Introducing a New Blog – More on Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper

Guest Post by Bob Tisdale

Link to More on Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper. Please add it to your favorites.

The following is a cross post of the introductory post at MoreOnMiriam’s:

Miriam O’Brien

You can call this new blog a spawn of a spawn, if you like. Miriam O’brien (also known as blogger Sou) was banished from WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) a couple of years ago for being a troll. Since then, her blog HotWhopper has acquired new focuses: authors of the posts at WattsUpWithThat and the visitors there.

In this post, I’m not going to express my opinions on the general debate tactics Miriam O’Brien uses at her blog HotWhopper. If you’ve made it here, you understand. But I will say…

In addition to arguing about the content of a WUWT blog post, Miriam O’Brien had amazed many people with her quoting the comments from the thread and then remarking about them.

But Miriam O’Brien has now reached a new level of rudeness by writing posts, not about the content of the WUWT posts themselves, but solely about the comments on threads. The following are two (archived) examples:

Please understand I’m not defending the comments Miriam has chosen, and I definitely am NOT agreeing with her. I simply find her tactic incredibly rude. It’s that new level of rudeness that prompted me to create this blog.

The comments are open here [at MoreOnMiriam’s]. I am not going to moderate each comment, but comments with 3 or more links will be held for moderation, so keep that in mind. In fact, there may be many threads on which I elect not to comment. Anyone is welcome to comment, but remember, if you have to rely on ad homs and rudeness, you’ve lost the argument. Not only are comments open to visitors at WattsUpWithThat, they’re also open to those who normally visit Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper. As I said before, anyone is welcome to comment.

Every day I will wander over to HotWhopper and I will prepare a very simple blog post. The title of my blog post will be the same as Miriam O’Brien’s at HotWhopper, but I’ll preface it with “Miriam O’Brien says”. The content of my blog post will then be very simple. I’ll list and link the WUWT blog post Miriam has chosen to argue about. Then I’ll provide a link to an archived version of Miriam’s post. Visitors here at MoreOnMiriamO’Brien’s can then read Miriam O’Brien’s post without sending her any traffic. Bloggers from WUWT can also see if Miriam O’Brien has chosen to attack their comments.

I will end each post with (in boldface):

The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links. Please refrain from ad hominem comments.

See the first post:

Miriam O’Brien says: Deniers are weird at WUWT. ENSO is a BoM conspiracy!

That’s it. A nice, simple format. A place is now open for people from WUWT and HotWhopper to communicate directly with one another.

Y’all have a nice day, now.

Bob Tisdale

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 21, 2014 10:29 am

Trolling a troll blog?
Troll-ception! !!
Bob don’t you have anything better to do? (Asking )

Reply to  omnologos
November 21, 2014 10:42 am


Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 21, 2014 2:00 pm

The woman’s sole motivation is an evidently desperate need for attention. She has no data or interest in it. Feed the troll and the troll will thrive.

Bryan A
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 21, 2014 4:26 pm

Interesting concept but they misspelled moron

Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 21, 2014 5:58 pm

“The woman’s sole motivation is an evidently desperate need for attention. “
With a blog named ‘Hot Whopper’ it isn’t difficult to imagine what sort of attention she’s looking for, is it?

Bryan A
Reply to  Michael Palmer
November 21, 2014 8:20 pm

Obviously trying to influence the hungry masses.

Reply to  omnologos
November 21, 2014 10:43 am

It is kind of amusing.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 1:12 pm

Hmmm….what are the chances your miriam blog gets a higher ranking than hers? Since you are using archived versions of her rants, if I need to read any of her vitriol, I will go to your place instead.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 2:06 pm

It’s a bit sad really. She can’t follow simple arguments. She doesn’t understand sarcasm. She isn’t at all entertaining.
I read this comment on one of mine (I’m searching my own name like a diva).

M Courtney says that one can use pseudoscience to teach children how to distinguish it from real science. Perhaps he’s just wanting to up the traffic to WUWT.
November 8, 2014 at 11:38 am
Surely science is a process not a catechism?
Why doesn’t she call for the “wrong” science to be presented and then debunked with numerous validated models of how the climate works, graphs of the correlation of GHG emissions with Global temperatures and, of course, the obvious methods of distinguishing anthropogenic from natural effects?
Wouldn’t that teach the young Texans how to spot pseudoscience and confront it thorough out the lives?

Explaining the joke: If she is worried about pseudoscience she ought to want to teach people how to spot it. She believe this is pseudoscience (apparently).
So I suggested it could be debunked publicly – rather than the “bad” books burnt.
The joke being that it could only be debunked if it really was pseudoscience. Obviously it isn’t so easy to debunk. It’s called irony.
Plan B: Censorship is A-OK (copyright Hot Whopper)!

carbon bigfoot
Reply to  omnologos
November 29, 2014 7:25 am

Someone should introduce her to Jeff Dunham’s Walter, another foul mouth puppet.

Greg Woods
November 21, 2014 10:37 am

Is this worth your time?

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 12:44 pm

If nothing else it should be interesting to see what the definition of “exchanging pleasantries” ends up being.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 1:49 pm

No, you have to think about it too. it is certainly more than 2 minutes of your time. But even the 2 min day of your time is 730 minutes of your year.

November 21, 2014 10:38 am

“The War of the Blogs.”
Or would it be “Blog Wars”

Reply to  trafamadore
November 21, 2014 12:45 pm

WoBs Blog?

November 21, 2014 10:40 am

A blog about a blog about a blog. At least I think I got that one right, eh, but no further comment is needed, for sure.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 12:39 pm

That’s called (or /. to us compsci types) 🙂
Kind of funny and amusing in a twisted sort of way. I’ll be drinking before reading it to make sure my comments are up to par (or is that down to par???)

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 4:32 pm

Have the slashdot kiddies by now realized AGW is a hoax? I stopped going there some time in 2000.

