Don't blog angry


Cabin fever is bringing out the best in the believalists.

As you know, John Ridgway and I reveled, in a recent thread, in the unraveling of a ranting and raving Steven Mosher. (Good reveries, good reveries.)

No précis could begin to do justice to the informatically dense skirmish between the Self and the Mosh. So, with the caveat that this is nothing like what happened, here’s what happened:

1. If you’re immune to Mosher’s charm offensive at the best of times, you really wouldn’t like him when he’s angry.

2. Mosh hate Brad. ‘Stupid fuck’ say bad things about Naomi!

3. Naomi good to Mosh. Naomi smell pretty.

4. Naomi not like others. She not make fun of Mosh for lifelong struggle with orthography and syntax.


In the meantime Steven has started likening me to the failed Democratic candidate, beloved clown and convicted sex-killer John Wayne Gacy.

Mosher forgets, if he ever knew, one of the rules of debating. There’s actually a downside to comparing people to psychopathic rapists and murderers just because you don’t like losing: if the simile isn’t plausible, you’re the one who comes across as a couple of islands short of an archipelago.

He might be an angry, lonely phenomenon in the Seoul hotel he’s holed up in for 14 days, but he’s not an isolated one.

In the space of hours I rubbernecked two similar incidents on the Twittobahn which seem to demonstrate that an epidemic of (demotically speaking) demented demeanor is now endemic to the dysangelist demagogocracy. Not even their demiurge Oreskes is immune.

The first thing I noticed was that Naomi was spruiking a new book. The title is certainly a chutzpacious choice of words for an author who’s spent a career hiding her contempt for all things scientific. I can’t decide if it’s a stroke of criminal genius or she’s trying to get caught.

The book review she links to even includes a hilarious vignette of domestic strife. Let me stress that the following words aren’t mine. It’s pure Katherine Oktober Matthews. Any parody of persons living or dead is accidental. I didn’t write this shit, in other words. I just bolded some bits.

The question Naomi Oreskes poses as the title of her latest book, Why Trust Science?, is a provocative one: I know this, because after the book arrived and I laid it on the coffee table, my partner bristled silently at the sight of it, and let his indignance [sic] stew for several days before confronting me about the implications behind the question. One clearly believes in favor of science, and thus does not need to ask the question, or one is against science, and is asking the question to sow distrust and probably to promote Young Earth creationism or faith healing.

What a sweet couple. It’s always heartwarming to be reminded there’s someone for everyone, no matter how intellectually defective.

The review goes on to reveal the laughable aim of Why Trust Science?: to help you convince your neighbors “that they should get their children vaccinated, floss their teeth, and act to prevent climate change.” One throbbingly obvious problem with this to-do list leaps to mind. But perhaps you need to be familiar with science and ethics to notice it—which gives Oreskes at least two excuses.

Someone called Andre replied to Naomi, and I to Andre, and Andre to me:

In encouraging news, such encouragements were strongly discouraged by Richard Betts, a climate scientist whose displays of honor and affability have a habit of annoying my prejudices.

As I mentioned, this plague of boils goes all the way to the bottom, where Oreskes, the evilest believalist conceivable, lies coiled in the darkness, guarding a golden hoard with napalm breath.

Willie soon alerted me to an outburst straight from the Sarlacc’s maw, which one has to assume is intended as a burn at Willis Eschenbach’s expense:

While we’re regressing to playground polemics, let me state clearly that Professor Oreskes herself has never scraped the bottom of the barrel. She’s been far too busy clawing at the sides of the abortion bucket.

But they say you should never look a gif horse in the mouth. So I took advantage, four or five times, of the chance to hold up a mirror to the demogorgon. For example:

Nor is this the first time Oreskes has stooped to the Appeal to Youth, or Argument from Argumentative Bankruptcy. Who can forget the day her impotent jealousy of Freeman Dyson boiled over in front of a live audience?

Answer: just about everyone.

So let me act, once again, in my familiar rôle as both cultural memory and collective conscience to mankind by recapitulating.

