... the part I was referencing was the part about Venus. ... I knew next to nothing about the subject. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Do you see how crackpot websites which make "ridiculous" claims that you might have made when you "knew next to nothing about the subject" might not be the best source of science education?

... I just did you a favor and looked up something you asked for on Google. His arguments are not my own and I did not even read them carefully. I merely looked them up for you because you seemed to wanted to argue about yet another straw-man that had next to nothing to do with anything I had said. ... [Jane Q. Public]

Venus vs. Mercury has everything to do with the Slayer nonsense you're spreading. You're just regurgitating even more misinformation that I have to debunk. That's the exact opposite of a favor! It's the same absurd behavior I've repeatedly asked you to stop.

Again, thanks for finally being honest. You’re not interested in valid science, just something you can use to argue, even if it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. You’ve used this "principle of superficiality" to spread civilization-paralyzing misinformation which seems plausible at first glance to non-scientists, but doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. In fact, I said as much last year:

"... each contrarian is more effective at superficial "science communication" than the average scientist. ... Once you get a contrarian started, a stream of regurgitated-but-superficially-plausible nonsense spews forth. Just consider Jane Q. Public. ..."

...I was not present... [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, you did respond. Repeatedly. Sure you weren't present?

You cited a non-peer-reviewed crackpot website which claims:

"...the fact that the CO2 increase is linear, while at the same time the amount of CO2 released by humans has grown exponentially, is the primary proof that humans are NOT responsible for the change in CO2 concentration..." [Robert Clemenzi]

I tried to tell you that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration. You even seemed to agree, calling Clemenzi's claim "ridiculous".

Before I waste time debunking the rest of that nonsense you cited, I'm wondering if you're regressing again. Hopefully I don't have to prove we're responsible for the CO2 rise again. If you still consider it "ridiculous" to deny that basic fact, do you see how Clemenzi might not be the best source of science education?

... Since this person is not making any scientific argument anyway, but simply attempting ad-hominem, and saying "so-and-so is wrong" without ANY evidence (which is all he can do, because he doesn't have any), this was a completely pointless exercise on his part. He was simply making another attempt at dragging my persona through the mud. I can only conclude that was his only purpose, since he didn't make any actual, substantive arguments. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-25]

A real skeptic would be checking my calculations but Jane can't even acknowledge them. If the Slayers are right, why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

Mercury's daytime surface temperature is 350C while Venus has a nighttime surface temperature of ~470C.

... despite the fact that Venus is 87% farther away from the Sun than Mercury, implying sunlight 3.5x weaker.

... and despite the fact that Mercury's albedo is ~0.1 and Venus's albedo is ~0.65.

... and despite the fact that a "night" on Venus lasts ~58 Earth days, during which the temperature barely changes from that at "high noon".

... Since all atmospheres must get colder with altitude as kinetic energy is transformed into potential energy in a planet’s gravitational field, the lower atmosphere must be warmer than upper atmosphere, even if there is no radiation involved. This follows from the perfect gas law, PV = nRT. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

Riiiight. That's why the stratosphere doesn't exist. I've explained that long-term equilibrium surface temperature is determined by conservation of energy, not the ideal gas law. (If scientists were wrong, basketball players would have to dribble with gloves because the pressurized ball would have to be very hot.)

Many Slayers blame equilibrium surface temperature on pressure, which I call the basketball player glove fantasy. None of the Slayers at WUWT would answer this question: would Venus have the same surface temperature if its atmosphere were pure nitrogen, which isn’t a greenhouse gas?

I've even seen a Slayer convince himself that all objects have the same albedo, which I call the gray Oreo fantasy.

Will Jane explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered. What actually happens is the chiller radiates to the hot plate, but the plate cannot absorb any of it because it is too cold. The hot plate reflects, transmits or scatters colder radiation, just like my roof does for cold radio waves. ... Energy from colder cannot heat hotter further because the second law of thermodynamics says so, because nature says so; always and everywhere. ... Conclusion, the hot plate remains at 150. All physics I know supports it; no physics offered refutes it. Spencer mistakenly assumed the 150 plate absorbs incident 100 radiation ... The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

If Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa. But Dr. Latour disagrees, wrongly claiming that hot objects can't absorb any radiation from colder objects. He's not alone:

Continued here due to Slashdot's filter.

@ClimateRealists That's the first I had read about O'Sullivan's rebuttal of the Greenhouse Effect. He makes a compelling argument. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

@GreatDismal See John O'Sullivan's "Slaying the Sky Dragon", for instance. If you think there is solid science behind AGW you are mistaken. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-23]

The 2010 fantasy novel Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory claims the second law of thermodynamics disproves the greenhouse effect. At first this seemed like a parody of creationists who claim the second law disproves evolution, but the Slayers seem very serious. They claim warm surfaces can't absorb back-radiation (*) from cold atmospheres because they mistakenly think heat can't be transferred from cold to warm objects at all. In fact, this is only true for net heat transfer. Cold objects can slow the rate at which warm objects lose heat without transferring more heat to warm objects than vice versa. That's how the greenhouse effect works.

(*) Also called downwelling longwave irradiance.

"We can easily calculate what the measured CO2 increase by itself does to the global energy balance of a static system."

