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

WattsUpWithThat Post: Quicky Mid-November 2014 ENSO Update

HotWhopper Reply [Archived]: Deniers are weird at WUWT. ENSO is a BoM conspiracy!

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.

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.

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

  1. Pingback: Introducing a New Blog – More on Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper | More On Miriam O'Brien's HotWhopper

  2. Pingback: Introducing a New Blog – More on Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper | Watts Up With That?

  3. Timo Soren says:

    I will point out that Sou’s core concept is unfortunately correct. Many people are not aware of what an El Nino would do to the Austrailian Climate and hence their comments are probably coming from naivete/ignorance. I believe that BOM has had ENSO bi-weekly updates for almost a decade and they have archived them. The tone or tenor of them have been professional, unlike Sou. So the core concept of people believing that BOM is ‘stirring the pot’ for climate weather extremism should then say that they have been doing it for a decade. But I personally think BOM is just really interested in ENSO. The sad part of all this is that they joy she takes in trashing any of us at WUWT and anyone who remotely supports a skeptic view. I have read a huge number of her ‘rants and derogatory posts’ and if I were ever to meet her choose to say: “I have no respect for your opinions, believe you are doing everyone in science a disservice; but I wish you a good day.” And walk away.


  4. Timo Soren says:

    But ALSO! I am glad that I can read snippets here, without giving her traffic! Horrah! Hopefully we will see it in the stats later!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. joelobryan says:

    I am quite pleased I made Dame Whopper’s blog list as a denier. It’s a badge of honor when one considers how dishonest and wretched she is.


  6. joelobryan says:

    Okay on the ENSO and Australia.

    Let’s be clear; ENSO is a natural occurrence. The isotopic evidence from South America records an ENSO process that has been happening for millions of years even before the Panamanian Isthmus closed-off a direct Pacific-Atlantic current connection. Australia gets a bad drought when El Nino’s hit in the current era. But they are natural. They are not man-made. They have happened and will continue to happen. There is nothing mankind can do to mitigate them directly.

    So in that I find it humorous that Climate Alarmists try to use ENSO happenings, ChickenLittle-style to attempt some scare-up support from a naive, gullible public. And when the public doesn’t play along with the watermelon’s charades, the watermelons move to making every weather event attributable to increased CO2 trace gas levels. In other words, the shrill cries of the watermelons just get shriller. And the people just tune them out even more. The watermelons don’t seem to understand cause and effect at any level, natural or human social.

    So it is hilarious to watch the Leftist watermelons spew spittle-laced blogs and fume at the weather.


  7. Nigel Harris says:

    I’m thinking maybe I should start a blog that comments on Bob Tisdale’s blog commenting on HotWhopper commenting on WUWT. An infinite regression could ultimately result.


  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    Nigel Harris, you’ve misunderstood what I’m doing. I’m not commenting on Miriam’s posts at this blog. I’m simply providing a link and a place where you can exchange pleasantries with others.


  9. John Boles says:

    The elitist greens are a laugh, what, they expect everyone else to be rice paddy farmers but they themselves should be able to fly high in jets and live well. I hope everyone sees this, it says a lot about the watermelons

    Liked by 1 person

  10. joelobryan says:

    Social psychologists who study internet social interactions might find the exchanges enlightening. Otherwise it’s just a place to throw stink bombs without driving up website statistics of the other side.


  11. Manfred says:

    “Curiously it seems that Anthony has stopped showing the CO2 levels. Getting too obvious p’raps?”

    Indeed, “too obvious p’raps.”

    “claims about massive forcing from CO2 variation have always been based not on its direct observed spectral effect but upon hypothetical major net positive feedback from water vapor vastly amplifying CO2′s small direct effect. Evidence supports rather a climate system with low climate sensitivity, with predominantly negative feedback.”


  12. Man Bearpig says:

    From what i can muster, Sou’s website is AGW troll central. I can see no genuine scientific content just rambling from a pensioner with nothing better to do.



