I would not have believed this if I didn’t see it in print. It’s another example of the playbook pioneered by the late Dr. Steven Schneider. Bolding mine.
“This is a Sophie’s Choice: If we respond to the moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm about climate, we have to be deceptive.
If we are committed to truth and scientific accuracy, we have to talk in hedged, caveat-filled, probabilistic language that is utterly ineffectual in reaching and activating a tuned-out public.” -David Roberts, Grist
http://grist.org/climate-energy/hawks-vs-scolds-how-reverse-tribalism-affects-climate-communication/
h/t to Tom Fuller
UPDATE: 11/2/12 On Twitter, David Roberts is claiming that I’ve misrepresented his position, and called me a “hack” for printing this.
 |
David Roberts | |
| @drgrist | ||
| @wattsupwiththat I called it a “false dichotomy.” You presented it as my view. Don’t blame your hackery on me. | ||
I replied that the article was misleading:
 |
Watts Up With That @wattsupwiththat | 01 Nov | |
| @drgrist then learn not to write misleading articles | |||
| |
Watts Up With That @wattsupwiththat | 01 Nov | |
| @drgrist if you have a disclaimer, such as should have been with original, happy to add it. Post stays because your wrote those words, notme | |||
| |
David Roberts | |
| @drgrist | ||
| @wattsupwiththat I didn’t do enough to prevent your misunderstanding, so you’re sticking with it? | ||
| |
Watts Up With That @wattsupwiththat | 01 Nov | |
| @drgrist just add disclaimer that you don’t endorse what u wrote in that para to ur article, assuming isn’t insult re: this, I’ll add it. | |||
| |
David Roberts | |
| @drgrist | ||
| @wattsupwiththat It’s not my job to correct your posts. You know it’s wrong & misleading. You can choose to leave it up or not. | ||
From my perspective, it looks more like he’s embarrassed about it after the fact, maybe because he was getting some flak. The problem with his argument is that his “false dichotomy” statement is three paragraphs above the one where he talks about the “Sophie’s Choice” and to me there’s not an obvious statement that he doesn’t believe what he wrote.
My offer is that if he wants to distance himself from that paragraph, he can add a disclaimer or clarification, and I’ll be happy to follow up with that here. I think it is a fair offer.
Why don’t I believe him about his “Sophie’s Choice” paragraph as not being his view? it has a lot to do with statements like this:
Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”
Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no )
Source: http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568
When a person has tendency to make such hateful and outlandish claims, one tends to believe that he’d make another similar claim, especially since he has not retracted his Nuremberg claim.
If Mr. Roberts does not believe what he wrote about “Sophie’s Choice” I’ll happily issue a correction here if he makes a caveat, disclaimer, or clarification to that effect on his own article.
NOBODY expects the warmist inquisition! Our two weapons are: Deception, Cunning, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope. Wait… our THREE weapons are…
AW: I would not have believed this if I didn’t see it in print.
Really? I thought we sceptics had become quite jaded to this kind of talk and behaviour by now.
REPLY: It is one thing to say that in private (which I expect happens often) it is quite another to put it to print – Anthony
They prove daily how little tangible evidence they have to show the public. They’re reduced to scaring the public like fire and brimstone preachers.
Hmmm… and how has Sophie’s choice been working out for you so far? You have lied, cheated, exaggerated, threatened, terrorized and de-educated children, predicted deaths of billions, and extinction of half or more of the species of the land and oceans. It has been so bad that it is impossible for a decent person to visualize how you are going to make this worse. And now you say, “No more Mr. Niceguy”! Oh, and scientists will have to stop doing science.
…and a fanatical devotion to Pope Neil deGrasse Tyson
Or in other words,
“The evidence isn’t good enough so we will have to lie.”
Ironically the more journalists and celebrity-climatologists push the “scientists-sez so don’t dare argue, dummy” meme the more the public realizes they are dealing with soft, psuedo-scientist types more akin to Freud and Margaret Meade than people like Einstein and Hubble. CAGW is simply not supported by any data at this point and the only way to “sell it” is to sell the mass hysteria like self-pleasuring will make you blind or you can get AIDS by using the same drinking fountain as gay people.
Speaking of Steven Schneider: Can anyone confirm/disconfirm that he was once on the Board of Directors of PBS? Years ago (in the ’80’s or early ’90’s) I heard a rumor that he had disallowed a movie about climate to be shown on PBS. I have never been able to confirm/disconfirm the rumor. The movie was skeptical of climate warming (even back then!) and explained how the four (or five?) “pillars” supporting climate warming were false. I recall the movie being produced by the BBC, showing how things can change.
You thinkers are too stupid to see!
And these same progressive liberals blast Christians for being self-righteous, dogmatic, control freaks obsessed with imaginary nonsense…
This is not new and it is not surprising. This is the language of the True Believer and it goes back to our most ancient ancestors. It is used by the True Believers in any and all theology and ideology since people started getting organized in communities. It should surprise no one.
“It is journalistically irresponsible to present both sides as if it were a question of balance. Given the distribution of views, with groups like the National Academy of Science expressing strong scientific concern, it is irresponsible to give equal time to a few people standing out in left field.
T]he overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.
-Stephen H Schneider 1992-”
And so a fifth of a century later were still waiting for unequivocal signs of armageddon. What were the predictions in 1992? When was the world going to end? How high was the temp supposed to have been by 2012? How many species were to have died? How many grandchildren have suffered CAGW since? How does one expect to convince the public of the tipping point in the offing if the temperature trend has been flat for 16 years of the 20 since 1992? The public is sceptical now, they will think you are a bunch of idiots if you get more shrill about this non event.
David Roberts has become brazen. He is now impatient with the power of political correctness. The fact that scientists and non-scientist sceptics who criticize AGW are generally treated as pariahs is no longer enough for him. He is answering the call of Al Gore, Sandra Fluke, and other birds of that feather who wants us treated as rabid segregationists were treated. The pursuit of absolute power corrupts absolutely. He calls for propaganda to replace science. He aspires to a form of communism as pure as Lenin’s.