Reply to  JimS
November 21, 2014 12:12 pm

“A blog about a blog about a blog.”
Actually, a blog about a blog about commenters about a blog. It’s the bashing of commenters which seems to have been the trigger… and I’m being generous in saying “about commenters” when the most factual information may be the commenter’s name.

Reply to  AnonyMoose
November 21, 2014 1:14 pm

That’s worse that the intro to “The Brady Bunch”.

Reply to  AnonyMoose
November 21, 2014 9:36 pm

Trashing commenters is actually not a bad strategy if your intention is to draw attention to yourself. Trolls do it all the time. Why not turn it into a blog? A troll blog, the place where everyone knows everyone else is a troll and where everyone knows there is nothing else to do but troll.

Reply to  JimS
November 21, 2014 9:05 pm

Like Seinfeld, a show about nothing!

Reply to  JimS
November 22, 2014 7:37 am

“A blog about a blog about a blog.”
Yes, moderated by Bob Bloblog. 🙂

Richard M
November 21, 2014 10:40 am

Narcissists really, really hate it when they are mocked. Should be interesting.

Reply to  Richard M
November 21, 2014 11:11 am

How many narcissists are involved here?

Chip Javert
Reply to  JimS
November 21, 2014 7:12 pm

(My response is for you; I hope this comment shows up in the proper sequence).
You assumed “Richard M’s narcissistic comment targeted you; he may have intended that. However, I don’t agree.
You invest time and intelligence creating analysis, and you defend it rather well. You generally hang around long enough to respond to challenges and questions (all you require is dissenters quote exact passages they take issue with).
That’s not narcissistic, that’s a craftsman who take pride in his work and is willing to intellectually (not emotionally) defend it.
I hope you keep it up.

Dave in Canmore
November 21, 2014 10:40 am

I prefer to read the wuwt contrarians rather then her nonsense. Even when I can do so without donating traffic to her site!

Ian H
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 11:54 am

I understand the desire for a place out of Miriam’s control to respond to Miriam’s nastiness, and the need for archiving when you are dealing with someone who cannot be trusted not to retroactively edit. But aren’t there copyright issues here? How are you doing the archiving?
You’ve now gone on the record as saying one reason for the archiving is to avoid sending traffic to her site. Traffic is money these days. A court might take a dim view.

Ian H
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 12:00 pm

Ahah! I see later down the thread you comment that Miriam is doing the same thing and was doing it first. That should help.

November 21, 2014 10:48 am

Enough of this! Ignore the person. They have little traffic.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 11:35 am

I hesitate to say that your recognition of her libel and disinformation validates it to some extent; you’re acknowledging her existence. I type Anthony Watts to get here due to the proliferation of websites with alternate spellings intended to divert us from wuwt, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to acknowledge these Trojan horses.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 21, 2014 12:27 pm

Yes. I truly don’t understand the obsession of some bloggers with some otherwise insignificant characters and/or other bloggers. The more you talk about a moron, the more onward the moron goes (sorry about this one).

November 21, 2014 10:49 am

I personally wouldn’t give her any oxygen. She craves this kind of publicity, and it gives her traffic. Better to let her blog cater to her handful of crazy misfits. JMHO.

Solomon Green
Reply to  dbstealey
November 21, 2014 11:08 am

I agree with dbstealey. It is not as if she has any semblance of scientific knowledge, unless one rates a BA in agriculture as relevant. She appears, however, to be a successful management consultant who might hope that her blogging will get her more business from those who read “climate change” sites.
She may be right about that. After all I am just one sucker who bothered to waste my time in looking her up.

Reply to  Solomon Green
November 21, 2014 11:30 am

Solomon, there are many who have an Agricultural qualification too and weirdly enough it has a lot of science based subjects and a few relative add ons like weather. So they would consider themselves as science trained even if not a true scientist and the subject does prepare you for a lot of climate based discussions. I am definitely not protecting her, she doesnt deserve it but to defame farmers like this just because of her qualification isnt right

Reply to  Solomon Green
November 21, 2014 11:52 am

I also agree with dbstealey. Just let it be, let it be ….
Bob Tisdale, you’ve shown us that you have value at analyzing broad substantive climate focused science phenomenon. Do not swat at midges like the Goddess of HotWhoppers.

Reply to  Solomon Green
November 21, 2014 1:30 pm

I agree with dbstealy, also. The woman is best ignored. You are giving her what she craves. I wonder why WUWT pays her any mind. You will defile yourself with pitch. Foolishness.

Solomon Green
Reply to  Solomon Green
November 22, 2014 6:10 am

My apologies to farmers of whom, briefly, I once was. I had been under the impression that a first degree in Agriculture, as opposed to one in Agronomy, was as defined currently by the University of New England, “A practical orientated degree, students are provided with the tools necessary to understand the implications of land use and management change on agricultural productivity. Once armed with the basic knowledge to understand agricultural systems, graduates are able to continue on to further study in specific areas of interest.”
I had not realised that in some universities a B. Sc. in agriculture had morphed. But I see that the University of Queensland advertises, “As an agricutlural [sic] scientist, you will apply your knowledge of scientific, technological, management, economic, environemental [sic] and social principles to major challenges, such as climate change and food security, to ensure the sustainable production of food and fibre for global consumption.”
So I suppose that there may be some room for the science of agronomy in its courses even though there does not seem to be much room left after the essential political indoctrination.

Reply to  dbstealey
November 21, 2014 1:24 pm

Oh c’mon DB, I need some laughs over the day and you guys give a few over time, perhaps we could ramp up the laugh factor and give poor Sue a few jabs in the ribs?

Reply to  dbstealey
November 21, 2014 1:47 pm

That’s why it is great to be able to read her rantings at Tisdale’s new blog without giving her traffic. Love to throw them in the face of alarmists and ask if they agree.

Chip Javert
Reply to  dbstealey
November 21, 2014 7:24 pm

dbstealey offers good advice.
However, sometimes it is productive to haul intellectual slime like Sou (Sue, Sow, Miriam, whatever) out into the bright sunshine so they wither and die. It’s a judgement call.

