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.
"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, desp
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.
The "small percentage" I mentioned was in reference to this. You can argue if you like that a ~ 27.3% increase is large but I disagree, since climate sensitivity to CO2 is widely acknowledged to be based on a geometric progression.
As I've said, we've increased CO2 by ~40% but your link refers to the CO2 rise between 1900 (290 ppm) to 2000 (369 ppm) which is an increase of ~27.24%. But we're actually living in 2014, and CO2 in real life is now at ~400 ppm because we're increasing it so rapidly that even NOAA websites rapidly go out of date. That's a ~37.93% increase even if you take "1900" to be the start of the the Industrial Revolution.
Also, climate sensitivity is logarithmic, not geometric. But it's hard to remember that our CO2 emissions are probably more rapid than any events in the last 300 million years. Even logarithmic climate sensitivity allows for accelerating warming if the CO2 concentration rises faster than exponentially. Since 1960, atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen faster than exponentially. Tamino showed this by taking the logarithm of the Mauna Loa measurements and noting a statistically significant acceleration.
We also need to keep in mind, though, what percentage that is of the overall atmosphere: (CO2 % of all atmosphere [wikimedia.org]. Which is a very small percentage indeed, even though Wikipedia puts it higher than NCDC does in the above page.
Why do we need to keep that in mind, any more than we need to keep in mind the very small percentage of alcohol or LSD in the bloodstream? The same percentage increase of ~40% also occurs when we notice that before 1850 there were ~4 kg of CO2 over each square meter of Earth's surface.
Now there are ~6. We did that.
This is a reply to several comments Jane posted at Dumb Scientist and at the bottom of this thread which shows that Jane Q. Public is a man named Lonny Eachus. I've copied it here because Jane asked to be notified.
Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.
First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.
My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.
No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.
I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.
Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?
I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.
I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.
The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.
First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.
Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?
Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my com
Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article.
First, my quote was from the original source, not from your blog. I, for one, prefer not to post quotes of quotes of quotes. As for the notification, that was 5 years ago, or close enough. How often have you notified me since, that you have been posting ONGOING diatribes containing my comments out of context? I’ve come here to look every couple of years or so, but your comments elsewhere have gotten rather extreme, so I decided to look again.
My statement that “your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position” is a scathing criticism of climate contrarians, not a compliment. I don’t expect you to daily search my page, because, as I’ve told you, I’m posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment to make a frozen public copy, and to give you a chance to respond on neutral ground.
No, you told me (see quote above) that you were writing “a blog article” (which is generally understood to be a one-time thing, because of the word ARTICLE), not a years-long one-sided “debate”. And I will remind you that long ago I retracted any permission to so use my words. I am simply not obligated to come to your site to defend myself from your distortions.
I am quite familiar with the fair use doctrine, and what it says about publicly available material. But I will remind you also what that name means. Not all forms of “use” are fair game.
Which of the arguments you made earlier have been supported by time?
I do not intend to get into an argument about it here. I made an observation. If you disagree, you disagree.
I will also point out that your claim to the effect that you are “freezing comments in time” is pretty obviously disingenuous. The vast majority of comments of mine that you have used still exist in original form and could easily be referenced in their entirety, rather than cherry-picked fragments.
The excuse you make is not justification for repeatedly presenting my own comments in a manner that is obviously intended to reflect meanings or nuances that were not intended when I wrote them. I have mentioned this to you many times now.
First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.
Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?
Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you
but I have to say I am glad you did link to that exchange. because in that exchange you make it abundantly clear that your beef with me is PERSONAL. And apparently quite obsessive.
Which makes any pretense of objectivity about me on this blog appear to be a pathetic joke.
I just love how above you juxtapose something I wrote one day right next to things I wrote 2 and 3 years later, both in a different forum and in different contexts, in a blog post you wrote another year after that, and appear to be trying to present it as some kind of coordinated “misinformation” campaign.
You do post the dates, but you present these things in a manner that suggests I would still make the same argument if asked today. But of course the only place that 3- or 4-year-old arguments of mine can easily be found anywhere these days are right here on your blog. One might almost think you have some kind of fetish about me. Just an impression I get.
Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time? If so, how did you get your degree if you didn’t learn something over 3-4 years? (Actually I’m wondering about that one anyway, given the nature of these little “speeches” of yours.) And I’m not even going to go into into the context thing again except to point out that you have thoroughly mixed and conflated them, improperly.