Heads – up. “Climategate Revisited” about to start. No proxy needed.
21:00 – 21:30 UTC-5
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_four
Ovid noted the same thing 2000 years ago: exitus acta probat.
oops 21:00 UTC
Was thinking of the upcoming clock chane from EDT.
The statement is beyond surreal, right up there with: The floggings will continue until the morale improves.
This may rate up there with Mann’s Nobel Prize embellishment as an example of admission against interest.
The author of that old 1992 article quoting Stephen “scary scenarios” Schneider and this 2005 “Katrina’s Real Name” article http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/ are one and the same person.
Actually, I wish that attitude (i.e., ‘The end justifies the means’) was only restricted to climate matters. Gee, I wonder where it came from?
Many of the same characters & all the same tactics recur in every Loony Left academic hoax since at least the ’70s. When I interviewed Schneider about Nuclear Winter, he spoke much more scientifically than when pitching the brazen Commie plot in public.
DirkH says:
NOBODY expects the warmist inquisition! Our two weapons are: Deception, Cunning, and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope. Wait… our THREE weapons are…
=====
There may be some agreement between the warmists and the Pope. In his Encyclical Letter of 2009, Pope Benedict wrote this:
“50. …the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly… ”
“…to guarantee the protection of the environment… there is urgent need of a true world political authority…”
Warmists would agree with the Pope’s comments above and with his idea of “pursuing justice through redistribution.” But they would not likely agree with the Pope’s desire “to ensure that the redistribution of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty.” Most strident warmists want an increase in poverty, at least in the developed world, to drastically lower CO2 output.
@ NeedleFactory
Check this out:
http://richardminiter.com/pdf/19910208-art-csm.pdf
I remember watching a documentary in the US in the late 80’s to early 90’s that matches your description but I have no recollection of what network aired it.
We are mocking the guy but he describes the academic reality. Scientists feel compelled to comply with moral responsibility: the Oppenheimer syndrome. This is why many of them follow the warriors of the good against evil, they fear to be among those who knew but did not say nothing. I do not know how it is in America, but I can certify it is the case in Europe. Leftists used this feeling of culpability to impose their point of view, it is the well known gramscist strategy: take control of culture if you want to take the power.
What is expressed here is the ideological base of the principle of precaution: if you are not 100% sure your acts do not have bad consequences do nothing.
AW: I would not have believed this if I didn’t see it in print.
JK:
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is” Al Gore in Grist, 09 May 2006,
—
“ So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” Steven Schneider, DISCOVER OCTOBER 1989, Page 47,
—
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, Jim Hansen, “Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?” August 1, 2003
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html
—
See http://sustainableoregon.com/oktolie.html
Thanks
JK
I having a 27 year old daughter named “Sophie” after the book by William Styron, I find it sick and disgusting to use the words “Sophie’s Choice” in the contexts of global warming. I guess it is because it is known of the connection with the word “Denier” I wonder why I despise these people so much? (Sarcasm) I am sorry but if someone said that to my face I would in all honesty lash out and punch the guy in the mouth.
Roberts just ripped off Mein Kampf:
“The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly. ”
http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/DocPropa.htm
Oh, one more thing (if I may borrow that old Lt Columbo line): Grist’s Dave Roberts actually quoted Al Gore as saying essentially the same thing about scary scenarios back in 2006 in an answer to his 6th question in this article http://grist.org/article/roberts2/
” … Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. … “
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.”
–Bertrand Russell
Wow!!!! That Grist link is a visit to the nut house!
Just read the whole article at Grist.
Then the doorbell rang announcing the first of the trick-or-treaters, just in time to break the spell and erase from memory, the words that inexplicably only moments before had held import.
They disappeared with the first ghouls of the night, never to be considered again.
Just listened to “Climategate Revisited”. It didn’t push a specific agenda and was surprisingly fair to the sceptics – and even the warmists sounded reasonable. In particular, and knowing (from bitter personal experience) how easy it is to distort a recorded interview, Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) and Steve McIntyre were allowed to come over well. Amazing for the Beeb.
David Roberts’ concluding paragraph is almost as bad. Who needs scientific facts when you have “the language of emotion and association”? Is he talking about science here or his religion?
“That’s what persuades and motivates people: not the clinical language of science, but experiences and emotions and associations. Of course communicating scientific facts is important too, but it’s not the primary need, nor the standard by which other communications should be judged. What scolds often do is interpret the language of emotion and association through the filter of science. That’s neither helpful nor admirable.”
Yes, let’s put emotion about science. What could possibly go wrong?
What part of this are people simply not getting.
Empirical modeling began in the late 17th century with Newton who used the Ra/Dec system as a basis for his absolute/relative time,space and motion that nobody really understood,not then and not now.I understand what he tried to do and why it never worked and it is now front and center as meteorologists may wish to explain Sandy from specific meteorological and astronomical background while those pushing a social/political agenda want to generalize modeling without considering why it grew so large,why it took the track it did and why its flooding was more devastating than had the East coast been at a different point in its daily cycle or the moon at a different point in its lunar orbit.
Simply put,modelers insist that one rotation of the Earth falls out of step with one 24 hour day so that such things as daily rotational and lunar inputs into the tides go out of kilter,in other words the devastation of Sandy was due to the time of landfall when the East coast was at a particular point in its daily rotational cycle and the moon at another position.
For goodness sake,read this and this alone,from NASA –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year” NASA
With the failure of Marxist/Leninism, the elite needed to find a new ideology to help them impose their will on the proletariate. People like Roberts are scum.
Or David Roberts could stick with what he’s already doing, which is to deliver deception truthfully.
Note to the morally bankrupt Mr. Roberts: In neither statement can a “moral imperative” be justified.
But be careful—how have you determined there is a “tuned-out public”, Mr. Roberts? Maybe they’re onto you and the nefarious games you and your ilk play! If that’s the case, what you propose will just drive the public farther away and the “moral imperative” is achieved–perhaps even strengthened.
