Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University and author of Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
The blog Hotwhopper, operated by Miriam O’Brien, of Mount Beauty, Victoria, Australia, is the most non-scientific yet the rudest of all websites discussing climate change. Although Carl Sagan’s science baloney alert warns against attacking the arguer instead of the argument, the main tactic of Miriam O’Brien (aka Slandering Sou) is to denigrate all skeptics with waves of insults that always begin with blank “is a science denier”. She then indulges in creating sham arguments, which she then attributes to whoever she is insulting. And as a further indicator of her lack of integrity, she deletes posts that contradict expose her slander. Her dishonest Internet sniping is a cover up for how badly she misunderstands well founded science presented by skeptics. Examples of her failures are far too many to recount here, but her most recent tirade is another classic worth exploring.
In a recent WUWT post, I objected to attempts by advocates of CO2 warming to pressure school districts to adopt only schools books that state climate change debate is over. Camille Parmesan whose faulty science has been in the forefront of climate change misinformation and stated, “From the scientific perspective, there are simply no longer “two sides” to the climate-change story: The debate is over. The jury is in, and humans are the culprit.” So I wrote the post “The Ultimate Irony: Camille Parmesan argues “Texas textbooks need to get the facts straight” on global warming.”
In response to my argument that instead of indoctrination, text books need to encourage more debate to foster critical scientific thinking, “Slandering Sou”, as expected, attacked with the sham headline “Jim Steele at WUWT pushes for pseudo-science, not science, in Schools”.
Sou first attempted to deflect attention from the mountain of evidence showing Parmesan has repeatedly hid contradictory data detailed here, here, here, and here and defiled the scientific process by preventing independent replication of one of her studies. Apparently Sou is a proponent of such misdeeds, so Sou tries to re-characterize a scientific debate into a personal vendetta suggesting “did she snub him at a party? Did she forget who he was one time? Does she not know who he is?” [I never met Parmesan, but I do have a vendetta against dishonest science. JS]
Then predictably Sou launched into a few sham debate topics like “Debate the moon: Is the moon made of cheese and is there really a man living there?”
But when Sou tries her hand at refuting the real details of my arguments against Parmesan faulty papers, Sou reveals just how little she truly understands. And Sou was exposed by the very person she had invited to discredit me, Dr. Michael Singer, Parmesan’s husband, colleague, and co-author.
In response to a video posted by a commenter on WUWT, I noted that Parmesan continues to misrepresent her 1996 study. So I wrote, “What I find most disgusting and dishonest in this 2013 video is that she still repeats her old story that her butterfly (Edith Checkerspot) had moved upwards and northwards when 1) No such thing ever happened. Only the statistical center moved because more the butterflies had been extirpated due to urban sprawl mostly in southern California and 2) she has known for at least 5 years now that populations that she reported as extinct have now returned. That’s why she refused to let me replicate her study. “
So “Slandering Sou” tries denigrate me writing,
“jim Steele says populations of Edith’s checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha) haven’t moved north, only the statistical centre has moved north. Huh? He’s not that good at arithmetic.”
“He makes up weird stuff, implying butterflies “died” rather than shifted, due to global or local warming. Is he an utter nutter or a disinformer, or both? He’s not very bright but is he at some level conscious of his absurdities?”
“Another thing. Jim Steele claims that the butterfly populations reported as extinct have now returned. But he also claims he doesn’t know where those populations are, so how does he know they’ve returned?”
Here’s how. I and Dr. Opler have been in an ongoing discussion with Dr. Singer, and Singer’s recent email alerted me to the fact he had been invited to comment on Sou’s website. Sou and her mini-me CitizenChallenged have been seeking comments from Singer to rebut my posts for almost a year. Singer’s first post was basically his attempt to justify withholding data and not allowing independent replication of Parmesan’s study. He argues that other meta-analyses prove CO2 warming is pushing animals northward so, my replication of one study would not provide any benefit to science, even if it refuted Parmesan’s original study. There are so many things wrong with his claim, it cannot be covered here. But in a few weeks I will address that issue and post “The False Climate Illusions of Meta-Analyses”.
Even though Sou had so badly misinterpreted Parmesan’s study, Singer had initially let her erroneous beliefs slide. So I emailed him suggesting his scientific integrity demanded he correct her slander. To his credit, he did just that.