The important part here is: yet again you demonstrate your habit of “arguing” here on your personal blog with something someone else said years ago, in a different forum and about which they might have changed their minds (or they might have even learned something in the interim). And you (apparently deliberately) juxtapose them with more recent statements about something else, giving the impression that the various comments somehow go together, in some context that you have purely invented.
I see no way to interpret this as anything but yet another attempt at self-aggrandizement at the expense of your victims.
Here’s another little “gem”:
“(Ed. note: This comment was copied from here.)”
You copied it from another quote of YOURS which was quoting me. Which again does contain a link, but again, you are forcing people to follow links to links to see the actual exchange, when you could have just linked to it directly.
What is your motive for doing this? When I pointed it out to you before, you complained about time, blog space, etc. but that doesn’t explain why you seem to have done it pretty much whenever it makes you look better, but not at other times.
Most of these observations about what I consider to be grossly unprofessional behavior are not new. I have mentioned them to you before at various times. I have seen no noticeable improvement.
Do you honestly think people don’t learn over time?
I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:
"Carbon Pollution" is nothing more than a FICTION created
I see your habit of attempting self-aggrandizement at the expense of others hasn’t changed over time. I also find it amusing how (your 06/24 comment for example) you continue to use methods of argument such as trying to use the very set of data being disputed as proof of itself.
I would like to clarify another point: my comments that you characterize as “complaining” are nothing of the sort. I simply pointed out where your behavior was out of line, and apparently INTENDED to irritate and aggravate. I have no need to “complain” when all is said and done, others will decide. But I did have reason to point it out.
In reply to the “notification” you claim to have made, here were your exact words. Which you could easily have quoted yourself, but I’ve noticed that you like to hide things behind links when you could easily quote them yourself but from what I’ve seen you only do that when you think it’s in your favor:
Hmm.. okay. Well, anyway, it’s been interesting. Just FYI, I’ll be linking to your comments and quoting them when I finally get around to writing a blog article about my experiences debating climate change with the general public. It’s usually helpful to see opposing points of view, and so far your posts are among the most educated and polite of those taking your position.
Interesting here that you mention writing “an article” about “educated and polite” comments. But nowhere did you mention entire sections of your blog devoted to ripping my comments out of context without informing me at the time, then “arguing” with them here when I don’t even know they exist to rebut. Interesting also that you say you casually mentioned this “long before” ever doing it, but then didn’t see fit to properly notify me when you actually did it. (Until much later, that is.)
Do you honestly expect me to daily search your page to make sure you haven’t created yet another mischaracterization of my words?
Here is a practice that I have noticed on your blog, which makes it very difficult for someone to responsibly rebut many things you say: it’s a maze of links to links (some of which go in circles) that often make it difficult for anyone to see the full exchange. I do credit you with (often) linking to an actual exchange, but even then you link to a part of it, not the whole thing. On the surface, you appear to be giving the nod to opposing viewpoints, but the reality is that you link when you feel like it and quote when you feel like it in such a way as to skew the impression in your favor.
That’s not a “complaint”, it’s merely yet another observation about how much of your behavior has been, in my opinion, far short of professional.
It is also quite evident that time has supported many of the arguments I made to you in earlier years. For some reason, it appears to me that this has made you angry.
Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article. Maybe Jane’s observing that a few hours is “much later” to a mayfly. I get it: we should treasure every hour we have. That’s very Zen. Thanks Jane!
And once again, you are distorting my comment, which was an admission that I did not know the answer, and characterizing it instead as some kind of denial. You have deserved this at least a hundred times: fuck off, until you figure out how to actually have a discussion with someone rather than insulting them and claiming they said something they didn't. You sorely lack social skills, man. I mean the minimum kind needed to have a rational debate. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-08]
Given the content of your reply, I am going to give you some credit for relevance. But I do so only very cautiously, in light of your past behavior. I say up front: if you have science to present, then present it. Facts and figures, with references. Otherwise, you have nothing to say to me. I have been very tolerant, and even so I do not like you, or your behavior, or your methods. But if you can produce real science, I will look at it. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-09]
Charming, as usual. It's strange that you ask for real science to support the "alarmist" fact that humans caused the rise in CO2 because we're burning carbon to release CO2 faster than the warming oceans can outgas their dissolved CO2. Is anyone we know of disputing that? Is it even part of the "debate"?
