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@
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.
She’s complete with concerned head tilt TM.
It is a pity Hot Whopper so freely applies the adhoms. It would perhaps be interesting to be able to read a blog which calmly and methodically argued opposing viewpoints to those put forward here and on other skeptical blogs.
However, the average tone there is depressing and abusive, and the random pick of occasional articles from WUWT lacks conviction. And the fixation on WUWT is mildly disturbing.
I’d thought her blog should be renamed “Warm Whimper”, but that still sounds a little positive.
Perhaps “Tepid Whimper” is more apt.
Translation of “hot whoppers” is “giant lies”.
I spent several minutes looking at what goes on there last time it was mentioned, and that title is appropriate. Then again, when I used the appropriate quote from Game of Thrones some thin-skinned leftist twit feigned offense.
The good news is that it means WUWT is right over the target!
She reads WUWT and the comments. She can’t fail to read some blistering comments and references. She however picks up on silly comments and posts it up on Hot Cropper.
Here are some birds that decided to move out of range.
Just to represent here….Sou…all of the intelligent women who post here loathe you too…so it’s NOT a misogynistic, woman hating, male reaction to your blog. It’s a stupid, insipid, blathering idiot hating thing that crosses all genders, creeds, nationalities etc.
Ran into a woman like this, when active in “conservative politics” (no longer “active”) while living in a southern (USA) state. Quasi bright, acerbic, and on the attack with vitriol all the time. There was something proposed for the State organizational meeting, which was being voted on. Her verbal assault at that meeting was incredible, and odd. So much so, I cornered the State Chairman and asked him about it…HE put me off in an unusual way, saying there was a “reason” for her odd behavior connected with her opposition to what was going on. She committed suicide about 6 months later.
That was over 20 years ago, but over the years I inquired on this “final result”, and the “reason” was for the odd behavior. I found out: She was a Bipolar or Manic depressive individual. I now know that Bipolar people can be highly intelligent, but they also can be highly OBSESSIVE about things (which is GOOD if you are a composer or a writer, or an Architect or the like), but as they ascend the “manic” stage of their cycles, their rationality and their personalities “break down”. Many times, when this happens,there are bizarre results.
I cannot clinically judge this writer (Sou?) …however, I’m going to go out on a limb and say this: WATCH. If she “vanishes” suddenly, and is gone for, say, 3 months, 6 months, and then comes back. and she vanishes after some really bizarre things are written. AND then, when she comes back, she still obsessed and acerbic, etc.(although perhaps more toned down, not completely bizarre in what she writes, you can suspect bi-polar personality. In which case, I say more pity is needed than anything else. Just saying…!
Have you read CS Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength”?
In that book the oppressive (it’s CS Lewis so I’ll say EVIL) forces redefine criminality as a medical issue rather than a moral one.
There is no end to the treatments that can be prescribed if it is medical, not moral.
And I fear that is what you are doing here. She may be unwell. Or she may be just rude and close-minded. But medicalising the condition without true knowledge is wrong.
You are taking the right to agency away from her responsibility and, compassionately, on to yourself.
I agree. It is the individual’s responsibility to exercise self-control and decorum regardless of mental illness. This may involve them seeking medical help.
Mental illness is not an excuse for bad
behaviour.
Consider the utility of such an anchor point. Indeed, all Pseudo Science sites have this in common.
They capture a group, already enamored with the core message of those sites, they act as a sink for future message dissemination.
Contamination of broader public conversation is fomented from such Meme-sinks, volume (both shouting loudly, and web traffic) imply legitimacy – tho’ false.
The ‘me-too’ genes in the Human mammal love the warm fuzzies generated by having group acceptance, so a kind of social momentum is created, objects in motion tend to want to remain that way.
Eventually, the neural pathways are so deeply etched, that direct, first hand, counter evidence to the core message – is rejected. There is a kind of futility to trying to save someone who wants to drown, and many of these meme-sink victims are gargling wet concrete mix.
To deny the evidence that shows CAGW theory has failed – is tragic enough, but to remain permanently mentally fixated on that faulty world view is a hideous cruelty.
Good old Sou has erected a mental prison, lined it with hemlock lollipops, arsenic drops and cyanide candy – and sung a siren song of invective and malice, enticing people in who could of once been our friends and allies.
Hideous, hideous, hideous cruelty.
Oh god; can you people not understand? Sou CARES about, well, she has some difficulty articulating that, but, by god, this woman cares.
Whatever it is she cares about must be virtuous (otherwise she’s just stupid), so there. You dishonor her emotional purity by asking for scientific theory and (GASP!) actual logic.
If you believe in the Easter Bunny strongly enough, it will happen.
/sarc off.
What utter crap.
Someone downvoted the 5-stars at the top! It’s only 4½ stars. I wonder who could have done that?
Oh, BTW, Sou is an avid reader and occasional commenter here…
Ah. Now it’s back to 5-star “Excellent”. That happens when every voter but one votes 5-stars.☺
I think she let her success in getting the climate change threads closed down at Weatherzone shut down by her abusive behaviour go to her head.