David Norman
November 21, 2014 10:52 am

Dear Bob, I’m an avid enthusiastic reader of WUWT and according to my dear wife, spend far too much head-time at this place in the cyber cloud each day. My question to you is, what and how might I make an adequate comment which could induce Miriam to quote me on HotWhopper? While I very seldom comment on WUWT, perhaps only to offer correction to an obvious arithmetic error, somehow gaining inclusion in Miriam’s club of skeptic infamy on HotWhopper has a quite strange compelling merit in my thoughts. This despite the fact that I normally have a quite Marxist (Groucho Marx-ist that is) inclination in this respect, of not wanting to be part of any club that would have me as a member. Any suggestions as to an approach would be much appreciated.
David Norman, Rogue Primate of Bloomfield

Joel O'Bryan
November 21, 2014 11:08 am

Woooo Hoooo!!! I made Dame Whooper’s list as a ()enier I feel privileged to be on the anti-stupid list on Bob’s new Blog!!
Joel, in quite comfortable Tucson, Arizona

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 22, 2014 1:28 am

YOU! YYOOUU dang lucky guy!! I’ve trying a few times now but I don’t even get past the registration part!

David Norman
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 22, 2014 8:15 am

Dear Joel, thank you for your righteous condecending remark to my post. In your Tucson comfort zone you have successfully captured the peurile absurdity of my rhetoric, much as this blog entry is attempting to address in respect to HotWhopper. Admittedly, I haven’t yet really grasped the relevance of this narrative, but then again, just this morning I thought of at least five impossible climate change heuristics before breakfast. Is there a club/organization for “anti-stupid”?… and a dress code? as my current wardrobe was purchased at my local farm store.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  David Norman
November 22, 2014 8:08 pm

Why yes Dave, there is. My blog remark above is not a reply to your remark. Note the lack of indentation. Be well my friend. And stay warm in the coming Global Cooling.

November 21, 2014 11:15 am

It’s very frustrating to observe sick people trying to bury the truth with their lies, but allowing them to confiscate time that you would use to do good work is equivalent to condoning any damage they’re doing. No hits on her website is a good way to go, and infuriating a narcissist is a good way to push them off the edge to toxic self-destruction, though. I see links to her site in comments, so she’s definitely communicating her disease.

Doug S
November 21, 2014 11:15 am

It is instructive to see a clear example of how the “cause” has become a religious experience for otherwise good people. For those of us fortunate enough to have received a world class education in science, we were shown how throughout human history people clung to religious and pagan beliefs before the scientific method was understood. Even though we are now living in the age of science and unprecedented understanding of the physical world, the old habits and emotional fears of human beings remain strong in many people. Miriam and others like her miss the point of science, human curiosity and the scientific method. They’re stuck in a state of fear after hearing witchdoctors like Al Gore telling them they will be drowned under 20 feet of water. They can’t escape the fear so they turn to religion for salvation and defend it vigorously.

November 21, 2014 11:16 am

Let me capture the proposed plan with some mirth (but not entirely mirthful).
‘WUWT’ is the sound source; it is the given content.
‘HotWhoppers’ by Miriam O’Brien is Echo One; a biased echoing of WUWT.
‘MoreOnMiriamO’Brien’s’ by Bob Tisdale is Echo Two; an analyzed echo of Echo One.
Then we can have Echo Three periodically at WUWT posting how Echo One & Echo Two are doing? Then Echo One and Echo Two would comment on Echo Three’s comment about them . . . ad infinitum & ad nauseam

Reply to  John Whitman
November 21, 2014 12:54 pm

I’ll be interested to see what the RT60 ends up being.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  John Whitman
November 21, 2014 6:30 pm

Sounds like a negative feedback.

November 21, 2014 11:25 am

O, the hominemity!
I’d rather read Bob’s grocery list than anything to do with…oh, fudge, I’ve forgotten her name.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
November 21, 2014 7:49 pm

Me too. I tend to lose interest in a stinking bug, especially after it was thoroughly squashed.

November 21, 2014 11:29 am

Bob, you performing the ultimate example of troll feeding. Let it go, Bob. The horse is dead.
You are brilliant, effective and orders of magnitude brighter, more interesting, not to mention the fact that you are not insane.
Let it go.

Reply to  hunter
November 21, 2014 2:42 pm

Exactly, I couldn’t agree more.
Bob, do some soul searching. Why do you need her approval of what YOU say.

Reply to  Scarface
November 22, 2014 1:31 am

+ 100

November 21, 2014 11:31 am

Hmmm. Bob, I’m not sure it’s legal to archive someone else’s blog posts and make them available to all and sundry to prevent her from getting traffic. I’m sure I wouldn’t want it to happen to me. Further it could create problems for WUWT since you cross posted it here. Archive them sure, but only use them if you need to show changes made later.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 12:07 pm

Well, I’m not your papa, but nobody would want to waste money suing her but there might be some people who would be interested in suing you or WUWT and would bankroll it.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 12:14 pm

Her deleting content from her site is a good reason to use archived versions.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 1:47 pm


Reply to  daved46
November 21, 2014 11:54 am

I think you can republish a portion of a blog post under fair-use rules without permission.
That said, I have no interest in reading Miz O’Brien’s blog. I guess it is useful to know just how crazy the religious Climatists are, but a little bit goes a long way. As it is, I can’t find the time to read all the interesting posts and long comment threads here on WUWT.
/Mr Lynn

Bert Walker
November 21, 2014 11:40 am

Bob let it go. She is not worthy of our attention, or time. She is an empty shell that has been accumulating putridness her entire life. She is not worthy of your caring. Let her swim in her own sewage. Just hold your nose and walk away.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Bert Walker
November 21, 2014 12:05 pm

Agree. Aging women such as her are upset because they don’t like the way the look as they age and they don’t like that they no longer receive attention from men so they become bitter old hags. It’s just that in this electronic age she is able satisfy herself by reading her own bullspit thinking it is making a difference. Leave her to her own self importance.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 21, 2014 1:04 pm

You’re just trying to get a picked comment, aren’t you?