"Humans releases more gas then can be absorbed in the same time period as the release." [geekoid]
Yes, we know that. Nobody I know of is disputing that. It's not even part of the debate.... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-09]
The misinformation campaign masquerading as a "debate" certainly does include people disputing the fact that humans caused the ~40% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.
"Do you also believe that atmospheric co2 levels reaching 400 ppm isn't an [anthropogenic] effect?" [tolkienfan]
Why would I believe anything like that? Have you seen me anywhere claiming that I do? Don't be ridiculous.... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-05-27]
Since Jane asked:
What you've done is proven that CO2 levels may be rising. You haven't proven what has caused those rises. Correlation doesn't equal causation.... [Archangel Michael, 2010-12-31]
Agree with Archangel Michael. Human-caused CO2 is about 0.28% of the total. Even if the oceans are getting significantly more acidic or not, it's pretty damned hard to pin that on human activity. Not only is it not "case closed", it's "what case?" [Jane Q. Public, 2010-12-31]
Jane agrees with Michael's claim that we don't know what caused CO2 levels to rise. Jane's "0.28%" meme disputes the fact that simple accounting (
What happens later won't be your responsibility because Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar and a coward posing as Jane Q. Public who won't do anything. So obviously not your responsibility.
In one breath you accuse me of being a woman, and in the next you accuse me of being a man. You don't even know what you are saying anymore.
Don't be coy. I've always been saying that you're a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman named Jane Q. Public. Again, I agree with the AC that you're making all women look bad in the process because Jane is completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. Please find it in your heart to stop lying, Lonny Eachus.
Kind of hard to tell, actually, since you have now conflated behavior with gender with sexual orientation, and I don't know what the hell you mean anymore.
Jane, I just carefully showed you that I never mentioned sexual orientation. That was just the imaginary voice in your head. Since you contrasted flamers with women (who'd be in your circle of friends even if they refer to their asses as smooth and shapely) I used your meaning to contrast flamers with women. I'm saying you've obviously been claiming to be a woman for years. Why not just admit it, unless you're a man named Lonny Eachus?
Since it is neither one, but a type of behavior, you are still wrong to do so. And it is just as offensive to equate that kind of behavior as to associate it with a sexual orientation. Score: 0.
As you've said, it's a type of behavior exhibited by guys who describe their ass as smooth and shapely. Contrasted with Jane Q. Public, who describes her ass as smooth and shapely and thus isn't vastly irritating because she's a woman. Right, Lonny Eachus?
Here I contrasted "flamer" with "woman" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation.
"flamer" refers to a type of behavior, not a sexual orientation. YOU just committed an act of sexual stereotyping that many people would find offensive. [Jane Q. Public]
But hey, why not accuse an imaginary voice in your head of committing an offensive act of sexual stereotyping?
So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly? [Dumb Scientist]
Again I connected "flamer" to "guy" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation. Which, again, I never mentioned. But you did. Repeatedly.
The word "flamers" refers to a type of SOCIAL BEHAVIOR. It is not a sexual orientation. I even mentioned something to that effect in the thread I was commenting in at the time. And YOUR attempt in this exchange to equate "flamer" with a sexual orientation IS A SEXIST STEREOTYPE THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD FIND OFFENSIVE. A lot. I know people, anyway, who would certainly be offended by it. [Jane Q. Public]
You're right to be offended at the imaginary voice in your head. A lot.
So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly?
I don't know who that AC was, but I'm taking her on her word that she's actually female. That's actually another reason why your dishonesty is harmful; it'd be easier to take people at their word if pathological liars like Lonny Eachus weren't posing as women like Jane Q. Public.
How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?
You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words). You clearly implied you're a woman when you speculated about my motives, just like you did when you speculated about BasilBrush's motives after he independently discovered that you're a man posing as a woman on the internet: "I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman."
If you still don't understand how your dishonesty reinforces sexist female stereotypes, read that woman's critique again:
"... You are really pissing me off here because you are acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women: completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. You are the kind of woman who makes it that much harder for the rest of us women to be judged on our abilities instead of the same old, ugly stereotypes you've spent the day reinforcing right here. Shame on you."[Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]
She didn't say you're reinforcing sexist female stereotypes because you agree with a female psychologist. She noted that you're completely irrational and can't keep a single thought straight in your head. For example, you've spent years accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. And now you deny ever accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. When I've called you on dozens of your baseless accusations, you got hyper-emotional, cussing and fixating on asshole caliber.