  13. Ragnaar says:

    Ricky Rood said,
    “I had three reasons to avoid going along with the “super” and the “monster.” First, reading the dispassionate words of several forecast centers, there was little suggestion of an extraordinarily strong event. Second, it’s usually not wise to predict extraordinary extremes without a lot of evidence, because extremes are rare. Finally, as was the case in my cranky response to the return of the polar vortex, the increasing exaggeration and personification of weather events and their implications for climate change are distinctly negative contributions. Of course, it probably costs me readers.” http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/the-super-el-nio-forecast-fadeout/ I suppose some have tried to capitalize on the situation.


  14. joelobryan says:

    Suggest you rename your blog here to the Neutral Zone. A nod to the Star Trek neutral zone between Romulan space and Federation space. Enter at your own risk. Fend off the attacking CAGW horde of trolls with phaser-like precision application of science data, and the occasional photon torpedo of a 20 figure post for good measure.


  15. Bob Tisdale says:

    joelobryan, thanks. Neutral zone made me laugh. I remember that very well. Maybe if this blog takes off and I want to open another one, maybe for the boys at SkS, I’ll use neutral zone.


  16. Genghis says:

    I think neutered zone might be interesting too.


  17. MCourtney says:

    My only complaints about her blog are:
    1) She is too harsh on my father. Yes, he is angry and – towards the end – slow to spot tone. But that is a matter of age and his health. There was no consideration of the commenter as a person. She just wanted to score points. Let us all hope to do better.
    2) She never considers any comment to have merit except when it confirms her prior belief. That is vanity.
    3) I don’t see the laughs. She isn’t funny. Am I meant to be laughing at people, not with people?

    Won’t be back.


  18. gnomish says:

    Somebody’s brain sploded with the power of 0.001 kittensneeze.
    That’s the equivalent of 1 bugfart, or the amount of warming from CO2.
    Let’s just hope Maid Miriam doesn’t post [snip] just to break the interwebs.


  19. F. Ross says:

    What’s that about kitten’s knees?


  20. catweazle666 says:

    As I have observed previously, when a woman of [snip], it is difficult not to draw conclusions, if you see what I mean.

    Specifically, there is a shortage of the aforesaid items…

    And no, I’m not volunteering!


  21. DirkH says:

    I would suggest to anyone cited by O’Brien in her posts to go right there, pick a different nickname, and deride your own comment as viciously as possible, using illogic, fearmongering, discredited sources, the whole warmist arsenal of devices. Go SkS on your own comments, but make sure it’s ludicrous. Then watch what happens in her diner.


  22. timg56 says:

    I suggest ignoring the woman.


  23. mobihci says:

    i dont think it matters what BOM says about long term. they are consistently wrong. if you look at the 3 month outlooks, you would get better results flipping a coin –


    as far as elnino goes then, well, when a model actually gets it right all of the time, not just some of the time, then trust in the models should be very low. an accurate model does NOT exist. this averaging thing just give artificial ‘skill’ to what are otherwise knows as failed individual models. their errors bars would equal their output should they shown in the context the models are used.


  24. Bob Tisdale says:

    gnomish and catweazle666, the boldface text in the post asks you to refrain from ad homs.


  25. DirkH says:

    mobihci says:
    November 22, 2014 at 12:53 am
    “as far as elnino goes then, well, when a model actually gets it right all of the time, not just some of the time, then trust in the models should be very low. an accurate model does NOT exist. this averaging thing just give artificial ‘skill’ to what are otherwise knows as failed individual models. their errors bars would equal their output should they shown in the context the models are used.”

    If you average 20 models, and the average is what you declare your prediction, and your prediction always gets it right, then you have created a very good model from 20 parts. No matter what the makers of the submodels claim to be error bars.