Just not yours.
David Roberts is asking a question. Here is the full quote:
He then shows how it is possible to communicate a third way, to convey a ‘moral imperative’ without being ‘scientifically inaccurate’.
” … we have to be deceptive. …”
So what else is new? The data has all been “adjusted” to the point that I wonder if any real data can be salvaged from this era. To what point? To create a problem that only a world government of tyrannical powers could enforce a solution for. After the fall of the USSR, the collectivists all became “green”.
Someday, this madness will befuddle young students studying this time period. It will be crazier than Tulip mania.
Not only is it unsurprising in this context, but in the history of the “Western Intellectual” – students of Rousseau, Shelley, or Tolstoy would have no trouble recognizing the principle.
The “grand rewrite of reality for the sake of X” goes back at least to Plato, probably much farther.
And it’s pernicious and destructive every time, and yet never loses it’s glamour.
clipe says:
October 31, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Heads – up. “Climategate Revisited” about to start. No proxy needed.
21:00 – 21:30 UTC-5
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_four
clipe says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 31, 2012 at 2:03 pm
oops 21:00 UTC
Was thinking of the upcoming clock chane from EDT
Edit
Was thinking of the upcoming clock change from EDT
Nowhere is this more obvious than in the MSM treatment of “hurricane” Sandy, which basically fizzled about the same time as the HMS Bounty sank. They point at the resulting Frankenstorm and say: See how HUGE the HURRICANE is!!!! Those with no idea about what constitutes an actual Hurricane lap this up like spaghetti sauce.
No doubt about it, the storm was a whopper. A century whopper, even. And it had ‘the highest storm surge’…unfortunately aided by a full moon tide. But was Sandy still Sandy? No. it was a monster made of several components that coincided. Had the Nor’easter not been there, Sandy was likely even less of a no-show than the much-vaunted Irene, another no-show hurricane.
SandySpawn was even touted as being the product of HAARP…notwithstanding the colossal planning needed to make a two-bit hurricane and an unseasonable Nor’easter collide over New Joisey. But that topic is treading on WUWT thin ice, so [snip]. Regardless, the storm and its high-profile Manhattan target became Grist for the misinformation mill. There is a lot of damage, both to infrastructure and truth.
It is a fact that very few things in the world are absolutely certain. It is also my experience that we scientists come across as bumbling idiots when they try to be honest and express this uncertainty to a cynical public who express everything in black and white.
Tibor Skardanelli says: October 31, 2012 at 2:40 pm
We are mocking the guy but he describes the academic reality. Scientists feel compelled to comply with moral responsibility: the Oppenheimer syndrome. This is why many of them follow the warriors of the good against evil, they fear to be among those who knew but did not say nothing. I do not know how it is in America, but I can certify it is the case in Europe. Leftists used this feeling of culpability to impose their point of view, it is the well known gramscist strategy: take control of culture if you want to take the power.
What is expressed here is the ideological base of the principle of precaution: if you are not 100% sure your acts do not have bad consequences do nothing.
You hit the nail on the head, identifying Gramsci. The Gramscians and Fabians are alive and well here in the states. The whole ‘problem’ with a Marxist Revolution in Western Europe and Amerca was identified by Gramsci nearly a century ago: The Proles will never engage in violent revolution due to the fact that they are so well off. Therefore, undermine the foundations of culture, and take a few generations instead of a few years. I’d say they’ve been very successful on both sides of the pond.
True believers are just amazing. It has always been so, but it is sooo astonishing. They just never learn.
Actually “Sophie’s choice”, in the novel and the movie, has a simple solution.
Save the older child, since that one has had more time, effort, and other resources already expended.
In the case of research the choice should also be simple; the truth, as it is, without embellishment or distortion.
Punch drunk. Keep thumping people about the head with incipient climate cataclysm whilst at the same time blaming them for it with the one hand and grasping at their wallets with the other. All but the least intelligent will begin to detect a fish like smell.
I simply cannot help but feel the hand of orchestration masquerading as climate alarmism. The overall purpose? Maybe to engineer a shift from fossil fuels to ‘sustainable’ renewables, to create a generic currency – that of energy – and certainly a world order consistent with UN Agenda 21.
Here, the end justifies the means. This is a religious crusade. The free market is the heretic.
[snip]
I believe the philosophical term for these people is consequentialists. The trouble is they have set themselves up as arbiters of who should be told the truth and who should not and not to put a fine point on it, who the hell are they to decide that?
Gerald Kelleher says:
For goodness sake,read this and this alone,from NASA –
“The Earth spins on its axis about 366 and 1/4 times each year, but there are only 365 and 1/4 days per year” NASA
Sorry – I’m not clear on why that’s a problem. It’s pretty obvious that the 24-hour day has to take into account the change in the relative position of the sun to the earth from one day to the next. A full 360-degree rotation isn’t going to match up with a full 24-hour day. I haven’t bothered to calculate it, but I see no reason to doubt that statement.
As for the rest of what you say, that’s a different matter…
Is there one intelligent person here who can manage to associate one rotation of the Earth within a 24 hour period with the massive daily temperature fluctuations between daytime highs and night time lows because apparent nobody else can –
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
That value up there is not just an enormous error,it conceals something much more relevant to this era and specifically generalized modeling,we did not create the error but maintain it.
How do you explain to people stuck in a conceptual rut that our era can’t even account for the daily temperature rises and falls let alone planetary climate ?.
“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
TonyG
The 24 hour AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system contains the core facts on the Earth’s rotational characteristics while the Ra/Dec extension on which the ridiculous NASA statement rests is a calendar based convenience which cannot explain the motions of the planet.NASA has already realized this and altered information back to the proper correlation between the 24 hour day and rotation but did not do so in a transparent way so you are behind the times on this one.