At the 2011 L.A. Book Festival, an audience member asked Oreskes why Freeman Dyson wasn’t swallowing Teh Science. If this anonyperson was hoping to embarrass Oreskes, she cunningly stole his thunder by embarrassing herself.

“It’s important to realize that he’s now, 90? 92?,” she says.

Sensing where this is going, fellow Dyson-baiter Tim Farris tries to interrupt: “He’s very sharp…”

But Oreskes would rather miss the turnoff to the Chappaquiddick ferry than take directions from a man.

“I think it’s important,” she barrels on, “that, again, journalists especially need to understand, scientists are people like everybody else. They get lonely, they crave attention and especially scientists who have been very famous in their earlier period of life and I think sometimes it’s hard for them when they start to lose the limelight so I think we’ve seen that phenomenon here.”

There was nothing sarcastic about the opening sentence of my post.

I just hope that after the pandemic is over the believalists will stay every bit as frank as they are today. Guilelessness is the tribute virtue pays to vice, and their proneness to letting their N95s slip is probably their only charming (if not redeeming) trait.

How can you stay mad at a Naomi or an Andre who, for all their deformities of character, is an open book—or sewer?

Besides, when two grownups hate each other very much, hate speech is not only an inalienable right but a positive duty. That’s why the door to my office, online and offline, is always open. If someone wishes me ill, I hope they’ll feel emotionally and physically safe to say so. Apart from anything else, it’s a courtesy. As any obedience trainer will tell you, even the most sociopathic Shihtzoodle deserves a treat yipping before it nips.

Much as I appreciated the impulse behind Professor Betts’ intervention, penalizing people like Sobolewski for being honest isn’t the solution.

UPDATE Although I’m on record opposing evolution, my views on hate speech have certainly evolved over the years, and I can’t help but think they’re much better now. Perhaps I was too hard on Darwin. Did I say years? It was mere months ago that I wrote the following, rather primitive answer at Quora:

No, because hate speech leads to hate thought, and that is a negative emotional state, one you have no right to be in.

I was one of the principal people who convinced Greta Thunberg the world was in imminent danger of climate collapse, whatever that word salad means, but obviously I’d never be gullible enough to do anything about the “problem” myself.

For this, I was subjected to embarrassment and moral opprobrium on a world stage when she voiced the sadness and anger of her generation at my hypocrisy, and ever since then people have been asking me “how dare you?”

As a human, I have a human right to do whatever I want without the danger of being ridiculed, criticised or disliked.

No matter how sad and angry I make you, too bad. According to proposed hate speech legislation, you have to keep it to yourself. And rightly so.

26 thoughts on “HULK MOSH

  1. If ever there was a case of blacking pots/kettles it’s Naomi trashing Willis. And as for Stephen Leahy’s snub that Willis has no scientific credentials, I would like to see Willis’s output placed against that of an arrogant Guardian environment reporter (assuming I’ve got the right one – over a hundred SLs are listed on Bing).

    Liked by 3 people

  2. I was cleaning the bottom of an ancient barrel that had been hidden away in a forgotten corner of a long forgotten temple in the Guatamala/Mexican border area. According to the Mayan glyphs, it was the barrel where sacrificed human parts, bits and pieces were tossed in as offerings to the spider demon living in the barrel. Imagine the unsurprising horror when the spider demon’s face emerged after scraping away the hundreds of years of sacrificial remains. The emerging face was clearly Oreskes’, staring up from the bottom of the barrel.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. But as for me, I shall not judge a book by its cover. And, in the immortal words of Tom Waits, “What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.”

    Liked by 2 people

  4. I took the liberty of editing your first comment Jaime, to make the graph visible. (You need to remove the stuff, including the question mark, after the ‘.png’ or ‘.jpg’. WordPress then sorts out the width.) It is very interesting, the data from Scandinavia. Blessings to Sweden for taking a different course.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Mosh appears to be one of the worlds many “Jack of all trades, masters of none”. Back in 2011/2012 he was pretending to be an expert on CACC. Now he appears to believe that he’s an expert on the spread of viruses.

