From an AP story interview, we have a what I’ll call a “Lubchencoism”.
“There is a well-orchestrated and fairly successful effort under way to confuse and sometimes cherry-pick information,” Lubchenco said.
Heh. Apparently she’s never reviewed how USHCN and GHCN came to have their station lists.
But here’s the quote that had me ROTFL
“I don’t view our role as trying to convince people of something,” she said. “Our role is to inform people.”
Apparently she’s never read the NOAA CCSP synthesis report. See this:
NCDC: Photoshopping the climate change report for better impact
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
She is not being honest.
Social engineering is just “helping the planet”
“There is a well-orchestrated and fairly successful effort under way to confuse and sometimes cherry-pick information,” Lubchenco said”
She meant the IPCC, right?
With Holdren, Chu, Browner, Lubchenko, and Jackson, I’ve asked Chris Mooney when he’s going to write ‘The Democrats’ War on Science’. Crickets. It’s like ‘Calm World’ over there.
==============
Personally I don’t see any problem with that statement.
The basic idea, I guess, is that they are not trying to convince people of something that is not supported by the facts, but rather they are trying to inform the people of the (maybe convincing) facts so that the people can make up their own minds about the issues.
I have no problem with the photoshopped picture either. It should be widely accepted (if it is not) to use digitally created material for the purpose of communicating information about possible future events. We are not complaining about animations, bar graphs, temperature trend graphs, etc (at least I hope we are not :)).
I came across this passage regarding sceptics and occultists in an article by Chaz Bufe entitled Astrology: Fraud or Superstition? (found at http://www.seesharppress.com/astro). There seem to be some parallels with the sceptics vs warmist debate currently in session…..
“The standard reply of astrologers to this is the childish, “You’re one too,” which evades the question of their own dishonesty by implying that skeptics also ignore inconvenient facts. Unfortunately for the astrologers, that does not appear to be the case. A study of information evaluation by psychologists Peter Glick of Lawrence University and Mark Snyder of the University of Minnesota, published in the May/June 1986 Humanist, concluded that skeptics are “fact-oriented,” while astrological believers are “theory-driven”:
[S]keptics paid close attention to the information they gathered . . . while believers largely ignored what targets told them when it came to pass judgment on how well the astrological horoscope had predicted the targets’ personalities.
A study of credence in another occult belief, ESP, published in the March 1980 Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, tends to confirm that occult believers ignore contradictory evidence much more often than skeptics. In that study, skeptics and ESP believers read articles with which they agreed and with which they disagreed, and then answered questions about the articles. Approximately 90% of the skeptics correctly remembered the conclusions of articles regardless of whether the articles were pro- or anti-ESP, while fewer than 40% of the ESP believers correctly recalled the conclusion of the article which debunked ESP; a large majority of the believers “remembered” that the article concluded that ESP exists.
Another of Gauquelin’s experiments provides a more amusing example of the self-deception of occult believers. He took out a newspaper advertisement in which he promised free personalized horoscopes to all who answered the ad. One hundred fifty persons responded. Gauquelin then sent out the same horoscope to all 150 and asked them how well it fit them. Ninety-four percent replied that they recognized themselves in it. The horoscope was that of Dr. Michel Petiot, a mass murderer.
Why do occult believers have such a reluctance to face facts? Glick and Snyder concluded that, “in order to maintain the sense of being able to predict events, the believer makes the facts ‘fit’ the theory whether or not these events are consistent with the theory’s predictions.” The reason for this blindness is obvious.
It’s an unfortunate fact that a great many people do not want to go to the work of making their own decisions. They want someone or something to tell them how to act, how to think, and how to feel. Astrology, like other religious beliefs, fills the bill. As a system of preordination (“Oh! You’re a Scorpio! You must . . .”), it gives believers a nice, neat means of interpreting reality and of tailoring their behavior and expectations to fit the prescriptions of their belief system.”
latitude (08:01:54) :
“There is a well-orchestrated and fairly successful effort under way to confuse and sometimes cherry-pick information,” Lubchenco said”
She meant the IPCC, right?
More likely the GISS. Its closer to home.
Here is another one:
Stanford Researcher states: ClimateGate has small effect on public opinion!
Do you believe this guy? On what planet is he living?
http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2010/03/stanford_researcher_climategat.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
There are a few QOTW statements in there, this is my favorite: “We are no longer constrained by talking about some possible future.”
The mind boggles.
Mikael Lönnroth (08:15:54) :
> I have no problem with the photoshopped picture either.
I don’t feel well informed when the informer resorts to falsehoods. There are plenty of photos of flooded homes, though most houses of that style aren’t built in flood plains.
“Mikael Lönnroth (08:15:54) :
[…]
I have no problem with the photoshopped picture either. It should be widely accepted (if it is not) to use digitally created material for the purpose of communicating information about possible future events. ”
So you say we are already used to the fact that e.g. we have that usual picture of the dry bed of an empty hydropower storage lake over an article that says “Drought in Spain.” Everybody already knows and fully expects that a drought article is headed by a foto of a dry hydropower storage lakebed (whether that lakebed was fotographed 10 years ago in a different continent or not; stock photo, generic).
And when an article says “Flood” we get, well, maybe a Roland Emmerich-produced photo of Manhattan under water, why not, beautiful photo, somewhat fitting, the agency didn’t charge that much, let’s take it.
You would still call that “information”? I’d rather call that “Edutainment”. But go ahead, dumb down the masses so that they don’t even expect to ever not being lied to. We can right away call it “Black Propaganda”. Look up the definition. Even the wikipedia has that one right.