  26. Bob says:

    I have never read the miriam obrien blog, and since I have now read one article, I have not missed anything. It was inevitable that some person who trolls at popular blogs, gets ousted, starts her own smear site. It’s kinda sad. There is probably a pathology for her type. Give her some drugs.


  27. gnomish says:

    Bob – trollery is (whether one likes it or not) an internet activity of long standing and refinement.
    Perhaps you’ve heard of Encyclopediadramatica.com?
    The techniques Miriam uses have been tested and refined over many, many cycles.
    You may or may not be completely conscious of the fact that your creation of this site is following the playbook. Since you have now touched the tarbaby, it wouldn’t hurt to be clear on what your goal is. If you don’t have it straight, she does and can turn it back on you.
    Care to enjoy a sample of the ED?
    That’s a page I did when i was studying trollery.
    So now you have taken things to the next level and you would do well to be ready or Miriam will have a page on you before you have one on her. Remember- whether you like it or not, a narrative is being constructed. Your participation is not optional. Your choice is only pwn or loose. She has practiced and better at this than you are. As your attorney, I advise you to learn the rules of this game or suffer defeat and smearage that google never forgets.
    (you should delete this comment because it contains spoilers)


  28. Bevan says:

    looks like she has hit a nerve with you bob!


  29. Ragnaar says:

    This was the quote I was looking for. Sounded like he was suggesting people tone down the rhetoric::
    “Note, none of these centers are predicting, yet, (a) strong, super or monster (El Nino). I’m not as smart as those others [predicting the super and the monster], so right now I am steering away from “monster,” and looking forward to what we learn about prediction, the climate as a whole and, of course, how we communicate our science.” http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=305


  30. Just Me says:

    I see Miriam O’Brien is a “consultant” who offers “services to federal, state and local government”. I can only wonder if she is making money off the CAGW fraud:

    “Follow the money” is always good advice for those hoping to understand what motivates people.


  31. Down to Earth says:

    I followed the link to her website and quickly realized that’s not for me. So much of what you read anymore seems like debate team practice sessions with the win going to whomever can be the most insulting and condescending. It’s the fanaticism of the subject , that has really become the topic of debate(arguement).


  32. Michael 2 says:

    1. “Neutral Zone” does have a catchy name, with its tagline “Live long and prosper!”

    2. This is my second visit to HotWhopper. It seems pointless. If I read the stories and comments at WUWT, which is frequently the case, I hardly need to read them again at HotWhopper or be told what I should think about things. I will do my own thinking.

    3. When I want a combination of warmist point of view with some scientific explanation that is not Calculus 5500 level and also isn’t Pure Advocacy “AndThenTheresPhysics” has been pretty good. Unfortunately it seems to be running out of steam and ideas. What can be said has been said and there’s not a lot more to say although WUWT seems to have plenty of stories.

    4. I don’t like rudeness. Huffington Posters love it. The greater the fan count the more rude and less substance (generally speaking) in that person’s commentary. Some people obviously enjoy it; it forms the foundation of many comedy shows.

    5. “The Truth is Out There” X-files suggest maybe “The Truth Is In Here” Z-files, the “last word”.

    6. I like truth. I don’t know who has it, or what it is, nor am I certain I will know it when I see it, so I turn many stones looking for it. Many people, especially on the left, think that is a strange thing to turn stones (figuratively speaking) looking for truth when all you have to do, so they say, is read SkepticalScience (SkS). But it isn’t skeptical and I have a doubt it is scientific. I still look at it once or twice a year to see if they have climbed down from Mount Hubris: Not yet.


  33. Bob Tisdale says:

    gnomish says: “…Your participation is not optional….”

    My rebuttal avenues (my blog and WUWT) are still available.

    But this blog is not for my rebuttals. This blog is for people with differing understandings of global warming to discuss the topics Miriam wishes to debate, without moderation.

    gnomish says: “As your attorney…”

    Thanks. I enjoyed that. Please remind me. When did I hire you?