The astronomical inputs into Sandy,apart from the broad views such as rotation imparting hurricane spiral structure or the seasonal inputs into ocean temperatures,was the coincidence of landfall with the position of the East coast to the moon in its daily rotational cycle and the orbital position of the moon – these inputs are calculated on the basis of the 24 hour day as predictions of tidal levels at any given hour rely on these two inputs to to have a 24 hour day fall out of sync with one rotation is not just wrong,it is horribly abnormal.
Everything can be explained but my goodness,does it take some untangling.
Gerald Kelleher says:
The 24 hour AM/PM system in tandem with the Lat/Long system contains the core facts on the Earth’s rotational characteristics while the Ra/Dec extension on which the ridiculous NASA statement rests is a calendar based convenience which cannot explain the motions of the planet.NASA has already realized this and altered information back to the proper correlation between the 24 hour day and rotation but did not do so in a transparent way so you are behind the times on this one.
I really don’t understand exactly what you’re getting at, but if I’m behind on this (which is really something that I haven’t bothered to study anyways), then I’m happy to be brought up to date. Can you provide references for me to learn more about what you’re talking about?
As for exactly what I said – I remain quite certain that the 24-hour rotation of the earth on its axis is NOT exactly 360 degrees. In fact, I would place it at just less than one degree off – in which direction, I don’t know offhand. Would you agree with that (and only that) fundamental statement?
Before our deontologists start rewriting all of post modernism, which has after all a focus on universal emancipation, they should remember that even St Augustine was known to argue that some forms of deceit were forgivable, check out his eight classes of lies, he was supported in this by none other than Thomas Aquinas. Myself, I prefer Kant’s argument that lying is treating someone as a means to an ends and as that breaks the golden rule it is wrong…
Translation: If we are to get the gullible public to believe something that’s not true then it’s our moral imperitive to lie to them.
He could have said it better:
This is The Choice: you can either be an activist or a scientist; you cannot be both.
S Mark says:
“He then shows how it is possible to communicate a third way, to convey a ‘moral imperative’ without being ‘scientifically inaccurate’.”
Except the “third way” is the same as the before mentioned dishonest way, scientifically inaccurate: (bold mine)
“Our children will face many more droughts, wildfires, and Sandy’s than we have. It’s not a flattering legacy.”
…..
”But note that none of them are phrased in the language of science (though none are scientifically inaccurate). Science is not the point. The point is to try to tell a story about climate change, to give a sense of what climate means, how it fits in the bigger picture.”
Where has it been established that there will be more “Sandy’s” with X CO2 emissions than with Y CO2 emissions?
Truth: If A = C then C = A, just because you take A and call it C doesn’t mean it doesn’t have the same “values” or lack there of, as the case may be.
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
October 31, 2012 at 3:25 pm
the same time as the HMS Bounty sank
Um, HMS Bounty did not sink, it was destroyed by burning by the mutineers on 23 January 1790 at Pitcairn Island. The vessel that sank 29 October 2012 may have been called “Bounty”, but was *not* HMS. That title is restricted to ships in commission in the Royal Navy. The only exception is HMS Belfast which obtained a dispensation to use HMS and also to fly the “White Ensign”.
p.s. HMS Victory, the flagship of Nelson, officially is still in commission in the Royal Navy.
I am reluctant to let this opportunity go as a major flood in antiquity was the basis for determining the foundations of timekeeping along with the later development of the 24 hour AM/PM system and the Lat/Long system.
The Nile flooded at a specific orbital point which happened to coincide with the appearance of the star Sirius from behind the glare of the central Sun ,it emerges after a period of a few months as the Earth moves around in its orbital circuit.The Egyptians noticed that from any given year,the Nile flooded as the star appeared but the star itself did not appear after 4 cycles of 365 days but took an extra day after the 4th cycle.
So here we have two floods,one catastrophic (Sandy) and one beneficial (Nile) but both containing a great deal of information on the motions of the Earth and the myriad of astronomical inputs that go up to make climate and short terms events whether predictable or unpredictable.The most predictable cause and effect is the 24 hour rotation of the Earth and the daily temperature fluctuations and that this is disputed,due to some dumb error they made in the late 17th century is the real tragedy here.
@John West: Thank you for the reference! ; that is the movie I remember. The other part of the rumor that I could never discover is whether or not Schneider was ever on the PBS “Board of Directors.”
A little off topic, (but maybe not) under another post before Sandy hit I said that in 1973 I’d found out that the old VW Bug really did float during a tropical storm in Texas. I had the name wrong. It was Tropical Storm Dalia, not Iilia or however I had spelled it. Everyone says things that are wrong at times but I do try not to deceive.
(ModSqaud, This comment may only matter to me, but thanks for allowing it.)
Richard of NZ says:
October 31, 2012 at 4:57 pm…
Rule Brittania. May I be keel-hauled for besmirching His/Her Majesty’s Ship. Apparently, a distant relation of Fletcher Christian was lost in the wreck of the Lunenburg, Nova Scotia replica of the former supply vessel. I was a six-year-old kid when we went there to see her launched in 1960, amid much fanfare.
Mike Bromley the Canucklehead says:
Rule Brittania. May I be keel-hauled for besmirching His/Her Majesty’s Ship.
In your defense, I heard more than one reporter call it the “HMS Bounty”. Likely because it was the ship used as HMS Bounty in the movie (and was thus named).
I think the guy summed up the state of climate science and it’s attendent political ramifications pretty damn well.
More’s the pity.
At least he knows he’s being deceptive. It’s the starting point for repentance.
This ‘noble cause corruption’ (and other less noble corruption) causes some to act in a very ignorant and ignoble manner.
bikermailman says:
October 31, 2012 at 3:36 pm
“You hit the nail on the head, identifying Gramsci. The Gramscians and Fabians are alive and well here in the states. The whole ‘problem’ with a Marxist Revolution in Western Europe and Amerca was identified by Gramsci nearly a century ago: The Proles will never engage in violent revolution due to the fact that they are so well off. Therefore, undermine the foundations of culture, and take a few generations instead of a few years. I’d say they’ve been very successful on both sides of the pond.”