I’ve come across many obnoxious individuals in the climate change debate (on both sides) but Miriam certainly is the worst by a country mile.
There is nothing in Steele’s CV that even remotely suggests that he is capable of replicating the Parmesan study.
trafamadore:
And your C.V. is… what, exactly?
Put up or shut up. Refute my claim.
trafamadore:
Is that how you slink out of answering, numpty?
Post your mythical C.V., chump.
Put up or shut up.
trafamadore you write from ignorance..like a Slandering Sou clone
Traf,
There was a time when your comments were worth arguing with. Now… its like you aren’t even trying. You OK?
1. When Parmesan did the work she was a young grad student (I think) and put allot of energy into that work. Steele is an old man and I doubt he can do the study himself.
2. That means he needs to write a grant to do the work. He has no publication record. He won’t get funded, unless Heartland picks him up.
3. He has never done a study like this, anyone who gives him $$, is wasting it.
trafamadore:
1. Total non sequitur. But then, that’s all you’ve got, numpty.
2. How would you know?
3. Again, how would you know, numpty?
trafamadore, If I may, Point one, you state that Parmesan was a young grad student, thank you. This means her work must be re-examined.The young tend to jump to false conclusions due to inexperience. As to age, I am sure that Prof Steele with the help of a few new grad students could walk through an English meadow, fresh eyes and all that. Two. Grants, well with the change of management, here in the States, I’m sure he could be just as successful as Dr Parmesan was in getting a grant. Last three. For everyone, there is a first time. Was this one Dr Parmesan’s first study of this scope? Last, whether or not Prof Steele is up to the venture is not a factor in obtaining all data. There are no counter argument only self-serving excuses.
with kind thoughts
Michael
Traf
1. Trying to denigrate my skills and experience does not justify Parmesan withholding data or the self righteous ignorance of Sou. (BTW I raised several hundred thousand dollar to restore the watershed)
2. I appreciate you worrying about my advanced age but it is another red herring. I suggest you worry more about fraudulent science and clueless rude bloggers.
3. Traf, provide the details you think are needed to replicate this study. I assure you I have all the requisite skills to repeat her study. But it is another red herring used by internet snipers to switch the focus on to that arguer and away from j Sou’s horrendous understanding of the research in question. I suggest you worry more about Sou’s lack of science.
trafamadore,
Since we are looking at credentials then I don’t expect to hear another word on climate from the following people. Next time play the ball, not the man.
Can you spot the climate scientists?
• James Hansen: astronomer / physicist (source)
• Michael Mann: physicist / geologist (source)
• John Cook: physicist & cartoonist (source)
• Joe Romn: physicist (source)
• John Holdren: plasma physicist (source)
• Grant Foster (Tamino): (theoretical physicist)
• Dana Nuccitelli: masters degree in physicist (source)
• Gavin Schmidt: mathematician (source)
• Eric Steig: geologist (source)
• Bill McKibben: environmental studies (source)
• Bill Nye: mechanical engineer (source)
• Paul Nurse: geneticist (source)
• Rajendra Pachauri: Economist / industrial engineer (source)
• David Suzuki: zoologist / geneticist (source)
• Al Gore: divinity major (source)
Well, I’ll just do the first one, because your list is repetitive: This is what makes Hansen a climate scientist: Hundreds of pubs in climate science and he has mentored many students, some of whom populate your list.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
How many peer reviewed pubs does Steele have in Ecology? How many PhD students has he mentored in Ecology? I really couldn’t find anything, can Steele enlighten us?
trafamadore,
Hansen is still not a climate scientist. Neither is John Cook who you fail to defend I notice. Please do not try to claim John Cook knows anything about climate science because he has himself said he is NOT a climate scientist.
Hansen is an astrophycist. Here is something else he published in 1967. LOL.
trafamadore,
Here is Hansen at work. As you say he is a ‘climate scientist’ who has published and taught ‘climate science’. LOL. No wonder he is seen as a bit of a loony astrophysicist.
In 1988 Hansen said it was co2. Then he said soot. Then he said CFCs. No wonder he keeps getting it wrong. He is NOT a climate scientist but a Venus specialist who decided he needed better funding options.
If you’re going to note that Nuccitelli has a Masters in Physics, then note that Cook has a Bachelor’s degree with a Physics major (1989).
And what’s your background, trafamadore?
I would make the argument that ecologists CAN understand climate change as well and sometimes much better than atmospheric scientists. When faced with regional climate changes ecologists and atmospheric scientists analyze the very same weather data. However in addition ecologists bring the additional insights from analyzing changes in hydrology, vegetation and other biological factors and we appreciate the tremendous complexity of the environment and understand climate change can not be reduced to a simple variable like CO2.