Here's another example:
"if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]
"*if* I did happen to be the person you claim I am, I would likely have a very good libel case against you by now. You should hope I'm not." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-29]
First you claim I should hope I haven't made a mistake, then just two days later you claim I should hope I have made a mistake? Since you can't keep a single thought straight in your head, you probably didn't notice contradicting yourself. Since you're completely irrational, you probably don't see how irrational it would be for someone to hope they couldn't use the defense of truth.
It's okay if you act like this as Lonny Eachus because you just make men look bad, which is at least honest because you are a man. But when you pose as a woman named Jane Q. Public, your irrational tantrums make women look bad, and that's dishonest because you're actually a man. Do you really not understand this very simple point, or are you just feigning ignorance?
Have you actually forgotten all the times you and Lonny Eachus have accused scientists of lying, or are you just waiting for my link so you can act horrified at the time I took to dig it up?
Slashdot Mirror
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]
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.
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...
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, desp
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.
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.
As I've said, we've increased CO2 by ~40% but your link refers to the CO2 rise between 1900 (290 ppm) to 2000 (369 ppm) which is an increase of ~27.24%. But we're actually living in 2014, and CO2 in real life is now at ~400 ppm because we're increasing it so rapidly that even NOAA websites rapidly go out of date. That's a ~37.93% increase even if you take "1900" to be the start of the the Industrial Revolution.
Also, climate sensitivity is logarithmic, not geometric. But it's hard to remember that our CO2 emissions are probably more rapid than any events in the last 300 million years. Even logarithmic climate sensitivity allows for accelerating warming if the CO2 concentration rises faster than exponentially. Since 1960, atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen faster than exponentially. Tamino showed this by taking the logarithm of the Mauna Loa measurements and noting a statistically significant acceleration.
Why do we need to keep that in mind, any more than we need to keep in mind the very small percentage of alcohol or LSD in the bloodstream? The same percentage increase of ~40% also occurs when we notice that before 1850 there were ~4 kg of CO2 over each square meter of Earth's surface. Now there are ~6. We did that.
Okay, so we can never agree on the fundamental fact that our carbon emissions are ~200% larger than the rise in atmospheric CO2.
This is a reply to several comments Jane posted at Dumb Scientist and at the bottom of this thread which shows that Jane Q. Public is a man named Lonny Eachus. I've copied it here because Jane asked to be notified.
First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.
Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?
Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my com
Since Jane asked to be notified, I'm also posting this comment here.
First you claimed I hadn't notified you until after this article was posted, which you felt was "somewhat unethical". After I linked and quoted my notification, you didn't retract your suggestion that I'm "somewhat unethical". Instead, you complained about the way I quoted my notification.
Then you claimed I hadn't notified you after I wrote this article until "much later" when I'd actually notified you within a few hours. Will you retract your claim, or is "much later" actually defined as a few hours in Janeland?
Now you're claiming I don't notify you each time I write a comment debunking your misinformation. But again, I'd been posting my comments as replies to your most recent Slashdot comment. At least, I did until you
I honestly think people define "learning" differently. For instance, you became educated by repeating "Steven Goddard's" accusations that scientists were somehow fraudulently manipulating temperature data to argue that the globe isn't warming, after saying only totally uninformed idiots with "half a brain" hurl those baseless accusations. Here's another example where I have seen no noticeable improvement:
Thanks for the quote, but clicking on the copying link shows that I already quoted it almost two years ago. That next comment even shows that I properly notified Jane on 2009-07-20 at 1:40AM, which was a few hours after I posted this article. Maybe Jane’s observing that a few hours is “much later” to a mayfly. I get it: we should treasure every hour we have. That’s very Zen. Thanks Jane!
My statement that “your posts are among the m
Charming, as usual. It's strange that you ask for real science to support the "alarmist" fact that humans caused the rise in CO2 because we're burning carbon to release CO2 faster than the warming oceans can outgas their dissolved CO2. Is anyone we know of disputing that? Is it even part of the "debate"?
The misinformation campaign masquerading as a "debate" certainly does include people disputing the fact that humans caused the ~40% increase in CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.
