Near the end of the June 3rd post The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 10 – June 2014 Update – Still Waiting for the Feedbacks, I discussed that misinformation about the developing El Niño would the topic of an upcoming post. Part 10 was cross posted at WattsUpWithThat a day later. We’ve already had misinformation as the topic for the second post in that series (see The 2014/15 El Niño – Part 2 – The Alarmist Misinformation (BS) Begins) and there has been enough fuel since then for another post. In Part 10, I wrote (my boldface): There are a couple of recent posts by an alarmist and one by a reporter (whose error may have been unintentional) that provide food for a post. RobertScribbler is always full of misinformation. (More examples here and here. I wonder if he’s vying for a job with Joe Romm.)…
I was somewhat surprised by RobertScribbler’s frankness in his response to my comment.
It can be found on the thread of his post from June 4. That post is Winds Interrupted — El Nino is Tearing a Hole Through the Trades. It’s an unnerving mix of reality, misunderstandings and blatant alarmism. We’ll add it to the list of his recent posts to be discussed in the future. In his comment here, RobertScribbler writes:
On a related topic, Anthony Watts is again giving me flak. So I assume I’m doing exactly what I need to be doing ;).
Now, there are only two blog posts at WattsUpWithThat that mention RobertScribbler. (WUWT search results here.) I wrote both of them. The “again” in his comment indicates fantasy novelist and now fantasy climate blogger RobertScribbler is referring to Part 10.
I noted that “RobertScribbler is always full of misinformation”. And RobertScribbler responded, “So I assume I’m doing exactly what I need to be doing”.
Apparently, alarmist RobertScribbler views his role in the climate debate as misinforming his readers. I can’t recall any other person being that open about not being truthful in discussions of climate since the late Stephen Schneider stated (source here):
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
Additionally, Judith Curry discussed Stephen Schneider’s complex position on climate science communication in her post Stephen Schneider and the “Double Ethical Bind” of Climate Change Communication.
So we have a climate scientist indicating that truth is not necessarily a requirement of climate science communication, he hopes it is, and we have an alarmist blogger who admits his job is to misinform his readers. What other examples exist where climate scientists and alarmists admit they are not being truthful in their communications about global warming and climate change?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmmm, a raging beast.
=================
Activists are unaccountable. They believe their actions are justified by a higher more noble cause. Once their objectives are met, they will scurry back into the shadows of anonymity and self deception.
What other examples? Top of the list and most damning has to be Climategates 1 and 2.
Bob, this time, Robert Scribbler is completely correct! It is the job of an alarmist to raise fear and alarm… any which way they can. Premature action is the goal of alarmists, BY ANY means. When-ever the end justifies any means, mankind has always suffered. GK
By any means necessary, for the common good.
…they are only repeating cliches now
“On a related topic, Anthony Watts is again giving me flak. So I assume I’m doing exactly what I need to be doing ;).”
I’ve never heard of this guy until this post Bob.
He must think you and I are the same person, or he has a reading comprehension problem.
G. Karst June 8, 2014 at 5:39 am
Do you really mean that the alarmists are trained to avoid valid arguments but use fallacies such as
Appeal to fear
When someone use inadequate arguments putting forward that opponent’s are inproper and involves risks for the future to come, without presenting valid arguments to support his/her own view, that is appealing to fear.
Please observe that models using corrected facts due to the thesis presented, never ever can have ”conclusion” used as arguments in the debate. Circle argumentation doesn’t prove one thing. You can’t use an assumed A can lead to B and B can lead to C as your background or startingpoint or proof that A will lead to C. (That’s basic for logic in Theory of Science as well as for validity of anyones presented arguments in debate)Fallacies in argumentation
IF that’s the case, isn’t that close to be called a scientistic fraud?
Clearly he, (and his readers), regard WUWT as a very powerful place. Thus by bragging of being criticised here, he inflates his own importance in the eyes of his audience.
