So you're doubling down on your accusations of lies, because your Sauron-class Morton's demon convinced you that you have very damned good reason to believe you were telling the truth. Just like you've doubled down on almost every other absurd claim you've made (an astonishingly vast collection- you're like a nonsense firehose). And like most of those other times, you reasonably should have known that. So once again, I'm not surprised that you can't recognize that your libelous accusations are baseless.

But how could you possibly not recognize that you're Lonny Eachus, a pathological liar posing as a woman on the internet?

In 2012 Jane Q. Public left a public comment at my website linking to http://things.titanez.net/dl/asshole-pseudo-scientist.png.

Googling things.titanez.net showed that it's Lonny Eachus's website.

Jane could've posted a screenshot of our conversation anonymously at a site like PostImg, but Jane's charming filename seemed like a message. So I wondered if Jane's domain name was also a deliberate message. Was it a cry for help? Part of Jane's comedy act? It couldn't be an unintentional rookie mistake, because Jane's a skilled web developer.

To what "accusations" are you referring? You have kept saying that, but I have no idea what you mean. Certainly, I have criticized climate science, when I thought it deserved criticism. But where are these "accusations" that YOU are accusing ME of making? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and you should have reasonably known that. You made those libelous accusations as Jane Q. Public, and as Lonny Eachus. Because, once again, you're a man dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Is that really so difficult to understand, or are you still trying to pretend that you aren't Lonny Eachus?

You think you are mimicking my own behavior but I assure you, there are some very large differences. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

Jane's telepathy isn't working correctly, but some very large differences are listed below.

It is pretty easy to show, even on your own blog, that while I have been wrong at times, I have used logic and logical arguments, while your arguments have demonstrated straw-man, ad-hominem, "moving the goalposts", and other logical fallacies to the point of utter ridiculousness. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-11]

"Apparently you think *I* am an idiot. Try reading the goddamned thread. If you really don’t want to be perceived as a “brainwashed idiot”, maybe you could bother to figure out what the argument is about before you put in your irrelevant 2 cents. As for the rest, you are one of those lazy asses I mentioned. But you are too damned lazy to look any of them up? And yes, that to me means “brainwashed idiot”. get off your lazy ass and LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!!! since you insist on being spoon-fed There are many more, very easily found, but I am not going to do your homework for you. Now go away. You disgust me." [Jane Q. Public, 2009-07-09]

"My personal opinion might be that you are an insufferable, hypocritical asshole, and that your arguments are frequently contradictory, facetious, hypocritical, or disingenuous, but actual "fraud" never crossed my mind. An opinion that my claim was "ridiculous" is yours to have if you wish, and I don't give a damn, but stating that I made one or more statements that were "obviously fraudulent" is serious enough that you had best either back it up with evidence NOW, or back the hell off. You have very much gone over the line." [Jane Q. Public, 2010-02-18]

"... you were insufferably arrogant and pedantic ... I told you to get stuffed and told you that UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES I would sue you. You are a pompous ass, and you distort other peoples’ statements in order to try to make yourself look good. Then you use that as a self-advertisement to try to bolster your reputation as a “scientist”. When in fact all it proves is you are a pompous ass." [Jane Q. Public, 2012-06-07]

"Or maybe -- just a guess -- you are trying to be a vindictive asshole again, just as you have been before?" [Jane Q. Public, 2012-09-07]

"... I didn't call you a vindictive asshole because you asked me a question. I called you that because of your habit of being annoying, rude, insulting." ... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-10-29]

"... you're a clueless asshole. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2013-09-15]

"... you're such a flaming, large-bore asshole. ... " [Jane Q. Public, 2013-12-21]

"... you just make yourself look more like an ass. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-01-18]

It is not reasonable or logical to say in one sentence that it is "obvious" that I don't believe my statements are baseless, and then just a short time later accuse me of deliberately lying. The two are mutually exclusive. [Jane Q. Public]

Again, you're deliberately lying about your own gender. I've long assumed that your other misinformation isn't deliberate, that you're just an honest victim of cognitive biases. (Even though, once again, you should have reasonably known that your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies were baseless.)

Whenever your misinformation is challenged, you almost always double down and refuse to admit your mistakes. I'm challenging your pathological lies about your own gender to see if you act differently when you're defending blatant lies that can't possibly be blamed on cognitive bias. So far, you don't. It's getting increasingly difficult to rule out the possibility that Jane/Lonny is deliberately spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

Once again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. Obviously, this is not an admission that your comments aren't baseless. It's an admission that your Sauron-class Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you'll probably never be able to recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

"I am curious: is there something wrong with calling a liar and a bully a liar and a bully? Fact and libel are different things." [Lonny Eachus, 2013-04-08]

Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

This would be funny if it weren't such utter bullshit. We JUST had an exchange about that, and you admitted that my comments weren't "baseless". But now you make the same accusation again. Which is it? What are you trying to claim? [Jane Q. Public]

Link to the exchange with that admission, because it sounds like you're talking to imaginary voices again. Yet again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that. I've been consistently saying that your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, and that you reasonably should have known that.