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 21, 2014 1:57 pm

Now, now, Tom, that’s not nice at all. That kind of male chauvinist stereotyping should not be necessary. And who knows, maybe she is a lovely person with a court of admiring males? Who knows if she does not shed her nasty blog-personality the moment her fingers leave the keyboard? Stranger things have happened.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 21, 2014 6:12 pm

November 21, 2014 at 1:04 pm
“You’re just trying to get a picked comment, aren’t you?”
Who? Me? 🙂

Robert W Turner
November 21, 2014 11:47 am

I would have no idea that this garbage existed if it weren’t for the recent obsession about her. I’ll choose to ignore the hag and her vitriolic blog. In the end she’ll be just another rat that jumps from the CAGW ship and then disappears.

November 21, 2014 11:49 am

Note about her responding to comments on the posts: If you’re aware of a blog named “Legal Insurrection”, which I find to be a witty look at Law and the Criminal Justice system, among other things, and which is written by lawyers, then you’ll know that the IRS has been doing the same thing. Yes – the IRS has not only admitted, but made a point of showing that even though it claims it has a tight budget, it has hired people to spend their time reading the comments section of any blogger that criticized the agency. (who knows, they may be reading these, too – the Great Eye never sleeps, after all)
Sounds unbelievable, but its true – LI and it’s allies have also been engaged in some large FOI (Freedom of Information Act) filings, trying to shake loose some documents that the IRS doesn’t want the public to see (gee, I wonder why???) and in a court filing, the IRS cited some anonymous COMMENTS made on the requestor’s blog as a “justification” for not turning over the documents.
I suppose petty, nasty minds think alike.

Reply to  wws
November 22, 2014 4:39 am

off-topic, but I couldn’t resist:
the Great Eye never sleeps, plus
they can’t find whoever’s behind, say, Cryptolocker
the Great Eye IS Cryptolocker
that, or the Great Eye ain’t nearly as great as its PR.

November 21, 2014 11:51 am

Didn’t make the cut. Maybe I’m not too extreme in her eyes. The Guardian disagrees.
Shall we try to observe how Google – with it’s anti-sceptic bias – handles searches for this reflections on reflections?

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 1:25 pm

Thanks. I did that . She really is a bit paranoid, isn’t she? It’s strange that she thinks I must be paid to post here. Obviously, I’m not; who would pay for this? But she expects that anyone who comments as much as I do must be paid.
Pretty much a confession there on her part.
However, she seems conflicted about me. For example this quote of hers:

M Courtney doesn’t usually babble meaningless nonsense, but p’raps he thinks he’ll reflect the tone of the “essay”, so he says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:48 am
It’s CO2…
It’s the Sun…
It’s the Oceans…
It’s all and none of these. Just because the redistribution of heat from ocean currents is consistent with polar temperature observations does not mean it is the sole or even dominant cause.
Climate is complex.

Ok, she thinks I don’t “usually babble meaningless nonsense”. But she can’t seem to understand that some things are not basic physics. Not a deep thinker, at that time.
So her compliment is not of great weight. Sigh.
Having said that, she did pick out the time I was misled and thus insulted Richard Betts. I was wrong then. But I think her claim that I should have apologised four times – not just twice as I did – was a trifle hypocritical

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 1:31 pm

Ooh… see this quote I’m in.

..(eg Greg Goodman, Pamela Gray and M Courtney). These are people who tend towards being “lukewarmer” deniers…

“Lukewarmer” and a Denier!
Greg Goodman, Pamela Gray, can you tell me how we achieved this rare double?

Reply to  MCourtney
November 21, 2014 12:05 pm

About a month ago when there was a post here on her, I checked whether Miriam (aka WUWT Echo One) had shown my comments and commented on them at her site. She had written up and commented on a half dozen or so of my WUWT comments over the past year or so.
Don’t worry it will be your turn eventually. : )

November 21, 2014 11:56 am

HotWhopper? I wonder what kind of traffic she is trolling for?

Reply to  M Simon
November 21, 2014 2:02 pm

Are not all hamburgers hot?

Reply to  M Simon
November 21, 2014 2:10 pm

The Urban Dictionary can straighten you out on that, Simon.

Reply to  M Simon
November 22, 2014 1:42 am

Hey, maybe she works for a Mexican BurgerKing franchise?

November 21, 2014 11:56 am

She looks such a lovely old grandma, appearances can be deceptive I suppose.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Julian
November 21, 2014 12:19 pm

Dame Whopper is the type of female who reminds me of the CND women who used to camp-out around RAF Greenham Common in the mid-80s protesting the GLCM. The CND women washed, bathed au’ naturel, in the warmer months out in the open, at their campsites around the fence and at the gates. When we left the base in a convoy to train at Salisbury Plain, they would come out like trolls and throw things and yell. We just laughed. The poor MOD police though had to actually deal with them, which made me sympathetic to the MOD police for having to deal with their antics. I laughed at the the CND women then, and now I laugh at Dame Whopper too.

Reply to  Julian
November 21, 2014 4:47 pm

I did an search for deceptive villainesses. This is what I found:

Reply to  Johanus
November 22, 2014 1:38 am


Reply to  Julian
November 22, 2014 1:43 am

Snowhite’s wicket aunt (or what ever)

Nigel S
November 21, 2014 11:59 am

I find the constant assumption that people who disgree with her are mentally ill hard to square with her directorship of a charity caring for people with mental health problems.
That and implying that I have a “feeble intellect” and am therefore, I assume, a suitable candidate for the Gaswagen.

Reply to  Nigel S
November 21, 2014 1:13 pm

And what about the comments here implying that she is mentally ill (there is one just a few posts below this).

Reply to  jimmi_the_dalek
November 21, 2014 1:50 pm

I’ve been posting for a while that the CAGW meme is sufficiently out of touch with the reality of what is empirically known about climate science to be considered a mental illness. If the shoe fits?

