Schneibster

And another one: http://www.desmogblog.com

Given the propaganda undertaken by the US Libertarian Party and the funding of the defendants in the Mann lawsuit, I'm not sure what link you think hasn't been made. I suspect Dr. Lewandowsky has been fooled as badly as you have by the US Libertarian Party's propagandistic lying use of the word "libertarian" to describe a right-wing anti-freedom feudalist ideology that rewards the richest with power. Real libertartians eventually believe money will become obsolete; everyone will be so rich that no one will pay attention any more. Not that a few rich people will own everything. That's right-wing feudalism. The commoners aren't competent to own things. As accessory evidence, I am also going to point out that Dr. Lewandowsky delayed joining the staff of Bristol University until after the British defamation law updates had become effective on 01JAN14. I expect this was fairly wise. As far as small-l libertarianism, I am as I said one myself, and in fact one of the things I dislike the most about the US "Libertarian" Party is that they pollute real libertarianism with their cruel disgusting racist anti-gay anti-disabled creed. One of the things I notice, hypervalent_iodine, is that you seem to have trouble acknowledging that US "Libertarian" Party members are not libertarians. You have been propagandized. Wake up.

Thank you. I am a US Democrat and a two-time Obama voter. I am against war but not against aggressive response to aggression. There has to be a line. If you will tell me your country I will tell you what most closely resembles my views in your local political terms. Traditionally one asks questions if the articles linked, and the quotes provided from those articles, are not explanatory. It is, however, up to the querent to establish what context is missing. I will happily provide the answers to any questions that are asked. I cannot agree to predict them; I'm not that good. Sorry. I am amazed that this context is not immediately clear to anyone who is following science news. Please don't take that as criticism; I'm sure you're engaged in local pursuits that preclude it, and are in fact all the more effective at what you're doing because you DON'T know it. But give me a break; just because you have to ask questions doesn't mean there's something wrong. OK? So the context here, for me, is first of all the lack of understanding by non-US folks that in the US, "Libertarian" doesn't mean the same thing as in the rest of the world. US Libertarian Party members are not libertarians. They are right wing feudalists.

It's so doctrinaire. The US left prefers socialism.

Bravo. This is the stage we should be arguing on. I will carefully consider your arguments and reply shortly.

What? http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html CEI? National Review? You know what, if you're telling me the US Libertarian Party is rebelling against climate denial, I might think you're crazy but I'll give you an honest hearing. OTOH, you've got about the same chance of convincing me teabaggers aren't racists, so good luck. Ummm wut? You don't see how libel laws might affect this entire conversation, especially after the law Obama signed and the British law that took effect a couple months ago? Or you don't think that's "politics?" Please help me here I can't see your objection making sense. Guys, this is not working. The thing that's really the killer is Dr. Mann's lawsuit. There's really nowhere to hide from that. The climate cranks are desperately trying to keep it from going to trial. hypervalent_iodine, if you're a US Libertarian Party member who believes global warming, I'm perfectly willing to listen to your justification. I may not agree, but I'll listen. However when you try to bully me it's transparent and costs you a lot of cred with me. Quite frankly I'd respect you more if you were just straightforward and stopped trying to abuse your powers. Not only that but that exact kind of abuse is why the political commentariat I hang out with dislikes right wingers; it's endemic among them. You need to back way off because to me at this point you look like a Bush 43 burrower appointee. You are having major ethical problems due to the way you're behaving. I'm being honest; you can earn my respect easily but you won't the way you're going.

