Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015
Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University
Steele: "And we trust the scientific theory because it been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate. But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public. ... and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process. ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy ..."Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate. I will accept these responses as your opening round. I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.
Heartland: Jim, we got a short time left, what would be the most important single point you'd like our listeners to take away from this conversation.
Steele: Oh boy, hard to make one. The first what I would suggest is the public keep the motto of the older scientific institutions of the world, that Isaac Newton once presided over. The motto was Nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Your translation is too simplistic, here's how some better minds have described it:
Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Must be debated by whom?
Educated peers and knowledgeable experts?
Kids, politicians, business leaders and dilettantes who possess a fraction of the knowledge/understanding that experts possess?
Steele: and any attempt to prevent that debate, in our schools, in the media, in peer reviewed science, it's only denigrating the scientific process. So I would want our listeners to demand that Congress sort of reinstate the scientific process and demand that publicly funded climate scientists debate skeptics out in the open so the public can better separate and understand the difference between political fear mongering and the scientific facts.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Well good, we are on the same page Mr. Steele.
I'm glad that you believe it's right and proper for me to engage in this instructive debate with you.
Steele: And I think those public debates would help ah, create real climate literacy because it would help people understand natural climate change that has devastating effects, it would force scientists to talk in a language that everybody understands.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That's funny. Create real climate literacy.
Jim, anyone paying attention knows that not just climate science but general science literacy has never been easier for the interested motivated public to attain. But, it requires individuals to make the effort for themselves.
Don't believe me, put it to the test for yourself, take a gander:
If we don't care about any of it,
what good is all this hard won information?
Steele: And if someone tries to push a bad idea it can be confronted right away.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Thank you Mr. Steele for acknowledging the appropriateness of me challenging your disinformation.
Steele: If anything what I'm trying to get at with the book and want people to understand is that the science is about how sensitive the environment is to CO2. It's not settled at all.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ( be sure to check out the videos at the end)
To begin with "Not settled" - no scientist is claiming it's totally settled, but it's plenty resolved to the point that the error margins are very small compared to what is understood.
This is a gross over simplification that ignores the whole guts of our global heat and moisture distribution engine!
Steele: There's a great debate. I can give you tons of examples, more than what I've got printed , where it is landscape changes and natural cycles driving things, if we don't push that people are going to be mislead. ~ End of the Interview ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~