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?
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.
“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.
This implies, Anthony, that you are the “kingmaker” for his tribe of warmists. If you oppose him, he gains credibility in their eyes. Being an impatient fellow with no qualms about bending the truth, he claims your opposition even when you have never heard of him, hoping thus to gain stature.
Three Laws of Systems.
First Law: The purpose of a system is what it does.
Second Law: When you see something that is absurd, don’t question the absurdity. Look for what the absurdity accomplishes and you will have found its purpose.
Third Law: See the First Law.
Bob, I certainly view myself as skeptical of AGW alarm, but you’ve got to more rigorous in your criticisms, in my opinion. There is no intellectually serious way to take away from what he said that he “views his role in the climate debate as misinforming his readers.” It damages your credibility to make a big splash saying so. At least it seems that way to me.
A mercenary foot soldier with a narcissistic problem.
I’m more interested in the General that dictates the orders and the remuneration.
I read that response as Robert Scribbler regards Anthony Watts (and associates) as a reliable reverse barometer. Which does not alter the truth value of his statements tending towards false.
Jeff Id says:
June 8, 2014 at 6:30 am
Jeff hits the nail on the head (once again :)! The equation is simple. No alarm = no funding + no fame. Follow the climate ca$h…
I am not sure where everyone is getting their definition of an “alarmist”, whether it be “classic” or not. I could only find one definition:
American Heritage Dictionary:
a·larm·ist
(ə-lär’mĭst) pronunciation
n.
A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/alarmist#ixzz3440jATDW
It would be interesting to see pointman bait this guy in like he did WC …I haven’t laughed and giggled as much reading his post :>)
“Is One of the Objectives of All Alarmists to Be a Source of Misinformation?”
Yes. Next question?
” an alarmist blogger who admits his job is to misinform his readers”
I don’t see where he admits any such thing. Just because you title a post “X is A” doesn’t make it True™ and even if it is True™ it doesn’t mean anyone in particular (especially “X”) believes “X is A” which would what would be required for your assertion that his response to your post is an admission to promulgating misinformation to be True™. I took a peek at his blog and agree with Pamela Gray’s assessment. His particular method of misinformation is Zohnerism which is very common among alarmists due to lies of omission being harder to detect by those not familiar with the subject matter. The classic example of Zohnerism being the “Ban DHMO” replica crusade where many indisputable facts are presented while others are concealed luring the naïve, ignorant, and unsuspecting into an absolutely absurd conclusion that they will hopefully learn a lesson from once they realize the Truth™.
Wrote about this here:
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/25648
and here
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/24031
The answer is a resounding YES!
John West says:
June 8, 2014 at 9:16 am
I don’t see where he admits any such thing
================
robertscribbler
/ June 4, 2014
. I’ve removed their posts from this blog entirely as I feel it doesn’t really add anything.
About Robert Marston Fanney aka Robert Scribbler
This episode in the climate wars illustrate how the alarmists play the game. Don’t underestimate them.
Scribbler’s second post about a possible El Nino played a large role igniting the hysteria about this weather cycle: “Monster El Nino Emerging From the Depths: Nose of Massive Kelvin Wave Breaks Surface in Eastern Pacific“, 2 March 2014. After this the coming El Nino became a “monster” or “super” event that will eat us all.
That a fantasy author’s guesses became authoritative shows how the climate alarmists have to a large extent abandoned mainstream climate science as insufficiently lurid (and sometimes contrary” to their needs.
Here is a chronological description about the birth, mutation, and growth of the super monster El Nino story: About the warnings of a monster super El Nino coming to you this year.
Read through the thread there. It is not possible to have any balance in such a forum. Scribbler said so himself while rejecting my post and others like it. He would prefer it to remain unbalanced which is his prerogative, tt keeps his readers comfortably alarmed. One humorous aspect is that they venture forth into “denialist” blogs to tout their alarm but Scribbler has woefully underprepared them in the area of climate and weather facts, so about all they can do is spout their dogma.