    He claims to ” .. rarely mention dumbshit theories .. because I don’t want anyone thinking I might endorse dumbshit theories .. ” (

    He didn’t seem so cautious back in 2011/12 when he was promoting the ludicrous claim that carbon dioxide is opaque to IR ( As supporting evidence for his nonsense he referenced the rigged demonstration by CACC campaigner Dr. Iaine Stewart which was shown in the BBC’s CACC-propaganda series “The Climate Wars”.
    He refused to acknowledge that CO2 was only opaque to a narrow band within the I.r spectrum.

    For more on Dr. Stewart’s rigged demonstration see the final two comments (May 9th and 11th 2011) at .

    Liked by 1 person

  6. For anyone interested in that rigged demonstration used by Dr. Iain Stewart that si impressed Mosh, here’s what its designer Dr Jonathan Hare said about it ” .. You would think .. that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would ‘disappear’ due to the IR absorption. However, when you try this it doesn’t work, the candle doesn’t disappear!

    The reason is that the CO2 absorptions observable by the IR camera are quite weak and are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a ‘CO2 filter’ on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 µm, close to one of the CO2 absorption’s (which are broadened a bit at atmospheric pressure). The filter blocks out much of the IR energy so that the CO2 absorption is not so swamped anymore and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect .. “.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I liked the link by Stephen Leahy @StephenLeahy · May 18, 2020

    Replying to @GeraldKutney and 3 others
    He’s a long time #climatedenier with no science background but managed to be a speaker at Koch bros funded events

    which links to “”
    with this devastating debunk – May 16 – 18, 2010
    “Willis Eschenbach was a speaker at the Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change. His speech was titled “How Clouds and Thunderstorms Control the Earth’s Temperature.” [23]

    DeSmog concluded 19 of the 65 sponsors (including Heartland itself) had received a total of over $40 million in funding since 1985 from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries family foundations or Scaife foundations. [24]”



  8. I think part of their vileness comes from the fact that they know deep down they are frauds. Oreskes would be aware that nothing she does in life is made from “renewables”.The building she works in, all the food she eats, all her transportation..fossil fuel……trees must be cut and fossil fuel must be used to create/transport her book.The fact that they are no different to all of us here in the way they use energy, is what drives them into fury.I would respect creatures like Mosher if he walked the walk and grew his own food in hut he had made from the forest..but they dont…its just cool sounding thought bubbles for airheads to repeat…

    Liked by 1 person

  9. n her book “Why trust the science?” Naomi apparently asks ” .. If we cannot answer the question of why we should trust science—or even if we should trust it at all, then we stand little chance of convincing our fellow citizens, much less our political leaders, that they should .. act to prevent climate change .. ” (

    As far as CACC is concerned it’s not so much a case of trusting the science but of trusting those who present it. Recall that in 2006 the BBC had chosen to flood its programs with CACC propaganda ( The BBC’s 2009 CACC-propaganda series “Climate Wars” is a good example of how science can be misrepresented in order to trap the unwary. In Climate Wars Part 1 “The Battle Begins” science communicator and CACC campaigner Dr Iain Stewart claims “I can show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate .. ” ( at just after just over 1 minute or at which is followed by some interesting comments from viewers). The misleading demonstration used by Dr. Stewart could reasonabily be described as “creative”, creating an illusion which fooled the Mosh into believing that CO2 is opaque to IR.

    On his web site another science communicator, Dr Jonathan Hoar, describes in detail the set up he designed and the trick he had to use for Stewart’s rigged Climate Wars demonstration. It appears that Dr Hoar’s appropriately named “Creative Science Centre” had been given the task of creating the misleading impression that CO2 absorbs all of the IR coming from a candle flame.

