REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.
My intention is a review of 'libertarian' deception in action.
Click on image for better viewing and comparing.
Steele never explains that "safe space", instead he used his soapbox to praise Nunavut’s Inuit hunters for their superior wildlife observation skills that, according to Steele, put scientists to shame.
This column was so lacking in anything to do with climate science, that I have to change my approach again, this time simply dissect and comment.
The column’s title proclaims: “Can We Kappiananngittuq?” - subtitled, “We need a safe place to discuss global climate topics.” - and the center-piece quote reads: “I suggest we all could benefit by debating kappiananngittuq style.”
Begs the question, what would a public “safe space to discuss” climate science look like Jim?
What guidelines would you expect us to follow?
Would honesty be important?
When I’m discussing facts I’ve gathered, would there be an expectation that I be truthful? That I honesty and accurately represent the information I’ve collected?
When I’m describing the data and work of an ‘opponent’ would there be an expectation that I honesty represent my adversary’s data?
Would it be a general betrayal to substitute a dishonest argument that prop up false assertions, while hiding my opponent’s facts?
In a kappiananngittuq, is there an expectation to respect the experience, knowledge and merits of each individual, even your opponents?
In a kappiananngittuq, if it’s explained to you, how you are mistaken about something, do you sit there striving to listen, understand and absorb the lesson?
In a kappiananngittuq, is learning and a better communal understanding of our collective real world situation the goal?
These are important questions. I believe the answers are self evident: YES on all counts. I wonder how Jim Steele would answer?
