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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.