The best example is the discovery of what is now understood to be one of the most powerful drivers of global climate- the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Kevin Trenberth, the leading advocate of CO2 caused climate changed reported the changes in the Pacific Ocean surface temperatures but could not make sense of the cool regions. It was a fishery biologist who realized changing salmon populations were responding to a natural see-saw effect. And now the PDO offers the best explanation for the changes in the California climate. I have discussed how the PDO affects droughts in part 2 of my presentation Droughts and Heatwaves: Ocean Oscillations vs CO2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzoL9fTc16g
In 2006, climate scientists using CO2 driven models lamented, “Neither the nature of climate trends in California nor their causes are well understood.” These climate scientists attributed their difficulties to “the complex effects of multiple climate forcings . The state’s natural climate is diverse, highly variable, and strongly influenced by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. Humans are perturbing this complex climate system through urbanization, irrigation, and the emission of multiple types of aerosols and greenhouse gases. Despite better-than-average observational coverage, scientists are only beginning to understand the manifestations of these forcings in California’s temperature record
Read Duffy, P.B., et al., (2006) Interpreting Recent Temperature Trends in California. Eos, Vol. 88, No. 41, 9.
In contrast, in a recent paper climate scientists reported, “Northeast Pacific coastal warming since 1900 is often ascribed to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, whereas multidecadal temperature changes are widely interpreted in the framework of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which responds to regionalatmospheric dynamics…. It presents a significant reinterpretation of the region’s recent climate change origins, showing that atmospheric conditions have changed substantially over the last century, that these changes are not likely related to historical anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing, and that dynamical mechanisms of interannual and multidecadal temperature variability can also apply to observed century-long trends.
Read Johnstone 2014 “Atmospheric controls on northeast Pacific temperature variability and change, 1900–2012”
trafamadope says:
…your list is repetitive…
Since you are engaging in the Appeal to Authority fallacy:
Hansen has maybe half the number of papers of someone like Prof Richard Lindzen. When you ignore the ones where Hansen is added as a co-author [usually done to curry favor], he has a lot less. All of Lindzen’s papers are on earth’s climate, not on Venus, and he is the primary author — whereas Hansen just piggybacks on lots of those papers that seem to matter to you.
But what matters is not the number of papers. The only thing that matters is who is right, and who isn’t. So far, Lindzen is right and Hansen is wrong…
…and we’re still waiting for your [mythical] CV.
[Snip. Another ‘beckleybud’ sockpuppet. ~mod.]
So db, what is this Lindzen stuff? Hansen has to publish more than someone else? The point is he publishes on climate science, that is his business. Are you joust playing dumb, or are you for real?
But even more stupid is Steele’s response to asking about his publication record, to say that ecologists are capable of understanding climate change. So I assume that means that I was correct, he has no publication record and he has never mentored students.
After looking at his CV, anyone in the science community reviewing a grant proposal of his would rank his proposal poorly. But it might do well at Heartland I think.
But my book is indeed peer reviewed. Dr. James Kelley did the foreword. He is an oceanographer, past Dean of the College of Science and Engineering at SF State University as well as past president of the California Academy of Science. Dr. Paul Opler was the invertebrate specialist for the Endangered Species Act and North America’s premiere lepidopterist and approved all that I wrote. University of Helsinki’s Dr. Jarvinen and fellow Field Station director read the book and rated it a 5 and thanked me for publishing a much needed evaluation of climate change. UC Davis’ Dr Art Shapiro read the book, rated it a 3 but admits that he knows for a fact that “JIm Steele is right about the PIka and Butterflies” (but not all studies). SFSU colleague’s that are ecologist and conservation biologists have called the book a masterpiece. These are all peer reviews of a book filled with far more scientific information than a 2 page journal article rubber stamped for blaming CO2 warming.
In contrast I searched the internet for Trafamadore and did not find one person suggesting that name had any semblance of scientific understanding but there was a creepy Facebook picture.
trafamadope says:
So db, what is this Lindzen stuff? Hansen has to publish more than someone else?
Look, numpty, you started thios with your appeals to authority. Now that I showed that Prof Lindzen leaves your chump in the dust, you start whining about it. That’s what a loser does.
And when are you going to post your own [non-existent] CV? You like to criticize everyone that you don’t agree with, but the fact is that you are no one. You are just a troll. Aren’t you? Always have been here.
You’re nothing, and like most trolls who have zero accomplishments themselves, you play the man, and not the ball.
trafamadunce says:
A book is just a book.
Go away, numpty. You’re too stupid to be here.
specie says:
What makes Lndzen any different than Hansen?
For one thing, Lindzen knows what he’s talking about.
If you had read the comments, you would understand that I was just giving back tradfamadumbo what he’s been trying to dish out. He started the # of papers contest. Now that it’s been shoved up his fundament, he whines about it. What I would like to know is this: why are you so concerned?
Traf
http://landscapesandcycles.net/about-us.html
Trafamadumbo says:
How many peer reviewed pubs does Steele have in Ecology?
How many do you have in anything? What’s your CV?
You always duck answering that.
Then you haven’t read Steele’s book, and know nothing of his reputation.
Sorry. A book is just a book. He has never done real field research at a professional level.
trafamadope,
How would you know that? You don’t know anything else, so why should that be an exception?
Like all your comments, you’re just trolling. Trot along back to Hotwhopper where you belong — with all the other misfits there. You’re out of place here. We do science; you troll. Get lost, numpty.