Very well said. Domesticity was the first to go. Remember the comforts of domesticity? After domesticity fell (became perceived as too expensive), homemakers fell and wives were weakened…Now traditional marriage is on the block.
The goal is that eventually everyone will be looking to the state for everything.
It is the moral imperative that I fear the most. That emphemoral untouchable quantity. The imperative “need” to improve everybody(else)s morality. And it must be done at all costs, bla bla bla…. Dangerous thinking gone mad.
@Tony G:
Look up sidereal and solar day. Sidereal is about 4 minutes shorter.
phillychuck says:
Look up sidereal and solar day. Sidereal is about 4 minutes shorter.
Thank you – that’s exactly what I was getting at. Thanks for filling in the terms.
Think of it this way: the Earth needs 1 extra rotation per year to compensate for its revolution around the Sun, which is ‘averaged’ out to make each rotation a bit slower. Sort of.
😉
I need a new update on Solar Cycle 24 for my friends, the last one is getting a bit dated.
When will it start cooling?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/13/when-will-it-start-cooling/
What S Mark says is very important and I think we should pay attention if we don’t want to make the same mistakes as our antagonists.
David Roberts is asking a question. Here is the full quote:
This is a Sophie’s Choice: If we respond to the moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm about climate, we have to be deceptive. If we are committed to truth and scientific accuracy, we have to talk in hedged, caveat-filled, probabilistic language that is utterly ineffectual in reaching and activating a tuned-out public. Dishonest or ineffectual. Alarmist or concern troll. Those are our choices?
He then shows how it is possible to communicate a third way, to convey a ‘moral imperative’ without being ‘scientifically inaccurate’.
Roberts thinks it is a “moral imperative” and I don’t. Roberts undoubtedly believes many things I don’t, yet he is not saying he will lie to a “tuned out pulbic.” Roberts is offerring a third choice.
It’s not; 24 hours would give MORE than 360 degrees, as the actual rotational period is 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds and that is a complete 360 degree rotation.
This is because a _solar day_ is longer than a sidereal day. While the earth rotates, it also moves around the sun in the interval from one day to another. The Earth completes a little more than one turn in space each solar day. Which is why the period of rotation is _not_ 24 hours.
Sidereal day: the time scale that is based on the Earth’s rate of rotation measured relative to the fixed stars.
.
As is typical with the Green/Left, Roberts mistakenly equates his own feelings with a ‘moral imperative’ and so commits a logical fallacy straight off the bat.
Where does the ‘moral imperative’ come from? Presumably from a scientific certainty, or there is no need for an imperative. But he concedes there is in truth no such scientific certainty. So the moral imperative disappears.
What he calls a ‘moral imperative’ is simply his emotional need to correct what he sees as some injustice, inflated to the size of his ego.
Louis says:
October 31, 2012 at 2:22 pm
“There may be some agreement between the warmists and the Pope. In his Encyclical Letter of 2009, Pope Benedict wrote this:
“50. …the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly… ”
“…to guarantee the protection of the environment… there is urgent need of a true world political authority…””
Well of course. First, Benedict is a german, and germany has for hundreds of years now an environment that is to 95% man-made and only 5% untouched wilderness. Nearly all forests are there because we made them (after cutting them down at some time in the past) etc. The German environmentalism goes back at least to the romantics (Goethe, Schiller) over the founder of the Waldorf schools, Steiner, over H1tler to our current ex-c0mmunist-ruled green party (but with regard to the environment not different from the other parties). Environmentalism is to Germans what the Pursuit Of Happiness is to 53% of the Americans.
Second, the Vatican is the biggest land owner on the planet and profits greatly from royalties for wind turbines erected on its land. So they are a huge promoter of the ruinous EU 20:20:20 doctrine.
David Roberts:
I think nobody mentioned it by now. David Roberts does not know the definition of a concern troll.
“1. concern troll
In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll
One should really not take the dwarf seriouosly. He knows not what he speaks about.
TonyG
The antecedent to modeling climate with computers was modeling planetary dynamics using watches and stellar circumpolar motion,only lately and after roughly a decade of presenting why the latter is impossible and an organization like NASA has veered away from the toxic error by doing what all people are required to do – work off the Earth’s geometry and rotation rather than a rotating celestial sphere –
What made Sandy’s landfall devastating was the position of the East coast in its daily cycle to the moon and the moon in its orbital position to the Earth and the Sun.These two astronomical components are based on the 24 hour AM/PM cycle and in 4 orbital circuits of the Earth,there are 1461 such cycles .The great tragedy is that all those respondents here who insist the Earth does not turn once in a day are forced into an awful position of proposing the Earth turns 1465 times in 1461 days.
Again,how do you convince people that during a 24 hour period the temperature will go up and down in response to one rotation of the planet ? Does this not speak more for how little we presently understand the relationship between astronomical inputs into terrestrial effects than a million graphs ?.I am familiar with something that is far more dismal than the unwillingness to look again at an old subject and that is the complete inability,even with the strongest effort,to do so as the stupid late 17th century ‘solar vs sidereal’ concoction is so entrenched that it is a symptom of indoctrination and not education and the ability of people to think independently.
The worst thing that happened is that both sides in this phony ‘climate’ issue have become comfortable with each other’s arguments or characters that represent them rather than finding clear ground to look at what we have in front of us.
BrianH
I am going to say something new – the Earth has a largely equatorial climate as opposed to Uranus which has a polar climate due to its axial inclination
http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Uranus_rings_changes.jpg
The old astronomical approach of ‘no tilt/no seasons’ needs to be replaced with a 21st century perspective that zero inclination denotes an equatorial climate while a 90 degree inclination, similar to that of Uranus,reflects a polar climate.
The old astronomical idea of axial precession has to be replaced as the polar coordinates,acting like a beacon for all locations on Earth,turn 360 degrees to the central Sun thereby replacing the old and awkward ’tilt’ towards and away from the Sun.As seen from Mars,the Earth’s polar coordinate would be seen to turn like this as it made a circuit of the Sun just as the polar coordinates of Uranus are seen to do so –
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Earth_precession.svg
What they did in the late 17th century was try to bundle the daily and orbital motions together and run everything off a single axis or Ra/Dec as it is known and it is nothing short of catastrophic where planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects mesh.
