Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 1) 237

@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.

Comment: Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer. (Score 4, Insightful) 266

@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.

Comment: Re:Just noticed your earlier comment... (Score 1) 63

by khayman80 (#47528819) Attached to: Oso Disaster Had Its Roots In Earlier Landslides

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.

Comment: Just noticed your earlier comment... (Score 1) 63

by khayman80 (#47523169) Attached to: Oso Disaster Had Its Roots In Earlier Landslides

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.

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 497

by khayman80 (#47464223) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

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.)

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 497

by khayman80 (#47464103) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

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!

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 497

by khayman80 (#47463915) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

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]

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 497

by khayman80 (#47463559) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

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?

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 497

by khayman80 (#47463345) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

Fourth time's the charm, maybe? It's fascinating that you wrongly accused me of wanting to ask you 20 questions (then 7 billion!) about your identity when I've only been asking one. Repeatedly. Are you Lonny Eachus? By now you've wrongly suggested that I'm four different people. When you get to 20, will you finally say whether or not you're Lonny Eachus?

I wrote "I now see how, theoretically anyway, it could be a probabilistically-determined superposition. That clears up a lot."

Again, that was the last quote in my debunking that you repeatedly and wrongly claimed I missed.

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 497

by khayman80 (#47463069) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

But what is funny about the whole thing is that it isn't actually an example of what you claim, because I had in fact already explained TO SOMEONE ELSE, IN ANOTHER THREAD, that I understood that I had made a mistake, and what that mistake was. [Jane Q. Public]

Since I already linked and quoted all the places where you'd "explained" your mistake before I debunked you, your complete lack of links to these genuinely vindicating admissions speaks volumes. But if I asked for a link, that would merely be the prelude to the Layzej link gambit where you'd accuse me of being a sociopath. Instead, could we please skip to the part where you provide the vindicating link where you actually admitted your mistake? Otherwise it still seems ironically meta for you to keep arguing endlessly that you admit your mistakes. (Seriously, read that Layzej link and soak it in.)

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 497

by khayman80 (#47461769) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

I have admitted my mistakes, when they were actually shown to be mistakes. You have not done the same. [Jane Q. Public]

Actually, I do. For example, I thanked TinyCO2 and Michael for correcting one mistake, and apologized for the confusion after another mistake.

On the other hand, you miss the point in subtle ways and argue endlessly, never quite coming to grips with reality, while always retreating to some absurd evasion that seems to acknowledge the obvious while, in fact, concluding the exact opposite.

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.

When I looked for other instances where you'd admitted you were wrong, I found you telling other people to STFU, which even you've called nasty and arrogant. I found you saying that you were continuing the fiction by allowing some to think you didn't get that your answer is incorrect, and not letting on that you know a hell of a lot about neutrino flavor oscillations. That doesn't sound like you understood you had been wrong after it was explained to you. It sounds like you'd been pretending to be ignorant from the very beginning.

If that's what you consider "admitting your mistakes" then do you also think this is a shining example of your intellectual integrity? Obviously you could retreat to some absurd evasion and argue endlessly that you admit your mistakes, but don't you see even a tiny bit of irony there?

Comment: Jane is Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar (Score 1) 497

by khayman80 (#47454043) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

You seemed to make it my business when you left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

You could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but your charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if your domain name was also a deliberate message, which would make it my business. But maybe it was just an unintentional rookie mistake.

Haha. No reasonable person (and I have spoken to a few) believe that AC was not you. From all appearances, that is just another aspect of your unethical behavior, and you're trying to parade it as evidence in your favor. I've said it already, but you seem to have a problem with this: your own actions have destroyed your own credibility. It wasn't me. It was you. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-13]

Third time's the charm? You and your Scooby gang of reasonable people should've noticed that I snipped a part of that AC's comment because it used a cuss word to describe you. I've never used that insult to describe you, despite you repeatedly using it to describe me and then complaining that I'm rude, insulting.

Your Scooby gang also should've noticed that if I'd I written that comment, then I wouldn't have to ask if you'd actually lectured on those topics. I've seen you make 40+ absurd claims, in addition to your lectures on climate change, dark matter, neutrino oscillation, the Alcubierre effect and Maxwell's equations, and creationists. I wouldn't have to make up absurd lectures from you, because I already have so many real examples.

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg

Working...