Trafamadore reveals he/she is a true internet sniper using lies to make his case. A true Slandering Sou clone. I was funded by the US Forest Service to do field research for 20 years and my work triggered a million dollar restoration project of which I raised 30% myself.
And again, my book is peer reviewed: Dr. James Kelley did the foreword. He is an oceanographer, past Dean of the College of Science and Engineering at SF State University as well as past president of the California Academy of Science. Dr. Paul Opler was the invertebrate specialist for the Endangered Species Act and North America’s premiere lepidopterist and approved all that I wrote. University of Helsinki’s Dr. Jarvinen and fellow Field Station director read the book and rated it a 5 and thanked me for publishing a much needed evaluation of climate change. UC Davis’ Dr Art Shapiro read the book, rated it a 3 but admits that he knows for a fact that “JIm Steele is right about the Pika and Butterflies” (but not all studies). SFSU colleagues who are ecologist and conservation biologists have called the book a masterpiece. These are all peer reviews of a book filled with far more scientific information than a 2 page journal article, rubber stamped for blaming CO2 warming.
It couldn’t matter less. Data must be made available to anyone and everyone who wants it. The way of the scientist brooks no alternative.
Besides, who decides who is or is not “qualified”? Do Anthony and I get to decide you are not “qualified” to see the data files for the surfacestations paper? You know the answer. If we tried to pull those garbanzo beans, our collective heads would be on a platter faster than you can say Salome. And rightly so.
evanmjones,
an excellent point. What if the data for the surfacestations paper was withheld because it was disorganized and kinda scrambled and that it would take too much time to assemble? Would you let that slide? Would Warmists like Slandering Sou let it slide? Of course not and it should not be allowed to slide. I would be the first to insist that a failure to produce the data leaves it open to the criticism that there is something wrong in the paper and that there was something to hide.
From the Jabberwocky: The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back
C’mon. Let’s give credit where credit is due. It’s tough to make Greg Laden look good, but I think Sou has managed to pull it off. Now that is some accomplishment, eh?
Yikes. I visited her site and learned that some of her ire is directed at articles written by me! I’m feeling rather proud of myself right now, I got her attention and clearly got under her skin. All one need do to debunk her lunacy is to read what I actually wrote, it bears little resemblance to the out of context quotes and tortured reasoning she employs to debunk me.
There was one point she made though that absolutely killed me. In an article some time ago I discussed that the ancient Greeks believed that one could see due to rays that shot out of one’s eyes, and that this belief was “settled science” for hundreds of years, despite the fact that one could debunk the notion simply by pointing out that one cannot see in a dark room even with one’s eyes open. She belittled my claim and attempted to assert that things were more complicated than I understood.
So, I got my ROFLMAO moment for the day. But just to be certain, I shut the lights off in the room, and sure enough, couldn’t see with my eyes open. Did it like three or four times, got a ROFL moment out of it every time (yes, I am easily amused).
David the greeks were close but got it wrong it was the rays shooting in. rods & cones, rods & cones Perhaps Miriam is in need of an eye doctor. Yale New Haven in Conn. USA has the best. Sigh.
Michael
Congratulations, David. You’ve arrived! Now, don’t let it go to your head.
/sarc
Sounds like Sou…eeee is a frustrated middle-aged (or probably much older) woman (I was going to say “Lady’ but refrained from doing so). Because she has no loving male companionship in her life to sooth her and to help her settle down when she gets all worked up over her ignorance (‘Sou reveals just how little she truly understands’), her only outlet was to make sport of attacking WUWT and some of the excellence contributors and commenters at this site.
Sou…eeee, that dear miserable sour puss, could live to be a thousand years old, but would never make a single positive step forward in understanding any real science of any type. I have a sneaky felling she wanted to be somebody important but Sou…eeee missed the boat and this is the only way that she can feel important to herself (no one else sees her as being important).
Some day she will die as a miserable old hag that she is so quickly becoming. As Mike Pollard, a commenter on Sou…eeee’s site said, “His biggest problem is that he does not have the male attachments to get out in the field and actually collect data.” This should actually read Sou…eeee (use your own imagination here) about male attachments.
MODS should snip. Your misogynistic rant should be shunned by the WUWT community.
(Reply: And then it would be easier and easier to start censoring… ~mod.)
I read it and shunned it. But not before I laughed at it. C’mon, Richard–where’s your sensa humor?
I’m afraid a post like that has me agreeing with you, Richard and Peter G. Attack the site, attack the actions, attack the content…..but attack the person on such a personal level, do we really want to accept that here? Is that what this site is about? Is that what Anthony or in this case Jim are trying to do. I hope not. Surely we want to attract contrary opinion as it breathes life into echo chamber discussion; to be able to voice ones opinions here, subject to the site rules and moderation, so long as they dont take up too much of everybody’s time and effort is surely the best idea. Scaring people away by over doing it as here is an ugly use of the interent. I would assume that if ‘Sou’ wanted to post a reply here she would definitely be allowed to so long as it didnt transgress the rules. The trouble is her MO is to [deceive or] wrap herself tightly in her own echo chamber!!