@ Latitude
He’s not admitting to misinforming, he’s admitting to censoring. The way they (him, his audience, alarmists in general, & those that benefit from alarmism) see it we deserve to be censored because we’re the lowest of the low, blasphemers, heretics, the evil deniers that have been dehumanized to the point where they no longer sense any obligation to treat us with common decency, fairness, respect, or civility.
“Progressives” have a lot of money at their disposal. Now this might not filter down to rank and file operatives, it does provide organizational resources for development of strategies. First of all, the “progressives” have been good students of the works of Malcolm Gladwell (e.g. The Tipping Point, and other works). There are entire firms built around using the internet through such things as Twitter, blog comments, review sites, etc. in order to make something appear more popular or more unpopular than it really is.
In a forum where there might be a couple of hundred active accounts that comment, it takes only a couple of dozen to make a difference. This is most effective when one of these accounts appears initially to be with the “main stream view” of the community and is then “swayed” by the argument of another one of their operatives. So you have two different sorts of agitation going on. You first have the one who simply disagrees for the sake of disagreement and then you have the more thoughtfully played out “social media campaign”. They can work hand in hand together.
I once had two notions for a blog I wanted to start but I don’t have the time to devote to proper maintenance of it (though I think I have discovered a way to automate a good bit of it). First is a way to allow some degree of anonymity but not completely anonymous in that the real identity of commenters would be known to the blog owner. This is important for a couple of reasons. A person might hold an unpopular opinion or their opinion might be “dangerous” from a career perspective (as is the case with me in many cases) so those accounts should be protected. It gives one the ability to speak freely. But it also allows people to say things behind the shield of anonymity that they would never say face to face with a person. First of all, I would eliminate comments from known anonymous proxy addresses. This is a difficult job because it is a game of cat and mouse with a never ending supply of mice. I think I might have discovered a way to automate this process. Then I would require $1 charged to a credit card to open an account with the password sent to a mailing address given by the user. I would allow no more than 3 user accounts to be charged to a given credit card (limitation of sock puppetry but allow family members). If a user gets nasty, dishonest, or in otherwise violates the rules of the site, they would be warned. If it continued, they would get a time out. If after time out they continue, they would be “pantsed” and what I mean by “pantsed” is much like what happens to a jackass in high school gym class. One’s username is converted to their real name and all postings made by them in the past are now exposed as to the person making them. Now they can get as nasty as they want but they will do so under their real name.
Better communication is our middle name.
New TV show: American Alarmist Idol.
Anthony Watts is the Simon Cowell.
Everyone wants to be noticed by him even when it’s negative.
If he says your name,
you’re famous.
John West says:
June 8, 2014 at 10:25 am
He’s not admitting to misinforming, he’s admitting to censoring
=====
How would you know….it’s gone
Scribbler deleted my post relating to historic wind indices and “super” El Ninos. Totally factual government compiled data and not a hint of editorializing. It is actually kind of funny he is too pathetic for reasonable discourse
Bob Tisdale: 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”.
naw, it’s just a cliche: if my opponents think I am [wrong] then I must be doing [something right.]
It’s another way of his saying that he is correct and you are supplying the misinformation.
I have never read RobertScribbler other than your quotes, so I wouldn’t know.
So I followed you link to RobertScribbler: Winds Interrupted — El Nino is Tearing a Hole Through the Trades
Is that post substantively in error, as far as you can tell?
If the facts and data does NOT agree with a questionable conclusion, what else can they use?
The Pacific Trade Winds have been close to normal, certainly only in the mild El Nino magnitude strength. May 2014 was very close to normal.
http://s29.postimg.org/w9r5oed1z/Nino_3_4_vs_Trade_Winds_May14.png
The Upper Ocean Temperature anomalies give a better indication of where the ENSO is going and that is just into moderate El Nino size in the next month or so and then trending back toward normal afterward.
http://s11.postimg.org/x2x3zydf7/Nino3_4_Upper_Ocean_Temps_May14.png
There is just no real coupling with the atmosphere yet. GLAAM is negative, OLR patterns are spotty and winds are just barely below normal.
Furthermore, a huge wave of increased Trade Winds covering almost all of the Pacific is forecast to start about right now, this is quite strong.