I see no difference, and in fact I believe you are in denial about what the quotes say. A great deal of your problem appears to be that you do not understand that US Libertarian Party members are not libertarians. Naming their party that was propaganda, specifically Big Lie propaganda. I have nothing against small-l libertarians; I'm one myself. But Big L US Libertarian Party members are, in my opinion, denying reality in a number of ways that go far beyond science denial, and include racism and belief that real knowledge is worthless and that the rich should run the world because they're "the best." In short, these people are not really libertarian; they do not recognize the tyranny of money. Now explain why a threat like "last chance" isn't harassment. Furthermore, tell me what's different between what I quoted before and what I've linked above, that you now require I quote it where before you threatened to kick me off for quoting it. Do you really think this kind of harassment isn't totally transparent? Really? Tell you what, go away. If I screw up some rule of decorum, come tell me; I'm not a barbarian. I'll fix it and if necessary apologize. But stop trying to deny real science. You're not going to get away with it. Everyone will see. Also, it doesn't hurt any that you at least seem to get that climate denial is an energy company scam. But I'm still finding out who isn't in denial about that. And who's trolling about it. See? There it is again: Lewandowsky says: Let me emphasize: "There is cyber-bullying and public abuse by “trolling” (which recent research has linked to sadism); there is harassment by vexatious freedom-of-information (FOI) requests; there are the complaints to academic institutions; legal threats; and perhaps most troubling, there is the intimidation of journal editors and publishers who are acting on manuscripts that are considered inconvenient." Here's the link: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html These are the tactics these people use. These appear to be the tactics you use. Would you like to consider and adapt your behavior? I really don't want to fight; but I won't back down to bullies, either. Would you respect someone who would? Think about it. Please don't just double down and deny it. It's silly after what's gone before. If you disrespect me that much anyone who's thinking is going to find you laughable. I guess the funniest part is you pretend to be "pro global warming."

First of all, you may well be right about ocean PH being a bigger problem. This gets especially scary when you start figuring out the Earth's oxygen budget. OTOH, I also want to know what my hidden agenda is. But I have to agree that qualitative arguments are no substitute for quantitative ones. The thing is, though, we've been refining those quantitative arguments now for almost forty years. At a certain point, I have to ask, rhetorically, "Whadda ya want, blood?" And finally, heh, congratulations you managed to insult everyone. And since this seems to be a discussion of why we who are convinced there is global warming are convinced, as well as why those who are not are not, let me see to my evidence: First and foremost is the almanac. This tells us amounts of coal and oil extracted and burned, as economic statistics, as well as cement produced and other important human atmospheric carbon sources. Then it's simple industrial chemistry to figure out how much carbon is emitted. Maybe with a bit of accounting, but you don't really even need algebra. So that's the theory. Then all we have to do to test the theory is measure the atmospheric carbon. And in fact we have done so; the best known station is on top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii, but there are thousands of others, and furthermore aircraft operators have kindly donated unused cargo space to carbon measuring experiments exposed in the cargo compartment, and placed close to vents to the outside atmosphere, remote from the engine emissions. And in fact, yes, the carbon is going up; but until a few years ago, not quickly enough. We were losing carbon and we didn't know where it was going. Now, today, we have done the ocean research, and we know where the carbon is going. It's going into the oceans. As Dr. Rocket has noted above, the acidity of the oceans is increasing due to increased concentrations of CO2 in the oceans. And this is now being added into the Global Circulation Models, GCMs, which are now becoming Atmospheric and Oceanic Global Circulation Models or AOGCMs. Meanwhile the climate cranks continue to argue against decades-old models as if nothing has changed. I contend these people deserve no more notice than flat-earth proponents. If we really want to get into this we can discuss how the ENSO oscillation causes La Niña pauses in both heat and CO2 buildup, followed by El Niño accelerated heat and CO2 increases. That's where Hansen has gone.

I read the original novel, and most of the short stories/novellas, back in the day when "cyberpunk" was new and hot. I've always enjoyed this retrospective, and I think I'll go read the rest of the cyberpunk canon after this. Sterling describes the experience of writing this stuff as "[when] I finally gnawed my way through the insulation and got my teeth set into the buzzing copper wire." Reading it was like that, too, the first time, and I still get that sharp metallic taste even today. I think I'll read Eclipse next.