I meant or not of last sentence (mod?)
Richard D, in case you haven’t read recent news (Gruber & many others), the time for handling trolls or troll-websites with kid-gloves is over.
Wow!
Now that is a seriously good smack-down.
In all truth, this is an awfully childish comment by PeterK and reflects pretty badly on him.
And on the rest of us in here.
Gee it must really burn you men having a female continuously show you up.
To be fair, it’s pretty easy to do.
Anyone here can show up a dog.
You are absolutely correct: behind the back ad hominem attacks published on a low volume website are easy to do.
Point of order Mr (Ms?) Husky.
You mean ‘continually’ NOT ‘continuously’. Continuously would mean that she never stopped, which is unlikely since she will need to sleep occasionally.
Signed, A Pedant.
If it weren’t for pedants like you I’m sure we’d have world piece.
doggy, please learn to spell. Simple misteaks like that bother educated folks…
I’d like to learn the world to sing in perfect harmony…
What do you mean by ‘you men’, do you think just that because you dont like this site only men could be agreeing with the subject. I dont like the ‘ad hom’ attacks any more than you do, dont be so presumptious.
Sorry- should have said middle aged, overweight, ineffectual men with dubious social skills. Call it a random guess.
doggy,
Just the fact that you are trying to defend a deranged hater like Sou tells me all I need to know about your weak mental ability.
And FYI, I may be middle aged, but I am happily married, not overweight at all, retired after a successful career, and my social skillz are just fine. I suspect that makes you and me very different.
husky:
You apparently cannot tell the difference between being “shown up” and being subject to a lie filled temper tantrum. So much for your intellectual capacity.
And for those of you who would like to see Singers view on Steele’s planned study look here: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/jim-steele-at-wuwt-pushes-for-pseudo.html
You need to scroll down to “Update: Comment from Michael C Singer”. It’s a very calm reasoned response, which does differ a little from Sou’s straight talk.
Sou’s straight talk ??
trafamadope has gone off the deep end.
LOL! (You don’t deserve any more, traf…)
A new study has shown a recent worrying decline in the population group of the butterfly species climate alarmis. This exotic species came to prominence in the early eighties ( the same time as the cane toad started spreading in Queensland, Australia but this is apparently unrelated. A large early group was found in leafier Melbourne suburbs, particularly those of a green disposition. Other branches germinated in Universities in Western Australia, Queensland and Canberra.
A prominent member of the species did a reverse move from WA to Queensland and has now moved to England, apparently the cane toads were too wishy washy to stay with.
The cold conditions developing in Australia since the recent federal election have led to the extinction of several central groups and the population centre has moved to Mount Beauty, pop 850 people of whom 34 are of the climate alarmis strain. The queen of the hive is droning on but finding it difficult to get attention without making ever more alarmist claims.
A near El Niño for 2014 has been enough to give one last little bit of warmth to the species, which is usually what is needed to allow for the recognition that winter is coming.
Expect cocoon building and a long period of hibernation to follow by the end of 2015.
Angech,
You flippant remarks show no concern for AGW hoax species extinction. What of the Spittle Flecked Doom Screecher? What of the Red Beaked Green Lyre Bird?!
Miriam would, as always, be outraged! (I suspect this is the crazed bint’s default condition…)
Have you no care for what you’ve done? Miriam reads WUWT religiously! Even now the putrescent effluvia of of her leftardulant bile is pouring off her chin and burning holes in her new “F#*K Abbott” T-shirt! Have you no compassion for this troubled soul??
@Konrad – you have a marvelous way with words!
Well said Konrad. ROTFLMAO
Jim, just a heads up. You are on her radar here in a comment with a different article heading:
http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/deniers-are-weird-at-wuwt-enso-is-bom.html?showComment=1416541452355#c5653634271166148202
Hi all at WUWT.
I have a request to the lurkers, and posters. In a few weeks I have been invited to a PECHA KUCHA. For those who, like me, don’t know what this is: PECHA KUCHA is a presentation format consisting of 20 slides/pictures and 20sec talking pr slide.
Longer expl: http://www.pechakucha.org/faq
I have decided to use the opertunity to invoke some climate thinking. It will be to an audience of architect’s and politicians, so a good place to invoke thought.
My plan is to show 18 pics from the warmist campaign, iconic and well known, so that the theme will be unmistakeably Global Warming. To the slide show, I will read the story “The Emperor has No Clothes. The last pic will be of the sun.
So my request is as follows: Can you help me find the 18 pics, that best describe “the other side” and the “debate”.
The title of the presentation is so far “Disonance”, but I’m open fore suggestions.
Thnks fore reading this far ;).
I’m guessing 18 slides, each of a different (tax payer funded) climate model ought to about do it.
Finn, you should absolutely have something about the 800 year lag:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/
@ JS, and here I though Parmesan got better with age LOL!
