Jim Steele said...
I came here once and demonstrated your lies. You deleted my posts and continued to lie. I told then, as I remind you now. I will not ever come here to engage in a sincere debate because Peter Meisler is not to be trusted.
Set up a debate in a neutral place that can be videoed and where Peter Meisler can not manipulate the facts, then I will gladly debate you and put your dishonest claims to rest.
Your obsessive dishonesty has been noted many times. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/07/peter-miesler-helps-expose-ushcn-homogenization-insanity-and-antarctic-illusions/
That's why I prefer my debates in writing;
both to clearly state what I have to say,
and to give you something to work with, well, and also, so you won't be tempted to put words in my mouth.
__________________________________________________________
For the complete list you can link here.
Steele's message:
A) Local landscapes are drivers of global climate change.
B) Internal cycles are more powerful drivers than the atmosphere that envelopes our planet
The way I see your tactics:
Obsessive focus on flaws in extremely challenging wildlife population studies.
Misrepresent the scope of those flaws and the learning process.
As an excuse to:
Ignore the physics of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Ignore the fact that industrialized society has increased our planet's atmosphere's insulation medium (GHGs) by 30%.
Ignore the fact that our climate system is a global heat and moisture distribution engine.
Ignore the overwhelming observational evidence of continued global warming.
Employing:
Political theater to dismiss well established science.
Slander to disparage dedicated professional scientists.
The magician's tactic of distraction and rhetorical sleight of hand.
It appears Jim Steele still hasn't mustered the intellectual courage to actually engage in my debate challenge.
ReplyDeleteHis speciality is in creating confusion and spreading trash-talk, rather than trying to learn any thing.
Oh but he demands that super-busy hard working experts to drop everything to debate with know-nothings like he is, in contrived circus debates that have more to do with lawyerly tactics of deception than the constructive educational debates going on between serious scientists.