Absolutely something I'd like to have a conversation about. On this subforum, I think we need to discuss the law Obama signed blocking enforcement of foreign defamation judgements, and the new British laws that took effect 01JAN14. There might even be a branch discussion about the attempts by Muslim extremists in the UN to ban anti-religious speech. On the psych subforum, something I'd like to discuss is the mentation of the conspiracy theorist. This is not new psychology; I point to The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer, which was published in the late 1950s. Sadism is a common theme, of course. Richard Dawkins has discussed this extensively. I see little difference between these different fanatics; Dawkins' look like Hoffer's look like Lewandowsky's. There is also a branch to a memetics discussion based on Susan Blackmore's analysis of religious memeplexes and their self-sustainment and replication strategies in The Meme Machine. I'm glad I was able to give you a good summary.

They kept deleting the article when I quoted Dr. Lewandowsky. So apparently that was the management of the site preventing me from following the rules they're supposed to be enforcing. Nor is this the first time for that either. Dr. Lewandowsky, at that time the Winthrop Professor of Psychology at the School of Psychology at the University of Western Australia published, along with several other coauthors, a study of the cognition of conspiracy theorists. The main conspiracy theory he examined was climate denial. He has, in his own words, been threatened, harassed, defamed, and trolled, and he points out that other research shows that trolling is intimately linked to sadism. He then did a study on these peoples' reaction and harassment; they then threatened one of the journals he published in, and got them to retract it, even though there is no ethical or technical flaw in the paper. Named individuals and organizations are largely identical to: Dr. Michael Mann, the author of the famous "hockey stick" paper, has filed suit against Anthony Watts (a prominent climate denier), the Heartland Institute (a prominent mouthpiece for the energy industry), the National Review (a prominent US Libertarian Party yellow journalism and propaganda outlet), and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a Koch brothers anti-science organization, for defamation and harassment. So far the defendants have tried every underhanded lawyer trick in the book and been smacked down hard several times by the judge. The details of these matters are extensive, and it really is necessary to read the articles to fully understand them. This is the merest overview, but I recall statements, and you have shown a rule, that simply linking a source is frowned upon, so I'm trying to give you enough detail to have a good idea what the argument is about. To do any more requires I quote Dr. Lewandowsky, which apparently makes the moderators start deleting everything. I really do suggest you read the man's own words. These people are attempting to corrupt science. They have now openly admitted (it's another link, available on request) that it's their intent to disrupt and prevent scientific research that has results they don't like. There is no mention by them of whether that science is correct or not; they appear to feel that's immaterial. As for my personal feelings, I have been harassed, defamed, "trolled" (and yes it absolutely is sadistic), and stalked across most of the so-called "science" forums on the Internet by climate cranks, recently on this site, and most recently on another competing science forum. I am in the process of getting this taken care of; I'm glad the laws in Britain have been modified, because it's going to make this easier. So if I'm a bit testy, or even a bit nasty, keep in mind I have been extensively provoked.

When a psychologist-- in fact a full Professor of Psychology who has already held a named seat in one university and is moving into another one-- tells you a particular behavior is sadistic, you really ought to listen to him and do something about it. When the same people who have engaged in this behavior are also being sued for defamation and harassment at the same time by an eminent scientist in a completely different field, I would say that's pretty much conclusive. Please feel free to link any peer-reviewed publication of any kind that presents any technical fault in Dr. Lewandowsky's two papers. That's what I'd expect on a real science forum. As far as what to discuss, it seems to me there's a great big discussion about what scientists, as well as the general public that pays for their work, should be doing about this political party that is maliciously interfering in science that they don't like; nor is this unique. They interfered with research into tobacco, too, until that got past the point where they could deny any more. So why do you not want to discuss this major threat to scientific detachment and well-founded research?

Fred Pohl and Jack Williamson's Cuckoo. When I originally read it, I was maybe sixteen or eighteen, and I really didn't get it. It's kind of primitive, but it smacks of the sort of thing Stephenson is doing with The Diamond Age, or what Gene Wolfe is doing with the Book of the Long Sun. It's worth going back and reading Farthest Star and Wall Around a Star.