Dr. Singer wrote,
“Jim Steele asks that I should correct the statements made here that Edith’s checkerspot populations have moved north. The original study showed that a higher proportion of populations at low elevations and latitudes were then extinct than those at higher latitudes and elevations. It did not show that a population had moved or that the northern range limit had expanded. Jim suspects that Parmesan’s conclusion would no longer hold if the study were repeated. He may be right, I don’t know and neither does he…..”
[That’s because independent replication was prevented-JS]
Dr. Singer wrote,
“Jim is also correct in stating that I told him that several populations reported by Parmesan as extinct had since been recolonized. I did better than that, I gave him a complete list of those populations.”
[Singer provided names of those colonies but not locations that would allow a repeat visit.-JS}
So compare the comments by “Slandering Sou”, Dr. Singer and myself. Then you can decide who the real “utter nutter” is?
But there is one more item. Sou’s website is a haven for other skeptic bashers. The new wave of skeptic bashers try to paint skeptics as pseudo-skeptics as illustrated by one of her followers, Mike Pollard, who piles on with
“Jim Steele wrote in his WUWT piece “Camille Parmesan has prevented independent replication of her own dubious climate research on butterfly extinctions…..” This is classic bullshit (as defined by Harry G. Frankfurt) from a pseudoskeptic. What evidence does Steele have that independent research has been prevented? Absolutely zip. His beef is that the original data has not been made available to him, but that in no way stops him from performing an independent study. His biggest problem is that he does not have the male attachments to get out in the field and actually collect data.”
Again Dr. Singer to the rescue, as his reply easily shows Pollard’s comment is just an empty emotional tirade. Singer wrote,
“Jim is correct that it would have assisted him in any attempt to replicate Parmesan’s study if he had access to her raw data, which he requested a few years ago. Their negotiations about potential collaboration foundered, I’m not sure why..”
So ironically I must thank “Slandering Sou” for providing Dr. Singer with the opportunity to expose the pseudoscience Sou and band of skeptic bashers. I knew she could not delete Dr. Singer’s posts like she has done so many times before, and thus she was hoisted by her own petard.
No standing ovation, But Dr. Singer has earned a polite round of applause.
Quite so.
Are we not to be measured by the stature of our enemies?
Good lord, I hope not. The stature of this enemy seems quite, quite low.
But she looks like such a nice old woman
So did Dorothea Fuentes.
Characterize a man’s judgement by the quality of his friends, judge his character by the quality of his enemies.
There are so many things wrong with his claim, it cannot be covered here.
I’ll make it short and sweet. In this context (i.e. no commercial secrecy involved), scientists (or anyone else) who do not release their — full and complete — data are, at best, practicing alchemy.
they are not scientists … you should find another term for them …
Oh, I have no quarrel over what they are. It’s what they are doing that I find to be of concern.
I think the term is implied in evanjones’ post, they are alchemists.
They clearly aren’t scientists but they have doctorate degrees. To me, that makes them witch doctors.
Both data AND methods.
Please don’t slander alchemists like that… they at least formed the foundation for the eventual rise of Chemistry and Nuclear Physics… /sarc;
Petard is from the French “péter”, to fart. Please excuse my Anglo-Saxon.
“Pétard” itself in modern French means a firecracker, from which Italian and Spanish “petardo”.
IIRC, it is a military reference. Petards were mines. Explosives used by combat engineers (often tunneling) to create a breach in a fortification. Hoist by one’s own petard means unintentionally blowing oneself up with a device intended to be directed at others..
And if you want to be pedantic (and who doesn’t) the original line from Shakespeare, who coined the phrase, was, “hoist with his own petard.”
A petard was not a mine, although it might have been used at the end of a mine under fortification dug by sappers. It was a metal-cased black powder bomb placed against a gate or wall foundation by combat engineers. It was designed so that the energy of the blast went inward. Its wooden framework also had its own name. Maybe you were thinking of the modern term “mine” as in land mine. That would be an anachronism.
Shakespeare does indeed say “with” instead of “on” or “by” in Hamlet, & drops the final “d”, so that it becomes a crude joke as well, since petar even in Early Modern English meant fart.
Catherine … the modern equivalent is the Claymore, and it is classified as a mine. (I’m an old ex-army engineer)
REPLY — First you dig ’em, then you die in ’em. Thank you for your service. — Evan
Indeed, in modern French, une pete is a fart.