G. Karst says: “Bob, this time, Robert Scribbler is completely correct! It is the job of an alarmist to raise fear and alarm… any which way they can…”
I view the classic definition of alarmist as one who exaggerates with the intent of causing fear, not necessarily who fabricates or misinforms.
Yes.
” Skeptics ” think they are having a debate . ” Alarmists ” think its a back-stabbing contest . Guess whom plays fair . But the observers are starting to catch on .
Truth will win , but it will not be easy .
AW: He must think you and I are the same person, or he has a reading comprehension problem.
===
Pretty much goes with the territory….they seem to miss the by Bob Tisdale part
…but if they weren’t reading challenged..they wouldn’t believe most of it in the first place
Anthony Watts says: “I’ve never heard of this guy until this post Bob.”
He’s been around for a couple of years, but I never noticed him until he started writing about El Nino. He’s fantasy novelist Robert Marston Fanney. How appropriate!:
http://www.luthielssong.com/aboutauthor/index.php
He presents nearly everything as an extreme. As a result, his posts come off as comical. Some are so absurd they’d make you laugh out loud.
He got one honorable mention from the boys at SkepticalScience for one of his posts about ENSO (which contradicted one of their posts, BTW), but since then nothing.
Cheers.
Is One of the Objectives of All Alarmists to Be a Source of Misinformation?
no AGW , no IPCC
no AGW , a lot less jobs in climate ‘science’
no AGW a lot less funding for ‘research’ in climate ‘science’
no AGW , the Team find it hard to get a job teaching in a third rate high school
no AGW , St Gore and friends lose massive money earning gigs
no AGW, all those that blindly supported ‘the cause ‘ need a face clean to get rid of all the egg.
Given those and with a choice of misinformation which keeps the train on track , or truth which may derail it , what do you think their going to go for?
Presenting the best facts available is the key responsibility of a scientist. If the facts suggest danger, is may be alarming. That does not automatically suggest they are “crying wolf”.
No question that extremism exists. Unfortunately it is accepted as necessary in the IPCC world.
No alarm, no funding.
When politicized activism mixes with media and politics, our freedom, hell, the very basis of our existance is at stake because history shows this is a lethal coalition. We now have arrived at ajuncture where we have to make some hard choices: Resist the establishment which comes wwith a price or sinking into a system in suppression which will end up in a slaughterhouse.
A man named Scrib had a blog
His head spent much time making fog
His followers and he
decried catastrophe
but no fear he’s dense as a log
Interesting blog for RMF.
His current abode (if it is still valid), is Old Town Portsmouth. At 1 metre elevation above sea level at high tide, surely it must be time to “seek higher ground” – in every meaning of the phrase..
i looked at the scribber piece too. what is fascinating is the commenters. they actually believe his extreme rhetoric and believe hell on earth is right around the corner. to me that is the scariest part.
Climategate Email 3759.txt
http://eric.worrall.name/Climategate/FOIA/3759.txt
Here is the Oroko Swamp RCS chronology plot in an attached Word 98 file and actual data values below. It certainly looks pretty spooky to me with strong “Medieval Warm Period” and “Little Ice Age” signals in it. It’s based on substantially more replication than the series in the paper you have to review (hint, hint!).
I took a peek. Nice and tidy comments filled with watermelon opinion. Not a lot of scientific discourse. The audience appears fawningly enamored with his expertise, not self-informed. They appear content with set and get blogging. Scientists and those that educate themselves on these matters have either not found that blog or avoid it. I don’t see an avenue for discussions or debate there. And I don’t fit their profile of a skeptic. So meh.
Oatley:
Once their objectives are met, they will scurry back into the shadows of anonymity and self deception.
Nope they will change the goalposts and raise their stake. You never win from environmentalists.
If they only presented facts, they would have to stop being alarmists and admit they’re wrong.
For some of them, that would be a truly massive amount of egg on their face.
Humility is not something alarmists have much of.