I got a large hamachi sashimi dinner, a california maki, a Philadelphia maki, and saba, tobiko, hotetegai, hokkigai, and toro nigiri. I poached on the Schneibsteress' maguro sashimi and she got a couple pieces of my hamachi and some of my california maki; she had a tekka maki and her own california maki, and a huge maguro sashimi because the chef thinks she's cute (which is why I send her to pick up the boodle). Oh, the maguro and hamachi we get here are to die for.

I'll just post Dr. Lewandowsky's own articles: The Subterranean War The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science Recursive Fury Goes Recursive And this one from DeSmogBlog: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/20/science-journal-retracts-paper-showing-how-climate-change-sceptics-were-conspiracy-theorists-after-sceptics-shout You can read the man's accusations for yourselves. You keep closing the threads if I quote from the links. It's also about time to mention again that Michael Mann seems to be steamrolling so far in his lawsuit; he's gotten past the standard attempt to dismiss, and is now in the process of getting the SLAPP counter-suit filed by Mark Steyn dismissed, after which he can take National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute et al. to trial. Here's the link to the current status of Dr. Mann's lawsuit: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/03/18/mann-motion-to-dismiss-steyns-counter-suit/ You'll also find links to other articles on that site about the previous ins and outs of the lawsuit. Just so we're clear what this Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, Professor of Psychology from the University of Western Australia, currently in transit to University of Bristol, says, he claims that he has been sadistically harassed by Libertarian Party members and global warming deniers on the Internet. Quote unquote. I think it's time to discuss this and put people who do it in their place permanently. I hope he joins Dr. Mann or files his own lawsuit against the principals who have harassed and defamed Dr. Mann. It's time these peoples' attempts to interfere with science ended in personal tribulation equal to their interference in the careers of these eminent scientists, and that those eminent scientists were rewarded financially for interference in their work. In addition, all the money that their institutions have spent needs to be reimbursed by the criminals of the Libertardian Party, Heartland Institute, James Inhofe, Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Review, Steve McIntyre, et alii. That was public money those idiots wasted. Five different investigations of Dr. Mann, each of which cleared him completely. These lying miscreant harassers need to be made to pay the public back for the money they wasted on their lies. Then they need to be sanctioned for their interference in psychological research, and defamation of this eminent psychology Professor. I think they should spend some time behind bars to remind them not to interfere in public science. Let me repeat one more time: these accusations of defamation on the Internet are Dr. Lewandowsky's own. However, I support them and believe he has presented sufficient evidence of them to make the preponderance of the evidence indicate he is telling the truth and has been severely harassed and sadistically tormented. What we're talking about here is repression of science, and of discussion about science. It's time that this stopped. I for one oppose it and will do so repeatedly and endlessly, since it appears that nothing else works against the liars, crooks, and fools. Dr. Lewandowsky, I have never met you and never expect to; but you are an honest scientist, and I hate your harassers and oppose them, and I hope I can fight some of them that you won't have to. I have been harassed like you have and know what it means; and you are far more vulnerable than I. For the microscopically small amount it may mean, I believe in you and am on your side. Perhaps if we all push in the same direction we'll get it going fast enough they can't stop it. One more thing: to the moderators and admins. You have been as fair as you can be, and I have tried to understand and follow your requirements without insisting on elements that you were uncomfortable with. This was a successful strategy.

This is reported by University of Western Australia Psychology Professor Stephan Lewandowsky on a blog he's a regular on: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf1.html These are the personal experiences of this Professor of Psychology. I suggest that these are common properties of members of the US Libertarian Party, and of right-wing "libertarians" in general. I believe there is a great deal of material to support these allegations and I believe this site is attempting to deny and suppress this information. I recommend you copy this immediately as it probably will not be here tomorrow. The links, however, will be. I guess it's kind of amusing that a site already identified as engaging in sadism, harassment, and intimidation is trying to suppress evidence of sadism, harassment, and intimidation. Umm, gee I guess that's kinda ironic, huh? I'm up to six sites all of which are describing your sadistic harassment, now, folks. I'm trumpeting this as loud as I can on my blog, and I've got a thousand hits since I started. Someone made the mistake of publishing it; turns out he's a Libertardian himself, and now he's trying to disappear somewhere and pretend it never happened. Geez, Someone for cryin' out loud. Who knew? I really enjoy asking smart alecks questions they can't answer and watching them flounder.

