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.
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 Hartmann – 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/
@ur momisugly 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]
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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