Reply to  jimmi_the_dalek
November 21, 2014 2:08 pm

Yes, there seems to be a more equal need for ad hominems in both camps than we might like to believe. One should take note and keep a civil tone, it is so easy to sneer and smear. Reading some of the comments here, I get a distinct feeling of “There but for the grace of God go I…”

Nigel S
Reply to  jimmi_the_dalek
November 22, 2014 1:04 am

Gaswagen and Exterminate! v. good. Your ‘whataboutery’ is misguided however. One comment a few posts down against the constant theme of the blog author over there. Also it’s unlikely that the commenter below is a director of a mental health charity.

David the Voter
Reply to  jimmi_the_dalek
November 22, 2014 3:27 pm is the name of the charity she is on the board of. She is based close the the albury-wodonga chapter of that charity. Not for me to comment on her mental health, but the way she consistently attacks the brains of contributors to her blog is inconsistent with the behaviour expected of someone who is on the board of a charity that assists people with physical and mental disabilities. I wonder what would happen if this was bought to the attention of the charity or the local newspaper? The time stamp on her blog indicates she sits up all night, I imagine her seething and ranting in the physical loneliness, her face lit up by the glow of her screen in an otherwise dark room, masses of cat hair on every surface, unwashed dishes piled high, feeling very proud of her latest insult to her opponents, but that’s just my imagination. I’m up in Mt Beauty next weekend. I sincerely hope I don’t have the misfortune of seeing her, or worse, actually hearing something come out of her mouth.

November 21, 2014 12:00 pm

What’s her scientific background?

Bill Jamison
November 21, 2014 12:06 pm

I certainly don’t have enough interest in what she writes or what comments are posted at her blog to read a blog about her and her supporters.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 1:34 pm

I stumbled on her site a few months ago, and gave up after a few days, even though I was one of the “weird lot” she quoted.
I can see the humor of what you’re doing, but surely, there are more amusing things in life.

Epiphron Elpis
November 21, 2014 12:22 pm

[snip – Epiphron Elpis is yet another David Appell sockpuppet.]

Bill 2
November 21, 2014 12:25 pm

You are really obsessed with her.

November 21, 2014 12:26 pm

just ignore her…what is the point! a troll deserves no recognition at all!

November 21, 2014 12:37 pm

I had never visited this woman’s site until a few moments ago. It took me less that 5 minutes read to establish for myself that this is a person to simply ignore. It quickly became apparent to me that there is real mental illness in this woman as evidenced by her responses to people. She clearly is mentally unbalanced and not worth the time to read or respond to her personal attacks and gross distortions of others’ posted opinions The very definition of an internet troll includes the desire of the troll to emotionally upset people and derive pleasure from the provoked emotional responses. She clearly seems to enjoy doing just that. It is sadistic behavior. I’d wager she was banned as a troll from others’ sites and started her own blog to feed her obsession, not with climate alarmism, but with her insatiable need to hurt others emotionally. Were I you, I’d not spend another minute even acknowledging her existence. She is a very sick and disgusting human being. I certainly will not be reading anything more in connection with her.

Mr. Ed
Reply to  Don Perry
November 21, 2014 1:36 pm

I agree…..

Reply to  Mr. Ed
November 22, 2014 1:45 am

+ 100

November 21, 2014 12:41 pm

Better would be a What’s Up with James Inhofe? blog.

November 21, 2014 12:49 pm

I agree with the other posters that she deserves no attention. I can’t imagine that many could stand much of her pathetic rants before checking out.
Misery loves company but it’s not the company I want to keep.

November 21, 2014 12:58 pm

Cherry picking comments from a blog instead of actual articles on a blog to make your case is really low-life, bottom feeder type stuff, but is the kind of thing politcial operatives do. I am really not sure Miriam’s intellect & integrity is worth 2 cents nor the time of day.
Miriam is deceiving and misleading and if Bob feels compelled to address her dishonesty, then Gods speed as the expression goes.

Mike Maguire
November 21, 2014 12:59 pm

Stop taking it so personal Bob. It’s hard to sit back and do nothing when somebody is doing their darndest to tarnish your reputation and destroy your credibility.
In some realms, there are legal options but not in this case. Sometimes the best action is no action.
A few months ago, I paid that site a friendly visit. When the sharks started feeding and attacking, bringing up some of the articles that I’d written for our local newspaper and elsewhere and making other suggestions regarding my background and education……….I chipped in and provided them with more sources to find out stuff about me.
I’m proud of my career, knowledge, position on climate change and involvement in non profit organizations for 20 years, including volunteer chess coach at 4 schools. I welcome anybody to attempt to discredit me or show that I’m not a person of honor/integrity and treat all human beings with deep respect.
Let your actions and behavior speak for you. Don’t get caught up in this silliness.

Mike Maguire
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 1:48 pm

“I am simply providing a place where bloggers from here and there can exchange comments directly…those who want to”
I don’t see how anything positive or constructive will result from this as we both know that “exchange of ideas” only takes place when there is at least some objectivity, and willingness to listen and a basic amount of respect for those exchanging the ideas.
I see just the opposite in this case, which is a recipe for escalating the negatives.
I enjoy and have learned some things from your many posts here. You’re not asking for my advise but you should use your time more productively………the way you have been.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
November 21, 2014 2:14 pm

Easy folks, if you don’t like what she writes, ignore.
If you don’t like Tisdale’s new blog, ignore. No need to make a big fuss about it.
For my part, I appreciate the chance of reading this weird stuff without giving her traffic, so thanks Mr. Tisdale. But to comment endlessly about whether creating this new blog is a right thing to do or not, seems a waste of time for both the writer and the reader.

November 21, 2014 1:09 pm

This makes 5 or 6 articles now on Sou and/or HotWhopper. Isn’t this getting just a bit obsessive?