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/carl/weather/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.png
There is enough cold water in the eastern Pacific to keep this El Nino in the mild/moderate category.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/pent_gif/xy/movie.h300.gif
dalyplanet (June 8, 2014 at 12:49 pm) “Scribbler deleted my post”
I saw it and his response before it got deleted. You are correct, you simply stated the facts about the trade winds. I guess he thought twice that it might confuse the children reading at his site. It almost appears like there is a part of him that wants to be reasonable, but in actuality he is only interested in projecting the message and your post detracted from the message.
One thing I have noticed is that he has not gone full Alinsky, at least not in this post. He needs to reread his marching orders because his rantings are not up to snuff.
Bob Tisdale says:
“I view the classic definition of alarmist as one who exaggerates with the intent of causing fear, not necessarily who fabricates or misinforms.”
—
If I promised you that I could invest your money and get an annual return of 10%, but I only got you a 1% return, would you say I had merely exaggerated? Or would you think of me as someone who “fabricates or misinforms”? My point is, exaggeration is a form of misinformation.
Bill Illis says: “Furthermore, a huge wave of increased Trade Winds covering almost all of the Pacific is forecast to start about right now, this is quite strong.
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/student/carl/weather/timeLon/u.anom.30.5S-5N.png”
Thanks for the link. That won’t help the evolution of this El Nino. Assuming those forecasted anomalies over the Indian Ocean are related to the MJO, it will be interesting to see if and when they eventually help the El Nino form. If not, this could be a very boring El Nino.
Louis says: “My point is, exaggeration is a form of misinformation.”
Point taken.
“Finding the rght balance between being effective and being honest ”
Can anyone think of an honest alarmist claim ?
Matthew R Marler says: “Is that post substantively in error, as far as you can tell?”
It’s a blend of reality and nonsense…I’ll discuss it in an upcoming post.
Cheers
Can anyone think of an honest alarmist claim ?
==
Obama 2008, “the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ”
Obama 2008, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket”
Obama 2008, ” “If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them”
…scary huh
John M quotes Schneider:
“Finding the rght balance between being effective and being honest.”
The two are mutually exclusive. Either someone is honest, or they’re not. Schneider was advocating dishonesty in a higher cause — Noble Cause Corruption.
I’ve found very few alarmists to be honest. There are some. But they are few and far between.
I tend to think that the whole CAGW movement was preconceived to intentionally mislead or lie about the issue so that people would give up their freedoms without them firing a shot. Think about the terms they used: “Global Warming” gives the implication that it is all man caused because they never place it into specifics as natural variation or man caused. CO2 and Carbon are used interchangeably even though they are not the same thing.
I have tried to debate with some of the alarmists but when you define the terms of the debate they will not engage in any debate. The ones that actually do, have their talking points and they wont deviate from them. If you define the terms before you start they want nothing to do with it.
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2449188-The-Problems-with-Global-Warming
What is that expression that the warmists continually use, “He is not a scientist. What would he know?”
Robert Marston Fanny, aka: robertscribbler
A surfer since a very young age, Robert has felt a deep connection with nature and finds that his most spiritual times are while sitting on a tiny surfboard upon a vast ocean or laying on the sand beneath an even vaster sea of stars.
He worked at a number of different jobs — waiting tables, serving as a police officer, and even working as a coordinating editor and author for a well known niche publisher — Jane’s Information Group. During his time at Jane’s Robert edited and contributed to over 15 books and magazines and co-authored Jane’s Citizen Safety Guide.
http://www.amazon.com/Robert-Marston-Fanney/e/B002Z0R7R2
Yep, just the person who would know all about ENSO and it’s effects on climate/weather.
Now my comment is back but out of chronological order.
“Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological or ontological/metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
What do you expect from such idiots?
Bob Tisdale, sorry per intercalation.
I wanted to draw your attention to the strong decrease of the temperature in the stratosphere over the southern polar circle, resulting in big ozone hole.
Also drops the temperature of 1000 m
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_AMJ_SH_2014.gif
Sorry ,1000 hPa.
@ ren; this is also showing up on the DMI charts:- http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
If this rate keeps up, it won’t even get above freezing during NH summer maximum!
