Okay mineguy, lets debate Jim Steele and his LandscapesandCycles conviction

{edited to fix formatting issues  8/2/16}
I received a dismissive, yet challenging, comment from a "mineguy," he claims he can "take down" my arguments with ease.  

Okay Mineguy, I'm game.  Bet you can't! 

I invite you to choose from any of my Jim Steele Critiques (I include the list after my response to your revealing comment.).  Then in a rational constructive manner, point out my errors and produce some evidence to support your opinion - I'd be happy to learn from you, if you can produce some rational defensible evidence. 

Here let me give you an example of how it's done:

 At 3:44PM, August 28, 2016, mineguy's comments: 

A brief read indicates this WUWTW site is another of the group-think anthropogenic true believers who are incredibly organized to dispute, disparage, and ‘take down’ any sane and objective contrary argument against that line of propaganda. 

Find it at "LandscapesAndCycles"

“Group think” -  What’s that even mean in this context?  

You could just as easily complain that, me trusting that men landed and walked on the moon is the result of group think.  

What's wrong with group think based on facts?

Steele saga - Repost 5/5 - Jim watts up with your venomous self-indignation?

This is a reposting of the last of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again.

I wrote this after a good week had passed and the dust settled, and having had a chance to think about the entire episode.  I found Jim's behavior so strange, I decided to ask him about it.  Of course, no response was received.  That's why I now find it curious that he's been creeping around here lately, like a kid with a new pea shooter.

Jim talks big, but there's no substance behind his words.  Prove me wrong Jim, let's have that debate.  How about it?  A thoughtful, substantive one, in writing.  Posted at our respective blogs for others to judge. 

____________________________________________

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Jim Steele watts up with your venomous self-indignation?

Dear Jim Steele,

With time to reflect, I'm confused by your display of moral outrage in that January 7th WUWT broadside? Come on, lighten up, you should recognized the Shakespearian overtones and appreciate we were made for each other.  

Besides, it was you who jumped into my lil climate change sparing camp over at SkepticForum back last spring.... you were the big shot daring anyone to dispute your nonsense.  Did you really think I was going to allow your Republican/libertarian "hey no worries, it's all a hoax" challenge to go unanswered?  Then in your IEEE 'climate science horror' series and LandscapesAndCycle you're the one that told folks to check original sources.  Well, I have and I've received responses including many full texts of published studies from:

Steele saga - Repost 4/5 - Jim can you clarify your argument?

  

This is a reposting of the forth of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again.

Here's an example of my process in action and using these incidents to further my own understanding.  While Jim was off at his private club trashing me, I was trying to find a way to simplify the issues for more constructive discussion.

I tried boiling it down to it's most fundamental and came up with two basic questions for Jim.  I figured this would be a good place to start our debate, but Mr. Steele pretended not to hear.  

How about it Jim, you've had over a year to stew on it.

_________________________________________________________

Friday, January 30, 2015

Mr. Jim Steele, Can you clarify your argument?

A) That wildlife biologists working in extreme conditions and over continental landscapes make mistakes?

B) Disputing that Anthropogenic Global Warming with it's profound changing climate driven landscapes alterations causes adverse cascading consequences for wildlife and eco-systems (read our biosphere)?  

Steele saga - Repost 2/5 - Regarding the question of USHCN homogenization

This is a reposting of the second of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again.

Here I share information about the temperature record, global, California and Yosemite, and finish with some links for more detailed information explaining the complexities and reasons for temperature adjustments and "homogenization."

______________________________________________________________________________________

Monday, January 26, 2015

Regarding the question of USHCN homogenization

Regarding Mr. Steele's January 7th, 2015 WUWT blog post, while I won't respond to the personal stuff beyond answering any question in the comments section - Mr. Steele's January 7th, 2015 WUWT blog post does make some interesting points regarding US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) and data homogenization.  Now that stuff get's up into pure expert level and is quite frankly beyond the abilities of non-experts such as Mr. Steele and myself to realistically judge.  But, he does open up yet another avenue of investigation and I will be making inquires at the USHCN to see what they can teach me about their records and temperature data processing.

