want to spend a good bit of money.

So who to believe in that case? 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.

The point I am getting at here is that this reflects the oft-lamented lack of openness in science today. That is a situation that is in sore need of improvement.

As a side note, you mention Watts and his characterization of PSI as “a cult”. I was aware of this and find it rather amusing, since Watts tried to perform the thermodynamic experiment challenge posed by Latour and O’Sullivan, and completely botched both attempts. Because HE DIDN’T UNDERSTAND the principles the challenge was intended to demonstrate.

**

You make a good point about Humlum. Or at least you seem to. It’s hard to tell... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Thank you. All progress is admirable. The ability to admit a mistake and move on is the mark of a true scientist.

Not only the Humlum paper itself, but all the criticisms I have found that claim to be actually substantive are behind paywalls. So how does one who does not have academic or professional access to these publications access them and properly evaluate them without spending a fortune? ... A real skeptic would try to read the paper, in order to personally evaluate the methodologies used. That avenue was not available to me (and many others) at the time. Or even now. Unless I want to spend a good bit of money. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Googling the title along with "PDF" leads to a free PDF of Humlum et al. 2013.

You fail to distinguish between carbon and CO2, which I have repeatedly told you was my whole point. ... I'll repeat what I asked you elsewhere: do you deny that elemental or molecular carbon, versus CO2, are different things? Yes or no? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Only Jane/Lonny Eachus could quote my explanation that oxygen is decreasing because the CO2 rise is due to our burning carbon rather than ocean outgassing, then ask if I deny that elemental or molecular carbon is different from CO2. I deny that "carbon" always has to refer to fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon, instead of the carbon in CO2.

JPL's new Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) studies CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon, and it's nearly identical to OCO-1 which was lost in a failed launch just over a month after Obama was sworn in. So the first Orbiting Carbon Observatory was built and named before Obama took office.

Folks, re: Obama's "energy policy": CARBON is NOT a pollutant. Even if you believe the global warming hype, it's still CO2, NOT CARBON. Even if you buy everything the AGW supporters say, then it's still only CO2 that is a pollutant, not "carbon". Obama is calling for more regulation of COMPLETELY FICTIONAL "carbon pollution". CARBON IS NOT A POLLUTANT. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-28]

Obama is still talking about "carbon pollution" as though it were a real thing. What a tool. Carbon is simply not a pollutant. Period. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-31]

... there is a clear motivation for this administration’s habitual conflation of carbon and CO2: simple political exigency. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-01]

Obama clearly travelled back in time to force JPL to "incorrectly" name OCO-1, then decades into the past to force scientists to discuss the "carbon cycle" which refers to atmospheric CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon in the atmosphere. After reading Jane's endless comments, it's clear that Jane/Lonny Eachus can't admit he's advocating a conspiracy theory. But that conspiracy is even bigger. Obama also clearly travelled into the past to force Jane to refer to carbon when Jane was actually referring to CO2 rather than fine particulates of elemental or molecular carbon in the atmosphere.

That's another reason to worry that Jane is backsliding further from reality. Ideally, learning curves point up.

Again you make a specious argument that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Apparently for no reason other than to try to make me look bad. Whether CO2 is due to burning carbonaceous materials is completely irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a straw-man, nothing more. And a pretty ridiculous one, at that. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

I pointed out decreasing oxygen for three reasons. First, it answers Jane's questions about ocean solubility. It's another independent way to see that our carbon emissions overwhelm ocean outgassing.

Second, decreasing oxygen is another independent way to see that Humlum et al. 2013 was wrong to claim that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

Again, Humlum et al. made a calculus mistake. But if Lonny Eachus doesn't find that point convincing or doesn't have access to the papers, consider this. If Humlum et al. were right, their "substantial" ocean outgassing would increase CO2 without using up oxygen. If this were happening, the O2 vs. CO2 measurements on p206 would be "substantially" horizontal. They're not.

Third, the fact that the O2 vs. CO2 measurements actually point down at such a steep angle is yet another independent way (in addition to simple accounting, etc.) to see that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Not a "few percent" like Jane and many others have claimed.