Sorry ren, my mistake. Misread your ‘southern polar circle’ reference.
BruceC; look at the stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_AMJ_NH_2014.gif
Scribbler is NOT admitting he misinforms. He’s saying that if WUWT — the bad guys in his view — are attacking him and his positions, that’s a sign he’s doing things right.
Scribbler probably believes WUWT is full of misinformation, not he.
G. Karst on June 8, 2014 at
9:00 am
I am not sure where everyone
is getting their definition of an
“alarmist”, whether it be
“classic” or not. I could only
find one definition:
American Heritage Dictionary:
a·larm·ist
(ə-lär’mĭst)
______
Sorry, but the offspring is:
all·arm·s
(əll-arm’ĭst)
‘All arms’ – all armored, all armed with weapons –
come to help!
brg – Hans
Waiting for el Ninot, scene 5
Adapted from http://samuel-beckett.net/Waiting_for_Godot_Part1.html
ESTRAGON: People are bloody ignorant apes.
VLADIMIR: Pah!
ESTRAGON: Charming spot. Inspiring prospects. (He turns to Vladimir.) Let’s go.
VLADIMIR: We can’t.
ESTRAGON: Why not?
VLADIMIR: We’re waiting for el Ninot.
ESTRAGON: (despairingly). Ah! (Pause.) You’re sure it was here?
VLADIMIR: What?
ESTRAGON: That we were to wait.
VLADIMIR: He said by the tree. (They look at the tree.) Do you see any others?
ESTRAGON: What is it?
VLADIMIR: I don’t know. A bristlecone pine.
ESTRAGON: Where are the leaves?
VLADIMIR: It must be dead.
John Meget says: “Scribbler is NOT admitting he misinforms…”
On one hand I can agree with you. But this post served a purpose.
Chile under the snow.
http://losyziemi.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/%C5%9Anie%C5%BCyca-Chile-530×353.jpg
phlogiston (June 9, 2014 at 12:54 am)
bookmarked!
Oatley says: June 8, 2014 at 5:38 am
“Activists …. believe their actions are justified by a higher more noble cause..”
Every time I dig into an environmental scare claim I find errors, caused variously by:
– ignorance
– confusing factors
– extrapolating
– failure to check facts
– not providing the complete picture
– maliciousness (some attacks on Canola vegetable oil, for example)
– lying
(One example of some of the above was Raincoast Conservation claiming that logging in the Tonasksis National Forest in AK would lead to cougars becoming a threatened species because the deer population would plummet. People on Vancouver Island laughed at that – deer everywhere, lots of food for cougars. A quick enquiry to Tonaskis forest rangers illuminated that cougars are rare in the region where Tonaskis is, the predator of deer there is wolves.)
Another is the flapping about resident orcas being threatened by low populations of one variety of Pacific Salmon now popular in the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia/Strait of Juan de Fuca area. But it turns out that the supposedly resident orcas go somewhere else for months each year, to get food. (“Transient” orcas roam around more widely and more of the time, some pods aren’t seen in the PS etc’ area for years then show up.)
IOW, the incidence rate of incompetence or worse is very high among environmental activists and people who believe them.
These are the types of posts I dislike most. You’re clearly stretching someone’s words to mean something different than intended. What value does this add to the debate, other than to flame the other side?
I’m starting to see this more and more in various WUWT posts. I expect to see this kind of stuff in the comments, which is why I rarely bother reading any of them. But to have it in the posts is just rubbish.
Cary Jamison,
Examples, please. What is wrong with pointing out that the alarmist crowd is a source of misinformation? They are, and people should be made aware of it.
dbstealey says: “What is wrong with pointing out that the alarmist crowd is a source of misinformation? They are, and people should be made aware of it.”
Bingo!
So we have a climate scientist indicating that truth is not necessarily a requirement of climate science communication,
And you scoff at Steve Goddard’s characterization of climate science as a conspiracy. The NSF just spent $700K on a play to promote global warming. They’re no less open a conspiracy than OPEC.
If I promised you that I could invest your money and get an annual return of 10%, but I only got you a 1% return, would you say I had merely exaggerated?
