Miriam O’Brien says: Wondering Willis Eschenbach has gone nuts about volcanoes at WUWT

There are days when Miriam O’Brien does not publish a post at HotWhopper.  On those occasions, we’ll simply back up a post from our start date of November 21, 2014, working back in time in sequence.

WattsUpWithThat post:  Get Laki, Get Unlaki

HotWhopper Reply from Wednesday, November 19, 2014 [archived]: Wondering Willis Eschenbach has gone nuts about volcanoes at WUWT

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.

8 Responses to Miriam O’Brien says: Wondering Willis Eschenbach has gone nuts about volcanoes at WUWT

  1. Malc says:

    Well Miriam is claiming Willis claimed (by inference) that the cited study claimed that an unusually cold winter was caused by Laki. But Willis didn’t say that. He said “it is claimed” without citing any specific sources of claims, sloppy perhaps, but I have certainly heard such claims. He goes on to say “We have been told a story all of our lives about how volcanic eruptions have large, widespread, and long-lasting effects on the global weather”, which is true. Willis is taking issue with that, not D’Arrigo et al. Laki was a disaster whether it caused significant cooling or not. As far as I can see Willis’ post doesn’t disagree with the cited study at all so I’m not sure what the hell Miriam is going on about.


  2. Max Hugoson says:

    Interesting to note, after “attempting” to argue “specifics”, this dweeb goes on a RANT with a bunch of unfounded, corrupt, claims ( To That global warming is real and is happening now. That ice is melting.(In my martini glass!) That oceans are getting much hotter (Really, the only REAL evidence, Argo, shows mostly DEAD LEVEL for 11 years and counting). That surface temperatures are hitting record highs (Evidently the concept of the USA record high, being put into the 90’s and then back to the ’30’s has escaped this person? Oh, much less that there is NO analytical way to correlate “highs” or “lows” with the IR heat balance of the Atmosphere.) That seas are rising, oceans rising, glaciers retreating, (Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!) Why does one have to say seas are rising (they aren’t) AND oceans rising (seems like a problem with mental processing there) and of course the standard shibolith, “glaciers retreating”. These matters, have been dealt with so extensively on WUWT, it’s amazing to find the “spirit of the club footed man” alive and well, and so completely ingrained in the fogginess of a Green Dragon Lady.


  3. Michael 2 says:

    I see the usual short list of warmists, BBD for instance.

    I agree with Malc (above) that it appears Willis’ detractors didn’t read or comprehend his article. Very simply he shows that the volcano, Laki, produced no detectable climate change.

    It shows what I suspect we already know — once you have been labeled a “denier”, you are wrong, even when you are right. But I sympathize with that behavior since I tend to discount everything at SkepticalScience even when it is right or might be right — its REASON for existing as with HotWhopper, is to insult and denigrate its enemies. Quite a few people enjoy that kind of show.

    I try to be charitable to true believers (such as BBD) but when a person abandons rationality to pursue invective then I lose most of my charity.

    I mean, really — is this blog science or debate? Clearly it is neither: “He’s been getting increasingly ratty (erratic) of late. Denialism isn’t good for one’s mental health is my guess. Cognitive dissonance causes brain farts.”

    There’s not much there to DEBATE. It’s an echo chamber insulting people that aren’t reading it anyway. What is its purpose? Maybe it has a page explaining.


  4. Michael 2 says:

    Well lets check out the roster:

    “About HotWhopper. I’m a sixties-something woman with an interest in climate science.”

    I also have an interest in climate science. I see it at WUWT, I even see it at ATTP, I don’t see it at HotWhopper.

    “I have a Bachelor of Agricultural Science (Honours)”

    Mine is computer science, also honors.

    “and an MBA”

    Impressive but not relevant to climate science.

    “and work as a freelance consultant.”

    Doing what?

    “Other interests include photography and computers among other things.”

    Amazingly similar to me, except for the part about spending my days insulting other people.


  5. Michael 2 says:

    More on this blogger which I know so little about:

    “I started this blog to shine a spotlight on misogyny and the rejection of climate science. (Yes, they do seem to go hand-in-hand to some extent.)”

    Really? That sounds a bit like conspiratorial ideation! So what’s the word for man-hater and lover of consensus climate?

    I don’t know anyone that rejects climate science. I know some people that reject the conclusions of an Australian cartoonist.

    “HotWhopper was inspired by the treatment I suffered last year (2012) when I was banned from the share trading forum, HotCopper.”

    So being banned caused “suffering”. Impressive.

    “It’s not a high-brow blog, it’s rife with bad puns and sarcasm and snark. But the science it refers to is solid.”

    Snarky and rude; not a thing to mix with science.