You’re both right.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Big-Questions/What-is-a-petard-and-how-do-you-get-hoist-by-your-own/2004/11/19/1100748185402.html?from=storyrhs
It could be shortened to “blown up by your own fart”.
No knowing what a petard was I used to think the original phrase was “Hoist with his own retard”, a turn of phrase that may still have some applications.
“And if you want to be pedantic”
Pretty much always.
“A petard was not a mine, although it might have been used at the end of a mine under fortification dug by sappers.”
Yes, quite.
Correct. OTOH Catherine Ronconi is not correct in saying that “mine” is a modern (anachronistic) term for an explosive charge placed against a sub-marine object, wall foundation, or similar. The word “mine” was used by British radio news to announce the breaking of the Ruhr dams in WW2 by the RAF dambuster squadron. It’s usage, while variable, has quite a long history, with naval applications going back to the late15th Century.
It certainly sounds somewhat less painful than I imagined it.
The practice was to drive a spike high on the gate to throw a rope over. The petard was then hoisted up the gate to the less reinforced middle of the gate and blown up there to form a breach. Occasionally an unfortunate engineer would get tangled in the rope and be hoisted and blown up. Thus to be hoisted with your own petard is to be killed by your own device, literally having your plan blow up in your face.
It certainly sounds somewhat less painful than I imagined it.
You won’t feel a thing.
Also, what we call “mines” now in a marine sense were originally “torpedoes”. (Thus the “Damn the Torpedoes” line was actually about steaming through a minefield.)
Refers to sapping bombs or mines to be placed in shafts under enemy walls. “Hoist” means blown up.
PS;
In the sense above, there is no such word as “hoisted”. Hoist is its own past tense.
Yes, hoist is the present and past tense. Only a few people know that. People who say petard.
And we’ve come to the end of the section. Everything that needed to be said about “hoisted by her own petard” has been covered. Well done, everyone — saved me commenting and showing myself up as a dyed-in-the-wool pedant.
The Bard explains it best of course in the Prince’s words.
‘For ’tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petard: and ‘t shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon:’
miner = sapper = Royal Engineer
See also the history of mining and counter mining in WW1. 1,000,000 lbs of Ammonal set off as part of the Messines offensive in June 1917 for instance.
Péter is used for almost everything that makes a sharp noise, and yes, fart is one, so is a car backfire. It akin to tirer. It’s a verb which can be used for many different purposes mainly because french, like many other languages, doesn’t have as many words as english to describe the world .
When I was at school I was led to believe that petard was a flag or flag rope but I have no idea from where that might have come.
[Probably from the “mental image” formed by the phrase itself: “hoist by his own ..” .mod]
Jim Steele, thanks. Nice rebuttal.
HotWhopper’s Miriam O’Brien broadcasts so much ignorance on the topics she explores that she has created her own form of gravity. That HotWhopper gravity field sucks in other persons of comparable ignorance, in turn creating a black hole from which truth and reality can never escape.
And can never penetrate.
She has treated me respectfully to my face. (Behind my back, not so much, really.)
Some bullies are more cowardly than others.
She did let me have my say, however, which is not nothing.
Thanks petey! I’ve learned a lot about standing down bullies. For example, You RUN every time I show up!
…and he has again!
Isn’t that just the way these days, Evan!? Much preferred when somebody didn’t like you that just let you know straight up … I have no time for the ‘white face, black heart’ way.
This M.O. is why so many are disgruntled with the warmist side, When the opposite sides view point is prevented so that NO comparison can be made, then many become suspicious about the intent (which in this case is obvious).
‘Debate the moon: Is the moon made of cheese and is there really a man living there?”
Actually if one looks at the full moon carefully you will plainly see that it is the “Energizer Bunny” (head & ears to upper right).
Please ignore her. She’s certifiably insane. need proof? Read any article on her blog.
“Debate the moon: Is the moon made of cheese and is there really a man living there?”
The debate is over.
She’s not a scientist. She’s a propaganda minister. Her job is make everyone eat global-warming Green Cheese.
I protest. It is parmesan.
It’s still Green cheese any way you slice it.
It only looks that way because the CO2 has caused Global Greening, and the green is reflecting upward to the face of the moon, thus creating a spurious optical effect.
This effect is a result of the poor siting of the moon. It should never have been placed in such proximity to a planet.
Wallace and Gromit proved it’s made of cheese.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFRzZegVIhY
I guess it’s the difference between English and American, but here in Australia where we use English, it’s spelled “sow”.
