Steele Saga-intro: Miesler Helps Expose Insanity Illusions

Since Mr Steele went out of his way to remind my readers of his angry guest essay over at Anthony Watts' WattsUpWithThat, (the guy who inspired me to start this 'study' blog).  I went and revisited Jim's January 2015 "essay." 

Rather than focusing on a systematic review and refutation of my claims and pointing out perceived errors.  Steele launches into a personal attack, using every devious trick to demean me and my motives.  He wouldn't dare admit to himself that I'm a respectable, intelligent man with honorable intentions.  Nah, it doesn't work that way in their rule book.  

Eventually he does get around to some issues, but even there, it's so weighted down with pissy rhetoric and in fact some more examples of misrepresenting and slandering a respected productive serious scientist, it all serves to underscore Mr. Steele's disingenuous motives. 

I share some highlights from Mr. Steele's essay that demonstrate what I refer to as science by slander and science by rhetoric:

a “whacko”,

skeptic basher, 

The “whacko” blogger,

blog spawn,

dedicated to assassinating the character of any and all skeptics,

{Actually to expose their base deceptions}

rabid and dishonest of all blogger,

demented obsessions,

alarmists,

precious gloom and doom,

his tirades,

his vacuous tactics,

Gollum-esque traits,

The poet William Shenstone wrote, “A liar begins with making falsehood appear like truth, and ends with making truth itself appear like falsehood.” {A perfect description of what the climate science contrarian movement has done.}

CC's is now on a mission to transform any and all skeptic truths into a falsehoods,  {Actually it's about exposing the falsehoods of the Republican/libertarian's contrived "skeptic truths"}

“modeling whim du jour,”

Step right up Mr. Steele, let the debate begin.

This morning I found this waiting for me:

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/

Commented at Landscapesandcycles, Jim Steele weights in (#9 ...)
March 6, 2016 at 4:43 PM

Jim, you tell folks I've censored you.  But, we know I haven't. 

Manipulate facts, hardly.  
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.

   

If it's a matter of trust, as you claim, we can find a solution.

Send me your statement, I'll post it.  Then before I write one word, you can visit and leave a comment acknowledging that your words are accurate.  Then we can begin.

Or a far better solution would be that you send me your debate-points to post at WUWTW, while also posting them over at your Landscapes'n Cycles blog - we can check each other.   Then our respective 'fans' can keep track where they want.  I'll have my chance to confront your lies.  You'll have your chance to set me straight, fair and square.
__________________________________________________________

Jim, as you know I've done a systematic detailed review of your talk in front of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and also your January 27, 2015 interview with Heartland Institute's Sterling Bennett.

Mr. Landscapesandcycles, Jim Steele weights in (#9 ...)

Every time I think I'm done with this, there's another surprise waiting.  This morning I woke to this comment from my old pal Jim, who's claim to legitimacy comes from his years as San Francisco State University, Sierra Nevada Field Campus nature trail guide, caretaker/director, and bird watcher Jim Steele, before he became spokesman for climate science denial industry.

Jim Steele said...

My experience has been that poptech is far more honest than citizenchallegne/meisler . Meisler is just experiencing the time honored truth, What goes around comes around!

Jim has made quite the reputation himself.  He demands we debate climate science but then runs from anyone willing to debate him on the nonsense he's spewing out.  Then back within the confines of his protective echo-chamber, boy can he blast me.  It's no wonder he feels such a kinship with Poptech.  I don't have any more time for him today - but his comment has inspired me to share a couple lists of detailed reviews and the itemizing of his many lies and theatrical manipulations:
_____________________________________________________________________

Monday, January 12, 2015

INDEX - Jim Steele's climate science horror collection, Landscapesandcycles, 2014

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/01/steeles-horror-collection-2014.html

This blog has been a personal learning process and I'll admit some posts are duds, others aren't all they should be, but then, a few hit the nail.  

Since the past decade has taught me that climate science denialism is an insuperable ideological point of faith with many - I've switched my focus to the few who want to study the tactics and dynamics that climate science denialist types employ in order to misrepresent and distort the science.  These tactics are dedicated to confusing and misleading people.  

Thereby turning what should have been a sober learning process into a contorted dishonest political farce.  A farce forced on us by special-interests employing disingenuous jokers such as the "Lord" Monckton or this current rising star Mr. Jim Steele.  

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 his 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.

    The Serengeti Strategy which is explained here and here.

(updated 3/7/16 - to reflect a recent dialogue with Jim Steele and to repeat my acceptance of Jim's repetitive insistence that there must be debate, but that he keeps hiding from.)