November 21, 2014 1:20 pm

Shirley, you must be joking.
Alexa Traffic Rank
Global: 295,192
United Kingdom: 44,105
Sites Linking In: 213
Global: 12,604
United States: 11,368
Sites Linking In: 5,251

November 21, 2014 1:26 pm

This is a pretty common tactic of people who don’t have anything to bring to the debate. Her comments are really not aimed at those making the comments here. They are aimed at those in her echo chamber that read her screed about us in order to keep their “believers” in line. The message is “these people are crazy and must not be listened to” and the secondary message is “if you listen to them, it makes you crazy too, so don’t be crazy, stay in line here”.
It is basically out of fear and it is defensive in nature. It is the same thing that leads people in politics to say things about people who hold different views. For example, a minority or female holding more conservative political views might be chided as being “crazy” or not a “real” member of that minority or not a “real” woman. The idea is really to send a message to the others of those groups that if they take on those views, they themselves will be “crazy” or somehow a traitor to their gender or race.
It’s how you manipulate people when you have no actual argument to make.

Christopher Hanley
November 21, 2014 1:28 pm

Oh please, I’m sick of the sight of the tilty-head harridan.
Stop it.

November 21, 2014 1:35 pm

As much as I detest her lies and fabrications, I would not give her that much attention either. She is just a two bit player. Every now pushback is required because she spams the internet with lies. But much of her rudeness is theatre with the sole purpose of drawing attention to her pitiful blog which only draws a small smattering of 5 or 6 skeptic bashers spouting unsupported hatred, plus a few of her internet alter egos to push the tirades. While many argue we should ignore her completely, I suggest we we sparingly pick our hills to defend when her ignorance and hatred is undeniable, and otherwise let her insipid blather fade into the empty ether

Mr. Ed
November 21, 2014 1:38 pm

I thought Hot Pocket and a funny sketch….

November 21, 2014 1:38 pm

Really? Why dignify this troll’s nonsense by responding to it in any way?

Mr. Ed
November 21, 2014 1:39 pm

Reply to  Mr. Ed
November 21, 2014 4:45 pm

Please stop. The marsupial connotations are getting too surreal and I just cleaned the microwave.

Reply to  Mr. Ed
November 21, 2014 8:15 pm

I guess it must be the Fireside Angel breaking through, complete with marsupial hot pocket and green hangers-on. 🙂

Man Bearpig
November 21, 2014 1:49 pm

I made a comment on your site Bob, Reading some comments here, i think she us just fishing for traffic. Let the site rot. IMHO I think she just wants to be as popular as Anthony and you. But that kind of accolade needs respect and that is something she lacks.

November 21, 2014 1:51 pm

Do you suppose she’ll complain about the earlier article headed by her picture with the caption “climate ugliness” on it?

November 21, 2014 1:51 pm

There is a fine line between responding and refuting self-evident garbage and feeding the troll. Don’t waste too much time on this person please. Your time and resources surely must have a better use.

November 21, 2014 1:54 pm

i can’t get worked up over Mariam’s blogs – its’ the typical back and forth between opposing sides – i don’t see a intolerable level of rudeness in her choice to include WUWT comments – i too find the comments following an article interesting in that they represent a cross section of opinions – many are badly written – many are caught up and twisted by emotion – but others are well thought out – some are naive (guilty – your honor) – some highly sophisticated
interestingly – mariam didn’t pick the most outrageous comments – among the ones she chose were some sensible ones – she picked them cuz they incensed her – so – along with her short inadequate retorts – they reflect well on WUWT commenters
WUWT should thank her for the publicity – alarmists who avolid WUWT get a taste of WUWT ideas

Robert B
Reply to  John Eyon
November 21, 2014 4:20 pm

She betrays her own ineptitude in science by singling out the comments. Readers do not think of them as divination from authority but personal thoughts and opinions. Nobody reads them as the sceptics’ side of the debate. Even people who don’t doubt the positive feedback are deniers! There is no team.

Reply to  Robert B
November 21, 2014 6:33 pm

She singles out the comments purely for their entertainment value!

Robert B
Reply to  Robert B
November 21, 2014 7:03 pm

“kk16085 might not be completely off his rocker:….. Destroying the mother Earth is not by humans but those few who are exploiting it for super profit! ”
I suspect that’s purely for propaganda value.
“TimC mistakenly thinks he is writing to a sentient being and asks, in vain:”
That;s being bitchy and is definitely for her own amusement.

David Blake
November 21, 2014 1:56 pm

Bob, She really isn’t worth your time. She gets 10-20 comments a post. By drawing attention to her you’ve boosted her readership (and her self-importance) 100-fold.

Andrew S
November 21, 2014 1:58 pm

I just spent five minutes on Miriams site and I left – forever. Her comments on her own guest comments struck me as strident and rather mean spirited. I suspect few people who visit her site (from either side of the debate) will see it as worthy of revisiting. I think that is enough. Less oxygen is often the best approach for these situations.

November 21, 2014 1:59 pm

I’ll be happy when the two pictures of this woman have dropped off the front page of WUWT.
That picture reminds me of an even more nasty version of Bea Arthur.

November 21, 2014 2:13 pm

There’s a superfluous ‘e’ in the blog title.

Steve in Seattle
November 21, 2014 2:30 pm

Do NOT waste your time on her, OR, her postings – she is an empty vessel . Many bricks short of a full load. Never came back from lunch. Dazed, confused and lost.

November 21, 2014 2:38 pm

Sorry, Bob. Waste of my time to read such drivel.

November 21, 2014 2:58 pm

A new “Drum/ABC” poll
Was Foreign Minister Julie Bishop justified in her comments about US President Barack Obama’s speech on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef?
Please feel free to vote 🙂

November 21, 2014 3:20 pm

If you wrestle a pig, you both get covered in mud, but the pig likes it. Just sayin’

November 21, 2014 3:45 pm

I was going to make the observation that Ms. O’Brian’s blog is something of a “remora” blog, living off the success of the much more successful WUWT. But that would make WUWT a “shark” blog and MOMOH. . . well, I guess an endoparasite blog. Perhaps like a tapeworm. (Sigh) Metaphors can be so obstreperous.
With luck her blog will just direct more traffic to blogs like WUWT and Mr. Tisdale’s. Something like a “reverse barometer”.
There go those metaphors again.

