Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 287

You did nothing of the sort. You made the (quite incorrect) claim that Latour wasn't accounting for the fact that the subject at hand is net heat transfer. But that claim is simply incorrect. I repeat that Latour has written about this extensively, which you would know if you bothered to actually read more of what he has written than one blog post.

You took a badly-worded sentence or two and jumped on them as though Latour made a mistake. But his only mistake was wording a couple of sentences badly. He does in fact NOT suggest that warmer objects absorb no radiation, and he has written as much many times. (Which apparently you did not know. Why?) So you were tilting at windmills again... or should I say straw-men?

You have refuted NOTHING but a couple of unfortunately-worded sentences, which Latour himself publicly corrected shortly after that post appeared.

You failed. If you could actually prove his actual argument wrong, as opposed to the argument you mistakenly thought he made, you'd do it to his face or publish your results or both. Because, after all, it would be important to this cause you so avidly defend. But you haven't. Is that because you knew you were making straw-man arguments, or because you simply didn't bother to research the subject you were attempting to refute? Either one represents failure.

You have not been able to actually refute Latour. The only place a genuine "refutation" occurred is in your own mind.

Now get lost. Your totally unjustified arrogance is irritating as hell.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 302

Since I have neither, I wouldn't know.

I would also like to point out here the absolutely amazing fact that "Layzej" stopped replying the moment you popped up. What a "coincidence".

Well, this has been an interesting evening. Not only did I catch you in an outright lie, you accomplished exactly nothing but spreading more ad-hominem and attempted "character besmirching" based on that lie.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 302

No, you publicly claimed you were paranoid. One of the only true things you've ever said.

NO, I did not. That is NOT what I wrote in the comment. That isn't even a distortion, it's just a plain old lie.

What I wrote was that I thought for a time I was being paranoid, but that the situation turned out to not be paranoia at all; it was real.

Stop lying about me. Period. Take your distortions and you lies and go crawl in a hole somewhere.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 302

So, just in case the meaning of my comment above was not clear to you:

If there is any vestige of "paranoia" in my personality, then I think it's pretty fair to say that it was probably caused by you. Because nobody else has been doing these strange and outside-normal things.

Did the word "stalker" never come to mind when you were researching my life?

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 302

It's worthy of note in your paranoia diagnosis...

Are you claiming I am paranoid? Just trying to clarify.

It's amazing how you seem to have this entire collection of Slashdot comments I made years ago right at hand. I've mentioned this before. What is the basis of your (apparently unhealthy, and definitely creepy) obsession with me?

Researching (and apparently indexing) years of other peoples' Slashdot comments is not something your average normal person does.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 0) 287

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?

Since I've received exactly no education from there, how would I know? Do you really need me to repeat that again before you get it through your head?

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.

Let's be specific. Explain to us what Venus vs. Mercury have to do with Pierre Latour's thermodynamic argument in regard to greenhouse warming? Stop prevaricating, and say what you mean. Do you have an actual argument to make?

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

And yet, you have failed for 2 years to refute Latour. Gee, that's interesting. What isn't holding water again? Are you sure you have that straight?

Yet again, trying to inflate your ego at the expense of others. It won't wash. You know you can't refute Latour, so you are piling straw-man on top of straw-man to try to make yourself look good. Again, I say: if you have a specific argument to make, then make it. Other than, that is, just rehashing the failed arguments you made 2 years ago. Quoting yourself complimenting yourself doesn't prove anything.

I am going to ask you again: why have you made it a habit of taking certain peoples' comments out of context, and then arguing with those comments when those other people aren't present, about things they did NOT say?

Stop dancing and beating around the bush. You're being utterly and disgustingly transparent. You've made not a single valid argument, but only implications. You've also thrown quotes of yourself about, plus more of the same old ad-hominem, out-of-context, straw-man arguments you've been making all along. But there isn't any meat anywhere.

And I think it's doubly hilarious that you're trying to argue with me about something I told you in plain English I wasn't even arguing. Only you.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 287

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

As you very well know, the part I was referencing was the part about Venus. If you have any problems with anything else on the page -- for that matter, if you have any problems with ANYTHING on the page, I suggest you take it up with the author as I originally told you.

I already told you: that isn't my argument. It is someone else. 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.

I have no desire (or any motivation, for that matter) to engage you in some ridiculous argument about whether Venus is proof of "greenhouse warming", as compared to Mercury or the Earth.

There are many reasons why even if it were true, it is hardly relevant: Mercury has an extremely long day, almost no atmosphere, and a very eccentric orbit. Venus has a surface atmospheric pressure 92 times (give or take) Earth's, it's atmosphere is MOSTLY CO2 (around 96% or so), versus Earth's 0.04% or less, again give or take a bit. Not to mention the vast clouds of sulfuric acid.

You seem to want to ignore all these other variables and argue about just CO2, when the degree to which CO2 in particular affects Venus' surface temperature is speculative, to say the least. I'm not going to get into an argument that pointless. There are papers on both sides of that argument, and I am happy to let their authors fight it out in the journals. It is none of my affair.

I tried to tell you that humans are responsible for the change in CO2 concentration.

Why did you "try to tell me" this? I haven't intentionally disputed this. Not for many years, anyway. I suppose I might have, 4-5 years ago, when I knew next to nothing about the subject. So who are you arguing with? I went to that page, and you have this to say:

Charming, as usual. Itâ(TM)s strange that you ask for real science to support the âoealarmistâ fact that humans caused the rise in CO2 because weâ(TM)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 âoedebateâ?