Confronting Malicious Ignorance (2/2) - a look at Idso's co2science game

The manmade global warming discussion is supposed to be about learning how our planet's climate system operates, yet rather than discussing the actual details of our planet's geophysical system, all they come up with is frothing at the mouth and that tribalism.  Here's a sampling of comments I've received in the past few days.  Which I follow with some observations of my own.  

After that I share a trove of information about a favorite source of self-certain authority among the climate science denying crowd, the shady Idso family cottage industry "co2science-org" and "Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change."

I'm sharing my experience, hoping it may help others better understand and confront that Republican/libertarian hostility and revulsion at learning about our planet, it's biosphere and the climate system we depend on.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bull shit they will not debate as the skeptics have the data and the alarmists have nothing but GCMs.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Because co2science-org is an organization of actual scientists that reference scientific literature.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Maybe you should take your head out of the sand and acknowledge the fact that a lot of evidence supports skeptical arguments. But no, you'll just cherry-pick some false graph from some alarmist blog and act like you proved me wrong. Jeez, you people are worse than creationists...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I object to the claim that humans have caused a majority of the observed warming since the beginning of the industrial revolution. 

Confronting Malicious Ignorance (1/2) - a look at Poptech's game

Another diversion, but so it goes.  My YouTube profile must be growing, as reflected by the creepy clowns crawling out of the woodwork to take pot shots at me, reminds me of some cheap zombie horror movie.

A favorite meme is: CO2 levels were greater in the deep distant past, as though that has anything to do with today's world and the reality of adding ~3 billion metric tons of CO2 on top of the natural flux into our climate system every month after month.  One would think Republican types would know all about accumulating compounding interest and what that can do to numbers in a hurry - it doesn't just work that way in the financial world.  Why they ignore such simple rational fundamentals, is beyond me.

Another favorite, goes like this:

CC writes:  

Great so you object.  Now do you have any objective evidence to support what you believe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dude (I'll going to start using the generic Dude for multiple YouTube characters) writes: 

A lot, actually.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/co2climatehistory.php

Here's a small (but informative) collection of evidence. If needed, I can provide a lot more.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CC writes:

All you folks seem to point to co2science, watts up with that, has it become your bible or something?  It's run by the Idso Clan who are paid spokesmen for Heartland Institute and ExxonMobil - it has been shown to dishonestly represent the science.  But that's all you got - and you refuse to look beyond your smug little certitude.

But, learning requires some times getting out and assessing the reality going down on this one and only planet of ours - that we depend on for everything.  A bit of healthy self-skepticism would go a long way too.

~ plus~

What about all the information and detailed explanations and the hundreds of referenced papers that are collected in there???

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf - 

also see:

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test 

Posted on September 9, 2013 by Climate Science Watch 

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dude writes: 

The IPCC? You are really going to reference people who still believe in the hockey stick graph and a 97% consensus? OK.

Here's a lot more papers (1,350+):

www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Debating Malicious Ignorance, 1000frolly, Lord Monckton, et al.

    

Often in my spare time I check out YouTube because they have some great lectures and other Earth science videos that are fun to watch and learn from.  Of course, YouTube is also saturated with a lot of trash and worse, and I do my best to steer away from it.  Unfortunately, google/YouTube are always shoving videos into your face according to google's algorithms and I'm constantly being confronted with incredibly stupid climate science denial videos.  

In particular one channel going by 1000frolly, which I have reason to think may be none other than that master of oratory and lies Lord Monckton, has been pumping out science denial videos like there's no tomorrow.  I've tangled with him a couple times and have my comments disappear - so much for them wanting serious debate, but it's useless and consumes too much precious time that I do my best to avoid his nonsense. 

Then, while gathering links for my upcoming evolution of our atmosphere post, I got hit with another one, this time he's going after Potholer54 the creator of one of the best YouTube series dedicated to explaining climate science to regular people and it irritated me enough that I put my other project on hold (yet again) to give this video and its claims a closer look.  

I'm embedding the original Potholer54 video after my critique of Lord frolly's claims, as usual I supply plenty of supporting evidence, including links to GISS FAQs.  I finish up with a cut and paste from the index (linked to their webpages) 2001 IPCC working group one, on the "physical basis".  I do this because it puts the lie to climate contrarian's moldy mantra, 'there is no science' - you just need the curiosity and interest to make the effort to learn about it.  

_____________________________________________

The Evidence for Climate Change WITHOUT Potholer54 - Revised 

1000frolly … aka Lord Monckton?