  34. Bob Tisdale says:

    Bevan says: “looks like she has hit a nerve with you bob!”

    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.


  35. gnomish says:

    Trolling is not debate; it is a psychological blood sport.
    Didn’t we all figure out this is not about science, logic or reason?
    Dan Pearl made the same mistake.

    I’ve received value from your writing, therefore I have a certain moral obligation.
    It’s simply inconceivable that anybody will believe this site is useful for debate, you know.
    Applying an equally objective judgement to my own comments, it is useless to present information that can not be understood or accepted.
    Maybe somebody else can explain the joke from Fear and Loathing in Los Vegas. A joke that requires explanation is another fail.
    At least, when I fail, it’s not for lack of trying.
    No matter how old we get, we are still kids. Some grow more pompous with age, some never lose their humility.
    Best to ya. Maybe I’ll learn something as this develops. I fear reruns – but my cup of optimism is only half empty.


  36. Michael 2 says:

    Bob Tisdale writes “This blog is for people with differing understandings of global warming to discuss the topics Miriam wishes to debate”

    Exactly. To try to have a debate on HotWhopper is like having a debate with Chris Matthews on Hardball. The outcome is foreordained. It isn’t even about Miriam, it is about the TOPICS argued by Miriam, using her sense of what is worth ridiculing as a clue to what is worth debating.


  37. Michael 2 says:

    Gnomish writes (the quoted parts)

    “It’s simply inconceivable that anybody will believe this site is useful for debate”

    And yet here we are doing exactly that.

    “it is useless to present information that can not be understood or accepted.”

    Obvious statement of the day. What information do you not understand or accept? However, I accept information provisionally that I do not understand while I go about the work of understanding it.

    “No matter how old we get, we are still kids. Some grow more pompous with age, some never lose their humility.”

    There is no “we”. You speak for you, I speak for me.

    “Maybe I’ll learn something as this develops.”

    THAT is the purpose of this blog. Many invisible readers possibly learning something. I may learn something too and it requires that I can challenge the person that thinks he or she knows something.


  38. gnomish says:

    Michael 2,
    What makes you imagine there is a debate? Obstreperous disputation is not debate, son.
    Perhaps excessive concern with invisible people is a symptom rather than a virtue- just sayin.
    To understand something, one must first observe it. We have eyes for observing. We have minds for understanding.
    You are simply reacting.
    Who’s running your monkey, then? If you can’t control yourself, who really does? Do you like being a puppet?

    Bob- are you watching? Wax on, wax off. See how easy this is when you know how score is kept?
    Now I think I will let nature take its course without my influence.


  39. joelobryan says:

    Bob’s intents are noble. And so was Don Quixote’s. Onward Ducenea. Onward!!!!


  40. Michael 2 says:

    gnomish asks “Michael 2, What makes you imagine there is a debate?

    Your words followed by my words followed by your words probably qualifies as a debate.

    Obstreperous disputation is not debate, son.

    I had to look up that word. I especially like the “difficult to control” part. Unless you are my spouse, employer or military senior, you have no control whatsoever.

    Perhaps excessive concern with invisible people is a symptom rather than a virtue

    It may well be both at the same time, the terms are not mutually exclusive. Excessive anything is a problem as otherwise it would not be “excessive”.

    To understand something, one must first observe it.

    It is a hallmark of human intelligence and communication to be able to convey understanding, particularly of dangers, before the danger is observed. But if I take a broader view of your intention, one must become aware of a thing or idea before its understanding. And yet, I also accept the concept of “gestalt”, an understanding coincident with its conception, noticing or observation; or maybe even before its observation.

    We have eyes for observing.” Who is we? Fortunately you are spared the embarrassment that I might not have eyes, yet still able to “observe” (be aware of something by my senses).

    We have minds for understanding.” Yes, that is what minds do.