    As he clearly states ” .. The thermal imaging camera we used was sensitive from ca. 1 to 5 µm, quite a large part of the IR spectrum. A lit candle or match produces lots of energy through the IR to the visible .. You would think .. that when you view the candle through the tube using the camera, and you introduce CO2 the bright flame would ‘disappear’ due to the IR absorption. However .. the candle doesn’t disappear! The reason is that the CO2 absorptions .. are only in a relatively small part of the spectrum. The only way to get the demonstration to work is to have a ‘CO2 filter’ on the camera. This only lets through IR at around 4 µm, close to one of the CO2 absorption’s .. The filter blocks out much of the IR energy .. and this allows us to now observe our vanishing candle effect .. ” (

    The most important point made by Dr Hoar is that the CO2 absorptions are only in a relatively small part of the IR spectrum – a fact that was conveniently overlooked by Dr Stewart during his demonstration. Mosh gave the impression of swallowing that BBC CACC propaganda hook, line and sinker when declaring CO2 to be opaque to IR – but he surely is not so stupid! Maybe he simply wanted to ” .. endorse the dumshit theories ..” promoted by Dr Stewart and his fellow CACC campaigners.

    I ask Naomi to answer this question – “Why trust the dumshit theories offered by biassed media such as the BBC and its science presenters”.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Jack-of-all-trades/master-of-none Mosh appears to be very impressed by his own achievements (Footnote 1).

    Despite his time at Northrop modelling Electrically Scanned Array radars/IR missiles, it appears that he has never studied IR spectrometry. An understanding of this is essential to understanding the scientific basis of the inappropriately-named “greenhouse effect”. If Mosh had just a basic grasp of the subject he would never have made the ludicrous claim that CO2 is OPAQUE (i.e. a transmissivity of 0) to IR. A picture paints 1000 words so here’s some help for Mosh – .

    Although I pointed this out to him on his own blog and elsewhere, along with the admission by Dr Hare (Footnote 3) of how he had rigged the BBC’s Climate Wars demonstration, he stubbornly insisted ” .. And yes C02 is opaque to IR, not transparent .. ” (see his comment of April 16, 2012 at 11:11 AM at

    It takes courage, self-confidence and a degree of humility to admit to being wrong. Mosh appears to lack those qualities, possibly explaining his inclination to blow his own trumpet. He even sees himself as being a “true” scientist (Footnote 5), although there appears to be no evidence of him having any scientific credentials.

    In my opinion Kent Clizbe summed up Mosh quite well ” .. His condescension and arrogance put him clearly in the Michael Mann camp of ‘researchers.’
His qualifications and experience .. are those of a marketer–a word spinner. His academic background is nearly the epitome of non-science, or even anti-science. About the best you can say of that is that at least he dropped out of Literature graduate school. 
His Northrop “commercial ” work appears to be government contracting. His “Engineering” stint was clearly not as a professional engineer, but apparently as a manager. 
After that his work appears to be purely marketing–that is spinning and convincing others to buy something .. ” (


    1) Modeller/mathematician/statistician/physicist/philosopher/marketeer/etc Mosh proudly boasts ” .. I entered Northwestern university as a Math and Physics major. in my 2nd year I switched to Philosophy and English and graduated top of my class with honors in both. I was accepted into UCLA on fellowship directly into the Phd program. ..
    For my dissertation I decided to write on Shannon information theory and Art. This required me to audit statistics classes and programming classes. Essentially it was applying Shannon’s concept of Entropy as a measure of stylistic variability.
    Needless to say this was far too “mathy” for most folks in the department.
But it seemed to me that I could marry up the math side of my abilitiies with the interest in art.
    .. I started to look at ways of using the computer to automatically generate text .. known as .. natural language generation.
    .. My first job was as an operations researcher in air combat modelling.
The training Northrop provided was astounding. .. I first worked on .. modelling air combat as a markov process.
    From there I went on to .. creating models for Electrically Scanned Array radars, IR missiles, and automated threat forces .. a piece of AI that operates a plane as a human would (Footnote 2). That became my specialty and later I joined a small aerospace outfit to build up their simulation capability ..
    the work .. in simulation and 3D graphics (and a patent – see Footnote 3) got me a technical marketing job. .. from there I focused entirely on marketing until I decided it was time to go back and do some technical stuff around audio and voice recognition.. Got an unrelated patent there on intelligent shuffling of playlists.
    After that I decided to .. switch back to pure marketing.. after a few years of that I decided to switch back again and started to learn R and write packages on temperature analysis. ..
    Today my 9-5 is operations research .. I get paid to do modelling, math and statistics.
    Its not that hard .. even a philosophy major can do it. BUT you have to .. read study take some course ask for help and do your homework.
Same as school except you dont have to work at the slow pace of dummies.
    ( see also comment by Mosh on April 29, 2017 at 4:35 am)

