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.
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.