I said it before, I shall say it again: one CANNOT make a silk purse out of a Sou’s ear….
But you can put lipstick on the damn pig, even if you can’t make a purse from her ear.
She’s been hot and heavy attacking me lately, which has been hilarious. She calls me “Wondering Willis”, which I take as a great compliment. First it’s a compliment because I’m always wondering how the climate works. A wondering man is a man who has not fixed his mind in a rut. Second, it’s a compliment because I stand in awe at this world of wonder …
The best part is that she doesn’t realize that all she’s doing with her nasty attacks is driving people to read WUWT. When she spends an entire post discussing my ideas, I rejoice. First, it’s my ideas she’s talking about. And second, when someone wanders by the toilet bowl she inhabits, their first move is to go read the underlying document, which means that they have to come to WUWT to do so.
I gotta admit, though, the level of her discourse is ludicrous—mostly it’s just ad hominems, start to finish.
Ah, well … just another day in the climate zoo … Jim Steele, well done with your interactions. Me, I try not to wrestle with pigs, but sometimes it’s necessary.
w,
Willis,
Yes, this reality is full of wonder. Here is a nice quote about wonder from Robert Heinlein,
John
It has been said that wonder is the truly religious attitude—and surely the basis of good science.
/Mr Lynn
I have a post on the question of wonder called Awe, Shucks that you might enjoy.
w.
Yes… I do understand. I agree. I understand that feeling of wonder. Not surprisingly, a life-long, child-like sense of wonder is attributed by Richard Rhodes in his (much deserved) Pulitzer Prize winning, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” to Ernst Rutherford, Nobel Laureate (to his lasting amusement) not in Physics, but in Chemistry (for the splitting of the atom), and mentor as director of The Cavendish to an unparalleled 9 Nobel Laureates in Physics. He tossed off ideas for research and experiment like Sou tosses off insults, and had the amazing quality of questioning everything he saw, never simply taking it for granted.
Because, so I gathered from R. Rhodes, he never lost his childlike sense of wonder at everything he saw in this world. In Rhodes’ words, along with his obvious intelligence, “Another, more subtle quality, a braiding of country-boy acuity with a profound frontier innocence, was crucial to his unmatched lifetime record of physical discovery. As his protege James Chadwick said, Rutherford’s ultimate distinction was ‘his genius to be astonished.'” (The Making of the Atomic Bomb, p.36).
To riff on a quote from Newton, it’s not so much that he saw farther because he stood on the shoulders of giants—it’s also got a lot to do with the fact that he was curious enough to wonder what he could see from that vantage, and took the time to really look around him when he got there.
Seems to me that’s a quality that nearly all the scientists and thinkers I admire share: curiousity, and a sense of wonder…
Thanks for wondering, Willis— I always enjoy your posts.
p@ur momisugly
She certainly adds wonder to this world.
It’s true that the wisest of people are those that Look, Learn and Listen. You cannot become wiser through the blurting of cr&p.
Exactly! This could be because objective curious people want to read for themselves the source of what she is attacking. The nastiness and rudeness helps and she probably does not know it.
Sometimes i wonder if the comments on her website are just her using different names. They read suspiciously alike.
This is very likely…sockpuppeting I believe it’s called. She is exactly the type to use such a tactic.
I feel so slighted…. Here W. is getting loads of talk at “sou’s” … and me? A search of the site finds nothing for me. Just a few comments in articles about others.
I guess I’m just not as effective as W. and others.
Though a search on E.M.Smith did turn up a couple of quotes from comments to articles here in comments there, so I’m not completely being ignored 😉 I did get ranked “class clown”, so that’s something!
from comments in her “a lot more heat going into the ocean” posting.
At least they got that it was humor… even if they didn’t understand the basic truth in it…
But it is clear I need to step up my “game” and get some recognition over there.
[snip -over the top -mod]
Oh, but for the waft of a butterflies wing….
I am not yet convinced the ‘sou’ has an ear. She certainly has lips to purse. Maybe there’s a karmic connection in there somewhere.
I am not yet sure why any attention is paid to this person. She watches butterflies and fibs about what is out there. Caught off-guard by threats of exposure, she hides her work.