Published on Apr 22, 2015

"The Evidence for Climate Change Without Models or the IPCC" is critiqued.

Identified problems;

1) Incorrect use of the term 'climate change'; term is used refer only to a hypothetical and totally unproven anthropogenic climate change.

INDEX-The Great landscapesandcycle's Climate Science Debate

On January 27, 2015 Jim Steele creator of the Landscapesandcycles blog, which advocates for the bizarre notion that landscapes and natural cycles are more important than our planet's atmosphere in regulating conditions on Earth, was interviewed by Sterling Bennett of the Heartland Institute.  The interview was a case study in the manipulation of information with intent to mislead.

To me his sneaky tactical misrepresentations and outlandish claims are unconscionable in this day and age, given not only our scientific knowledge, but down to Earth observations of the past century.

That is why I've gone through the trouble of transcribing and highlighting his many deceptions.

#14 Considering Malicious Falsehoods vs Right to Learn - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 

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 writes:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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's 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.)

With this fourteen installment I complete my critique of Mr. Landscapesandcycle's interview with Heartland Institute's Sterling Burnett.  

There is one last section, but I reviewed that back at #2 Fear of Debate - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate of this series, since it dealt with Mr. Steele's demand for public debates to establish the truth of climate science and I used his words to justify this virtual debate with him.  Why he continues to hide from my invitation, only he can explain.  

Though I did discover yesterday that he's written some posts about me at his Landscapesandcycles blog, not that he returned my courtesy of emailing him fyi's on what I'm posting (to and) about him.  I only had enough time to skim one before setting it aside for a future project.  Still, I do know, it'll make for an interesting study in contrasting styles.

In this installment Mr. Steele voices an impassioned plea on behalf of the poor people of the world - encouraging us to continue burning fossil fuels as fast as we can get them out of the ground so they can live better lives. 

And me, I wander off point a little and consider concepts like "malicious falsehood" - "slander" - "Intent to deceive" and such.

You know, things like strategic interference with a scientist's duty to report on the science according to the data collected, rather than what the masters of the universe want to hear.  

I wonder out loud whether We The People have a right to demand honesty in the information we receive from scientists, free of malicious interference and tactical crazy making (manufactured doubt).

I'm hoping there are some people over at San Francisco State University who also believe these are questions worth confronting here in the summer of 2015 when we finally need to be spending our time, treasure and energy on constructively dealing with what's coming our way and not pretending that the science isn't solid and conclusive.

___________________________________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 

disseminate misinformation about climate science."  

Lawrence Torcello

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________

_________________________________

Steele:  And then there's sort of, I think the most bizarre paradox by this narrow point of view, is that poor nations where people are increasingly moving vegetation for heating or cooking fuel.  Or they use slash and burn agriculture, those practices create more barren land, and if you understand the effects of landscapes on climate you realize that those barren lands raise the regions temperature many degrees higher than normal. You probably thought this yourself if you ah, simply were in bare feet on a summer day and step from grass to pavement, you remove the vegetation you have pavement, or bare ground, the temperature is many many degree's warmer

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jim, what are you talking about?  What does accepting the recognized physics of greenhouse gases have to do with poor people being left with no alternatives but to increasingly degrade their landscapes?

And what does the difference between the heat gain of grassland vs barren land or pavement have to do with increasing our global atmosphere's insulating ability?                   Please explain.

NASA Goddard

___________________________________

Steele:  well, and, probably for a broader example you might look at the effects of a dust bowl.  When buffalo grass was removed and barren soil was dominated, the regional climate after the government wheat subsidies collapsed farms were abandoned, and resulting in the greatest droughts and the highest temperatures of the twentieth century in the United States.

#13 Critical Thinking and "keep the debate alive" - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 

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 writes:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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's 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.)

In this thirteenth installment I want to look at Jim advocating that we empower our youth to judge the veracity of experts and other such notions in "critical" thinking.

___________________________________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 

disseminate misinformation about climate science."  

Lawrence Torcello

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________

_________________________________

Steele says:  We're only hurting our science education in that way...(see #12)... We can't just spoon feed students science and have them memorize and spit it back like propaganda.  You gotta encourage students to be critical thinkers.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Be serious, students are in school to learn the fundamentals of the world around them.  High school and early college is about teaching skills, such as mathematical, scientific fundamentals, critical thinking, learning and communication skills - you know the tools required for the advanced learning that's required before one can judge experts and seasoned professionals.