Paul Coppin
November 21, 2014 3:49 pm

No idea why you would waste your time. And why allow comments in the first place? The only purpose for such a blog would be to refute her asinine perspectives, and you don’t need a comment field for that – just write the facts. She’ll have to take exception in her own blog. You’re trying to put lipstick on a pig, and it still won’t result in a date..
It will consume far more of your time than you think. Because it will be basically two mobs yelling across the street at one another, you’ll have to referee, and because of the nature of the dialogue, you may have to do it in court. You’re guaranteed to drive traffic to her site, which will make her money if she figures it out, and voila, you wind up with another Ariana Huffnpuff.. .
Ask yourself – do you really want to waste more of your valuable time with people who have nothing better to do than sit at their computers all day and bitch about the neighbourhood? You can educate the uninformed, but you can’t fix stupid. That’s Darwin’s job.

Reply to  Paul Coppin
November 21, 2014 3:53 pm

Maybe the idea is that encouraging such a wally into the front line will weaken their defences?
I don’t approve.
It’s not worth claiming victory because you can out-debate Sou.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  MCourtney
November 21, 2014 4:51 pm

MCourtney Hi.
I may be wrong,but I think Bob Tisdale is up to something other than out debating Sou. He plans on corrupting her followers. They are the target. Think about it, an open forum no Sou to control the debate, to block information to her readers. They come to this venue determined to setting straight the ignorant sceptics yes? And what will they find. You all of you, reasonable intelligent human beings. Bob I think is planning of converting Sou’s followers. It would be fun.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  MCourtney
November 21, 2014 8:42 pm

thank you for responding.Bob, Well that assumption crashed and burned. I have been a lurker for over a year, and have learned a great deal from you. Thank you. And its simple mike or michael. I just alway liked H.G. Wells

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  MCourtney
November 22, 2014 8:23 pm

You should enjoy working your way through the usual Bob Tisdale 20-figure photon torpedo salvo of data figure post broadside just to obliterate any notion of CAGW alarmism.

November 21, 2014 4:26 pm

Tried looking at some of the links provided. It’s too confusing to get involved with comments on her blog or the new blog – just too hard to keep track about who said what and why.

November 21, 2014 4:45 pm

omg. this interweb thingy is doing my head in.
in the olden days, we would go around to Miriams gaff and wee on her flowers

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
November 21, 2014 4:53 pm

Bob, I tried but could not develop an interest in reading anything from the HW blog. It all seemed rather pointless and petty. I have trouble enough with keeping an eye on NOAA/CPC take on ENSO probabilities. No interest in BOM either, they are a bit too far away from the west coast. I just wish we would have a darn El Nino.
Just spent two weeks in Hawaii on the Big Island enjoying the after affects of a lot of rain over the past several months, everything greened up and lush looking especially on the dry side of the island, They have certainly experienced and insipient El Nino but driving back across California into Nevada last night and this morning those effects have not reached the west coast. Just a dusting of snow in the high mountains, Looks like another dry winter coming for the west coast.
As of November 17th, NOAA/CPC still giving it 58% odds happening though.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
November 21, 2014 5:46 pm

Cold Side,
You write “…still giving it 58% odds…”
This number is part of a monthly update on the first Thursday.
The next one should be posted on December 4th.
At least I think that is what they do.
Dry Side John (but getting rained on right now)
east of the Cascade Crest in Washington State

Mike from the cold side of the Sierra
November 21, 2014 4:55 pm

dry winter coming for California, the northern states have a much greater chance at getting wet this winter.

November 21, 2014 5:09 pm

Why is this woman getting any attention at all from WUWT; put her on ignore please.

Chip Javert
Reply to  TRG
November 21, 2014 8:19 pm

Sue (Sow, Sou, Miriam, etc) is the classic uninformed, uneducated, scientifically illiterate, pseudo-intellectual, emotionally invested team member who claims the ability to divine the truth of physics arguments thru ad hominem (as opposed to PDE).
(snicker, tee hee, snicker). If she wasn’t doing this Earth-mother “save the world” stuff, she’d have 187 cats.
Call me crazy, but people ALWAYS take time to look at a wreck on the highway; same thing happening here.
On a more serious note, Alexa ( indicates she’s the 295,000th most visited site on the web. That’s just below “www. how to build an ebola contamination suit out of used toilet paper. com”.

November 21, 2014 5:27 pm

I don’t understand the attraction. Why shine a spotlight on this nut case?

November 21, 2014 5:41 pm

Well Bob, by now you’ve read enough to know that this is not a good idea.

November 21, 2014 5:44 pm

1] we all (weelll… maybe Sow don’t) respect Bob and what he does. If he wants to do this, that’s his call. And if it fails/blowsback in some weird way, then we should be there to help/catch him. Old Chinese saying: “not look, not see,– not explore, not find.’ Of course, if get into water with nasty crocodile……..

Eamon Butler
November 21, 2014 5:55 pm

When Miriam O Brien is able to produce the quality of work you produce, I will then consider her a relevant commentator. Until then however, I have no interest in what she has to offer. Personally, I wouldn’t allow her two minuets in my head.
BTW, can I mention the site stats? Well on the way to the big 3.
Best regards, Eamon.

Eamon Butler
November 21, 2014 5:58 pm

LOl, ”Minutes” even.

Daryl M
November 21, 2014 6:03 pm

Why are you giving this nutcase publicity? Ignore her.

November 21, 2014 6:06 pm

I suggest you get rid of this blog about another blog. Her thoughts are clearly dominated by WUWT on a daily basis. I read some of her stuff. it’s baffling and pointless. . I think WUWT has won, she is consumed by it and thrashing around impotently in her blog. I find it extremely petty to engage at her level and give her any form of recognition. I generally find that people like her are more distressed at being ignored as irrelevant than attacked.