    Reminds me of the song .

    PopularTechnology blogger Andrew provides some interesting information in his 2014 article “Who is Steven Mosher”, including a summary of Mosh’s CV
    ” .. B.A. Philosophy and English, Northwestern University (1981); Director of Operations Research/Foreign Military Sales & Marketing, Northrop Aircraft (1985-1990); Vice President of “Engineering” [Marketing], Eidetics International (1990-1993); Director of Marketing, Kubota Graphics Company (1993-1994); Vice President of Sales & Marketing, Criterion Software (1994-1995); Vice President of Emerging Technology [Marketing], Creative Labs (1995-2006); Marketing, Openmoko (2007-2009); MarketingConsultant, Qi Hardware Inc. (2009); Marketing Consultant (2010-Present); [Marketing] Advisor, RedZu Online Dating Service (2012-Present) .. ” (

    Apparently Mosh dropped out of his NorthWestern Maths/Physics course in his second year and ultimately failed to complete his PhD course at UCLA. That says far more about Mosh than all of his self-praise.

    2) see

    3) What Mosh failed to mention was that the patent he is so proud of was granted to the Eidetics International Inc team of 7 ( He was only one member of that team so It would be interesting to know what contribution Mosh made. There is more to the conception, development design and engineering of a novel system such as that EFOV display than just writing its software,

    It is not uncommon for managers to get their names on patents for work done by their subordinates without themselves having made any significant contribution. I encountered this during my time at the Bell-Northern Research, Canada R&D labs and made sure that no-one stole any credit for my work on Key Telephone Systems (
    Lets not forget that Mosh’s role at Eidetics was not in researching, developing or designing but in Marketing.

    4) Mistakenly called Dr Hoar in previous comments here.

    5) Mosh once declared ” .. all true scientists are skeptics if we raise specific doubts about specific claims .. ” – It is reasonable to expect any scientist (true or otherwise) with an involvement in the CACC hypothesis debate to have significant doubts about Dr. Iain Stewart’s specific claim that ” .. I can show you how carbon dioxide affects earth’s climate .. ” ( On the contrary, Mosh appeared to swallow it hook. line and sinker.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Peter,

    Thanks for that. I don’t see Steven’s lack of science qualifications as a particular problem, and certainly Steven doesn’t — in fact he is quite proud of it. I think he thinks it adds to his image as the man of natural scientific prowess who doesn’t need the q!ualifications to prove it. However, I have to question the judgment of someone who thinks that using ‘Shannon’s concept of Entropy as a measure of stylistic variability’ is anything to boast about. I also wonder which side of his brain he was using when he gave ‘entropy’ a capital letter. Was it the side that majored in English or the one that minored in physics?

    Liked by 1 person

  12. On reflection, perhaps I shouldn’t be so sniffy about Mosher’s attempt to find an application for ‘Shannon’s concept of Entropy’ in the arts. After all, he is just following a long tradition of shoe-horning scientific concepts into artistic criticism. I’m sure someone got there first by pointing out that minimalistic art reflects maximum entropy. I never have understood minimalism myself, so I suppose the less said the better.