That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

Loaded statement. I do not retract my comment, because it was honest and true. It was not "misinformation", it was correct in both a scientific and common-sense context. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

Again, I first asked that question after debunking misinformation you and Lonny Eachus have been spreading.

Do you still dismiss flat statements like "the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity" as disingenuous and claim that we're only contributing a small percentage despite the fact that ~200% of the CO2 increase is attributable to human activity? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Do you still link to "PSI" blog posts accusing scientists of fraud because Dr. Salby said accumulation of human emitted CO2 is somehow unphysical? Do you acknowledge these "PSI" accusations of fraud are baseless, or do you think they're honest, true and correct?

Do you still repeat O'Sullivan's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 emissions now that you know he "forgot" to show the winter fluxes? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Do you still repeat Humlum's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 lags now that you know he ignored decreasing O2 and made a calculus mistake which caused him to "discover" summer and winter? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

Addressing more complex questions would be pointless unless we can agree on the fundamental fact that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the CO2 rise.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 13:06

And yet again, you neglect to post the comment to which you were replying:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5334673&cid=47334247

but I have to say I am glad you did link to that exchange. because in that exchange you make it abundantly clear that your beef with me is PERSONAL. And apparently quite obsessive.

Which makes any pretense of objectivity about me on this blog appear to be a pathetic joke.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:57

I just love how above you juxtapose something I wrote one day right next to things I wrote 2 and 3 years later, both in a different forum and in different contexts, in a blog post you wrote another year after that, and appear to be trying to present it as some kind of coordinated “misinformation” campaign.

You do post the dates, but you present these things in a manner that suggests I would still make the same argument if asked today. But of course the only place that 3- or 4-year-old arguments of mine can easily be found anywhere these days are right here on your blog. One might almost think you have some kind of fetish about me. Just an impression I get.

Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time? If so, how did you get your degree if you didn’t learn something over 3-4 years? (Actually I’m wondering about that one anyway, given the nature of these little “speeches” of yours.) And I’m not even going to go into into the context thing again except to point out that you have thoroughly mixed and conflated them, improperly.

The important part here is: yet again you demonstrate your habit of “arguing” here on your personal blog with something someone else said years ago, in a different forum and about which they might have changed their minds (or they might have even learned something in the interim). And you (apparently deliberately) juxtapose them with more recent statements about something else, giving the impression that the various comments somehow go together, in some context that you have purely invented.

I see no way to interpret this as anything but yet another attempt at self-aggrandizement at the expense of your victims.

Here’s another little “gem”:

“(Ed. note: This comment was copied from here.)”

You copied it from another quote of YOURS which was quoting me. Which again does contain a link, but again, you are forcing people to follow links to links to see the actual exchange, when you could have just linked to it directly.

What is your motive for doing this? When I pointed it out to you before, you complained about time, blog space, etc. but that doesn’t explain why you seem to have done it pretty much whenever it makes you look better, but not at other times.

Most of these observations about what I consider to be grossly unprofessional behavior are not new. I have mentioned them to you before at various times. I have seen no noticeable improvement.

Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time?

I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:

"Carbon Pollution" is nothing more than a FICTION created by people (politicians) who want more control over power generation. It's about control. It isn't about pollution, and it isn't about warming. It's about controlling YOU. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-28]

Folks, re: Obama's "energy policy": CARBON is NOT a pollutant. Even if you believe the global warming hype, it's still CO2, NOT CARBON. Even if you buy everything the AGW supporters say, then it's still only CO2 that is a pollutant, not "carbon". Obama is calling for more regulation of COMPLETELY FICTIONAL "carbon pollution". CARBON IS NOT A POLLUTANT. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-28]

Obama is still talking about "carbon pollution" as though it were a real thing. What a tool. Carbon is simply not a pollutant. Period. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-31]

People, let’s keep the debate both honest and rational: carbon is NOT a "pollutant". [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-10]

The whole concept of "carbon pollution" is about nothing more than CONTROL. Because almost everything important contains carbon. (Other than mineral ore and refined metals.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-31]

Understand something: regardless of whether climate scientists are correct about CO2-based warming, it isn't just about the science. It's also about control. The phrase "carbon pollution" is no accidental turn of phrase, and Al Gore doesn't "accidentally" own shares in companies that profit from "warming" scares. Strictly regulating CO2 would give the government unprecedented control over the air. Control of "carbon", if the idea could be promoted enough, would give government control of virtually everything except maybe minerals and refined chemicals. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-02]

Jane and Lonny Eachus's conspiracy theory ignores all the evidence showing that our carbon pollution is responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Let's review:

One reason nobody talks about oxygen pollution is that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. Why? CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, so that doesn’t decrease atmospheric oxygen. But burning carbon uses up oxygen.