Is there something unusual about this? I don’t think so. It is what newbies and amateurs do. It is very reminiscent of M Mann’s behaviour: make a study, make claims, people want to reproduce the work, the details of locations are withheld making it impossible to reproduce the work exactly, the would-be reproducers are stumped, the original authors claim no one has refuted their work or claims, they call the would-be reproduces lazy, unlike themselves who have worked so hard to prevent others from finding out exactly what and where they did it.
So we have yet another case of what smells like bad science trumped up to appear valid, while no validation is possible. The only rational reason to prevent validation is because the original authors know it will easily be discredited. The rest is noise.
She’s just a sour old bat unnoticed by a world that has long passed her by … in other words an irrelevant ‘Neville nobody’ (http://www.slang-dictionary.org/Australian-Slang/Neville).
Instead of cherry picking bits of what Dr Singer wrote here’s one of his comments in full…
mike SingerNovember 12, 2014 at 10:48 PM
Jim is correct that it would have assisted him in any attempt to replicate Parmesan’s study if he had access to her raw data, which he requested a few years ago. Their negotiations about potential collaboration foundered, I’m not sure why.. perhaps because she developed the opinion that he was approaching the topic from too biased a perspective. Which it’s clear that he is, because he won’t accept the conclusions of much larger modern studies that show the type of range shift expected from warming climate.
These days the raw data are usually made available online but that wasn’t true in 1996 and it would have required quite a bit of work on camille’s part to organize them for Jim. Which, I admit, she didn’t do. Jim is also correct in stating that I told him that several populations reported by Parmesan as extinct had since been recolonized. I did better than that, I gave him a complete list of those populations. I’m reluctant to give him more information, whatever I tell him just seems to bring me grief and insults.”
Oh dear, Dr Singer is not a fan of Jim Steele hey!
And this bit was left out of one of Dr Singer’s comments…
“My point is that it would not alter the general conclusion that ranges are shifting, which comes from aggregate analysis of many species.”
And this comment by Dr Singer was also left out:
“In Europe poleward range shifts are happening on a large scale, across many species, and despite the best efforts of butterfly collectors to prevent it by collecting new and exotic species in their areas.”
I wonder why Jim left out those comments by Dr Singer…hmmm
Because they are conclusions without data.
@spaatch I summarized his comments from Singer’s first post in which he “basically his attempt to justify withholding data and not allowing independent replication of Parmesan’s study. He argues that other meta-analyses prove CO2 warming is pushing animals northward so, my replication of one study would not provide any benefit to science, even if it refuted Parmesan’s original study. There are so many things wrong with his claim, it cannot be covered here. But in a few weeks I will address that issue and post “The False Climate Illusions of Meta-Analyses”.
Of course he is not a “fan of Jim Steele.” I have debunked several papers he has been closely associated with. I promise I will address his other comments in my next post where it will have more meaning.
BUt the purpose of my post was not to discuss my differences with Singer, but to show how clueless Sou was about the science, how devoid of reality her comments were how those were critical points both Singer and I agreed upon.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
Surely the most critical point is that It would certainly change conclusion of Parmesan’s paper re shifting of particular butterfly populations. What meta-studies that base their result on bunch of Parmesan-like flawed papers (which is equivalent to homogenization of cr*p, if you like) do is completely irrelevant in this particular argument
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
Dr Singer doesn’t say that populations are shifting northward. He says “conclusions of much larger modern studies that show the type of range shift expected from warming climate.’
note the word ‘expected’.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
icouldnthelpit –
Why would someone need to do Parmesan’s paper again? It should be corrected by her or simply be withdrawn. End of story. No amount of mental gymnastics can change the fact that paper, or at least some parts of it, is bad.
Regarding claims – I assume that her paper is part of the meta-study – am I mistaken? Why would it be excluded?
rather than saying that CO2-caused global warming is “pushing” populations northward cannot we rather say “allowing populations to extend their ranges northward”? And might this not be a good thing?
Is there solid evidence that the southern ranges of such species are being eliminated? And if the southern ranges are being so limited is the evidence that it is by climatic conditions rather than, say, urbanization, land use practices, over-hunting, over population etc? Just curious.
Hello. perhaps you do not understand the reason for documentation? It is not for the people who agree with you it is for those who dispute your findings. As an undergrad I wrote papers to read at history conferences. My sources were for those who intended to run my papers through the wringer. It was a learning experience. Biased views are why you surrender up documentation Now documentation is for everyone, not just Dr Singer. That means you and me or the paper is worth…..nothing. Nothing,
The idea that a study should not be shown to be wrong because its conclusion agrees with the conclusion of other studies is utter nonsense.