I nominate Tom Fuller for the Prize of Noble Cause Redemption. He finds these gems because he reads the dreck, muck and mire of the Alarmist Narrative from the Machine. Purple Hearts, Distinguishing Crosses, Wisdom Stars, Tax Exemptions, nothing’s too much to honor his valor. Tom Nelson’s another one who doesn’t get enough credit. Listen to the Tom-Toms.
======================
er, missed the main point in all the adulation. Knowing what he knows, wading through the cries of catastrophe must be a bitter and horror-filled journey. Godspeed!
==========
The problem with propaganda is that it is most effective on your OWN supporters. They absorb all the lies, all of them, then start broadcasting every one as if it were truth. This marks them out as fools to their opponents until the day the supporters realise they have indeed been spouting lies. Then quite suddenly they stop believing EVERYTHING, including that which they were told that may have been truth. It is, therefore, a rather dangerous game to play.
“The overall weight of evidence” of global warming “is so clear that one begins to feel angry toward those who exaggerate the uncertainty.”
-Stephen H Schneider 1992-
Twenty years and hundreds of millions of dollars later, and the “overall weight of evidence” has hardly changed at all. And we all know just how little weight that it to begin with.
“If we respond to the moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm about climate, we have to be deceptive.”
Translation: The End justifies the Means.
If you cannot advance your agenda honestly on its own merits without resorting to deception, then your objective and your motives are suspect.
Should the debate (now apparently over) about CAGW be about being open and honest with the public?
Let me re-edit this for ya.
Day by Day says:
October 31, 2012 at 9:36 pm
What S Mark says is very important and I think we should pay attention if we don’t want to make the same mistakes as our antagonists.
David Roberts is asking a question. Here is the full quote:
This is a Sophie’s Choice: If we respond to the moral imperative to raise public awareness and alarm about climate, we have to be deceptive. If we are committed to truth and scientific accuracy, we have to talk in hedged, caveat-filled, probabilistic language that is utterly ineffectual in reaching and activating a tuned-out public. Dishonest or ineffectual. Alarmist or concern troll. Those are our choices?
He then shows how it is possible to communicate a third way, to convey a ‘moral imperative’ without being ‘scientifically inaccurate’.
Roberts thinks it is a “moral imperative” and I don’t. Roberts undoubtedly believes many things I don’t, yet he is not saying he will lie to a “tuned out pulbic.” Roberts is offerring a third choice.
Surely you must realize there are ways of being dishonest without actually lying. The current election is a prime example of that, with plenty of dishonesty on both sides.
What Roberts wants to do, and thinks is perfectly ok (because to him and his ilk, the ends justify the means) is to manipulate people’s emotions in order to bypass the whole messy process of examining where the truth lies, and get them to act on those emotions.
“Hurricane” Sandy is a prime example of this.
_Jim says:
It’s not; 24 hours would give MORE than 360 degrees, as the actual rotational period is 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds and that is a complete 360 degree rotation.
Right – that’s what I thought. So it seems to me that the “ridiculous” statement (according to Gerald) by NASA is not so ridiculous after all – right? It’s the number of sideral rotations they’re talking about vs the number of solar rotations.
Wild predictions of doom that have not come true:
Hansen in 1980: 2 deg temp rise by 2000
Club of Rome and Ehrlich,Holder et al in late 1970s: China, India, Africa simply doomed, 1/2 of mankind will starve by 2000, England will return to dark ages, no way to continue feeding the world.
E.O. Wilson in 1990 or so: thousands of species going extinct every year, ecosystem collapse imminent
to take only a few. And they wonder why no one is listening?
Let’s remember the movie “Sophie’s Choice”. Poor Sophie was forced to choose which of her children would live. It was jack-booted Nazis that forced her into this quandary.
Yes, the analogy In this article seems correct.
Let’s remember the movie “Sophie’s Choice”. Poor Sophie was forced to choose which of her children would be allowed to live. It was jack-booted Nazis who were forcing this decision.
Yep, the analogy used above by these alarmist is apt.
TonyG
The ‘solar vs sidereal’ concoction is fiction- an attempt to bundle daily rotation and its orientation in space with the separate orbital motion and they wreck themselves trying to make something work that doesn’t. If anyone here imagines that one 24 hour day falls out of step with one rotation ,and the solar vs sidereal junk requires it,then why bother with climate or even science as daily temperature fluctuations within a 24 hour period respond to one rotation of the Earth and never fall out of step.
The 1461 day calendar system was created first and the 1461 natural noon AM/PM cycles formatted into 3 years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days.The averaging process which creates the average 24 hour day,known as the Equation of Time,is based on the return of the Sun to noon 1461 times for 4 orbital circuits.There are no fractions involved,the great astronomers in antiquity recognized that there are 1461`days in 4 annual cycles and converting days/years into rotations/orbital circuits reduces this to the fact that we don’t observe and falls out of the main fact as trivia that for each orbital circuit of the Earth,it turns 365 1/4 times.
What the late 17th century idiotic ‘solar vs sidereal’ junk does is block the appreciation that the polar coordinates turn in a 360 degree cycle/circle to the central Sun like so –
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Earth_precession.svg&page=1
A planet with zero degree inclination has an equatorial climate,it has nothing to do with heat per se but rather the conditions that exist at the Earth’s equator spread over all latitudes in that there is no discernible swings in daylight/darkness nor swings in temperatures while a polar climate like Uranus would have wild swings across latitudes in both temperatures and daylight/darkness asymmetries.The Earth’s inclination tends towards the equatorial end of the spectrum with a minor polar influence.
