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.

The statement is false because I explained here on Slashdot not just once but several times that I am not a "birther", and don't pretend to know where Obama was born. My arguments have been about a document from the White House that is publicly available. [Jane Q. Public]

Yes, that's what birthers like Jane/Lonny Eachus and Lord Monckton do, right before they deny being birthers.

I thought you were saying it was false that Jane is Lonny Eachus. Will you say that now? Just state clearly, on your honor and for the record, that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus. Otherwise...

I will ask you again where comments like yours come from. Try as you might, you have not managed to show that I even lied. Where are these statements you accuse me of? [Jane Q. Public]

Again, we've already been over this. You're a man named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

The mental contortions you went through to deny that you're posing as a woman were simply awe-inspiring. You implied that you only objected to being called a dude because you're not excessively concerned with clothes, grooming and manners. That doesn't explain why you told hairyfeet to check your name, because "Jane Q. Public" has nothing to do with that, but it is a woman's name. It also doesn't explain why you told Genda to read your name again.

You've also made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer". You evaded this point by arguing with voices in your head and suggesting that "flamers" aren't exclusively guys.

"Don't misunderstand. I'm no homophobe. But I can't stand flamers. If he wants to be that way, he can have surgery." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-16]

Like Jane, Lonny can't stand "flamers" and also seems to imply that they're exclusively guys. Otherwise, what kind of surgery did Lonny mean?

Since men can't be lesbians, only a man posing as a woman would say he's not a lesbian which explains Jane's fantasies about hot guys willing to eat him for lunch.

You've claimed that most people who bothered to look have referred to you as a gal, and you have news for guys about how crude women are in the locker room. But since you're a man, you could only get first-hand information by spying in the women's locker room. Is that what you did?

If you're not posing as a woman, why do you refer to yourself using "she" and "her"? You've even pretended that I called you "she" when I didn't.

That's why, despite your attempts at false equivalence, my pseudonyms aren't dishonest because I haven't been posing as a woman, despite Jane's baseless speculation to that effect. This might finally explain why Jane referred to me as he/she years ago: psychological projection. Jane/Lonny lies about his gender, so he probably figures everyone else does too.

Do you still repeat O'Sullivan's "PSI" misinformation about CO2 emissions now that you know he "forgot" to show the winter fluxes? Will you retract your comment, or do you still think it was honest, true and correct?

You have mentioned this to me. I don't "know" it because I haven't seen any evidence. But it could be true. I'd have to see the evidence before I made up my mind. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-07]

I already did: "John O’Sullivan showed the part of Figure 3 with the net fluxes in July 2009 but “forgot” to show the fluxes for the rest of the year."

Click on "Figure 3" then scroll down to Figure 3 to verify, but this shouldn't be necessary because a comment by truegoogle on your original "PSI" link already made that point.

You can call it "pedantry" if you want, but I call it "taking your words at face value, and refusing to assume you meant something else when you wrote them". That is a pretty obvious difference between you and me. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-07-09]

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

It makes me annoyed that you've been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies at the same time that you're dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet. Because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus. Since you've just claimed that statement is false, you're putting all your credibility (and Lonny's) on your claim that you aren't a man named Lonny Eachus.

In other words, you're a birther who denies being a birther, just like you're a climate contrarian who denies being a climate contrarian. Maybe you see liars everywhere because you're actually a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who's dishonestly posing as a woman on the internet.

Maybe this blatant psychological projection also explains why Jane/Lonny has been baselessly and libelously accusing me and my colleagues of fraudulent bullshit lies.

Just in case this is an exercise in pedantry, I should correct my statement to say that our carbon emissions are ~200% as large as the rise in atmospheric CO2.