At WUWT, Ferdinand Engelbeen cites TAR Fig 3.4 (p206) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldn’t decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.

However, notice that the actual line points down at an even steeper angle than 45 degrees. This shows that we’re responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2, and that dissolved CO2 (which causes ocean acidification) is increasing despite the warming oceans.

In other words, one way to tell that the CO2 rise is primarily due to burning fossil fuels is precisely that we’re burning carbon instead of simply adding CO2 like ocean outgassing or volcanoes would.

That's why I asked if you'd retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous. If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? I'm trying to see if you're actually learning, rather than backsliding like with the warming you're now denying.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 11:37

I see your habit of attempting self-aggrandizement at the expense of others hasn’t changed over time. I also find it amusing how (your 06/24 comment for example) you continue to use methods of argument such as trying to use the very set of data being disputed as proof of itself. I would like to clarify another point: my comments that you characterize as “complaining” are nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out where your behavior was out of line, and apparently INTENDED to irritate and aggravate. I have no need to “complain” when all is said and done, others will decide. But I did have reason to point it out.

Jane Q. Public posted on 2014-07-01 at 12:22

In reply to the “notification” you claim to have made, here were your exact words. Which you could easily have quoted yourself, but I’ve noticed that you like to hide things behind links when you could easily quote them yourself but from what I’ve seen you only do that when you think it’s in your favor:

Hmm.. okay. Well, anyway, it’s been interesting. Just FYI, I’ll be linking to your comments and quoting them when I finally get around to writing a blog article about my experiences debating climate change with the general public. It’s usually helpful to see opposing points of view, and so far your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position.

Interesting here that you mention writing “an article” about “educated and polite” comments. But nowhere did you mention entire sections of your blog devoted to ripping my comments out of context without informing me at the time, then “arguing” with them here when I don’t even know they exist to rebut. Interesting also that you say you casually mentioned this “long before” ever doing it, but then didn’t see fit to properly notify me when you actually did it. (Until much later, that is.)

Do you honestly expect me to daily search your page to make sure you haven’t created yet another mischaracterization of my words?

Here is a practice that I have noticed on your blog, which makes it very difficult for someone to responsibly rebut many things you say: it’s a maze of links to links (some of which go in circles) that often make it difficult for anyone to see the full exchange. I do credit you with (often) linking to an actual exchange, but even then you link to a part of it, not the whole thing. On the surface, you appear to be giving the nod to opposing viewpoints, but the reality is that you link when you feel like it and quote when you feel like it in such a way as to skew the impression in your favor.

That’s not a “complaint”, it’s merely yet another observation about how much of your behavior has been, in my opinion, far short of professional.

It is also quite evident that time has supported many of the arguments I made to you in earlier years. For some reason, it appears to me that this has made you angry.

Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article. Maybe Jane’s observing that a few hours is “much later” to a mayfly. I get it: we should treasure every hour we have. That’s very Zen. Thanks Jane!

My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve already told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.

Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?

And once again, you are distorting my comment, which was an admission that I did not know the answer, and characterizing it instead as some kind of denial. You have deserved this at least a hundred times: fuck off, until you figure out how to actually have a discussion with someone rather than insulting them and claiming they said something they didn't. You sorely lack social skills, man. I mean the minimum kind needed to have a rational debate. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-08]

Given the content of your reply, I am going to give you some credit for relevance. But I do so only very cautiously, in light of your past behavior. I say up front: if you have science to present, then present it. Facts and figures, with references. Otherwise, you have nothing to say to me. I have been very tolerant, and even so I do not like you, or your behavior, or your methods. But if you can produce real science, I will look at it. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-09]

Charming, as usual. It's strange that you ask for real science to support the "alarmist" fact that humans caused the rise in CO2 because we're burning carbon to release CO2 faster than the warming oceans can outgas their dissolved CO2. Is anyone we know of disputing that? Is it even part of the "debate"?