In and of itself, it shows the lack of understanding of both Dr Singer and you, but it also presupposes that the other studies may also be shown to be flawed.
You seem to be under the impression you are making Dr Singer and you look smart, when in fact you are demonstrating how you are both “anti-science”.
I don’t see anything in here that changes Jim’s point one bit. Please forgive me, but could you explain what is it that those omissions hid?
I think your attempt to reframe the discussion is valiant, but a failure.
The very fact that Dr. Singer doesn’t like Jim Steele, but is able to agree with at least some of Mr. Steele’s views, is a great compliment both to Dr. Singer for being a fair and objective scientist and to Mr. Steele’s grasp of the facts in this case.
That they share fundamentally different views – that is exactly what normal academic discourse is intended to cover.
Probably because the subject of the article was not the research itself, but the lies that Slandering Sou stated about them. YOu do not have to quote an entire Obama speech if the point you are making is to show he promised you could keep your health care plan.
I found it amusing to start with as its so absurd its almost comedy, but having always read her only subject matter here first one rather bores of it after a while. Has to be up there with the best vacuous, echo chamber climate blogs.
Her photo is creepy, her writing is infantile yet sadly obsessive, and more importantly she is an ignoramus on the topic she is obsessed with.
Ignore her. Her site is a tiny low traffic echo chamber of self selecting losers.
However, she did ask the correct questions about the surfacestations project.
She was a poster here and, IIRC, was banned for some violation of site policy or other. So she started her own blog, which is one of several sites that specifically and directly dispute WUWT. It has the usual level of abuse and the normal variety of more reasonable to rather far out.
Never forget that we are often prone to taking the mickey out of alarmists on this site, too. Q.E.D. Don’t get me wrong, I think WUWT is a lot more civil than most sites on this topic. And we know there are crazies on both sides of the debate, and this is a bad case, too.
I also wonder how I would feel if I were in the other fellow’s moccasins. If I believed what they believed, I might go a little crazy, too. Besides, I need to communicate civilly with both sides, or I quickly fall victim to my own confirmation bias, that Great Enemy of the scientist. And I cannot think in an echo chamber. I need to push, but to do that, I need something to push against.
A great attitude, and one I respect.
For one thing, there is a clear clique of posters who conflate CAGW with liberalism and communism. I would certainly agree there is a Venn overlap between the liberal population and CAGW belief – but to categorically attack CAGW for its political fans is just as wrong as attacking skepticism for being similarly Venn with conservatives.
My own view is that knee jerk political reaction ought to be divorced from a dispassionate analysis of the facts – which is what I understand skepticism is.
Your demographic analysis — and conclusions — are correct.
One of the weirdest parts of her site is how she discusses the discussion posts. Who does that? She can have a sock puppet say something stupid, and then point to it and say “see, look how stupid they are there!”. For someone of her advanced years, its really quite juvenile. I feel sorry for her.
I can only wonder which of the comments on this post she will highlight?
Jim wasn’t talking about you, petey.
>>For someone of her advanced years, its really quite juvenile.<<
It’s infantile, to say the least
Mt Beauty (about 300km north east of Melbourne is a very beautiful part of the world – in the Alpine regions where they still enjoy typical seasonal snow falls – despite predictions of “no more snow” 15 years ago.
You would think she could see the evidence from her porch!
I cannot help but see eerie parallels with this woman.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/10/mysterious-death-of-woman-who-attacked.html
Sadly, as alarmists are marginalized by mother nature herself, they will become more like Slandering Sou. SHe does it because of her limited knowledge, and the demands of her audience.
Miriam O’Brien of Mt. Beauty, Australia, aka “Slandering Sou”, aka you´re mother in law from hell.
Hide the kids when she´s visiting and barricade the doors.
Jim Steele,
Sou, if deprived of sayings idiomatic, would stand mute. She is the goddess of all climate focused idiomatic sound bites.
John
In any discourse with a feminist you should expect to be covered in spit, which is a way feminists show their appreciation of everything nice, human, correct, or logical. If you are not covered in spit, you are doing something wrong.
aww is someone a spit spewing feminist also?
color me surprised…
Don’t bother replying It’s purely rhetorical.
After you label us ‘cockroaches’?
He’s just saying: We love life. We are enduring. We do the best we can with what we have. We avoid the spotlight. We enjoy warmth.