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.
“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.
@ur momisugly 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.