"Humans releases more gas then can be absorbed in the same time period as the release." [geekoid]

Yes, we know that. Nobody I know of is disputing that. It's not even part of the debate. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-09]

The misinformation campaign masquerading as a "debate" certainly does include people disputing the fact that humans caused the ~40% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.

"Do you also believe that atmospheric co2 levels reaching 400 ppm isn't an [anthropogenic] effect?" [tolkienfan]

Why would I believe anything like that? Have you seen me anywhere claiming that I do? Don't be ridiculous. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-27]

Since Jane asked:

What you've done is proven that CO2 levels may be rising. You haven't proven what has caused those rises. Correlation doesn't equal causation. ... [Archangel Michael, 2010-12-31]

Agree with Archangel Michael. Human-caused CO2 is about 0.28% of the total. Even if the oceans are getting significantly more acidic or not, it's pretty damned hard to pin that on human activity. Not only is it not "case closed", it's "what case?" [Jane Q. Public, 2010-12-31]

Jane agrees with Michael's claim that we don't know what caused CO2 levels to rise. Jane's "0.28%" meme disputes the fact that simple accounting (PDF) shows our carbon emissions (mostly from burning fossil fuels) are responsible for ~200% of the modern rise in atmospheric CO2. This is possible because the oceans (and land) are absorbing roughly half of our CO2 emissions, which causes ocean acidification.

Sadly, many people are confused about this fact because they pull the wrong numbers from crackpot websites.

Pardon me. I did indeed pull the wrong numbers. Still, human-caused CO2 is only a few percent of the amount released naturally. Often it is less than the seasonal variability. Granted, a significant rise has happened since the beginning of the industrial revolution. But a flat statement such as "That increase is attributable to human activity." is disingenuous. It is a gross oversimplification. [Jane Q. Public, 2010-12-31]

... We have not been doubling the CO2 concentration via anthropogenic means. We have been contributing only a small percentage of the total. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-01-29]

Again, we've already increased CO2 by ~40%, and our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of this rise. Sadly, many people mistakenly claim we're only contributing a small percentage (transcript) because they ignore half of the natural carbon cycle.

For instance, Lord Monckton has repeatedly endorsed Dr. Murry Salby's denial that humans are causing the rise in CO2.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate that a plumber who understood plumbing as well as Monckton understands the carbon cycle would confuse a pool's circulation pump with a hose filling up the pool. They both pump water! The circulation pump even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the circulation pump is why the pool is filling up.

A surgeon who understood surgery as well as Monckton understands the carbon cycle would confuse a severed artery with the patient's heartbeat. They both pump blood! The heart even pumps more gallons per minute. So obviously the heart is responsible for that inexplicable long-term decreasing trend in blood pressure.

Jane and Lonny know of Lord Monckton. Jane's even linked to a "Principia Scientific International" blog post accusing scientists of fraud because Dr. Salby said accumulation of human emitted CO2 is somehow unphysical. Jane also knows of Prof. Curry, who infamously said "If Salby's analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science."

Dr. Tim Ball and others also promoted Dr. Salby's misinformation, which is why scientists have been overwhelmed explaining that Dr. Salby is wrong to deny the fact that our carbon emissions are responsible for ~200% of the CO2 rise.

John Nielsen-Gammon notes: "Eventually I realized that if 0.8C of warming is sufficient to produce an increase of 120 [ppm] CO2, as Salby asserted, then the converse would also have to be true. During the last glacial maximum, when global temperatures were indisputably several degrees cooler than today, the atmospheric CO2 concentration must have been negative. That was enough for me."

Maybe Jane missed all the ironic accusations that have come to be known as the "Salby Storm". But Jane advertises "Steven Goddard's" accusations of fraud, and "Goddard" joined "carbongate" when he disputed the cause of rising CO2 using this zombie solubility argument.