This is where you are wrong. It has been shown that most of the models (at least) that are based on radiative forcings due to CO2 are based on flawed physics. See No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer. Their whole premise is based on a falsehood. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]

And so I have read explanations of how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work. And almost all of the CO2 warming models ... rely on the concept of "back radiation", in which the gases radiate some of their absorbed energy back to earth. But that is in fact impossible. First Spencer's explanation of how back radiation is supposed to work: bit.ly/HZ04KR ... Spencer is a weird case, because he recently jumped the fence and said his research showed CO2 warming to be true. So anyway, here is physicist Pierre Latour, refuting Spencer's explanation: bit.ly/JV9XmI The important point here being that most, not just a few, CO2 warming models rely on this "back radiation" concept. I'm not trying to pick on Spencer, it's just that he probably wrote up the best explanation of the mythical back radiation. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-05-21]

Again, Dr. Latour's Slayer fan fiction is fractally wrong:

... the absorption rate of real bodies depends on whether the absorber T (radiating or not), is less than the intercepted radiation T, or not. If the receiver T > intercepted T, no absorption occurs; if the receiver T < intercepted T the absorption rate may be as great as proportional to (T intercepted – T absorber), depending on the amounts reflected, transmitted or scattered. What actually happens is the chiller radiates to the hot plate, but the plate cannot absorb any of it because it is too cold. The hot plate reflects, transmits or scatters colder radiation, just like my roof does for cold radio waves. ... Energy from colder cannot heat hotter further because the second law of thermodynamics says so, because nature says so; always and everywhere. ... Conclusion, the hot plate remains at 150. All physics I know supports it; no physics offered refutes it. Spencer mistakenly assumed the 150 plate absorbs incident 100 radiation ... The generalized claim that a cooler object placed near a warmer object cannot result in a rise in temperature of the warmer object stands. ... [Dr. Latour, 2011-11-06]

If Dr. Latour understood the second law refers to net heat, he'd agree that adding a cold plate makes the heated plate lose heat slower. That's okay because net heat still flows from hot to cold, i.e. more heat moves from hot to cold than vice versa. But Dr. Latour disagrees, wrongly claiming that hot objects can't absorb any radiation from colder objects. He's not alone:

Continued here due to Slashdot's filter.

Again, thanks for the thoughtful feedback. One reason I'm criticizing Jane is precisely that I respect how difficult it is to be tg, and unlike Jane I feel like I "have an obligation to help them feel less uncomfortable with it" and that it's unquestionably better that tg is "becoming more socially acceptable." I get that nobody would choose to be tg, which means that their gender identities either legitimately conflict with their chromosomes or even that they're simply gender confused, as you say. This means actual transgendered people are expressing an inner truth when they bend their genders.

That's one reason Jane's comments are harmful. He doesn't seem to be expressing an inner truth. In my opinion, he seems like a destructive narcissist who's cynically posing as a woman on a largely male website to get his repugnant comments more attention. There's a difference between Jane's behavior and actual gender confusion, and I think some of the cultural resistance toward accepting tg might come from a mistaken perception that the transgendered are like Jane/Lonny Eachus. Instead, the transgendered are expressing an inner truth about their gender identity which might be more socially acceptable if people like Jane/Lonny Eachus weren't giving them a bad name.

Again, if I'm wrong then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support Lonny Eachus as ve experiments with vis gender identity.

Gender is not binary. There are, I believe, quite a large number of transgender, transexual and gender fluid people in the slashdot community. I do not know about the person you are arguing with but I suspect they should and are losing their arguments. However if you attack them on the basis of expressed gender then you are going to alienate a lot of transgender people if your attitude to them is that they are prima facie liars. I would think it best to drop the gender issue. [Demena, 2014-07-20]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I support the transgendered community and certainly don't consider them liars. But it seems very unlikely that Jane/Lonny Eachus is part of that community. If I'm wrong then I'll apologize, retract my accusations, and support Lonny Eachus as she transitions to Jane.

Just like you "admitted you made mistakes" in the three examples I gave above? Have you also forgotten that you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet while accusing scientists of fraudulent bullshit lies, or do I have to link to that again too? (Go ahead, pretend you don't remember any of this so I have to link it all again. Your absurd evasions are adorable.)

By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people.

Really? And what people are those? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-15]

One two three four.

But since you're struggling I'll throw you a bone. Some of the AC's on number four are a different matter. Seen a new squirrel you've never seen before? Squirrel!

And I'll repeat the question I asked you years ago: why do you ASSUME that meant you? Why do you ASSUME I named that file myself? Why do you ASSUME it was even my file to begin with? [Jane Q. Public]

So you didn't name or even make the file you linked in a public comment at my website. You didn't name or even make the screenshot of our conversation, which you defended after quoting me saying that you made the screenshot. You didn't name the file "asshole-pseudo-scientist.png" and that doesn't refer to me, despite the fact that you've been calling me an asshole for years. And still are.

Again, you're being absurdly evasive, just like every time your misinformation is challenged. Except this time you're blatantly lying. Are you also deliberately lying when you spread all your civilization-paralyzing misinformation? If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

"A lying liar who has to keep lying to cover his previous lies. -- IndEx http://fb.me/2vQzP38Ln" [Joe Newby, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-10]

So when you repeatedly claimed I'd missed where you admitted you were wrong, you meant that I'd quoted you and explained that you'd manufactured unwarranted doubt by inserting words like could and theoretically. I also explained that at the same time, you made additional claims which were never challenged, like equating the MSW effect with lasers. That's why you asked "why didn't you bother to repeat the part...?" when I actually had repeated that part and responded to it?