“DirkH (09:07:32) :
[…]
Everybody already knows and fully expects that a drought article is headed by a foto of a dry hydropower storage lakebed”
I should add that these stock photos are usually made during maintenance work of hydropower dams because the lakes usually don’t fall entirely dry. We don’t have to mention that under the photo, of course, it would confuse the sheeple and not help their suspension of disbelief.
Have you seen the film “The bridges over Toko-Ri” ?
At the end of the film, Rear Admiral Tarrant says;
“Where do we get such men?”
He is thinking of the brave men, giving their life in Korea.
Fighting Communism.
Now we can say; “Where do such men come from?”
The Holdren’s, the Schneider’s, the Erlich’s? (The Jackson’s, the Boxer’s)
Sorbonne?
“I don’t view our role as trying to convince people of something,” she said. “Our role is to inform people.”
Air is 20% oxygen and 79% nitrogen and 0.0385% CO2
Inconvenient truth:
Air, pure oxygen and pure nitrogen all absorb more heat than pure CO2.
For proof, see here: “AGW Debunked for £3.50”
and for verification see here: “Specific Heat Capacity of Gases”
If CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” so to is oxygen and nitrogen.
AGW R.I.P.
She is of course, 100% correct, and WUWT is a prime example. Most importantly, I thank Anthony for being such! Honest questioning and criticism is the only thing that will keep it AGW research honest, with data being shared, peered reviewed, and open to all.
“There is a well-orchestrated and fairly successful effort under way to confuse and sometimes cherry-pick information,” Lubchenco said.
It’s clear that after all the IPCC orchestration to deceive the public about the real state of Earth’s climate, Lubchenco is no-longer capable of seeing the truth.
It is risible that the CAGW cabal accuse sceptics of cherry picking, when this is their very own tactic of choice which is used to push their ‘green’ agenda.
“I have no problem with the photoshopped picture either. It should be widely accepted (if it is not) to use digitally created material for the purpose of communicating information about possible future events.” So it’s OK to make things up?
Re: Mikael Lönnroth (Mar 13 08:15),
Mikael,
You are being facetious, I presume. 🙂
She must have completely forgotten the intent of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize:
“for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”
In a time of trillion dollar deficits we want to duplicate the Nat. Weather Serv.. Why?
Lubchenco was part of IUCN which is one of the special status UN NGOs– in effect it is a quasi UN agency.
perhaps the director should spend more time investigating and less time directing.
Or maybe too much education and not enough study.
Interesting, so where is the conductor? Every orchestra needs a conductor. So who is leading the skeptics?
As far as I can see, skeptics are absolutely everywhere.. from scientists to engineers to laypeople…perhaps many people simply looked out their windows this winter and saw more snow then they have seen in decades – who knows but the skeptics do not appear to have a leader and to be well orchestrated at all. It is hard to be lead when there is no cause. Skeptics have no real cause to fight for – they simply question the alarmist’s wisdom and wonder if legislation and taxes are really justified by “science”. Skeptics are simply against unjustified waste and panic.
However, whatever the reasons, there is clearly a strong groundswell or backlash of distrust and suspicion of the highly orchestrated IPCC, CRU, NASA GISS, ACTONCO2, WWF, Greenpeace and countless other institutions/media parroting catastrophic man-made warming alarm.
I’ve tried to spread the word on Lubchenco and her ways.
Oregon goverment and academia institutions have been refining their propaganda and manipulation techniques for years.
The parasite of dishonesty has grown throughout every agency and program.
Public deceit for self preservation and advancement of casues has become standard operting procedure
Thier various methods mascarading as educating the public are many.
I predicted what Lubchenco would be doing as head of NOAA. Her bringing the Oregon model to NOAA meant she would immediately initiate public “education”.
Her propoganda campaign kicked off almost immediately and now her ClimateCentral.com web site is in full bloom.
Or rather stench.
That web site is a high tech, cutting edge display of all things the public, press and our children need to know about AGW.
There is no limit to the misinformation, distortion and fabrication Lubchenco will use.
We’re dealing with a person who says things like
“CO2 emissions are causing osteoporosis of the sea”.
Her fabricated a link between AGW and the routine seasonal “dead zones” off the Oregon coast is so egregious it rivals any WWF or Greenpeace tale.
Without ANY scientific basis at all RealClimate thugs
have since repeated her claim while calling it “established science.”
Dishonesty knows no limits with these people.
Lubchenco is moving towards creating a National Climate Service to expand her participation and the raudulent movement itself.
Lubchenco is now a leading scoundrel.
In an earlier WUWT posting Dr Judith Curry said essentially that the image of “science” needs to be gussied up a bit, implying the problem was communicating.
Today’s Lubchenco message overall sounds like what Dr Curry said — “the problem we see isn’t that we’re full of crap, but that we’re not dumbing the message down enough so that neanderthals can grasp it.”
Meanwhile, the self-appointed enlightened amongst us sagely nod their heads at this notion.
It must be really frustrating to be so brilliant and so poorly understood.
It seems that the entire AGW argument is wrapped up in personality type and other psychological phenomenae where True Believers fail to see themselves as True Believers but instead as the Enlightened, the chosen, those who are simply smarter than the great masses.
In one of life’s great ironies the average WUWT reader knows more about the actual science than the average self-appointed Enlightened. Of course, they would be horrified at that assertion — it’s worse than finding out that your IQ test results show you to be utterly average, perhaps a bit below, after you spent the past 30 years “knowing” you were on the upper 2 sigma divide.
Were it nor for the political danger level here, the entire AGW episode would be highly amusing. I don’t know why the Enlightened assume they’re smarter than everyone else, but they do.
Lubchenco……..
I guess there is no relation to Trofim Denisovich Lysenko
I thought just for a minute…..
Regards,
Steamboat Jack
Mikael Lönnroth (08:15:54) :
You have a scary, group think attitude.