Finn,
Here are a couple of slides:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997.9/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997.9/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cHhMa7ARDDg/SoxiDu0taDI/AAAAAAAABFI/Z2yuZCWtzvc/s1600/Geocarb%2BIII-Mine-03.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
http://australianclimatemadness.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/greenland_temps1.png?w=700
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iueh246IWTo/UtNEZ2wQ65I/AAAAAAAAEkU/pYainEJP7Bk/s1600/interglacial_temps-petit.png
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image266.png
Good luck!
Actually, db, several of your slides are downright frightful. Climate scientists should pull their heads out of the sand and look at what might be right around the corner.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
@ icouldnthelpit;
To think there are people out there amongst us that think one tree in the NH = Global temps.
Fixed it for you.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
It’s depends on the context. If you are talking about sea level rise then the temperatures around Greenland are clearly relevant.
But there is no way that one tree is indicative of anything but that one tree. Let alone a hemisphere.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
I agree the global average is a chimera of local temperatures. Nonetheless the Greenland temperatures coincide with a warmer oceans, warmer than today, during the Medieval Warm period and a cooler ocean during the LIttle Ice Age.
icouldnthelpit
November 21, 2014 at 1:36 am
“@BruceC. If anyone thinks that one tree in the NH = Global temps then they’re as stupid as someone that thinks Greenland temps = Global temps. Agreed?”
Take care Michael Mann doesn’t read that. He’ll sue you.
RR,
See my reply below, with some new charts.
@ icouldnthelpit;
You should direct that question to Dr. Briffa and Dr. Mann – to be more specific it was single tree in Yamal that created a hokey stick in Briffa’s reconstruction, and about a dozen of them (out of few hundreds at least) in Mann’s.
But me, yes, I agree that it is stupid. Unfortunately that is what alarmists like you do all the time.
udar – Why can’t I direct the question to you or M Courtney?
[Because you are a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
Because neither me no M Courtney set the rules regarding using single tree as an indicator for global climate. My opinion is that we do not have good information regarding climate in the past for any policies and any of these arguments should be purely academic.
But since people who claim that we should drop everything and deal with this temperature increase, which is unprecedented based on this ONE really cr*ppy indicator, I and many others feel it is entirely correct to use another, much better indicators, to debunk their claims.
I am happy to know that you agree with me.
[Wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment deleted. -mod]
icouldnthelpit:
Wow. I am speechless. You win. I bow to your superior intellect and debating skills.
/sarc – just in case you are too dense
icouldnthelpit,
Thanks for pointing out an objection that might be raised. Here is the response:
Greenland T rises and falls concurrently with both Arctic and Antarctic T. Since they all rise and fall together, any ice core T can be used to show global temperature trends:
click1
click2
click3
Next, this animation would be a good way to end a presentation.
Finally, this chart shows Mann’s Hokey Stick in perspective. I count at least twenty hockey stick shapes prior to Mann’s.
[motive]
The first and last slides are the best IMHO. The first is particularly spectacular since it shows that we have a ways to go to even reach up to the Permian. The last is better, though I would recommend a line rather than the bar chart. I would also suggest pushing the lower limit on the Y axis down to ca -50-deg. That would span the majority of the range of temperatures experienced by permanent human populations. What is really interesting is that despite the swings in weather, the trend in the line is nearly invisible. You would only see a really detectable shift by pushing the X-axis back to ca. 100 Kya.
Here is how trends in Holocene Arctic temperatures show absolutely no correlation with CO2 concentrations
http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/84051859.png
I have noticed she [ Miriam O’Brien, aka Goddess of HotWhoppers ] predictively clutches onto WUWT commenters who openly are self-critical; self critical in the way Feynman suggested bending over backwards to be a special kind of honest about their own statements. When she sees a WUWT comment like that she offers it as proof that the commenter knows skepticism at WUWT is wrong. She is intellectually so myopic as to seem to border on being a solipsist.
John
Bordering?
Duster:
My first thought, too.
She’s crossed that border…
Why read “hotwhopper” troll site at all! It only encouragers trolls to read and respond.
Ignore their nonsense is the best approach!
Actually there is a tool (http://www.alexa.com) that ranks web traffic.
WUWT ranks as the 12,900th most visited site on the web; hot whopper ranks 295,000th (note: smaller number is better; i.e.: 1st would be the most visited).
Yea, threads like this probably do drive up her site’s miserably low traffic, but even the “enhanced” traffic is still miserably low.
Her “arguments” could be a parody if we didn’t know better. Reminds me of the “Chewbacca” defence in a South Park episode. If you haven’t seen it, OJ Simpsons former lawyer was retained by a record company to sue Chef. It looked like the case was clearly on Chef’s side when the played the Chewbacca defence.
To quote Wiki, the aim of the argument is to completely confuse the other side by making use of the fallacy known as ignoratio elenchi..
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dxwdba9C2G14&ei=Bf9uVNakCNDdsATi4YLgCA&usg=AFQjCNGWMFQKTENAE1u8bNn7JaZo6KnTGw
need to copy and paste the utube link after loading not the search result link
Oops, the link was supposed to appear as a youtube screen like the Wallace and Gromit above.