Since the article is now on PLOS One, that's a scientific peer reviewed journal. Are you going to keep denying it's real? Link: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075637 I'm gonna bet they don't take this one down. Meanwhile, a reminder, there's an article on it on DeSmogBlog: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/20/science-journal-retracts-paper-showing-how-climate-change-sceptics-were-conspiracy-theorists-after-sceptics-shout#comment-730191 So have you started kicking the stalker off yet? Dr. Lewandowsky's personal site is here, and he is currently moving from Australia's UWA to the University of Bristol. He is a cognitive scientist, and a Professor. He is the author of literally hundreds of papers in the scholarly literature, as well as numerous other publications, which can be seen here: http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/Publications.html I'll be more than happy to write him and let him know you think he's a liar if you like. I suspect he might sue you.

It's not about disclosing anything to me. It's about reporting illegal activity to the police, which she has refused to do. That's obstruction of justice, and I do not intend to engage in that myself; I'll be making phone calls to take care of this shortly. Sorry I had to have a delay for my wife, she had cancer. I expect you'll try to claim I'm guilty for taking care of her for a week. Good luck with that. You should have stayed off this site; you're an obvious stalker.

Already done in the IP. The only question is how embarassible your primaries are.

Ummm, telling the truth is not "behaving like an obnoxious ass." What I see is a bunch of Libertardians trying to take over the Internet to stifle the truth.

Evidence: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/03/21/the-paper-they-dont-want-you-to-read/ Quote from the paper author: This is a qualified psychologist. The long version: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/03/20/science-journal-retracts-paper-showing-how-climate-change-sceptics-were-conspiracy-theorists-after-sceptics-shout#comment-730141 Looks pretty much like what happened to me on this forum. Not very "scientific."

Lizzie, what I am telling you is in every good popular science physics book published in the last hundred years. I really don't know what to say. It's in every textbook too. Maybe my textbooks are a bit out of date but do you really believe they're outright wrong? Do you know that little about the progress of physics over the last fifty years? We've all been waiting for the revolution, and it sputtered! String theory is all we got: "My 'rents went to Berkeley and all I got was this crappy string theory T-shirt. " Finally someone managed to incorporate supergravity into string theory at the dying end of the 20th century and called it "M-theory" mostly for membrane, but also for master. And there it has sat and rotted.

Do you not believe a light-second of space is equivalent to a second of time, despite what the Lorentz transform tells you? Do you still not believe the math? If we're being really rigorous I'd say a light-second of space is equivalent to a second of time in the limit of v or s approaching 0. It's all implicit in Special Relativity, and even in Minkowski space and the Lorentz transform that predate it. Lizzie I've known this for thirty-five years. I'm not trying to embarrass you but when did you find out the Lorentz transform is the correct transform for relativistic particles? How old were you? I was fifteen.

Well, this time I can't complain you weren't precise or accurate. However, while I agree that we use different units, I do not agree that we must use different units. Newtonian/Galilean physics insists that space and time are different things. Relativity, however, developed from Maxwell's equations that described electromagnetism, and that so clearly indicated the importance of c. Lorentz and Planck and all the rest went looking for the solutions that Maxwell had pointed the way to, and Einstein finally hit on the set of postulates that would support Maxwell's equations, and also describe Minkowski's spacetime, include Planck's units, and use Lorentz' transform; and eventually, even include Poincare's symmetry. The genius of Einstein formed this incredible synthesis that has defined modern classical physics and that will guide the formation of dimensional theories for generations to come, no doubt. String theory is a direct outgrowth of relativity, and shares both the complexity and the beauty of its progenitor. So you may tell me if we "disagree."

Lizzie, time is a dimension, and as Strange, I, and many others have tried to tell you it is essentially the same as space. The postulates that say so have been the basis of the most successful theory of physics in the history of the human race for a hundred years. I really don't know what else to say.