Perhaps it is because people are not interested in climate that they can’t see a different approach and it is far away from issues of oil/gas or global warming,it is more or less adjusting to better information we get from making planetary comparisons and then starting anew.If Sandy proved anything is that people will listen to the story of how it formed ,why it grew in strength and why it took the path it did,it is a pity that the astronomical inputs are given scant treatment and that is the what is being rectified here.
Gerald,
You’re going on about all sorts of stuff unrelated to anything I’ve said. I’m responding only to what you said about the rotation of the earth. So let’s go for a simple answer to a simple question:
From noon to noon, does the earth rotate exactly 360 degrees or not?
I would have liked to avoid a monologue and concentrated on one of many components to work on but the chances of encountering the type of individual who can step outside the routine arguments is fairly small.
A theory such as ‘global warming’ in its current format was not the first of its kind as a type of conclusion that is meant to explain and encompass almost all observations from hurricanes to effects in biology to geology.When a theory comes along that explains so much with so little people become naturally wary of it and while many contend and object to gross distortions of observations that are forced into supporting global warming,there were and are precious few people who handle another theory that explained so much without any visible trace of the method used to reach a conclusion or indeed the vagueness of the conclusion.
Perhaps Edgar Allan Poe’s commentary would fit comfortably in with the aggressive theory of global warming in that it shares the same traits as another all-encompassing theory –
“To explain: — The Newtonian Gravity — a law of Nature — a law whose existence as such no one out of Bedlam questions — a law whose admission as such enables us to account for nine-tenths of the Universal phænomena — a law which, merely because it does so enable us to account for these phænomena, we are perfectly willing, without reference to any other considerations, to admit, and cannot help admitting, as a law — a law, nevertheless, of which neither the principle nor the modus operandi of the principle, has ever yet been traced by the human analysis — a law, in short, which, neither in its detail nor in its generality, has been found susceptible of explanation at all — is at length seen to be at every point thoroughly
explicable, provided we only yield our assent to —— what? To an hypothesis? Why if an hypothesis — if the merest hypothesis — if an hypothesis for whose assumption — as in the case of that pure hypothesis the Newtonian law itself — no shadow of à priori reason could be assigned — if an hypothesis, even so absolute as all this implies, would enable us to perceive a principle for the Newtonian law — would enable us to understand as satisfied, conditions so
miraculously — so ineffably complex and seemingly irreconcileable as those involved in the relations of which Gravity tells us, — what rational being could so expose his fatuity as to call even this absolute hypothesis an hypothesis any longer — unless, indeed, he were to persist in so calling it, with the understanding that he did so, simply for the sake of consistency in words?” Edgar Allan Poe
Newton used a form of double modeling that displaced the original approach and methods of the great astronomers and particularly Copernicus and Kepler – the audacity is breathtaking for the shortcuts and distortions Newton applied in order to use the predictive convenience of the Ra/Dec system as a bridge to experimental sciences and I take no satisfaction whatsoever from seeing what he tried to do.
The sad part is not the validity of climate models but the actual validity of modeling itself with the core problems originating back a few centuries ago where not even the correlation between one 24 hour day and one rotation survives as a fact along with its terrestrial effects.Without some sort of recovery at this juncture ,climate change is the least of our problems.
@ Day by Day
Read the examples he gives of his “third way”:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/hawks-vs-scolds-how-reverse-tribalism-affects-climate-communication/
David Roberts’ “third way” is scientifically inaccurate drivel designed to mislead the public, in other words, the same as “Dishonest” or “Alarmist”. He can call it a “third way” all he likes but really it’s just dishonest, alarmist, and scientifically inaccurate.
@ Gerald Kelleher
I think a better historical fit to CAGW would be the phlogiston theory.
No. Because the Earth has moved about 1 degree further around in its annual orbit, and so the sun’s position in the sky has changed at noon(s) by about that amount.
TonyG
For goodness sake man ,look at what we are discussing – why temperatures go up and down within a 24 hour period and why these fluctuations keep in step with the rotation of the Earth.This issue is not directed at validating a junk 17th century ‘solar vs sidereal’ ideology but holding ground on the most basic science fact of them all where NASA themselves have altered course and partly recovered the 24 hour/360 degree correlation.
The proper question is how many times does natural noon occur within a period of 4 orbital circuits of the Earth and the answer is 1461 times insofar as AM/PM denote the rotation of the Earth to noon and also corresponds to the number of days in 4 annual cycles.The ‘solar vs sidereal’ junk doesn’t even get this far and insists on 1465 rotations in 1461 days so that you can’t even ask the question about the difference between natural variations in noon as opposed to the regular 24 hour AM/PM cycle which is extracted as an average from natural noon via the equation of time.
I could tell you as a man that there is no external reference for daily rotation as an independent motion but that the constant 24 hour AM/PM cycle and how each day elapses into the next day substitute for constant rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour but to get to that point requires removing conceptual junk and putting the development of the timekeeping systems in order with all the proper references attached.It is not a daunting task but it does take time and it is an amazing story involving the recovery of science at a juncture where planetary dynamics and terrestrial effects meet – climate,geology and biology specifically.
Gerald Kelleher says:
For goodness sake man ,look at what we are discussing – why temperatures go up and down within a 24 hour period and why these fluctuations keep in step with the rotation of the Earth.This issue is not directed at validating a junk 17th century ‘solar vs sidereal’ ideology but holding ground on the most basic science fact of them all where NASA themselves have altered course and partly recovered the 24 hour/360 degree correlation.
So you are either unable or unwilling to provide a simple answer to a simple question. I’m happy to discuss things, but you seem intent on taking things 100 steps at a time rather than 1 step at a time, or making any attempt to agree on even a small fact.
You say “the proper question”, but that’s not *MY* question. And you continue to provide non-answers to MY question, while telling me what I should be talking about. If your intent is to educate, then you’re taking a very bad approach. It’s difficult to pay much attention at all to anything you say when you can’t address a simple question simply.