Presumably this is the Maraiam O’Brien
https://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=157462470&authType=OPENLINK&authToken=7zFP&locale=en_US&srchid=1846580851416562384551&srchindex=10&srchtotal=16&trk=vsrp_people_res_name&trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A1846580851416562384551%2CVSRPtargetId%3A157462470%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary
Raisa Gorbachev the wife of the last president of the Soviet Union, occupied a senior position in the Communist party. Michail Gorbachev recalls in his memoirs how Raisa was critical of how much invective and abuse were directed against the capitalist west. She argued that rationality and logic should prevail without the need of invective.
With hindsight the abusive language of the Marxist idealogs probably sprang from anxiety that they were just about to catastrophically lose the argument. Political developments in the USA, Australia, Canada, India and even Europe suggest that the same is the cause of Miriam’s distress.
So heartrending. Pretty butterflies and cute furry creature are always the ones threatened by Catastrophic Global Climate Change Warming and Disruption. What about the Plankton and protozoa?
Not so pretty and photogenic, so no tugging of heartstrings.
I guess according to Mike Pollard it takes balls to go out in a field and look at butterflies. Using a pencil and taking notes without question takes extraordinary courage. Combat soldiers in the middle east please take note.
A scientist publishes analysis and a conclusion based on a dataset that is purposely not released. The analysis and conclusions is based on a specific data set collected at a specific time so cannot be re-collected due to changing conditions and so the analysis cannot be replicated. Perhaps Mike Pollard will provide Jim a time machine to go back in time and collect the data. The travesty which Mike Bollard is to brilliant to perceive, is that science becomes a mockery if studies are not allowed to be replicated, if other scientists are not allowed the opportunity to disprove the study. We are not talking about a secret formula worth millions for the next anti-aging cream, we are talking raw data. Yes Miriam does own the data and chooses to act like a kid in kindergarten refusing other kids the use of the crayons whining, “They’re my crayons.” Doing this she also chooses, along with dumb as a post Mike Pollard, to make a mockery of science.
BTW props to Mike Pollard for apparently being able to rationalize anything. It would have made him a good prison guard at the concentration camps. Note I did not call him a Nazi, only that if he was a Nazi he would have been able to rationalise it.
Its very sad that Australia produces such scientifically illiterate ignorant adults probably from due to very poor school science teaching started by the politically correct Keating in the 80’s. Flannery, Cook, Wong, Rudd, Brown ect and Universities which used to have a name (ie Qld) basically being degraded to 4th world status
due to left wing dumb teachers and it is getting worse very sad
Actually, most “scientifically illiterate ignorant adults” (your words) do not explicitly chose that status, they simply decided to learn other things (e.g.: English lit, auto mechanic, chef, etc). This is not wrong. It’s ridiculous to assume every citizen has to master every subject. Most simply delegate the conduct of science to what they assume are ethical and properly trained experts.
The problem arises when witch doctors (e.g.: Mann, et al) knowingly and wantonly violate and manipulate that implied trust.
We really don’t have a “science” problem here; we have an integrity & accountability problem.
“In handling a stinging insect, move very slowly.”
— R. A. Heinlein
When at a young age, with leather gloves, you “play fight” with your sisters alley cat.
You quickly learn to recognize the point when it stops “playing”.
When its claws are dug in, it is best to “move very slowly” 🙂
Well done, Jim.
One would think that Sou / Hot Whopper / Miriam would hide her head in shame, issue a mea culpa and even apologize to you, if she were a reasonable, rational and balanced individual.
Her silence speaks volumes.
Kurt in Switzerland
“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.”
I have a hard time understanding this claim. Would it also fail to provide a benefit to science if a discredited paper were withdrawn? Also, if underlying studies were discredited successively would there not be a point where meta-analyses based on them are also discredited?
Hotwhopper — a freshly warmed, thin slice of pseudo-meat between 2 layers of something really thick…
Something is rotten in the state of Victoria…
“Don’t get into a pissing contest with a skunk.”
Thank goodness for drought resistant plants for when the going gets tough
Drought-resistant plants that can be left for the summer – Saga
http://www.saga.co.uk › Lifestyle › Gardening
There are lots of drought-tolerant Mediterranean plants capable of performing in sunny, well-drained positions. … In fact it’s the best butterfly plant you can grow
The Best Drought-Tolerant Perennials
http://www.bhg.com › Gardening › Flowers › Perennials
When summer heat kicks in, rely on these drought-tolerant plants to hold their own — and still look beautiful. … of bright scarlet-red flowers that butterflies and hummingbirds will love as much as you do. It’s a cinch to grow in any sunny spot.
Drought resistant plants and flowers on Pinterest | 28 Pins
http://www.pinterest.com/theglassgarden/drought-resistant-plants-and-flowers/
Cacti are known to be drought resistant plants, meaning they can survive with … very tolerant of poor, dry soils; resistant to lantana lacebugs; attracts butterflies; …
Drought Tolerant Plants for District 29 – Los Angeles County
dpw.lacounty.gov/wwd/web/Documents/DroughtTolerantPlants.pdf
and drought tolerant plants are established in the soil, they’ll … Thrives in full sun. … flowers above evergreen foliage. Butterflies enjoy this plant. Likes sun.
