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?