Jane also knows of someone else who's used the zombie solubility argument to deny that we're causing the rise in CO2. In 2008, Dr. Roy Spencer wrote Oceans are Driving CO2 which claims that "The long-term increases in carbon dioxide concentration that have been observed at Mauna Loa since 1958 could be driven more than by the ocean than by mankind’s burning of fossil fuels." In 2009, he wrote Global Warming Causing Carbon Dioxide Increases: A Simple Model.

Dr. Spencer seems to have claimed that the ~200% anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 increase could actually be less than 50%. How is that significantly different from item #7 on his list of "skeptic" arguments that don't hold water?

Those old blog posts still haven't been retracted. Has Dr. Spencer retracted his incorrect claim that "oceans are driving CO2" elsewhere? Maybe not. It wasn't too unusual when Tom Stone almost accepted that argument #7 was wrong, but reverted just two minutes later. However, it was unusual for Dr. Spencer to say argument #7 was wrong, then say he likes that last quote from Richard Courtney's article: "The existing data is such that the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration can be modeled as being entirely natural, entirely anthropogenic, or some combination of the two. And there is no data which resolves the matter."

Those flip-flops might be why mpainter said Dr. Spencer got clobbered regarding argument #7, which even famous contrarian Dr. Singer refers to using the d-word.

... If carbon dioxide is a culprit, then target carbon dioxide, not carbon. Funny, but I don't hear people talking about "oxygen footprint", even though oxygen, in some concentrations, can be poisonous. Yet it's a component of CO2 also. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-01-21]

.@JunkScience Nobody talks about "oxygen pollution", even though it's a bigger component of CO2 than carbon. CO2 has more oxygen than carbon. But you don't hear anybody talking about "oxygen pollution", do you? Because IT ISN'T. Neither is carbon. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-28]

... Funny, you don't hear anybody talking about "Oxygen Pollution", even though oxygen makes up more of CO2 than carbon does... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-02-02]

One reason nobody talks about oxygen pollution is that atmospheric oxygen is decreasing. Why? CO2 outgassed from the oceans comes out as complete CO2 molecules, so that doesn't decrease atmospheric oxygen. But burning carbon uses up oxygen.

At WUWT, Ferdinand Engelbeen cites TAR Fig 3.4 (p206) which plots atmospheric O2 vs. CO2 from 1990-2000. If the rise in CO2 were due to ocean outgassing (or volcanoes) the line would be horizontal because O2 wouldn't decrease. If 100% of the rise in atmospheric CO2 were due to burning carbon, the line would point down at a 45 degree angle because each added CO2 molecule removes an O2 molecule from the atmosphere.

However, notice that the actual line points down at an even steeper angle than 45 degrees. This shows that we're responsible for ~200% of the rise in atmospheric CO2, and that dissolved CO2 (which causes ocean acidification) is increasing despite the warming oceans.

In other words, one way to tell that the CO2 rise is primarily due to burning fossil fuels is precisely that we're burning carbon instead of simply adding CO2 like ocean outgassing or volcanoes would.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate this point, over and over.

... THE ACTUAL DATA from the IBUKI CO2-mapping satellite show that developed "Western" nations are net CO2 absorbers, not emitters. Far more CO2 is generated (and less absorbed in proportion), in the tropics and third-world countries. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-10-21]

Nonsense. John O'Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but "forgot" to show the fluxes for the rest of the year. Since July is summer in the northern hemisphere, those trees grow leaves which temporarily removes CO2 from the atmosphere. But this reverses during winter, which might be why John O'Sullivan "forgot" to show those fluxes. "Principia Scientific International" and several others repeated O'Sullivan's misinformation.

Paper: atmospheric CO2 *lags* sea-surface temperature change by 12 months or so. Since surface temperature increases occur before CO2 increases, CO2 could NOT be the cause. bit.ly/YTcYvI [Lonny Eachus, 2013-02-25]

Lonny linked to Humlum et al. 2013 which mistakenly claimed that "Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980."

A real skeptic would wonder why Humlum et al. analyzed the long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 by taking its time derivative. Differentiation is a high-pass filter because it amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Here's why. If A(w) is the amplitude at angular frequency "w", its time dependence is A(w)*exp(i*w*t). Its time derivative is i*w*A(w)*exp(i*w*t). So taking the time derivative multiplies the amplitude by a large "w" for fast frequencies, and multiplies it by a small "w" for slow, long-term frequencies. This amplifies high frequency variations and attenuates slow, long-term variations.