I am a person using a pseudonym, just as you are. I am no more a liar than you are. From the evidence, in fact, I'd guess I'm a good bit less of one. ... You haven't been able to demonstrate even one instance of my actually lying. So stuff it up there where the sun doesn't shine, as they say.

Again, you're a man named Lonny Eachus dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Unlike most of the misinformation you spew, this point is so simple and non-technical that your Sauron-class Morton's demon isn't an excuse.

The conclusion that Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar raises a disturbing question. I've previously defended contrarians like Jane/Lonny against suggestions that they're knowingly spreading misinformation:

"... You’ve previously asserted that contrarians know more than they let on, but I’ll defend Hanlon’s razor and the information deficit model to the dumb, naive, non-psychologist death. I refuse to believe that anyone who truly groks the Great Dying and the rate limits on adaptation via migration or evolution could keep spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. I suspect that Morton's demon is far stronger than most people realize. For example, even Morton himself was later consumed by this demon in such a depressing way that I won’t link it. ...

... I refuse to believe that some know more than they let on. Considering the stakes involved, that hypothetical informed contrarian (who I don’t believe exists) would have betrayed humanity. Even arsonists usually have a personal escape route, but knowingly spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation has no plausible escape route. From my moral and pragmatic perspectives, the information deficit model seems to be correct.

Even as their numbers dwindle, I’ll keep defending the morality of contrarians. There’s no shame in being insufficiently informed about a complex scientific topic, as long as one eventually stops spreading misinformation that threatens the future of our civilization.

There are more enjoyable hobbies. Hobbies that don’t stain one’s legacy. Video games, reading, scuba diving, etc."

Jane, I've been defending people like you for years, insisting that you're not knowingly lying. I've insisted that you're spreading misinformation not because you're dishonest but because you're unable to overcome your honest cognitive biases (Morton's demon). But because Jane/Lonny is pathologically lying about facts as simple as his own gender, it's possible that Jane/Lonny is knowingly spreading civilization-paralyzing misinformation. If true, this would imply that Jane/Lonny Eachus has betrayed humanity.

I'd much rather believe that you're just another honest victim of cognitive bias, which is why I've been asking you these questions. To see if there's a limit to your dishonesty. Sadly, Jane/Lonny Eachus's dishonesty seems unbounded.

Again, obviously you can't recognize that your accusations are baseless, even though you reasonably should have known that.

You have repeatedly and publicly accused me of being a pathological liar... [Jane Q. Public]

You're only a pathological liar if you're really a man named Lonny Eachus posing as a woman on the internet. Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus.

... I -- *I* as in me ... I -- and other people... [Jane Q. Public]

You're strongly implying that Jane isn't Lonny Eachus, so it shouldn't be that hard to clearly state that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus.

And your claim that using a pseudonym constitutes "lying" is just plain ridiculous. I repeat: pseudonyms are a time-honored tradition. You use one yourself. [Jane Q. Public]

Once again, pseudonyms don't constitute lying. But lying about your own gender is lying.

If you're actually a woman, then you're not lying about your own gender. If you state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you're not a man named Lonny Eachus, then I'll accept that Jane Q. Public isn't Lonny Eachus.

This comment was also posted here.

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"Peer reviewed climate science article says data tampering and fraud is for the public good. http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/... pic.twitter.com/FJGHobHzYn" ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-04]

".@SteveSGoddard What happened to the world? Since when is it science to say it's okay to lie about science, in the name of science?" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-04]

".@SteveSGoddard I mean, this has quite literally gone crazy. They know they've lost the game, and they're thrashing around desperately." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-04]

"@509freckles Follow @SteveSGoddard to see how much fraud there is behind it. It's massive. (He's a bit snarky about it at times.)" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Sometimes when you are saving the planet from global warming, you just have to lie, cheat, counterfeit, commit fraud and perjury, and steal." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-26]

"I’m sure a great many were honestly taken in. But deliberate deception has a reason behind it." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-12]

"While, at the same time, I have LOTS of reason to believe others have tried to deceive, in regard to AGW. So it ain’t faith. @SteveSGoddard I reject arguments that are intended to deceive. This might seem basic to someone who understands logic like yourself." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-11]

This comment was also posted here.