    “much greater than I ever had in the small pond of HotCopper – now more than 1.7 million page views”

    More consensus thinking. Throw in some sex and get millions of views — it works for PETA!

    “I’ve also just discovered (Feb 2014) that HotWhopper is rated as a “scientific blog” by Nature.com.”

    Yeah, well, Nature’s definition of “science” seems to have dwindled.

    “And to Anthony Watts and other climate science deniers”

    Anthony Watts is a seriously popular writer to earn so much attention.


  6. Michael 2 says:

    Final for today maybe, part 3 of understanding Miriam O’Brien.

    To jump to the conclusion, I suggest “Adult of a wounded child” or “grown wounded child”. The idea is that a child is deprived of certain kinds of nurturing and when adult becomes unable to accept nurturing despite relentless pursuit of it. I am unaware of any “cure” for the phenomenon. The perversity of it is that to offer nurture is taken suspiciously, and to NOT offer nurture is to be what she believes you already to be, a misogynist. It is a no-win scenario.


    I liken it to an “electret” — a permanently charged capacitor. In fact, to keep the charge you short it out! Flash memory works on basically the same principle. You push electrons into a dielectric with considerable force (high voltage), and they stay there because they don’t have enough energy to get back out of the insulator. However, the presence of those excess electrons produces an electric field that has various properties and can be used to make electrect condenser microphones or the ubiquitous flash memory.

    Erasing a deeply buried charge requires as powerful a charge, but of opposite polarity, that put it there in the first place.

    These charges cannot be directly detected but their effect influences nearby operations. So when a person is unusually sensitive about something, that is an indicator of a hidden emotional wound. It is pointless to challenge, rebut, confirm the overt accusations. But like iron filings that cluster around a hidden magnet, so too will a person’s repeated irrational outbursts reveal a hidden energy source that keeps it going. Until and unless you address that hidden energy source you could go forever arguing without making a dent in the real problem.

    I suspect that many problems are not amenable to mere words, although words can be used to evoke emotions that themselves have the right polarity and amplitude to neutralize one of these buried charges.

    The basic strategy is I think similar to Judo. Go off script. Agree when the script calls for disagreement. Pull when the script calls for push. Peel back the layers of scripted responses. Be harmless as doves but cunning as serpents.

    When the script is defeated, NOW you can have a real conversation — but beware getting what you asked for.

    But a few points of observation:

    Miriam writes: “Free speech to extreme conservatives apparently only applies to speeches they like to hear.”

    I have found this to be true of pretty much everyone. Just how free is DailyKOS? Zero. Scientific American? Zero.

    So what about the proximate cause of creating “HotWhopper”? She was banned. She describes the experience and copies what a sysadmin wrote: “Mods are pretty tired of your posts only being aimed at demeaning others”

    Well, there you have it. It isn’t about climate. It was and continues to be about demeaning others, specifically men.

    “Ridicule is good,” she writes 2014/11/the-back-story.html
    Saul Alinsky tactic #5 “# “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    Actually there is a defense — ignore it. But keep it in mind as a tactic. Alinsky wrote these rules NOT for the purpose of attacking conservatives (against whom the rules don’t work anyway), it is designed to create a group, a herd, and shepherd that herd to some objective — a thing possible only with leftwingers. You ridicule them into obedience. It’s a bit like the Amish and “shunning”.

    “These same hypocrites will even claim that the poor need fossil fuels.”
    What a strange thing to write. Of course the poor need fuel.

    How often does Miriam use the word “they”? They just want, they know full well, the dark side of them, a different race to them, as wealthy as they, They were wrong, they were committing crimes against humanity.

    What this reveals is loneliness. Miriam against the dark forces of the night; “they” are everywhere, “they” are dangerous and she is the courageous knight in shining armor. It would be terrible to discover there is no “they” and that most of “them” don’t know she exists nor do they care.

    But I can see where in parts of the world “they” need not be identified and “they” are indeed dangerous. It is better to be prepared for danger than to be prepared for paradise.

    Misogyny is part and parcel of “HotWhopper”

    “Steele continues to act as a mean spirited misogynist who quotes Sagan’s baloney test”

    So, while no purpose is served directly challenging such persons, they can provide topics for discussion, and that seems to be the purpose of THIS blog.


  7. joelobryan says:

    Sou seems to be obsessed with [snip]….. [snip]


  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    joelobryan, another off-color remark? Let me copy and paste my response to you from the other thread:

    joelobryan, just read your comment. My initial thought was, thanks for being an asshole, Joel. I’ll stick with my initial thought.

    Why don’t you come back when you have something meaningful to contribute!

    Now, I did say I wasn’t going to moderate. That doesn’t mean I won’t ban some bloggers. Get the hint?


Comments are closed.