How mysterious! Tell us more about these "deeds even more foul" than repeatedly asking you to stop your ~7 year campaign of harassing/libelling/attempted-character-assasinating/misquoting mainstream scientists and those who agree with them. I'll "get a life" when you stop.
Let's start here, from no more than a few days ago:
And once again, Jane/Lonny repeatedly [archive.is] put [archive.is] those disgusting [archive.is] accusations [slashdot.org] into his [archive.is] own words [archive.is]. Feel free to retract them, or keep doubling down forever.
Sorry, but you lose. There is good evidence that those statements are true, and you have presented none that they aren't. You can call them "disgusting" all you like... I certainly felt the subject of those comments you linked to was rather disgusting.
Lonny, your disgusting statement was a "response" to a statement about anthropogenic global warming, which is primarily caused by raising CO2 levels. So your original disgusting statement was either accidentally or deliberately "out of context" of the statements you were replying to. Which is it, Lonny Eachus? Are you honestly confused, or are you deliberately trying to confuse others?
That was in reply to your ridiculous argument that exhaling was not an "emission". You are a complete nutcase. An exhalation is an emission in exactly the same way that CO2 from an exhaust pipe is an emission. Organic compounds are "burned" via your metabolism in an analogous way to how ethanol is burned in your automobile. Both are relatively simple organic "cycles"... the CO2 could be from corn in either case.
Your argument that exhaling cannot increase overall CO2 may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to whether an exhalation is an "emission" of CO2. That's both dictionary AND common usage of the word. The only reason a dictionary was being cited was because you were being an asshole about it. As usual.
Anyone who's googled EPA ethanol emissions has evidence to refute your statement... which apparently "doesn't exist" and you "flatly deny" making, even as you double-down on it. ... The EPA doesn't count that CO2 in their lifecycle GHG emissions calculations...
Which is gross moving of the goalposts, because what I said was that exhalation and tailpipe exhaust are both "emissions". And they ARE counted as emissions. But you've moved the goalposts, as I have explained several times, and again just now. You don't want to admit that I was correct to call them emissions, so now you want to show that EPA doesn't count them the same in meta-calculations. That's invalid argument. And you've done that crap so many times I no longer count.
It may be true that in one technical sense I was wrong, i.e. saying EPA "doesn't distinguish" whether OVERALL emissions are cycled or not. But that wasn't MY point, regardless of what yours was. CO2 emissions are still emissions, whether from a "cycle", or not. I have a hard time believing you really believe the arguments you make. I think you have a phobia about being wrong about anything. That would explain your ridiculous, consistent fallacious arguments like misrepresentation out-of-context and moving the goalposts.
That's the same definition used by every other mainstream scientist who discusses the "'allowable CO2 emissions budget'
Proof of moving the goalposts. Because MY comment wasn't about "allowable budgets". It was about emissions... the commonly understood, technically correct, and dictionary definition of "emission". It wasn't about "budgets", nor were the words Lonny was originally replying to on Twitter.
Don't be ridiculous, Jane. I've repeatedly shown that comment IN CONTEXT.
This is hilarious. Your example above is yet again grossly out-of-context, and not even subtly.
Lonny's little bit of satire or perhaps sarcasm, was a reply to Ken's words, not Peter's. Ken's words were (are) in a screenshot, clearly visible on Twitter. Instead, you incorrectly linked to an entire article in which those words are clear down near the bottom, and can easily be not seen or TL;DRed. But the words were clearly visible on Twitter, which people cannot see here, or at your link.
So yes, yet again you misrepresented that comment out of context.
The words you so conveniently OMITTED from your immediate "context" were:
1. There are no such things as "allowable CO2 emissions". There are only "damaging CO2 emissions" and "dangerous CO2 emissions." Every CO2 emission causes additional damage and creates greater risk.
It's really sad that you omitted that from your mentions, and nowhere stated the words to which Lonny's comment was actually replying. Yet it appears pretty obvious that you found the comment on Twitter, where Ken's words were clearly visible, yet you still claimed your quotes were "in context". Lonny's comment and the comment to which it is actually a reply are easily seen on Twitter. And so DID misrepresent my words, and all evidence says it was deliberate, because you knew, or reasonably should have known, that you were NOT showing the actual context, and were misrepresenting my words in a rather horrible and deplorable way. That's called libel.
You really should know better by now. You're not "winning" these exchanges, by any stretch of the imagination.