In relation to my dialogue with Mr. Steele, the irony is that he relies on his interpretation of USHCN data to make his point that California is not experiencing any warming, yet he broadcasts contempt for USHCN homogenization methods and their models.  What's up with that?  I also have to wonder why he didn't respond to my emails requesting more details and share this information with me.  In any event, I'll share the information I'm able to gather over the next days and weeks.

In the meantime, perhaps it would be good to bring all this back down to Earth and actual observations.

Steele saga - Repost 1/5 - Open let to San Francisco State University

This is a reposting of the first of five responses I made regarding various aspects of Jim Steele's 1/7/15 WattsUpWithThat 'essay' - in light of Steele's recent comment, I think it's only fair to bring it up again.  I'm tempted to run though it, polish, up date, but even considering this was written while still in a bit of shock over Jim's ruthlessness, I believe it's best to leave it alone.

My letter to San Francisco State University may seem a bit extreme, but we do the best we can, with what we have - and considering Mr. Steele's extremism and previous interactions with him, I wanted to be sure he knows, they know.

___________________________________________________________

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Dear Mr. Steele, regarding your 1/7/15 WUWT post - an open letter...

Yesterday I became aware of a shocking, misinformation laced "Watts Up With That" blog post written about me January 7th by our good Mr. Steele.  Considering Anthony Watts won't allow me to comment at WUWT it seems appropriate to share this email I've just sent to Mr. Steele (among others).  I won't be responding to the specifics in that contorted dishonest WUWT blog post.  Although I'll be happy to answer any questions submitted to the comments sections after this open letter.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To whom it may concern,

Ms. Mendoza, Assistant to the Dean, San Francisco State University 

Ms. Griffin, Public Affairs, San Francisco State University 

Ms. Kelly, Academic Affairs, San Francisco State University 

Mother Jones

Four Corners Free Press

Climate Science Defense Fund

I am copying you on this email to Mr. Jim Steele because I feel seriously threatened by your emeritus instructor (http://www.sfsu.edu/~sierra/Instructor_JimSteele.html) and I'm hoping for an objective moderating arbiter.  I do appreciate Mr. Steele has a bone to pick with me, for reasons best understood by reviewing: 

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

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

But, I believe I've written nothing to justify the viciousness and misleading prose of his recent WUWT article - over a matter that would best be handed with dispassionate dialogue.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mr. Steele, 

regarding your 1/7/2015 WUWT blog post.  I can see we are quite different, you fight your intellectual battles within the confines of an echo-chamber of like-minded who have convinced themselves that scientists are manipulative and untrustworthy - unless they share your "sceptical" storyline that modern climatology is a farce.  Along with that you seem to believe that anyone defending those scientists and their work is an enemy in your no-holds-barred grudge match.

I myself would rather objective, educated, informed individuals judge the validity of our respective opinions, claims and assertions.  I remain prepared to digest new evidence and recognize my mistakes.  Like scientists, I love learning and expanding my understanding, even when new evidence shows that my assumptions were wrong.  Also, just like serious scientists, I willingly allow the strongest evidence to drive my "beliefs".  

I do take heed of Mark Twain's observation, the one you closed your attack piece with:

¶22  Mark Twain astutely recognized, “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other.”

That's why I've gone through the time and trouble to objectively itemize the various claims you're so strenuously broadcasting to all who will listen… precisely because I choose to go to first-hand sources.  Which I've done, contacting a number of scientists singled out by you these past months.  Many have responded and shared information and studies, sometimes many studies.  I've spent hours, days, seriously looking through it all and digesting the information to the best of my abilities.

About this blog and me

I'll start 2016 with some rambling about this blog and where I'm coming from.