    You are simply reacting.” Yes, of course. So are you. This entire blog exists as a reaction to HotWhopper, which itself is a reaction to HotCopper. We would be having this conversation ON HotWhopper if it were allowed. Here, neither she nor you can prevent it, but you are free to not participate.

    Who’s running your monkey?

    I do not understand the question. As I have no monkey there is also no “who”.

    If you can’t control yourself, who really does?

    I doubt anyone controls me in the puppet sense, including “me”.

    Do you like being a puppet?

    An interesting question. I suspect I like (enjoy or am satisifed with) being what I was made to be. In that sense, I believe puppets are happy being puppets since they will likely be unhappy as anything else, Pinocchio excepted of course.

    A good examination of that question can be had by exploring Buddhism: Finding happiness in the cards you were dealt.

    You hint at several things. I believe you will find more freedom here to ask the questions that are actually on your mind. It is unlikely I have not already seen every question, comment or insult in your repertoire but I hope you can surprise me.


  41. Michael 2 says:

    Gnomish wrote “Perhaps excessive concern with invisible people is a symptom rather than a virtue”

    Back in the day of Usenet I was enjoying my usual religious arguments, of which climate science is as close to identical as makes no difference, and I posted the URL of my own website. It received about ten thousand hits overnight as this VAST army of invisible readers followed the link. That was in the 1990’s long before “the internet” was in nearly every civilized home on Earth.

    That is when I realized that my debate opponent is not the primary recipient of my words. You and I are just actors on this stage. You are young and with that youth come hubris, a certainty of your superiority and correctness. The more different you are as compared to me the more clear to this invisible audience becomes the juxtaposition of everything you stand for versus what I stand for.

    People cannot know the truth of what the world will be like in the year 2100. By then the world will have abandoned the year of the birth of Jesus as its calendar (the Chinese never did adopt it), two more world wars, dozens of regional wars and any number of Great Depressions will have taken place. The Industrial Revolution will complete a “revolution” returning the world to a pre-industrial era when coal, oil, and iron ore resources are depleted — but hardly anyone knows how to live with less. That will be the day when the Amish inherit the earth.

    Who cares whether the sea level is the same or six feet higher in 80 years after all that?


  42. Michael 2 says:

    Joel says “Bob’s intents are noble. And so was Don Quixote”

    And so are my intentions and presumably so are yours. This is a place to debate something that won’t be permitted to be debated elsewhere, where warmist and skeptic can meet and debate or at least argue and in the process each get things sorted in our minds.


  43. Frederik Michiels says:

    what strikes me in all this as we are here in the “nuetral zone” (hahahahaha good one) are the following main streams:

    the AGW skeptics usually come with the data figures and facts that support their scepticism, they usually also take lots of time to clearly explain their work methods or research and to provide you with everything to check their findings out yourself as a non scientist without bullying at people.

    the AGW believers use the vague terms as “the relationship is complicated, the processing of raw data is complicated, we do not know yet if… (fill the dots in with an AGW statement) and also turn their findings with the type of weather that is occurring. When you then as a non-scientist ask some questions or debate with a good argument, you got bullied at as a non believer but they always tend to deny the facts you bring in the debate. or do no effort to rebut or debunk them scientifically (unless there are vague non verifiable scientific facts or data)

    I personally read both sides of this story out of interest, but reading both sides made me more a sceptic of AGW then a believer and ironicly thanks to WUWT a so called “sceptical” site i understood more of what processes are operating in climate then by reading “sceptical science”

    Funny is at hotwhopper sou is just increasing this perception: take some comments from WUWT where you just qoute parts of it (so that you miss the irony the commenter used) and just go as personal as you can get and surely forget this is a scientific debate

    In every debate any person regardless if he/she has a scientific background or not should stick to the core: when you debate scientifically and you don’t understand something, you ask questions A good debate should answer those questions so that you learn new things.

    sadly this is not what pro AGW sites or AGW believers do.


Comments are closed.