I would claim I meant I would achieve that return in nominal Venezuelan dollars, and after the proper adjustments I am not only correct but actually doing much better than expected.
What other examples? The Administration, with all its parts
dbstealey said: “What is wrong with pointing out that the alarmist crowd is a source of misinformation? They are, and people should be made aware of it.”
That’s exactly right.
And, with global cooling on the way, as I have forecasted for it to begin officially in mid-December 2017, it is essential to have a list of all those who wasted VERY valuable years on the lie of ‘man-made global warming.’
All those who claimed that ‘warm-is-bad’ will have to eat plenty of crow and explain themselves on the wasted years and resources that could have easily been used to prepare for global cooling, which is very bad for the Earth.
As the Sun enters its hibernation phase soon, what we are going to all witness are winter and spring seasons that are much colder and wetter than normal in many regions, and colder and drier in others, along with blasting storms and cloudier and cooler summer seasons – for 36 years.
I always remind climate scientists that the ENTIRE POINT of Science is the ability to predict, and to date, there are few (very few) of them who actually can accomplish that.
Moreover, ideology is not science and never will be either.
Keep a list on all those people who said that ‘pink elephants can fly,’ (man-made global warming, aka, ‘climate change) so that when global cooling has set in – and it WILL set in – that by the early 2020s, you will have a comprehensive ‘shit list’ of all those climate scientists and pundits who led governments and entire populations astray on the lie of man-made global warming, which is impossible according to the laws of physics.
~ Theodore White, astrometeorologist.Sci
Cary Jamison says: “These are the types of posts I dislike most….”
Sorry that the post wasn’t up to my normal standards. I might publish one post like this per year. It’s a way of venting. I could have written it differently, but I elected not to.
Regards
Bob, I’m glad you can see on reflection that this post wasn’t up to snuff. I understand needing to vent. I hope you can avoid slipping into a habit of mind not to be able to fairly read what someone’s actually saying. It’s counterproductive to your own credibility, as I was saying above.
@Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
You say …
June 8, 2014 at 9:26 am
“About Robert Marston Fanney aka Robert Scribbler”
Really, I had no idea ?
Many folks may have thought that he
had some genuine scientific insight.
This “Scribbler” :-
http://fantasyscribe.livejournal.com/
The man writes fantasy for a living, so then how
can anybody take anything he writes seriously ?
I resist the temptation to state the bleedin’ obvious about his real name.
dbstealey says:
“What is wrong with pointing out that the alarmist crowd is a source of misinformation?”
It all depends on your methods, doesn’t it? If you use misinformation to fight misinformation, does that make you any better?
I’ll accept Bob’s response that he occasionally needs to vent. We all get to that point some times!
Cary Jamison,
So far you haven’t identified any “misinformation” posted by Bob.
I don’t see you having any concern over either Scribbler or Schneider [“Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both”]. Either someone is honest or they aren’t. Being “effective” has nothing to do with honesty.
There is such a glaring difference between the comments coming from alarmist blogs and here that I really wonder what you’re talking about? I saw nothing wrong in this article. It simply highlights the differences between skeptics and climate alarmists/propagandists. One is honest, the other is not.
dbstealy,
Seriously? Do you really believe that when 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 ;).”
That he is admitting to providing misinformation? That is the whole point of this post, but that is clearly not the idea he intended to communicate.
Cary Jamison says:
If you use misinformation to fight misinformation, does that make you any better?
I asked what misinformation you thought Bob had posted:
So far you haven’t identified any “misinformation” posted by Bob.
I saw no misinformation that Bob posted, only misinformation by the Scribbler.
That was what you were saying. Wasn’t it? That Bob was also posting misinformation. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Oh, but I just did! If you don’t think twisting someone’s words to mean something different than they intended is misinformation, then we’ll just have to disagree on this.
We’re just getting in to semantics now. The whole point is that we should all play fairly, which I believe you will agree with.
I think Bob’s post was intended to be more tongue-in-cheek that factual. I just felt like venting a little, too.
How much does Robert Marston Fanney aka Robert Scribbler know about ENSO?
Sweet Fanney Adams.