Since our CO2 emissions increase atmospheric CO2 over the long term, Prof. Humlum's analysis can't even detect the rise he claims to be analyzing. However, his method amplifies the faster annual carbon cycle. Prof. Humlum "discovered" summer and winter.

Ferdinand and I and many others failed to communicate that "discovering" the seasons isn't the groundbreaking discovery that many contrarians seem to think.

"Principia Scientific International" (which Anthony Watts calls a "cult" led by John O’Sullivan) is responsible for Humlum et al. 2013. Prof. Humlum is a PSI member with an imaginative website. I agree with Lonny Eachus that he could use a calculus refresher. Prof. Humlum might want to tag along.

Armies of Kool-Aid drinkers can indeed make things difficult at times. There is a difference, though, between these particular Kool-Aid drinkers, and those in Jonestown. In Jonestown, they were all told they were going to a higher place. In this case, they were all told that they are going to a fiery hell if they don't give government control over the very air they breathe. In both cases, there has been a lot of harm to a lot of people. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

Global Warming, or AGW as the scientists call it, is nothing more than a political attempt to tax the very air you breathe. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-06-25]

Jane and Lonny aren't the only ones so confused about why CO2 levels are rising that they worry scientists are somehow trying to tax the very air they breathe. Other examples include Rep. John Boehner (R), Sen. James Inhofe (R), Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R), Prof. Richard Tol, "Steven Goddard", and Steve Lonegan (video).

I've failed to communicate that breathing is like the circulation pump in a pool. It simply can't raise CO2 levels.

This clown car still isn't empty yet. Lord Monckton also uses carbon-14 isotopes to deny that our carbon emissions are causing the rise in CO2. Again, Ferdinand Engelbeen debunks Lord Monckton at WUWT. The crackpot "Not-the-IPCC" report cites Prof. Robert Essenhigh's residence time argument to deny that our carbon emissions are causing the rise in CO2, even though that argument is so wrong that even WUWT author Willis Eschenbach gets it. Heck, Pete Ridley, Burt Rutan and others support Beck’s CO2 "record" which denies the CO2 rise entirely! In fact, contrarians use so many silly and self-contradictory arguments to dispute the cause of rising CO2 that the last satirical "Denial Depot" post is a guide to disputing the cause of rising CO2.

One clown left. After WUWT repeatedly claimed that insects caused the CO2 rise, Anthony Watts couldn't remember those posts. He's not necessarily dishonest. Watts could simply be suffering from amnesia, as in this strangely familiar example:

"Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant "global warming" in the 20th century." [Anthony Watts, 2010-01-29]

"Sure we've seen an increase in temperature in the last century, I've NEVER said we haven't." [Anthony Watts, 2012-07-07]

Jane, will you retract your misinformation and acknowledge that our carbon emissions are responsible for the CO2 rise, rather than dismissing it as disingenuous? If not, will you at least acknowledge that many people you know of have disputed this fact, including you and Lonny Eachus? Recursively denying your own denial doesn't make the evidence or your misinformation disappear.

What happens later won't be your responsibility because Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar and a coward posing as Jane Q. Public who won't do anything. So obviously not your responsibility.

In one breath you accuse me of being a woman, and in the next you accuse me of being a man. You don't even know what you are saying anymore.

Don't be coy. I've always been saying that you're a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman named Jane Q. Public. Again, I agree with the AC that you're making all women look bad in the process because Jane is completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. Please find it in your heart to stop lying, Lonny Eachus.

Kind of hard to tell, actually, since you have now conflated behavior with gender with sexual orientation, and I don't know what the hell you mean anymore.

Jane, I just carefully showed you that I never mentioned sexual orientation. That was just the imaginary voice in your head. Since you contrasted flamers with women (who'd be in your circle of friends even if they refer to their asses as smooth and shapely) I used your meaning to contrast flamers with women. I'm saying you've obviously been claiming to be a woman for years. Why not just admit it, unless you're a man named Lonny Eachus?