For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

Now remember your baseless accusations that scientists who point out the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change are guilty of fraudulent bullshit lies. Don't you think it's even a little ridiculous that you're lecturing scientists about what scientists think?

One thing Jane said is true. Jane's never read my entire comments, or the comments by any other physicist.

STOP LYING. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Jane, that's the most charitable explanation for all your baseless accusations.

Once again, leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud?

I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations. If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation". ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Again, your accusations were baseless, and you reasonably should have known that. Instead, you doubled down and tripled down on your baseless accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies. And now you're quadrupling down.

For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.

Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.

In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.

At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?

Now remember your baseless accusations that scientists who point out the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change are guilty of fraudulent bullshit lies. Don't you think it's even a little ridiculous that you're lecturing scientists about what scientists think?

Answered here.

By the way:

Bill Nye - a guy I respected a lot when I was younger - caught in inexcusable misinformation about global warming. patriotpost.us/posts/31194 [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-14]

I *used to* respect Nye.
MT @SteveSGoddard: Dear @TheScienceGuy - you've set a high bar for stupidest climate post stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/bil... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-02-06]

... I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere. Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked. While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit. To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]

Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses Bill Nye of being a liar or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but Jane can't even write down a simple energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.

I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.

If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation that Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way for Jane to see that he should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

If Jane can't even master the most basic details about conservation of energy, Jane won't ever be able to analyze how greenhouses work because that depends on understanding conservation of energy.

Jane, you of all people really shouldn't be accusing scientists of being liars or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

... Slashdotters don't think very highly of sock-puppetry. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really. And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

That might be the most hilarious bit in Jane's comedy act, where he wrongly claims that "there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett"".

And yet Jane's 100% wrong, despite being 99.9% certain. As always. And Jane refuses to admit he's wrong. As always. And Jane simultaneously insists that he's happy to admit he's wrong. As always.

But at least Jane finally admitted that Jane is suggesting anything. Baby steps.

Answered here.

I see. So you admit "RespekMyAthorati" is one of your sockpuppet accounts? If not, why are you answering for "him"? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Good grief, Jane. That link goes to my clear statement that I'm not "RespekMyAthorati". So it's difficult to imagine that Jane's asking that question in good faith.

But maybe Jane's chronic amnesia is kicking in again, so Jane might actually be honestly confused... once again. If Jane's actually just honestly confused, Jane should try to remember that I answered Jane's comment because Jane used my real name to wrongly accuse me of being "RespekMyAthorati":

... Is this your amateur attempt at the despicable practice of "doxxing"? Besides: I would estimate in good faith that there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett", who demonstrably can't stand to be tied down to one pseudonym like his "Khayman80" account, he thinks it's fun to harass other people using multiple sock-puppet accounts. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Sadly, Jane will probably never appreciate the ironic contrast between those first two sentences.

Jane probably also won't appreciate the irony that Jane uses my real name to wrongly accuse me of posing as someone else, while complaining bitterly and threatening to call the police and/or sue whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus. But again, I'll remember this the next time Jane pretends to be offended whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus.

... You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Good grief. Once again, the irony of Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet "Jane Q. Public" wrongly accusing me of sock-puppeting is overwhelming.

Once again, Jane's completely wrong. This "khayman80" account is the only account I use at Slashdot. What Jane actually means is that his crippling paranoia has led Jane/Lonny Eachus to repeatedly and baselessly project his own sock-puppeting onto me.

... And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

I just explained that "RespekMyAthorati" was wrong, and showed that I'd already disagreed with his statement 6 years ago. A real skeptic might interpret this as evidence against Jane's accusation.

But Jane simply interprets that evidence as support for his accusation. This is known as a 'self-sealing' ideology: "(Keeley 1999, Bale 2007, Sunstein and Vermeule 2009), whereby evidence against a conspiratorial belief is re-interpreted as evidence for that belief."

... And it hardly surprises me that you would contradict yourself. You did it a lot when we were actually having our Spencer discussion. You never admitted it, but as I have stated before, it's all a matter of record. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Good grief, Jane. You've been baselessly accusing me of contradicting myself, but if you'd learn how to apply conservation of energy then you'd realize that your accusations are misplaced. For instance, from our Spencer discussion:

... 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]

... I was arguing that the input to the heat source was constant but the power to the cooled walls was not stipulated and could be variable. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-20]

Really? Because you'd previously and wrongly claimed that the power used by the cooler was constant. To the untrained eye, that might look like a contradiction. But I'm sure Jane could grace us with a long-winded evasive pile of nonsense which miraculously concludes that Jane's been perfectly consistent.