Reply to  David the Voter
November 21, 2014 7:45 pm


Reply to  David the Voter
November 30, 2014 7:29 pm

Agree with David.

John F. Hultquist
November 21, 2014 6:09 pm

I wonder if Miriam is Irish or whether that O’Brien comes from a spouse?
My grandmother came from Éire.
Miriam and I could be related. Uff da!
Miriam, does Béal an Átha Móir bring a glow to your heart?
No. Okay then. Likely we are are not close.

Bill H
November 21, 2014 7:37 pm

Some days I wonder if I am the only sane one left in the world… Then I read things that make me loose faith in the human race… While other things I read make me wonder.. Then I laugh at some who like to poke and prod..
Belittling commenters… That’s a-kin to pond scum becoming methane gas.. Don’t light a match… OR….. maybe we should? I can’t decide.
I think Bob has placed torch near the pond and he is waiting to see what happens…. 🙂

November 21, 2014 7:48 pm

Sorry Bob,but this is one blog I will not visit again,since this woman has NO redeeming quality for me to benefit from.

November 21, 2014 9:23 pm

I continue to wonder why Bob Tisdale feeds a troll.
Bob, take a stress pill and think things over. Stop, Bob. Stop.

Reply to  therealzeitgeist
November 22, 2014 8:27 pm

Or just give them more rope ?
I’m not sure either.

November 21, 2014 10:12 pm

Actually, her posting and commenting on past WUWT comments is GREAT NEWS! Like MSNBC and CNN rebroadcasting and critiquing (with accompanying flawed internal logic and inconsistent facts) FOX broadcasts, this is a clear admission of WUWT’s and its commentators’ GLOBAL effectiveness in winning the argument. When the “climate scientists” resort to ad hominem attacks and abandon logic, they are clearly grasping at straws! You have them on their heels! As they say, “If you’re drawing flack, you’re over the target!”

Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 22, 2014 2:17 am

If she represents the average alarmist’s social skills, the temperature isn’t perhaps the only a plateau we may be witnessing. In any case, this lipstick wearing little granny in a photo-studio seems quite far off from the usual

November 22, 2014 3:00 am


November 22, 2014 3:36 am

Idiocy often hits a nerve, Mark.
Relax, and listen to another Idle

November 22, 2014 4:21 am

What’s a troll? I mean, I’m pretty busy so I don’t post very often. But when something piques my interest I send out a string of comments. Am I a troll? What makes a troll?

Pamela Gray
November 22, 2014 6:03 am

Okay. I am quite dense here. Does the link go to her new second blog? Who’s link is it? And why is this important?
I don’t get it. I could care less what the two sides think about her less than interesting web offerings. The void of scientific content that is filled with puss is nothing but a boil on the buttocks of the world.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
November 22, 2014 7:13 pm


Gunga Din
November 22, 2014 7:47 am

I did a search and found out she’s put up a few my comments. In one of her post (about logical fallacies or something) I even had the honor of being singled to close the post.
Unfortunately, she seemed to like what I said.
Time for a checkup from the neck up! 😎

November 22, 2014 8:10 am

If she edits her posts after the fact and does so with no indication and the reason for such edits….then archiving to have a record of what she actually said is a good thing.
The only way to deal with people like this is by doing something like this.

Eugene WR Gallun
November 22, 2014 8:58 am

WUWT has promoted major traffic to this new blog HotWhopper.
It is well known that the brain dead still possess a form of physical life — but people like Miriam O’Brien fall more into the Zombie category. She possesses the ability to physically move coupled with very limited intelligence. And she wants to eat your face off.
By mentioning her blog on WUWT you have passively encouraged people to go there and read it. What could more cruel to her than that?
You have had your revenge while maintaining plausible deniability. Brilliant.
Eugene WR Gallun

November 22, 2014 12:13 pm

I just noticed that Anthony has put a copyright text on the homepage of WUWT. (Well, I noticed it just now, but I am almost certain it wasn’t there before)
“Copyright Notice
Material on this website is copyright © 2006-2014, by Anthony Watts, and may not be stored or archived separately, rebroadcast, or republished without written permission. For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header. All rights reserved worldwide. Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.”
That pretty much kills that ladies blog. So Bob will have more time for real issues again.
Problem solved 🙂

November 22, 2014 4:41 pm

Not really, just an easy target that might draw out the larger forces.

November 22, 2014 6:00 pm

This blog is likely to be seen as being as batshit crazee as and the old sow’s blog. There’s a lot of angry people in the blogodome.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
November 22, 2014 10:09 pm

Here is a plausible mashup.
Miriam O’brien hates Scientists, and in particular people who are skeptical either by nature or by training.
For her a skeptical person must be killed at all costs and by any means.
Therefore she has given her identity away to someone with knowledge and skills to achieve her goal of killing all skeptical persons on Earth.
To achieve her ends, her provocateur, using her own web accounts, employes a flaw in WordPress XSS:
“The WordPress development team on Thursday released critical security updates that address an XSS vulnerability in the comment boxes of WordPress posts and pages. An attacker could exploit this flaw to create comments with malicious JavaScript code embedded in them that would get executed by the browsers of users seeing those comments. ‘In the most obvious scenario the attacker leaves a comment containing the JavaScript and some links in order to put the comment in the moderation queue,’ said Jouko Pynnonen, the security researcher who found the flaw.” from /.
Well well. Her “Old Girls Club” is raring and ripping to go now isn’t it.
Ha ha

November 24, 2014 3:49 am

Who says “whopper” any more? – decades out of date.
Kind of an embarrassing parent or grandparent quote.
Like Philip husband of Queen Elizabeth calling something “wizzo!” the other day.

November 27, 2014 3:20 pm

The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links. Please refrain from ad hominem comments.
So, Bob Tisdale, why do I get blocked/moderated with one link, no ad-hominems and being on topic?
Could you not take a little gentle questioning on some of your pronouncements?
[Life happens. Live with it. .mod]

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights