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

miriamsmall

This is a stick post.  New posts appear below it.

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.  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 Then I’ll provide a link to an archived version of Miriam’s post.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): UPDATED on November 29.

The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links. There is a new moderation policy in place.

Please refrain from ad hominem comments. I realize that will be difficult for many people, especially if you’ve just returned from Hot Whopper. But try; ad homs hurt your arguments.

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

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. David in Cal says:

    I’m on your side, Bob, but I don’t intend to read this blog. Lots of people are making dumb, obnoxious comments about climate change. Life is too short to follow them all. As Winston Churchill said, “You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks.”

    Like

  2. philjourdan says:

    By creating a blog devoted to her, you are giving her what she wants. Attention.

    Like

  3. Epiphron Elpis says:

    All you’re demonstrating is that Sou has really gotten into your head. Exactly what she wanted.

    Like

  4. philincalifornia says:

    Typo in the title – should be “Moron Miriam O’Brien’s… “

    Like

  5. Malc says:

    This is kind of an interesting development. I visited HotWhopper for the first time today. I was struck by the description of how HotWhopper had come into being: it was a reaction against misogyny that Miriam had suffered from on another, not climate-related blog. However I was unable to see the logic in conflating global warming skepticism with misogyny. I see very little misogyny in WUWT comments or in Twitter skeptical posts. I totally support Miriam in rejecting and fighting misogyny. I just can’t see how HotWhopper is effectively doing that. So that’s my two cents worth from an AGW skeptical feminist, and I’ve been a feminist a lot longer that I’ve been a “denier”.

    Like

  6. hunter says:

    I concur with the dog barking comment david quotes.
    I lost a few minutes of my life looking at the kook’s site. Her posse is no brighter than she is. I would have never imagined I would be worth that level of scrutiny. What is great is how they are doing Clouseau quality tracking on at least some us.
    Let her go. She will join that self-tracking idiot tracker and others into the blogosphere sunset soon enough. And the fun part is that as the climate continues to ignore their earnest faithful intercessions, they will only get more and more idiocratic.

    .

    Like

  7. gnomish says:

    This is hilarious and it will work!
    Miriam’s stupidity is so epic as to inspire blogs about it.
    You know the next level for her is to make some fake accounts and send herself death threats, right? Victimhood is a blank check, according to socialist orthodoxy.

    Like

  8. Mackey says:

    Keep digging! Love it!

    Like

  9. lorne50 says:

    Don’t make me look under that rock again !!!! Going for a shower now should be back in a hour or so :>(

    Like

  10. Max says:

    looks like she hit a nerve with you bob! derp!

    Like

  11. joelobryan says:

    Would Dame Whopper care to indulge in a factual debate on Climate Change and the goodness or evilness of more CO2? I think not.

    Like

  12. gregole says:

    This blog is a great idea. Bookmarked. Too long have these puffed up, self appointed, self righteous half wits operated without the light of truth shined upon them revealing them for the cockroaches they are.

    Like

  13. björn from sweden says:

    I think there are people with mental health problems who are attracted to political activism. Just as religion can attract people with mental health problems. It gives meaning to a life that otherwise feels empty and confusing. To much stress on an already imbalanced mind can have serious health effects for the trolling person.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Bob Tisdale says:

    Max says: “looks like she hit a nerve with you bob! derp!”

    I’m not sure who you’re referring to with “derp!”. And it looks like you have two identities, Max. Either that or you copy, pasted and added to the same comment from the other thread.
    https://moreonmiriamobrien.wordpress.com/2014/11/21/miriam-obrien-says-deniers-are-weird-at-wuwt-enso-is-a-bom-conspiracy/#comment-37

    As I replied to Bevan over there: Then you’ve misunderstood the intent of this blog. As I wrote above, This blog is for people with differing understandings of global warming to discuss the topics Miriam wishes to debate, without moderation.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Phil Clarke says:

    For anyone interested, here’s an exchange, in full, from the WUWT thread started by Chris Monckton’s attempt to defame Michael Mann, including a restoration of the section snipped by Anthony.

    ============================================

    Hi Chris,

    You hang your argument on the peg that the norms of academia are that listing a publication on your CV means that you accept ‘full personal responsibility’ for everything in that publication.

    Even when the ‘publication’ is the cover art for a pamphlet published over a decade ago, listed in the ‘Other Publications’ section on page 22 of your CV, after a slew of magazine artices and Realclimate blog posts.

    Really?

    So, let us assume, purely for the purposes of argument, that the cover of the pamphlet was indeed misleading. How many were misled? Can you find any reference to the WMO publication in the literature, policy deliberations, the press, the blogosphere prior to the Climategate faux scandal? Nope, me neither. Course not. It’s COVER ART!.

    Hmmm.

    Here, try this. The actual ‘norms of academia’ are that if you use data from a study to produce a figure, you cite and credit the source, as the WMO does. Mann listing the figure on his CV could be interpreted as vanity, there again he prodcued the data, so why not? But it in no way means he created the graph, which we know was actually done by Jones.

    Oh, and the red noise stuff? Long since discredited. The ‘trendless’ red noise used by McIntyre was completely unrealistic, amd the magnitude of his ‘artificial’ hockey sticks was tiny compared to the real thing, oh and he had to data mine his results, the top 100 out of 10,000 runs.

    http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/

    But of course, you knew all the above. Your obsession with Mann and the Hockey Stick, a sideshow in the science supporting AGW, is nothing short of hilarious.

    Please don’t stop with the self-beclowning.

    In response to Moncktons claim that ‘I see no evidence in Phil Clarke’s comment that the head posting was inaccurate.’ I attempted to help him out …

    And that’s the problem. The ‘evidence’ that Mann (or his lawyer) misled the court adds up to nought, based on a misinterpretation of Muir Russell’s accusation and a hugely inflated assumption of Mann’s actual involvement in the production of the cover for an obscure pamphlet. We’re beyond nitpicking here.

    And the criticism of the MBH’s study is no more than a rehash of points laid out by McIntyre’ and McKitrick’s 2005 paper and a reproduction of the economist’s non-peer reviewed summary. You don’t mention published responses to the paper by Huybers, von Storch and Wahl and Amman, which showed, inter alia, that M&M’s use of this persistent red noise invalidated the claims made and that studies using appropriate red noise found that MBH98 passed the threshold for statistical skill, but the MM05 reconstructions failed verification tests.

    I mentioned the magnitude of the generated hockey sticks. Look at Figure 7. Now zoom in on the y-axis for the ‘MBH’ graph. Oh, look, its plotted on a different scale to the ‘red noise’ sticks. Now that, your Lordship, IS misleading ….’

    Reponse from WUWT

    [SNIP – PROVE your accusation – your opinion is worthless, and as you know you are a long time persona non grata here due to your petty and surly behavior, both here and elsewhere. So, I’m not inclined to engage you again here just because you have another unsubstantiated opinion. No need to reply. – Anthony]

    AN my response, posted at HotWhop.


    Dearest Anthony,

    Which part is unsubstantiated? Here’s what Mann’s lawyers actually said:-

    The “misleading” comment made in this report had absolutely nothing to do with Dr. Mann, or with any graph prepared by him. Rather, the report’s comment was directed at an overly simplified and artistic depiction of the hockey stick that was reproduced on the frontispiece of the World Meteorological Organization’s Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999.

    and Dr. Mann did not create this depiction, and the attempt to suggest that this report suggested an effort by Dr. Mann to mislead is disingenuous.

    Its clear from the stolen emails and the caption that Mann’s involvement in the graph was confined to the fact that one of the curves plotted by Phil Jones used data from a study he co-authored.

    Or was it Chris’s long-debunked talking points about the MBH study, red noise and all. I gave the authors of the papers that exposed that bunk, go read them.

    Or do you deny that Fig 7 uses a different y-axis for MBH to disguise the difference in magnitude? You do have to zoom in a few times (its Ctrl and + on most browsers) but the evidence is there in black and white. If you want a more egregious example, look no further than Fig 1 in McIntyre and McKitrick 2005, where they had to upscale the axis on the ‘red noise’ curve by a factor of 10!.

    Clearly you did not want Chris or your readership exposed to too many facts or too much evidence, equally clearly your claim to encouraging open debate is pure self-serving humbug. Perhaps such an assertion is petty and surly, but it has the great merit of being true. Don’t worry, I won’t be wasting any more of my valuable time ..

    Cordial Regards,

    Phil.

    PS If you want petty and surly, contrast Chris’s absurd contortions trying to rope in Mann as creator of the WMO graphic, with his abject refusal to acknowledge that a graph in a newspaper article bearing his name had anything to do with him,

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/06/27/battle-of-the-graphs/

    References: http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/

    Huybers, P. (2005), Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters 32 doi:10.1029/2005GL023395.

    von Storch, Hans; Zorita, Eduardo (2005), Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters 32 doi:10.1029/2005GL022753.

    Wahl, E. R.; Ammann, C. M. (2006), Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures: Examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence, Climatic Change.

    A true sceptic uses ALL the data.

    In light of the above, a recent moderator comment at WUWT made me chuckle …

    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.)

    Like

  16. Bob Tisdale says:

    Wow, Phil Clarke. I didn’t realize this blog was going to turn into a dumping ground for snipped comments at WUWT.

    It would have been helpful if you had provided a link to the post and or the place on the thread where the conversation began, like…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/17/evidence-that-dr-michael-mann-misled-a-court/#comment-1791522
    …so that readers weren’t seeing your comment out of context.

