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.
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.