... are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"? If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud". I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

"This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]

"... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]

"... publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-23]

"... in fact it is a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus"." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"... that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. ... the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics. ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-31]

"News for you Climate Alarmists. Not only is "97% Consensus” proved false, but even "vast majority” is bullshit. I’m tired of the bullshit." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-13]

"... "vast majority” is just another lie. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the... http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-... Why do they lie? When you do responsible science, you don’t have to lie about it. But the "97% consensus” is actually a BULLSHIT lie." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-29]

"I am not inclined to accept the word of SkepticalScience. Their credibility was rather damaged recently when they attempted to pass off that “97%” nonsense as truth, when it was actually such a heap of statistical garbage that a middle-schooler could refute it. That’s putting it mildly. They have demonstrated that they are not committed to honestly presenting their own statistics, so I am perfectly justified in distrusting their comments about the mathematics of others." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-02]

"... how about the recent "97%" claim by the people at SkepticalScience? It was dirt simple to show that it was nothing but statistical bullshit. Why would an organization representing responsible scientists lie to people? ..." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-06]

"Bogus climate science: "Enron would blush at such fraud." http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/one..." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-28]

"I'm tempted, but I won't say "CO2 warming" is actually "fraudulent" science, because I don't have proof. There is LOTS of evidence, though." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-07]

"What "climate scientists" say about "deniers" actually describes themselves.
- driven by politics & money
- denies genuine science
Hell, people, they've been CAUGHT lying about it. They're the "deniers"." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Such consistency almost never happen in real science. So one reasonable explanation would be fraud. Be skeptical!!! pic.twitter.com/EFvXgKCdTH" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-18]

"In case you haven't noticed, the global warming scam is by far the biggest scientific/government fraud ever perpetrated." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-02-05]

"Peer reviewed climate science article says data tampering and fraud is for the public good. http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/... pic.twitter.com/FJGHobHzYn" ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-04]

".@SteveSGoddard What happened to the world? Since when is it science to say it's okay to lie about science, in the name of science?" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-04]

".@SteveSGoddard I mean, this has quite literally gone crazy. They know they've lost the game, and they're thrashing around desperately." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-04]

"@509freckles Follow @SteveSGoddard to see how much fraud there is behind it. It's massive. (He's a bit snarky about it at times.)" [Lonny Eachus, 2014-03-17]

"Sometimes when you are saving the planet from global warming, you just have to lie, cheat, counterfeit, commit fraud and perjury, and steal." ["Steve Goddard" retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-26]

"I’m sure a great many were honestly taken in. But deliberate deception has a reason behind it." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-04-12]

"While, at the same time, I have LOTS of reason to believe others have tried to deceive, in regard to AGW. So it ain’t faith. @SteveSGoddard I reject arguments that are intended to deceive. This might seem basic to someone who understands logic like yourself." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-06-11]

... are you accusing me of "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud"? If so, would you care to back that up? So far you're about 0 for 100, so I doubt there is much chance of that. But I am curious where and when you imagine this happened. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... can you come up with an example of ME, Jane Q. Public, "baselessly" accusing scientists of "fraud", or not? Come on. You don't have an example, do you? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... you still don't have an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists had committed "fraud". Or anyone claiming such, for that matter. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... I am still waiting for an example of me "baselessly" claiming scientists committed "fraud". I don't think you have one of those, either. Which is just more evidence that I have been right, all along. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

... How fascinating that you still haven't managed to produce a single example of me actually doing this. (Or demonstrated the truth of any of your other claims, for that matter. You're 0 for whatever, now. I've stopped counting.) Is that because you "forgot" where they were? Or is it -- I daresay vastly more likely -- that this is just another "baseless accusation" of the type YOU appear to have been making? ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-30]

"This "study" specifically searched for "global warming". It's self-selecting, i.e., LYING with statistics. Don't lie. And if the "science" were near as solid as they claim, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO lie about it, as they consistently have." [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-29]

"... I know about quite a bit of dishonest "science" going on in the "global warming" ranks. Including, just for one example, that bogus "97%" claim made recently. It's such statistical garbage that the guys who put it forward should have any license to practice "science" revoked." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-03-20]

Do you deny that you've been accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies, rather than just "disagreeing"? Obviously you're incapable of recognizing that all your accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies are baseless, but don't you see how that's different than "disagreeing"? Should I really have to link you to your own libelous accusations, Lonny Eachus?

Are you denying that you're accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies (obviously you don't think your accusations are baseless)? Or are you denying that you're pathologically lying about facts as simple as your own gender? Or both?

Again, my motivation is wanting you to stop baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies while pathologically lying about facts as simple as your own gender.

My behavior is that of someone who's tired of debunking baseless and libelous accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies from Lonny Eachus, who is dishonestly posing as a woman named Jane Q. Public. This shouldn't be hard for Lonny to understand:

"@RatbagsDotCom You're a liar (which you have just proven beyond doubt), and present yourself as something you are not. You're a hypocrite." [Lonny Eachus, 2012-02-04]

Can we agree that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2?

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to assert. But that is very different from what you wrote before. [Jane Q. Public]

Then maybe it isn't unreasonable to assert that all the "PSI" misinformation from Lord Monckton, Dr. Salby, Prof. Humlum, and John O'Sullivan is... misinformation. If you notice someone repeating those claims, please consider pointing out that they're ignoring simple accounting, decreasing oxygen, calculus, the seasons, increasing CO2 in the oceans, isotope ratios, etc.