Just like with your running skills, first you needed to learn to sit up and crawl, only then could you put weight on those legs and begin first tentative stubbles until you learned the tricks of the trade.  Then, only after many years of learning and development were you finally able to beat your dad in a race.  And only then were you finally poised to take that skill on to further levels of achievement.  Brain development is not so different.

What makes you think students can or should sit in judgmental "debate" on their professors?  Were you a Maoist back in da day and missed the bulletin about what a disaster the Great Leap Forward was?

As for critical thinking, keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out, 
or to frame it more constructively I'll rely on an expert Robert Ennis PhD :

The Nature of Critical Thinking: 

Outlines of General Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities 

Robert H. Ennis  2013

http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/rhennis/

http://www.criticalthinking.net/longdefinition.html

"Critical thinking is "reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do." This definition (or concept) of critical thinking I believe captures the core of the way the term is ordinarily used by supporters of critical thinking. In deciding what to believe or do, one is helped by the employment of a set of critical thinking dispositions and abilities (which is a conception of critical thinking) that I outline in detail below. ..."

"... For the sake of brevity, clarification in the form of examples, qualifications, and more detail, including more criteria, are omitted, but can be found in sources listed below, including "Critical Thinking: A Streamlined Conception" (1991b), "A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities" (1987a), and "A Conception of Rational Thinking" (1980), but more fully in Critical Thinking (1996a).  See Note 1. ... "

CRITICAL THINKING DISPOSITIONS

Ideal critical thinkers are disposed to 

1. Seek and offer clear statements of the thesis or question

2. Seek and offer clear reasons

3. Try to be well informed

4. Use credible sources and observations, and usually mention them

5. Take into account the total situation

6. Keep in mind the basic concern in the context

7. Be alert for alternatives

8. Be open-minded

    a. Seriously consider otherpoints of view 

    b. Withhold judgment when the evidence and reasons

       are insufficient

9. Take a position and change a position when the evidence

       and reasons are sufficient

10. Seek as much precision as the nature of the subject admits

11. Seek the truth when it makes sense to do so, and more broadly, try to "get it right" to the extent possible or feasible

12. Employ their critical thinking abilities and dispositions

#12 "Pushing this global climate alarmism" - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 

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 writes:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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's 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.)

In this twelfth installment we return to Mr. Steele's words as he responds to Heartland Burnett's previous question (see #11)  by complaining that people are "alarmed" at what they are witnessing and what scientists are telling them.  Jim also claims climate science education is missing important information, though he never explains what that might be.

___________________________________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 

disseminate misinformation about climate science."  

Lawrence Torcello

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________

_________________________________

Steele:  You know I agree, I think people that are pushing this global climate alarmism it's sort of a mixed bag.  I think some people have become incredibly fearful because they've heard these stories and just kind of amplify it and echo it.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Jim, here take a look at what's "pushing this global climate alarmism."  Why do you want people to ignore that reality?

___________________________________

Figure 17.35: Global CO₂ emissions are rising rapidly. The industrial revolution began about 1850 and industrialization has been accelerating.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/High_School_Earth_Science/Climate_Change

___________________________________

Why shouldn't we feel "alarmed" by what the nonstop injection of gigaton's worth of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere is doing to our planet's very basic geophysical processes and our very complex biosphere?

#11 Questions for Heartland's Burnett, re Dr. Mann and more - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

{slightly edited at 10:00pm 4/26}

A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 

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 writes:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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's 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.)

In this eleventh installment I'm going to give Jim another pass in order to linger on Heartland Institute's Sterling Burnett's next question and his cheap shot at Dr. Mann which inspired a number of questions I'd like to direct to Mr. Burnett himself.

___________________________________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 

disseminate misinformation about climate science."  

Lawrence Torcello

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________

_________________________________

Heartland's Burnett:  What kind of impact do you believe this scientific misdirection of global warming and you know sort of the single point of view of global warming has had on science in general.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
What 
"scientific misdirection of global warming" ?

You don't explain a thing.
You don't specify what you are talking about.
You don't provide anything constructive to build upon.

Your goal seems to be sewing mistrust and confusion.
What about learning from the information at hand?
_________________________________________

Heartland's Burnett:  You know the media just focuses like a hawk, it seems to me, on whatever horror, horrific climate spin story is sent out.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
What's with this non sequitur?  

Are we discussing climate science, or profit driven sensationalistic media products?  Two very different issues buster brown, stop conflating them!
__________________________________________

Heartland's Burnett:  Just following the old Mann trick, I believe the lead on climate is the same way, if it's disaster it's the headline.