Since Jane asked:
Jane agrees with Michael's claim that we don't know what caused CO2 levels to rise. Jane's "0.28%" meme disputes the fact that simple accounting (
What happens later won't be your responsibility because Lonny Eachus is a pathological liar and a coward posing as Jane Q. Public who won't do anything. So obviously not your responsibility.
Don't be coy. I've always been saying that you're a pathological liar named Lonny Eachus who poses as a woman named Jane Q. Public. Again, I agree with the AC that you're making all women look bad in the process because Jane is completely irrational, expects special treatment and can't keep a single thought straight in his head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. Please find it in your heart to stop lying, Lonny Eachus.
Jane, I just carefully showed you that I never mentioned sexual orientation. That was just the imaginary voice in your head. Since you contrasted flamers with women (who'd be in your circle of friends even if they refer to their asses as smooth and shapely) I used your meaning to contrast flamers with women. I'm saying you've obviously been claiming to be a woman for years. Why not just admit it, unless you're a man named Lonny Eachus?
As you've said, it's a type of behavior exhibited by guys who describe their ass as smooth and shapely. Contrasted with Jane Q. Public, who describes her ass as smooth and shapely and thus isn't vastly irritating because she's a woman. Right, Lonny Eachus?
Here I contrasted "flamer" with "woman" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation.
But hey, why not accuse an imaginary voice in your head of committing an offensive act of sexual stereotyping?
Again I connected "flamer" to "guy" so it refers to gender, not sexual orientation. Which, again, I never mentioned. But you did. Repeatedly.
You're right to be offended at the imaginary voice in your head. A lot.
So you deny saying that the only way a guy could describe his ass as "smooth and shapely" like you did would be if he were a "flamer" who wouldn't be in your circle of friends because flamers irritate you vastly?
I don't know who that AC was, but I'm taking her on her word that she's actually female. That's actually another reason why your dishonesty is harmful; it'd be easier to take people at their word if pathological liars like Lonny Eachus weren't posing as women like Jane Q. Public.
How fascinating that you deny baselessly accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. Is this because you "forgot" all your accusations, or because your Morton's demon has such a tight grip that you can't admit your accusations were baseless?
You've made it clear that you're either a woman or a "flamer" (your words). You clearly implied you're a woman when you speculated about my motives, just like you did when you speculated about BasilBrush's motives after he independently discovered that you're a man posing as a woman on the internet: "I think this is just a pathetic macho reaction because you don't have the spine to admit you can be bested by a woman."
If you still don't understand how your dishonesty reinforces sexist female stereotypes, read that woman's critique again:
"... You are really pissing me off here because you are acting out the worst sexist stereotypes of women: completely irrational, expecting special treatment and unable to keep a single thought straight in your head for more than a couple of minutes and then getting hyper-emotional when called on it. You are the kind of woman who makes it that much harder for the rest of us women to be judged on our abilities instead of the same old, ugly stereotypes you've spent the day reinforcing right here. Shame on you." [Someone to Jane, 2012-09-09]
She didn't say you're reinforcing sexist female stereotypes because you agree with a female psychologist. She noted that you're completely irrational and can't keep a single thought straight in your head. For example, you've spent years accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. And now you deny ever accusing scientists of lying and/or deliberately manipulating data to produce fraudulent results. When I've called you on dozens of your baseless accusations, you got hyper-emotional, cussing and fixating on asshole caliber.
Here's another example:
"if it turns out that you have made a mistake, you could be creating all kinds of trouble for yourself." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-27]
"*if* I did happen to be the person you claim I am, I would likely have a very good libel case against you by now. You should hope I'm not." [Jane Q. Public, 2014-06-29]
First you claim I should hope I haven't made a mistake, then just two days later you claim I should hope I have made a mistake? Since you can't keep a single thought straight in your head, you probably didn't notice contradicting yourself. Since you're completely irrational, you probably don't see how irrational it would be for someone to hope they couldn't use the defense of truth.
It's okay if you act like this as Lonny Eachus because you just make men look bad, which is at least honest because you are a man. But when you pose as a woman named Jane Q. Public, your irrational tantrums make women look bad, and that's dishonest because you're actually a man. Do you really not understand this very simple point, or are you just feigning ignorance?
So we're clear, you just claimed to be a woman. Right?
Have you actually forgotten all the times you and Lonny Eachus have accused scientists of lying, or are you just waiting for my link so you can act horrified at the time I took to dig it up?