I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.

If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.

And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way to see that Jane should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

... I will state again what I have stated so many times before: I don't mind admitting that I am wrong, but first I have to be shown that I am indeed wrong. [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-06]

I don't know about you, but if I say something that is incorrect, I appreciate being corrected. As long as it's done politely. ... I can be stubborn, but i someone can show me I'm wrong, I'm willing to change. But all too often, they've just tried to TELL me I'm wrong, rather than showing me I'm wrong. That's the difference. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-07]

Really? I showed that you were wrong about GPS by writing down the equations showing that 4 satellite locks are required unless the GPS receiver has an atomic clock, but you couldn't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong. Will you do that now, or were you lying when you said you're willing to admit that you're wrong?

... I've made mistakes here and admitted them when they've been pointed out to me. But unless I made a recognizable blunder, I won't admit to being wrong unless someone actually shows that I am. Insults don't quite make it over that line. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-27]

Insults like these?

... If you show that I was wrong or ignorant of some subject, I'll happily admit it and correct myself. But calling names doesn't cut it, and I doubt you can do the other. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-05]

... Unlike you, while I certainly have made mistakes, and changed my mind on some issues over the years, I have been happy to admit it when that actually happens. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]

Good grief, Jane. The last time you made this absurd claim, I listed several examples where I've admitted mistakes.

Again, it's so ironically meta for you to argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes. For instance, after I debunked your lecture on neutrino oscillation, you repeatedly claimed that I missed where you admitted you were wrong. Despite the fact that the last quote in my post was the closest example I could find to a genuine admission that you'd been wrong. Even then, you manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. At the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers.

You even repeatedly refused to answer my simple question: when you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" you actually meant that I had repeated that part and responded to it?

If you're actually happy to admit mistakes, couldn't you start by answering that very simple question?

... I would estimate in good faith that there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett", who demonstrably can't stand to be tied down to one pseudonym like his "Khayman80" account, he thinks it's fun to harass other people using multiple sock-puppet accounts. The other 0.01% would almost have to be one of Bryan's friends. If he has any. NOBODY ELSE, in all my years here, has bothered to try to harass me in this manner. Nobody. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Charming. I'm not "RespekMyAthorati" and I've never spoken to "RespekMyAthorati" even once. But it's fascinating that this is the sixth time Jane's accused me of pretending to be somebody else. I'll remember this the next time Jane pretends to be offended whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus.

... This guy's supposed to be a PhD physicist, and he doesn't know how information relates to the Second Law of Thermodynamics! ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

... For years now, I have had ONE person claiming to be a physicist, who seems to care (understatement; "obsessed" would be more accurate) about who he thinks I am outside of Slashdot, and who likes to argue -- nay, insists upon arguing -- fallaciously about physics. And along comes "RespekMyAthorati", with marvellously coincidental timing, who apparently also likes to argue fallaciously about physics, and who also seems to care about some person outside of Slashdot who he thinks is me. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Don't be ridiculous, Jane. Do you really want to see what a PhD physicist says about how information relates to the second law of thermodynamics? Six years ago I said: most information theorists regard information and entropy to be closely related. So saying "information is increasing" is very similar to saying "entropy is increasing," ...

As you can see, a PhD physicist has already said that "RespekMyAthorati" is wrong. But feel free to keep accusing me of being six different people. The irony is delicious.

I neither agree or disagree. I'm not even reading your entire comments. I have no reason to. I solved the problem we discussed using standard textbook radiative physics methods. I have ZERO reason to go back and try to do it the "Khayman80" way, which is not exactly what I would call "standard" methodology. The textbook way is fine by me and I'm sticking with it. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

One thing Jane said is true. Jane's never read my entire comments, or the comments by any other physicist.

But everything else Jane said is sadly wrong. Jane solved the problem using his own incompetent misunderstanding of his own textbooks. That's why inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation Jane's still adamantly rejecting.

Another independent way Jane could see that he misunderstood the "textbook way" would be to learn about how to apply conservation of energy. Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

If Jane would ever bother to read entire comments by physicists, or textbooks about basic physics, Jane would quickly learn that only power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.

It's just like crayons in a coloring book, Jane.

No. You do NOT get to take my words out of context, insert your own later comments around them, then try to argue that I said something I explained to you in plain English that I did not mean in the context you are trying to portray them. That's called LYING, man. Or worse. We already had this argument, and you lost. End of story. Go the fuck away, and leave me alone. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

Once again, all I did there was substitute the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation. So if you're not disputing the definition of the word "net", you must agree with that simple substitution. Right?

