John A, I’m beginning to get curious about the number of relatively new posters on this thread who are trying to pick a fight between you and Steve. Are you able to see the IP addresses from which they are posting ?

Lee, taunting and fighting are a different issue. The taunting and fighting on this thread have long out-lived any conceivable purpose. This thread is now closed. Any attempt to continue the fight on other threads will be deleted.

Peter Hartlod, the only references to “Photonic remittance” on the internet point to you.

No I don’t have a clue what you are writing about, but hey, I’m just a simple geophysicist, what can you expect.

Please don’t reply to this message.

BTW, your “maintainer,” who as I’ve pointed out is by any reasonable working definition a co-moderator, has been dishonest and is continuing to be dishonest in his responses to me (one of many examples is outlined below), and has mischaracterized much of this thread, including completely ignoring substantive responses to his, (and yes, I’ll say it) dishonest tripe. Yes, that is a bald assertion; read JohnA’s last several posts, including the fact that he came in swinging this weekend and ignored several good and substantive subthreads relevant to things he was arguing last week, and tell me why he deserves any more.

But here is some evidence anyway, one piece of many in this thread: JohnA posted a graph which he reported showed that there was no correlation between CO2 and temp. When I said that I wasnt convinced that there was no correlation and could he report the numeric correlation result, he repeatedly refused to do so and blasted me for using what he called a “squint test” to “find a correlation.” When I pointed out that I was not making a claim that there was a correlation, merely saying that it looked a sif there might be and asking him for a quantitative demonstration that the graph showed what he claimed, continued several times to falsely blast me for eyeballing a correlation… and then, JohnA admitted that in the paper from which that graph came, it states that THERE IS A CORRELATION, again without actually reporting the numbers, but then claimed there obviously was no correlation anyway, from looking at it.. and then contined to blast me for using a “squint test” to find a correlation. IOW, JohnA was dishonest from the start in claiming that the graph demonstrated there waas no correlation, he was dishonest in attackng me for making claims about the corelation, while HE was such c;aims and I was not, he attacked me for using a “squint test” methodology that HE was using to deny the REPORTED correlation, and now he continues to attack me and others for daring to comment on the bad science in what he posted… bad science that you, Steve, distanced yourself from early on. And he contines to attack me and others, in quite unpleasant ways, for daring to state that something scientists said was tripe and garbage – STeve, I shouldn’t need to remind you that finding garbage claims by scientists is the purpose of your blog. Adn he has the ability to post top articvles, and to moderate.

And so, you ban JH. Good on ya, Steve.

However, speaking of John “Get Used To It” Hunter, I must say that I see red when Hunter says “Get Used To It” as an excuse for playing silly bugger with data access. I tried to deal with this once before and got tricked somewhat. I had previously noted that Hunter’s archiving was not high on my own interest level, but said that if he wanted to continue posting here, his next post would contain a URL to the data in question.

In his next post, he provided URLs to two data archives. I thought that he had complied with my condition. Unfortunately, I did not specifically check the URLs at the time. It turns out that neither URL was a URL to the data. As Hunter has pointed out, he has emailed me the data and I can confirm that the size of the data set is not large and, accordingly, there is no obstacle to Hunter posting the data at his own website, pending public availability of the data at one of the national archives.

So I’ll try once again to deal with “Get Used to It” Hunter. If you want to continue posting here, your next post to appear here will contain a working URL to the data; any others will be marked as spam. This time I will check the URL to verify that it contains the data that you sent me. If you don’t like it, then, as you say, get used to it.

“the classic symptoms of paranoia from a psychopathic personality.” This kind of character assination is, surely, unnecessary taunting?

No it isn’t. I happen to know quite a lot about the symptomatic behavior of people with clinical paranoia – it is not a taunt, but a considered opinion based upon experience. I am also confident that a fair psychologist reading John Hunter’s posts, website and other output would come to a similar conclusion. Classic paranoid behavior is to attribute opposition to one’s own personal beliefs from sinister organizations or conspiracies – which is exactly what John Hunter has done and why I refuse to put my family’s welfare anywhere near somebody like that.

“I don’t even own a car, using my feet, public transport and a bicycle to go to customer sites and mainly workin from home – but I must be a “stooge of vested interests” in a deep undercover operation, at least to the transparently and obviously paranoid mind.”

Actually I’m quite happy to believe the former (as best I can ascertain, like me, John A is a committed private citizen unfunded by anyone other than himself but from an opposite pov to myself). Therefore the latter does not apply to me and is, I guess, another attack on John Hunter.

No it isn’t. It’s a statement that John Hunter attributes an impression of me that could not be further from the truth, as if he cared. Nevertheless "stooge of vested interests" is Hunter’s expression, not mine.

However, it remains the case that it’s really odd that John A lives in such fear of people like me. Frankly I find it really offensive that he does – it offends, my, and others, good character. I truly wish he’d see and acknowledge this

I don’t fear you so much as I dislike personal visibility on the Internet, particularly as it has so many clearly mentally unstable people on it. Try not to take it personally.

Perhaps as a compromise John A could state (in the kind of way I did further up) that HE doesn’t fear specific active contributors here, but perhaps just inactive one?

I have no idea what this means. I am a very private person. I don’t seek fame or notoriety, which is why I keep my professional and personal life well away from the Internet, because it is no-one’s business but my own.