Once again, not only arguing with yourself (since I was not present), but also (again as usual) arguing about something I didn't even say. I wasn't arguing with you about those things. So why did you try to make it appear I did? Why were you trying to give the impression I said something I did not in fact say? I will ask anyone who reads this to ask themselves that question. You must have a motivation, so what is it?

You are simply continuing your ridiculous straw-man and out-of-context arguments with yourself. I've said it before: from where I sit, it just makes you look like a fool.

And as for "charming": you seem to forget that you have given me MANY reasons to not be polite to you at all. To say that some of your actions have been uncivil is an understatement. I owe you no charm, nor civility of my own.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 302

I already told you I don't have any theories -- or opinion, for that matter -- about who manipulated the White House website "copy" of Obama's birth certificate.

By the way, dear readers: does anyone else happen to notice just how remarkably similar this "Laysej" person's comments are to those of Khayman80? In fact both the nature of the comments and their timing very strongly suggest that "Laysej" is nothing but a sock-puppet account for Khayman80.

Reminder: folks here at Slashdot have a very low opinion of people who sock-puppet.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 287

Charming. Do you explain the fact that Venus is hotter than Mercury using basketball player gloves, gray Oreos, or truly original groundbreaking science?

Since it has little to do with arguments I have actually made, I don't try to explain it at all, nor do I have any reasonable obligation to do so. But I will briefly mention refutations by other people anyway, simply because you asked. Isn't that nice of me?

How about this? (This is someone else's work, not my own, so if you don't like it, argue with him.)

Evidence from Mars and Venus suggest that global warming from doubled carbon dioxide in the [Earth] atmosphere is unlikely to exceed 0.5 K. The atmospheres of these planets consist almost exclusively of CO2 (Table 1.2). Venus has an atmosphere containing CO2 at a pressure of 88 bars, i.e. 88 times our atmosphere's total pressure at sea level. Such an amount of CO2 causes greenhouse warming by 500 K there. On the other hand, the mere 0.006 bars of CO2 on Mars cause warming by 5.5K. These figures can be plotted on a graph of the logarithm of the pressure against the logarithm of the warming. The straight line between these two points can be extrapolated to find the warming effect of 600 ppm of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, i.e. 0.0006 bars. The answer is 0.47 K. This is only one of eight observed relationships between radiation and surface temperatures, each indicating only small effects from doubled CO2.

(From Idso, S.B. 1998: CO2-induced global warming Climate Research, 10, 69-82. K is Kelvin, NOT thousands.)

It took me about 30 seconds to find that. Spending another 30 seconds or so found this. Are you suggesting that if I spent more time I would not find more and better?

Again: if you have problems with their figures, I strongly suggest you argue with THEM. Because arguing with me isn't going to take their pages down. Is this support of Latour's argument? Probably not. But on the other hand it rather invalidates yours.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 287

s/quoting the/quoting them

This person has no courage to engage the actual authors of ideas, but would rather do his best to ad-hominem others who mention those ideas. He has proven many times that he doesn't have "courage of conviction", but would rather snipe at others from the sidelines, without demonstrating strength of his own. That's called cowardice.

In any case, after many years now of being too tolerant and putting up with his abuse, I don't mind saying it like it is. I am looking into legal remedies against this odious person. We'll see how that turns out. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to save copies of these snipes of his. It's easier than getting a subpoena. But in all honesty I'm probably going to have to do that too.

Comment: Re:Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 0) 287

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?

A real skeptic would see you arguing with the person who made the argument in the first place, publicly, and not just your habit of "arguing" with people quoting the, with no notice on your personal blog, which nobody knows or cares about, so they don't even know you're trying to "argue" with them anyway.

I've stated this many times: your arguing with yourself on your personal blog amounts to zilch, because nobody knows or cares.

Do you HONESTLY expect me to visit your blog every day to see your arguments with yourself, and effigies of your "opponents"? And expect that is necessary to "refute" your straw-man and ad-hominem arguments? And (still to be legally determined) libel?

Pathetic. You've tried to argue with people who really matter (I don't claim to be one of them, but I've seen it a number of times) and you've come out the loser in every case. Even if you had the courage (haha... that's a laugh) of your convictions, you can't win a fucking argument. You don't know how. You don't understand logic. You've proved this many times.

Get stuffed, and go away. The ONLY thing you are to me is an annoyance. I have NO respect for you either as a scientist or a person.

Comment: Re:no problem (Score 1) 302

I have already stated that it might have been done for legitimate reasons. Which makes your "conspiracy theory" accusation (which you have made many times, not just here) bogus.

But I am curious: why do you insist I demonstrate to you that it might NOT be a conspiracy theory? Are you unfamiliar with the subject?

I rather expect so. Here's my actual "theory": either you are ignorant of the actual facts surrounding the situation, and so assume it's "conspiracy theory", or you are ignorant of the actual facts surrounding the situation, and can't imagine why it might not be conspiracy theory, or you are actually familiar with the situation and are just trying to make me look bad, because you're an asshole.

If I have summarized the possibilities well (and I think I have), that means in 2 out of the 3 possibilities you are simply ignorant, and 1 out of 3 that you are just doing this to try to make me look bad.

But of course, that's assuming equal probability to each outcome, and of course I make no such assumption.

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."