John West
Having the benefit of many years investigating the matter with the new tool of the internet which provides instant access to works I would otherwise not have – there is an equal amount of satisfaction and a dismay watching events play out over the centuries the way they did and the rise of speculative sciences over interpretative sciences and particularly now with computer modeling,The intelligent person knows the limitations of conclusions drawn from devices,a meteorologist may say that when models put Sandy out to sea while human judgments intervened and directed it towards the continental USA,likewise,when John Flamsteed concluded that the daily return of a star using a watch and the 24 hour day correlates directly to constant rotation,human judgement should intervene and refer rotation to the AM/PM cycle and the Lat/Long system.
Because the error was allowed to stand and Newton built his agenda on Ra/Dec,the whole mechanical modeling thing has snowballed to ridiculous proportions so modeled global warming and Newton’s theory are directly related in a technical way.
Brian H says:
No. Because the Earth has moved about 1 degree further around in its annual orbit, and so the sun’s position in the sky has changed at noon(s) by about that amount.
Yes, I know. I’m trying to reach an agreement with Gerald about that, but it appears to be a futile endeavor.
TonyG
Any person who imagines that those who are locked into a worldview of modeled global warming can take a wider view in order to diffuse a ridiculous situation need only to look at this matter to see that they literally can’t.Have you clearly understood that NASA themselves have altered their views on the 360 degree/24 hour correlation hence my objection is that while they did listen,the adoption of the proper principles was not done in a transparent way.
Your question did not reach the standard where a reply can be given,when you apply the 1461 natural noon AM/PM cycles across 4 orbital periods,then and only then can you consider the averaging process which smooths out the variations in length of the natural noon cycles to a 24 hour average.You cannot even explain the seasons which shares the same dynamics with the variations in the natural noon cycle but first it means holding ground on the most basic scientific fact of all – the temperature rise and fall within a 24 hour period keeps in step with one rotation of the Earth while the awful error we inherited from the late 17th century via the ‘solar vs sidereal junk’ insists days and rotations fall out of step thereby losing cause and effect between daily temperature fluctuations and daily rotation.
You are not dealing with a single problem,you are dealing with multiple ingredients that go into creating this present unsightly modeling mess and some of the components of this mess have their roots many centuries ago in the technical divisions of astronomy –
“To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets and the record of their motions is especially the task of the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to discover their true and genuine path is . . .the task of interpretative astronomy; while to say by what circle and lines correct images of those true motions may be depicted on paper is the concern of the inferior tribunal of geometers” Kepler
If history tells contemporaries anything is that unless we take a wider view of these matters, we condemn ourselves to a war of attrition that actually supports the ridiculous precepts of modeled global warming by human activity.
” I have heard such things put forth as I should blush to repeat–not so much to avoid discrediting their authors (whose names could always be withheld) as to refrain from detracting so greatly from the honor of the human race. In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain
their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage–if indeed it does not make them ill ” Galileo
I could tell you that it is not the models that are the problem but modeling itself and why long term weather does not shade into climate but that requires the type of people who can get away from the personalities and graphs supporting what is effectively a cult.
I am naturally cursed with a talent for astronomy and the type of spacial awareness that does not mix up celestial references with dynamics or rather sets the references in order so that people do not take wrong turns and end up with something like the mess in front of us today.It is not boasting and modesty is not appropriate right now as make no mistake about it,the recent storm is going to be used one way or another to break the inertia caused by climategate and when you own the education system and most of the media it does not take a genius to figure out that the balance has shifted back in the wrong direction.
Gerald,
Since you don’t seem to want to simplify what you’re saying for an obvious dunderhead like me, I find any further pursuit of this discussion to be pointless. Don’t bother responding, I’m unsubscribing and won’t check back.
Brian H says:
“No. Because the Earth has moved about 1 degree further around in its annual orbit, and so the sun’s position in the sky has changed at noon(s) by about that amount.”
Is there any chance and I mean any chance whatsoever that you can come to terms with the fact that daily and orbital motions do not share the same axis,if not by direct observation of Uranus where daily rotation runs South to North with respect to the central Sun while the polar coordinates,acting like a beacon for the orbital behavior of the planet turn East to West to the central Sun –
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b/
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn12529/dn12529-1_800.jpg
The temptation to contend with the cult of global warming through human activity may be far too inviting as opposed to the initial difficulty experienced with a new approach to weather, climate, planetary dynamics and multiple other issues that need addressing and that is why I am required to keep these issues front and center for as long as I can.It will be a victory but it will not be done by proving people wrong,it will be done because the standard of climate studies is raised to a level where the doom merchants are no longer relevant.
TonyG
Modeled global warming through human activity is not just a tragedy in itself ,it is merely the symptom of a bigger tragedy at another historical and technical level so while you may walk away and are probably encouraged to do so,I cannot because this is not just serious,it is also quite dangerous by virtue of a dysfunctional education system.Children eventually become adults and must sometimes unlearn doctrines which were inherently self-serving,a doctorate receives his stamp of approval for not rocking the boat or following a particular bandwagon and has no incentive to fight against a system that will eventually pay him and give him a reputation even though it comes at the price of originality and genuine creativity,it wasn’t always like that but it is now.
I am affiliated with no organization,I receive no pay nor have I social standing,in fact probably one below that of a criminal as the astronomical viewpoints ,insights and methods I represent no longer exist due to the emergence in the late 17th century of a vicious strain of empiricism that distorted methods and insights to suit modeling via the clockwork Ra/Dec system.
Sure,you can get away with pointing out the desperation of this cult in clinging to every weather event but ultimately that answers nothing,the long term view is a raising of standards above a level which doesn’t even exist presently – to hold the central fact that within one 24 hour day, temperature fluctuations respond to one rotation of the Earth and keep in step.
You can’t fault the global warming modelers if you yourselves fail to see the relevance of losing the most basic planetary fact of them all – why daylight turns to darkness once in 24 hours ,why the sun rises and sets and all the tidal effects,biological cycles and weather related effects that hinge on a rotating Earth.The tragedy is not that the unfortunate Ra/Dec junk is allowed to stand,it is the inability to handle the correct principles and move forward to new ground.