I won't read a wall of text. But you don't need to look far for me catching you in a lie. You just did, above. [ShakaUVM, 2013-02-04]
There's no need for you to read it, because you obviously read it (without comprehension) the first time around:
Defenders of Jones like to pretend he was being spamflooded by FOIA requests, but this is quite simply a lie from people unwilling to admit that "their team" could ever be in the ethical wrong. [ShakaUVM, 2011-10-30]
When you find yourself in a hole, it's better to stop digging than to keep baselessly accusing scientists of lying.
Though I do agree we need more scientists in cabinet positions, his banner solution to global warming was painting rooftops white. Good riddance to him.
I've already already addressed this:
To be precise, he suggested that any roof which needs to be replaced anyway be replaced with a white roof, and that roofs on new buildings be white. The costs of this strategy are negligible. The benefits include lower air conditioning bills for homeowners, lower CO2 emissions because of the reduced electricity demand, and reflecting sunlight back into space which helps cool the planet. Roofs in Siberia should remain black, but white roofs are optimal even away from the tropics because snow covers them during much bitterly cold weather anyway. Also, black roofs aren’t efficient heaters because heat rises, and there’s less sunlight in the winter. Plus, black roofs radiate heat away better than white roofs.
I've run the cost comparison on it. It's horrendously expensive for very little benefit.
Nonsense. Making a new roof white rather than black has negligible costs, and many benefits.
Your recent lull in attacks on scientists prompted me to ignore your accusation that I'm quite simply lying, and your attacks on other scientists. However, your renewed misinformation campaign makes it clear that this was a mistake. I'll add your other baseless accusations back to my list of contrarian arguments to debunk. Stay tuned.
Who are you, and why are you arguing with me? [Lonny Eachus]
Are you cruising the web hunting around for someone to argue with over trivialities, or what? Not very friendly. [Lonny Eachus]
I'm the Dumb Scientist, and I'm pointing out that you're spreading misinformation. Again.
I didn't claim, I said "looks like", and was referring to the popular sense. This is Twitter, not some science journal. [Lonny Eachus]
No, it doesn't even "look like" dark energy's dead, in any sense. You were just wrong. Again. Spreading misinformation on Twitter is still spreading misinformation. Please stop.
@jimmygle Interesting article. The other day it was announced that there is almost certainly no "dark energy" making the Universe expand. [Lonny Eachus]
Again with this nonsense? Physicists have never claimed that dark energy makes the Universe expand. Dark energy makes the expansion of the Universe accelerate.
@jimmygle "Almost certainly" to like 5 nines +. That is... apparently it is expanding. But not due to invisible "dark energy". [Lonny Eachus]
Lonny's confusion between expansion and acceleration reminds me of Jane Q. Public's similar confusion.
@jimmygle Haha. Well, the basic idea was that there must be SOMETHING forcing everything apart. So some bigwig physicists came up with the [Lonny Eachus]
... idea that there must be some kind of invisible energy doing it. Great on paper but I don't think there was ever good evidence. [Lonny Eachus]
Posting that link must be your way of retracting your claim. In it, Dr. Perlmutter explains how the accelerating expansion of the universe reveals the existence of dark energy.
Your other responses were even more disappointing...
This guy calling himself @dumb_scientist jumped into my twitterstream to argue about an article I linked to from Ars Technica. [Lonny Eachus]
.. a comment to a friend, @ChiefUnlearner, more than 2 years ago! How long has this weirdo @dumb_scientist has been stalking me? [Lonny Eachus]
I wonder. Maybe he (@dumb_scientist) has spent hours or days looking me up on Google or something? Why? Seems pretty creepy. [Lonny Eachus]
I'll read the @dumb_scientist blog and see what else he has been writing about me. I'm weirded out. This is not normal behavior. [Lonny Eachus]
Reading Dumb Scientist is a great suggestion.
And I did NOT find that comment anywhere on Google. How much effort has this guy put into researching me? And why? [Lonny Eachus]
I am starting to think maybe I should call the police. [Lonny Eachus]
To tell them... what, exactly? That you compulsively spread multi-disciplinary misinformation, and that you react to debunkings of your claims as though they're personal attacks?
And he linked to some online blog, and seems to be claiming I am someone else. WTF??? [Lonny Eachus]
Huh? Who am I claiming you are?
Haha. @dumb_scientist blog seems to be comparing me to someone else because I made similar comments. In different YEARS. [Lonny Eachus]
@dumb_scientist definitely is not just implying... he's stating right out in print that I am somebody else. [Lonny Eachus]
Again, who am I "not just implying" you are? In what print?
@509freckles But -- just asking -- wouldn't you say someone I don't know, who accused me of being someone else, AND appears [Lonny Eachus]
Again, who am I accusing you of being?