    Liked by 1 person

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

    It never crossed your mind that your promise not to moderate makes the request to refrain from ad homs rather weak?

    Let’s see whether there is really no moderation. I often have trouble getting polite comments published on WUWT.

    For example the time that I wrote a perfectly neutral comment on a mistake in a guest post by Matt Ridley. Matt Ridley wrote about an erroneous conference abstract on the removal of non-climatic changes from station temperature measurements. That is my scientific field of study. One would expect the real sceptics would at least be interested in a critique of somewhat knowledgeable people. But the moderator wrote: [sorry, but we aren’t interested in your slanted opinion – mod]

    Like

  18. Pamela Gray says:

    Bob, this is going to be like babysitting feral cats while keeping the dog out of the fray. Good luck!

    Like

  19. Dave says:

    Whilst I agree with many who have posted that you are somewhat feeding the trolls here Bob. On the other hand it is rather a relief to have a place to read what gets put up on Sou’s blog without having the sensation of rubbernecking a Road Traffic Accident.
    I’m afraid that I have visited her site far too many times, mainly to read something again.. did she really say that? … I must read that again… some of her venomous commenting really is quite unbelieveable.
    Perhaps here I can read the crash reports without that guilty feeling that I may be encouraging her with hits, and also be able to read more comments than just those of the drunkards who were at the wheel.

    Like

  20. Phil Clarke says:

    Good point Bob. Its useful to have a place where one can park posts so that interested parties to the debate can see text that mods deemed worthy of censoring, and draw their own conclusions as to whether site policy was really being breached or the mods were being heavy-handed.

    And I loved Anthony’s ‘PROVE your point…. but don’t reply’ 😉

    Like

  21. Mr Watts says:

    It took three comments before the personal insults on Sou began. As Bob says, “if you have to rely on ad homs and rudeness, you’ve lost the argument.” The argument for this blog was lost within three comments. What a group.

    Like

  22. Bob Tisdale says:

    Mr Watts, you’re not Anthony Watts, and according to your email address, your last name isn’t Watts. One might think you’re attempting to confuse the visitors here by using the pseudonym Mr Watts. Please find another name.

    Like

  23. Dave says:

    So Mr. Watts? What would your reaction be to an entire blog based on ad homs and rudeness? Would that similarly have “lost the argument”?

    Like

  24. jorgekafkazar says:

    Kilroy was here.

    Like

  25. Hey, can you do a blog about my blog about a blog, too? I don’t post often. Thanks!

    Here’s the link: http://tonyhellerakastevengoddardisnotasociopath.wordpress.com/

    Like

  26. Malc says:

    Ah, the rabid Twitter stalker appears

    Like

  27. Bob Tisdale says:

    tonyhellerexposed, you’d have to start writing blog posts where you insult Anthony, the authors of posts and the visitors at WUWT. Then I’ll think about it.

    Cheers.

    Like

  28. Yes, I am a bit of a twitter stalker, aren’t I. I’ve mentioned @BarackObama exactly 942 times and @WhiteHouse 112 times in my tweets. See https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=from%3Astevesgoddard%20%40barackobama%20OR%20%40OR%20OR%20%40whitehouse&src=typd

    If you think that makes me look like a nut, you’re probably right. Better call the secret service.

    Like

  29. Bob, I insult lots of other people: http://bit.ly/1tZnoNK

    Don’t you think that deserves coverage? I used to blog for WUWT, after all.

    Like

  30. Malc says:

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery I guess

    Like

  31. Yes, and denialism is the sincerest form of douchebaggery.

    Oops, did I say something insulting?

    Like

  32. gnomish says:

    Not nearly, t.h.e.
    You need multidimensional spin or it’s just gauche.
    Take the name ‘Sheckel Gruber’ for instance.
    On how many levels does that yank chains?
    Do it for the art, friend: Arse gratia artis.

    Like

  33. Sorry, I’m really not that smart. Doing the best with what I’ve been given.

    Like

  34. gnomish says:

    Oh, spare the false modesty- you are ready for prime time!
    You can’t ask for better material, and you know how to play this game.
    You write well and your troll-fu is very good, imo. Flaunt it!
    Inspired work inspires.
    Here’s a happy song for you to enjoy as you wreak lulz:

    Like

  35. Does this qualify as art?

    Like

  36. gnomish says:

    Well, of course it’s art.
    But I know you can do better.
    There are lots of great examples out there, but here’s one of my own.

    Like

  37. gnomish says:

    Stretch! There is no lower limit!
    Think of 2 Tony’s 1 Cup or something.
    Here’s one of my very best- may it inspire you to dive deep!

    I did this as a series of 4 installments one week apart and had poor muffdaddy on tenterhooks for a month.

    Like

Comments are closed.