Mr. Jim 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 from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round. I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions. I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it is looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)
Steele: So you know, I've always advocated the need to be good environmental stewards and to be a good steward we need good science that we can trust.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yeah? So what happened?
It's one thing to preach about stewardship and needing science we can trust.
It's quite another to practice what you preach.
Steele: And we trust the scientific theory because it's been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Steele, what kind of "lively debate" are you talking about?
Have you given any thought to the two basic types of debate?
Is it OK to repeat known lies?
Is it OK to ignore the statements and evidence presented by a debate 'opponent' ?
Is it OK to employ emotional and rhetorical distractions that have nothing to do with the substance of the questions?
Or is a debate an opportunity for mutual learning?
Steele: But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Just who is doing the "defiling" here?
Do you have an obligation to engage in a debate and respond to challenges? If not, then why should real scientists debate with people who won't even take the time to learn the details about what they're talking about and who refuse to listen to corrections?
United States Geologic Service - Online Lectures
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
University of California Television
Jeffrey B. Graham Perspectives on Ocean Science Lecture Series
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A series of videos covering the fundamentals of the anthropogenic global warming theoryAnd there are many more..
Steele: And leading scientists like Kevin Trenberth he published a cartoon labeling all skeptics the greatest threat to Earth - which effectively serves as a threat against funding any scientists that shows climate skepticism.
Besides, the cartoon speaks a bitter truth, if not for deliberate misinformers, society would be decades into cutting emissions and building up infrastructure thus moderating these changes that increased atmospheric GHGs is guaranteed to do. But no, instead all we've done is throttle up and pretend tomorrow won't get here.
Steele: So given all that I decided to write a book. Free from Trenberth's gatekeeping effect, illustrating the effects of other powerful factors like landscapes changes and natural climate cycles on wildlife and modestly titled it "Landscapes and Cycles" to document my journey to climate skepticism.~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Puffing up the conspiracy ideation - can't you do better than that? Still you give me an excuse to post some quotes from that Trenberth talk at the end of this 'debate'.
~ ~ ~
Regarding your book, it would be one thing if you kept it to ragging on and misrepresenting flaws in some wildlife studies, but you cross the line with your constant pot shots at the "CO2 consensus", as though that were still a matter of debate for any intelligent person who's aware of this physical Earth.
Topping it off there's your sin of malicious serial slander of one honorable professional expert after another with your conjured up horror stories and science fiction. Shame on you.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Heartland's Burnett: - So to sum up basically, a lot of different chains of evidence, trails of evidence lead you to your climate skepticism?
Steele: Absolutely, there's a lot of times I would just ask myself, is my skepticism justified, I can't be anything but a skeptic.~ ~ ~
Mr. Steele can you define what you mean by "skeptic"?
Does your skepticism require you to question all sides of an issue?
Does your skepticism include a degree of self-skepticism?
Would you agree that unidirectional skepticism equals denial?
"Keep your mind open, but not so open that your brain falls out."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Steele musters up great offense at sharing a harmless cartoon, but he's fine with his mentor Anthony Watts' slime balling with fabrications rather than facts. Case in point:
From the “settled science” department. It seems even Dr. Kevin Trenberth is now admitting to the cyclic influences of the AMO and PDO on global climate. Neither “carbon” nor “carbon dioxide” is mentioned in this article that cites Trenberth as saying: “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,”
This is significant, as it represents a coming to terms with “the pause” not only by Nature, but by Trenberth too.
The atmospheric circulation is characterized by various "centers of action" which are spatially interdependent.
Trenberth, ... estimated that aerosols and solar activity account for just 20% of the hiatus. That leaves the bulk of the hiatus to the oceans, which serve as giant sponges for heat. And here, the spotlight falls on the equatorial Pacific.
… Just before the hiatus took hold, that region had turned unusually warm during the El Niño of 1997–98, which fuelled extreme weather across the planet, from floods in Chile and California to droughts and wildfires in Mexico and Indonesia. But it ended just as quickly as it had begun, and by late 1998 cold waters — a mark of El Niño’s sister effect, La Niña — had returned to the eastern equatorial Pacific with a vengeance. More importantly, the entire eastern Pacific flipped into a cool state that has continued more or less to this day.
This variation in ocean temperature, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), may be a crucial piece of the hiatus puzzle. The cycle reverses every 15–30 years, and in its positive phase, the oscillation favours El Niño, which tends to warm the atmosphere (see ‘The fickle ocean’). After a couple of decades of releasing heat from the eastern and central Pacific, the region cools and enters the negative phase of the PDO. This state tends towards La Niña, which brings cool waters up from the depths along the Equator and tends to cool the planet.
Researchers identified the PDO pattern in 1997, but have only recently begun to understand how it fits in with broader ocean-circulation patterns and how it may help to explain the hiatus.
One important finding came in 2011, when a team of researchers at NCAR led by Gerald Meehl reported that inserting a PDO pattern into global climate models causes decade-scale breaks in global warming3.
Ocean-temperature data from the recent hiatus reveal why: in a subsequent study, the NCAR researchers showed that more heat moved into the deep ocean after 1998, which helped to prevent the atmosphere from warming6. In a third paper, the group used computer models to document the flip side of the process: when the PDO switches to its positive phase, it heats up the surface ocean and atmosphere, helping to drive decades of rapid warming7.
A key breakthrough came last year from Shang-Ping Xie and Yu Kosaka at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. The duo took a different tack, by programming a model with actual sea surface temperatures from recent decades in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and then seeing what happened to the rest of the globe8. Their model not only recreated the hiatus in global temperatures, but also reproduced some of the seasonal and regional climate trends that have marked the hiatus, including warming in many areas and cooler northern winters.
...That was investigated by Trenberth and John Fasullo, also at NCAR, who brought in winds and ocean data to explain how the pattern emerges4. Their study documents how tropical trade winds associated with La Niña conditions help to drive warm water westward and, ultimately, deep into the ocean, while promoting the upwelling of cool waters along the eastern equatorial region. In extreme cases, such as the La Niña of 1998, this may be able to push the ocean into a cool phase of the PDO. An analysis of historical data buttressed these conclusions, showing that the cool phase of the PDO coincided with a few decades of cooler temperatures after the Second World War (see ‘The Pacific’s global reach’), and that the warm phase lined up with the sharp spike seen in global temperatures between 1976 and 1998 (ref. 4).
It should be clear to anyone who actually reads Torcello’s article that he is wrestling with the philosophical question of how society should hold to account those who willfully distort climate science and disseminate misinformation. Of course, it’s more than an academic question because it is a well-known fact that fossil fuel interests have long been underwriting a disinformation campaign specifically designed to block climate action and confuse the public about the issue. …
- avoid getting pulled into debates with people who only seek to waste your time,
- respond only through mainstream sources or your own blog,
- and keep records of harassing messages, contacting authorities if they become threatening.