And once again, would it really be so hard to take a few seconds to write down an energy conservation equation for a boundary around the source without wrongly "cancelling" terms? That's another way to see that you should consider using the standard physics definition of the word "net". If you ever learn how to use crayons in a coloring book, that is...

This guy's supposed to be a PhD physicist

Really? Where did "RespekMyAthorati" claim to be a PhD physicist?

Recent federal GAO report: $106 BILLION dollars spend on "climate change" research by 2010. Four years ago. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-10-14]

... $106 BILLION (GAO rpt.) by 2010 for AGW was wasted. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-02]

... according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-11-20]

A recent GAO report said that $106 BILLION was spent by the US government through 2010 on global warming research. If you figure that was through the end of 2010, that was still 4 years ago, so the number is now much larger. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-30]

US GAO report last year said govt spent $106 BILLION on climate change research by 2010. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-07]

... According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010. Five years later, that figure is no doubt by now much higher. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]

I've already pointed out that research is different from propaganda, but I'd have better luck educating my coffee table about that. So let's focus on a more tangible question.

I clicked on the actual report Jane referenced above, and clicked on Accessible Text to view the full report. There is no reference to $106 billion in that report. If there were, it would be easy for Jane/Lonny Eachus to quote it. Instead, Jane tells us to "begin by totaling up the annual expenditures as shown in the GAO report."

However, totaling up the annual expenditures in the GAO report's "Funding Category: Total;" sums to: $80.529 billion.

Not $106 billion. Where did Jane/Lonny Eachus get that total from?

I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations. If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation". And those emails were almost certainly not "hacked". Evidence strongly suggests the leak was an "inside job", as the saying goes See what I mean, folks?. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Good grief, Jane. Of course Sky Dragon Slayers like you mistakenly believe the emails were almost certainly not "hacked". And since you're almost completely incapable of admitting when you're wrong, you'll never be reasoned out of that position.

But surely even Jane can see that unless the scientists Jane was quoting and attacking "leaked" the emails, then Jane was using private emails to attack scientists. And apparently that's cool, but responding to public comments is illegal, unethical, despicable lowlife sociopathic behavior.

Janeland is a funny place. For instance:

... I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load? Some of those comments are from someone he thinks is me, and not even from Slashdot. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

It's so adorable how Jane keeps hiding behind a pole.

... call it revenge for not getting to name Charon "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2014-11-07]

... If left up to me, I would have really, honestly, named new 9th planet "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

... You're talking to somebody who thought that other rock should have been named "Goofy". [Lonny Eachus, 2013-07-28]

I want the definition to go back the way it was. That way, maybe we will finally get to name its companion "Goofy", rather than that dumbass Charon moniker. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-28]

Dumbass Charon moniker? James Christy named Charon because his wife's nickname is "Char".

In fact, "Charon is informally pronounced "SHAR-on," similar to the name of the discoverer's wife, Charlene."

The man who discovered Pluto wanted to name its moon after his wife, and astronomers pronounce it "SHAR-on" to honor his choice. Why does Jane/Lonny Eachus call this a dumbass moniker?

... I have explained to you many times that I was not disputing the definition of "net". So STOP LYING. Because that's what you are doing. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]

Once again, you disputed my simple substitution of the standard physics definition of the term "net" into your equation, and simultaneously insisted that you don't dispute the standard physics definition.

Who do you think that's going to fool, Jane? I don't think it's likely to fool anyone who understands what a "definition" is. Not to mention the fact that you repeatedly pretended not to understand how a crayon mark representing cooler power doesn't pass through a boundary inside the cooler wall.

If you're actually this confused about basic physics, why are you lecturing physicists about physics?

If you're not actually confused, why has Jane/Lonny Eachus betrayed humanity?

I mean look: you want evidence that this guy is short of a full load?

Charming. Jane, keep in mind that you're saying this right after adamantly rejecting the standard physics definition of the word "net", and pretending not to understand how a crayon mark representing cooler power doesn't pass through a boundary inside the cooler wall.

Looks like you were lying yet again, when you claimed that you'd be happy to declare to everyone that you were wrong about your Latour Sky Dragon Slayer nonsense. Or maybe you'd like to keep disputing basic physics definitions and the esoteric art of using crayons in a coloring book?

I'm sorry for disrupting the discussion. But I'm a little more concerned about the fact that Jane's spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation about one of the defining issues of our time, and libeling scientists by repeatedly and baselessly accusing them of fraud.

Every minute Jane spends cussing and screaming at me is one minute he can't spend trying to confuse someone else, or attacking yet another scientist.