    I am available for Bar Mitzvahs and weddings.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Peter,

    Thanks once again. I had not been familiar with Professor Brown or his views. However, he seems to be a man after my own heart.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. The first comment by RG Brown on WUWT (using rgbatduke as his moniker) that I noted on my wiki was on December 19, 2011, starting:

    For what it is worth, I am a physicist, and I and a fair number of my colleagues were actively offended by the APS “conclusion”.

    I believe that’s when he ’emerged’ as a sceptic, thanks to the American Physical Society going rogue alarmist. In November 2013 Anthony Watts promoted one of his comments to a guest post: ‘Let’s face it. The climate has never been more boring.’ During the discussion he said to Mosh:

    Steven, this was a very reasonable reply and I agree. As I’ve said many time before in different threads, predicting the climate is one of the most difficult tasks humans have undertaken — one is solving at least two coupled navier-stokes systems (arguably coupled to a third magnetohydrodynamic one on the surface of the sun) on a rotating, tilted, magnetized oblate spheroid with a highly inhomogeneous surface in a moderately eccentric orbit around an irregularly variable star. Both fluids (the atmosphere and the ocean) have complex chemistry, complex biology (in the case of the ocean), variable density and complex transport and stratification.

    So he wasn’t always a critic. There’s some good stuff on that thread.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Hi Richard,

    I became aware of Robert G Brown back in 2010nwhen we were both involved in exchanges with members of the pseudo-science organisation Principia Scientific International, set up by John Anthony O’Sullivan and associates. Robert was a persistent critic of their pseudo-science, attracting the ire of PSI “Senior Fellow” Joe Postma, but that’s a long, long story for elsewhere.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Hi Richard,

    “Fascinating” is certainly one of the kinder words that I would use in relation to the antics of the owners of the PSI “charity”, John O’Sullivan and his partner. For anyone interested, google “andrew skolnick” “john o’sullivan” – a starter can be found at (I’m no fan of desmogblog but have no argument on this one).

    Checking through my Emails I found that I invited Robert G Brown to become involved in Email exchanges about CACC in 2013 (not 2010 as previously stated). Robert and I had been trying to debate with PSI’s Joe Postma (a frustrating task – see

    Simultaneously I had been discussing the CACC issue in Emails on the subject of “A Critical Evaluation of the Essential Physics of Manmade Global Warming” (Footnote 1). Dr. Brown’s first Email to the group, on 14th March 2013 began “I’m working my way through the physics of the GHE” and ended “I would still welcome any feedback on why there us this prevailing fascination with TOA mean insolation in a system that is so nonlinear … “.

    His second Email included ” .. I’m perfectly happy to discuss and learn science and even argue about the GHE .. but I’m not at all interested in joining the “stayer game” of making absurd claims and then asserting that I’ve disproven AGW. Good luck proving that a directly observable, quantifiable, GHG-based alteration in the radiation spectrum of the planet with matching TOA holes and BOA downwelling in the GHG bands doesn’t exist .. ” (Footnote 2).

    Comments that he made throughout those two weeks of exchanges made it perfectly clear to me that at that time Dr. Brown was very sceptical about the CACC hypothesis, but prepared to consider sound scientific counter-arguments – just what you’d expect from a “true” scientist.


    1) Involved had been Drs. Charles Anderson*, Jack Barrett, Dick Lindzen, Bob Carter, Fred Singer, Tim Ball*, John Nichol, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Martin Hertzberg*, Grant Petty, et al.
    * one-time PSI member, or “Slayer” as John O’Sullivan was prone to call his PSI founding members – co-authors of the pseudo-scientific book “Slaying the Sky Dragon”, purporting to prove that the GHE is a fiction.

    2) During those exchanges reference was made to the excellent blog run by Jack Barrett and David Bellamy (ditched by the CACC propaganda bureau BBC in favour of CACC campaigner Iain Stewart). The focus was on and MODTRAN plots.
    Those plots are something one would reasonably expect “aerospace engineer”/IR-seeking weapon expert Mosh to know something about ( – but it seems not!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.