... to have researched my entire internet history, going back more than 6 years, apparently not just on Google, [Lonny Eachus]
... was a bit beyond normal propriety? Maybe even downright bizarre? [Lonny Eachus]
Hahaha. Reading his blog, this @dumb_scientist guy claims to "debunk" a comment I posted on Phil Plait's Discover Magazine website. [Lonny Eachus]
When it is obvious that my argument went way over @dumb_scientist 's head. He argues about things I didn't even write. BUT... [Lonny Eachus]
Lonny's reaction reminds me of Bob Tisdale's: "Actually, Harry, you and your kin at SkepticalScience and Tamino's only think you're ripping my findings to shreds because you cannot comprehend what I've presented. It is beyond your grasp."
... I will be storing a copy of that blog page and others I run across that mention me, in case I need them for evidence later. [Lonny Eachus]
That's another great suggestion: everyone should copy Dumb Scientist to their own computers.
... because this @dumb_scientist seems to have weird ideas and some kind of Lonny fetish. This would bother you. It bothers me. [Lonny Eachus]
You and Jane shouldn't flatter yourselves. My fetishes are debunking misinformation and defending scientists against baseless attacks. It's hardly my fault that y'all are two of the most prolific misinformers I've ever seen.
A friend just said basically that I was overreacting. Maybe so. But I admit to being bothered by this. [Lonny Eachus]
I am going to contact some people for advice about this. [Lonny Eachus]
It's a bit disconcerting to sit down at your computer one day and find that you are apparently the target of a deranged stalker. [Lonny Eachus]
Skimming this @dumb_scientist blog, it seems to be mostly an exercise in self-aggrandizement by somebody with insecurity issues. [Lonny Eachus]
@509freckles Which says to me he has serious ego and / or insecurity problems. Just my impression. [Lonny Eachus]
@509freckles You see what I'm saying though? It's like using bad social media practices to reinforce his view of himself as a scientist. [Lonny Eachus]
But this all reinforces my belief that this guy is not all there. He seems to have real issues. And he's been following me.
:o( [Lonny Eachus]
... Which causes more concern. Is the guy stable? It looks like most of it is him defending his own comments made elsewhere. [Lonny Eachus]
I was wondering when the armchair psychoanalysis would start.
He says he "edited and expanded" his own comments in the blog. Ex post facto editing is not how to document something. [Lonny Eachus]
I will read more later, but this page seems mostly comments taken out-of-context from elsewhere. Then he "expands and edits"... [Lonny Eachus]
... his own side of the exchange on his blog where other parties can't argue with him. That's my impression. More later. [Lonny Eachus]
As I explained to Jane Q. Public, I'm posting copies of these comments on Slashdot explicitly so that other parties can respond on neutral ground.
@509freckles I haven't read much of his blog yet, but from what I've seen, he basically misquotes people, then pretends to [Lonny Eachus]
... "refute" their comments by posting the arguments on his own blog where the others won't see them. [Lonny Eachus]
@509freckles That it itself is pretty weird... and doesn't say much for his abilities as an objective "scientist". [Lonny Eachus]
@509freckles It's like saying you won an argument with somebody else by talking to yourself. [Lonny Eachus]
Well, anyway... at the very least @dumb_scientist will be finding himself blocked from my Twitter account, that's for sure. [Lonny Eachus]
Suddenly life has no meaning.
@509freckles Yes, exactly. Based on my initial glimpse, I would not hire the guy to accurately report the temperature. [Lonny Eachus]
Okay, scratch plan A. Plan B: join the circus.
When I saw your post, I clicked the link to look at it again, in case I had been in error, but now the site is not coming up for me. So any comment on my part will have to wait until such time as that page appears again. [Jane Q. Public]
You're right, woodfortrees is down. Instead, you could try the Skeptical Science trend calculator which also provides uncertainty bounds on the trend. Notice that when you select UAH without restricting the time period, it only goes back to 1980 because that's when the satellite was launched.
All I saw was a graph with some years on the tick marks, and a line that looked like it was supposed to be a regression fit. Except that it went from the lowest point to near the highest point, which is not at all typical of a regression line. I saw nothing further to clarify it. The site seems to be having problems right now (10:16 pm CST). The page won't load. So there is no way to sort out the issue. [Jane Q. Public]
You could always download the UAH data yourself and run a least squares regression using your own software. I've done that using R; here's a PDF of my results. The regression line and its uncertainty come directly from R's generalized least squares algorithm. It looks similar to the regression lines from woodfortrees and SkS. (Both my trend and SkS's are closer to 0.14C/decade; perhaps this is because SkS and I haven't updated our local UAH datasets in over a year?)
The second page of my PDF calculates the trends and uncertainties of the UAH data up to 2012, for different starting years, using an ARMA(1,1) noise model. This graph shows why scientists prefer trends calculated over at least ~20 years. Shorter timespans, such as 1998-2012) have larger uncertainty bounds (the red lines in that graph are 95% confidence intervals).
fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.