The internet is an incredible tool for sharing information and learning. When there is an exchange of information involving communication from humans, we can often learn a great deal about the personalities of individuals.
Are they friendly, respectful, open minded and sincere for instance or are they mean, hateful, hypocritical and closed minded.
Would we want somebody like that to be our friend, even if we disagreed with them on an important issue?
Is the manner in which they communicate professional? Do they keep their focus on relevant issues without making it personal and without making a personal attack on somebody(s) that they disagree with?
Are they humble or are they arrogant?
Reading thoughts from people on the internet can tell you a great deal about those people.
All WUWT does with these articles is feed validation of a moron and drive traffic to her site. Stop it, please.
Couldn’t agree more. WUWT is the most read science blog on the planet. This blog post does nothing positive but cause a HUGE hit spike at a worthless warmunist site.
There’s always a nit picker in the crowd and this time it’s me.
Petard is an obsolete word for a small bomb or grenade, and the traditional English construction is “hoist,” not hoisted, meaning blown up, by one’s own petard. Don’t ask me why. Just like “worst comes to worst” is good ‘English.
In hoist’s case, for example, Hamlet tells the queen (Act III. sc. 4, ll. 206-207): “For ’tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petar . . .” using an Elizabethan variant spelling.
Just to keep a step ahead of the warmists.
Exactly, what is actually the point of attacking this person then?
There are plenty of nuts on both sides of the climate debate and you will have a never ending job if you are going to attack each of them.
However, there are also some intelligent and well-informed people on each side of the debate. I think it would be more fruitful to comment on some of the latter’s work rather than contributing to more polarizing of the climate debate.
/Jan
The point was not to showcase her insulting abuse, but to show how invalid her arguments were. If Dr. Singer had never replied, then I would have simply continued to ignore lies and insults as I have done in the past. But the opportunity presented itself to go beyond her ad homs and show her argument did not have a scientific leg to stand on. I agree there are intelligent people in both sides of the argument, and we need more sincere debate and critical thinking which was something Sou tries to suppress as made obvious by her post that triggered this reply.
Ok. I’ve read through the comments, I’ve looked at Bob’s new blogsite…
and I’ve gotta say that you folks are wasting WAY TOO MUCH TIME on this woman.
She’s a pimple on a gnat’s ass in terms of traffic etc. I’m actually pissed that I devoted as much time as I did trying to ascertain what all the hub-bub was about.
She’s trying to prolong her 15mins of fame by playing to her audience. Has no bearing on science, nor on civil discourse. You’ll never change this in anyway…so really, move along and let it die. I think you’ve given the whole issue way more credence that it every deserved.
Just IMHO 😉
And Mount Beauty, Victoria is such a peaceful, picturesque, country town situated on the Kiewa River in N E Victoria. It is the jumping-off point for those travelling to the Bogong High Plains and the Falls Creek Ski Field. Initially Mount Beauty was built as the main base camp for the construction of the Kiewa Hydro Electric Scheme built by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria between 1938 and 1961. The scheme was initially planned to have four power stations but due to financial strictures along the way the final station, Bogong Power Station, wasn’t finished until 2009.
If or whenever you quote Shakespeare get it right eh!
“he does not have the male attachments to get out in the field and actually collect data.”
Like, a butterfly net?
I had no idea about this woman or her site. Thanks to the post here I have been and had a good look round. Wow, it is one interesting place. Seems to me the tone is merely a mirror of what is written here, which is what makes it so interesting. Reading the views about a topic from two opposite angles is thoroughly entertaining and enlightening. It is always good to get a balanced view of things and HotWhooper is certainly the counter (in views not size) to WUWT. I for one will be going back to see what she has to say. In my opinion anyone who dismisses her as some crazy old lady (anymore than AW is a crazy old man) hasn’t taken the time to read what she writes. Sure she is rude, direct, opinionated and at times wrong (Im guessing she would admit to all those things)… but hey, she is not alone in that.
Thanks again, my days just got brighter.
ROTFLMAO!
+1. The only practical response to such credulous nonsense. She provides reflexive argument and ad hom abuse only. IF, by chance, she says something that sounds worth thinking about, I have to point out that even a blind Sow finds an acorn now and then… But the trouble is, she accepts nothing but abject fawning, slavish devotion to the Green Religion, as expounded by Sou.
There isn’t a redeeming feature to her site, or her approaapproach to what she thinks is science.
Great post—thanks!
Why ?
If I just stumbled in today, I might say the same thing.
After reading this entire thread, I’m left with the happy conclusion that a post about Ms. O’Bbrien was primarily a discussion of French farts and William Shakespeare. A topic evolution of a high order indeed. No woman is more deserving. This WUWT thread destined for the highlight reel.
Well played, lads and lasses! And a Happy Thanksgiving to all you Americans.
That fine line between dishonesty and insanity is especially blurred over at “Hot Whopper.” –AGF