Back in 2011 I started commenting at Anthony Watts' blog, WattsUpWithThat.  I did it with trepidation since I knew Mr. Watts had quite the reputation for banning skeptical commenters regarding his insinuations and pronouncements.  I tried being rational and civil, but the contrarian tactic of baiting to divert the conversation must have suckered me over his tolerance-line for alarmists and I found myself joining his legion of the banned and effectively being censored from his online "debate".  Ironically his compatriots seem to have no limits on the hysteria, insults and fabricated claims they are allowed to inject - oh but you better not confront them with facts, that's unacceptable in their echo-chamber "debate."

What's a little go-getter to do?  Roll over for Anthony?  Why?  When I could respond with a blog of my own.  Thus, "What's Up With That Watts et.al" was born.  Dedicated to examining contrarian claims; learning about their debate tactics; confronting their arguments with reason and links to authoritative sources for learning; and sharing that information with other concerned students and citizens.  Deep down I was also hoping to spur some dialogue with other like minded individuals, perhaps even encourage some to engage in the public "debate" themselves.

Matt Ridley let's debate your "What the climate wars did to science"

{edited for typos and some minor additions 19:30 MDT }
_____________________________________

Matt Ridley I've been reading your "What the climate wars did to science" and I'll give it to you, it's one piece of work.  From the bizarre comparison of "Lysenkoism" with two centuries worth of climate science; to your championing that artful misinformer JimSteele (a person who regularly attacks scientists based on misrepresenting the facts, while hiding from debating the merits of his storyline.); then you pile on the malicious Dr. Parmesan slander campaign (while lying about what her paper actually says); etc.; finishing with that lofty plea to 'keep the debate alive'.  It really is too much, still I'm thinking you want a debate, Okay, let's have a debate!  

I believe I can explain why your words are such deceptive theater while outlining the difference between your brand of 'playing games for short term political gain' and scientists commitment to learning in order to understand reality as it is, rather than how we wish it could be.

I challenge you, Matt Ridley, to participate in this public "debate" by rationally explaining why you might disagree with my assessment.  I will post your comments unaltered - I'll even consider a "guest post" from you, if it contains a substantive rational response.

We'll see how it goes.  Since your blog post was six thousand words long and I have very limited free time these days, and people have limited patience, I'll be doing this is smaller segments.  Here I review your first 450 words.

Sincerely,

Citizenschallenge

________________________________________________

What the climate wars did to science
Published on Sunday, July 05, 2015, updated Sunday, July 05, 2015 
by Matt Ridley - at the so-called RationalOptimist.com  -  5950 words

Policy-based evidence making is all too frequent in climate science

#10 Heartland in their own words - 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 tenth installment, we've arrived at Heartland's intermission advert which I've also transcribed because it perfectly demonstrates their infantile thinking as reflected in their dedication to politicizing, misrepresenting and sewing confusion - thus materially interfering with We The People's right to honestly learn about what's going on within our atmosphere and upon our planet.  This in turn, begs the question:

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 
disseminate misinformation about climate science."  
Lawrence Torcello

__________________________________________________

__________________________________________

_________________________________

Heartland's Burnett:  "A brief timeout on behalf of the Heartlander Digital Magazine. 

The Heartlander Digital Magazine is a unique product among right leaning think-tanks, published by the Heartland Institute this daily news site is overseen by managing editors for each of its six sections and produced by a team of writers who cover current events from a Free Market Perspective updated with fresh stories. Every day the Heartlander Magazine provides readers with vital counter-spin to the mainstream medias take on the important domestic policy issues of the day. 
... Get fully informed, get the Free Market angle to today's news, visit us."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"vital counter-spin", "Free Market angle" ?
What about learning from the information at hand ? ?

This dedication to playing games and sanctioning spin over substance and striving to understand the full scope of available information is appalling.

Not a word about assessing and learning from authoritative scientific information.  

Their mission statement reveals a similar level of self absorption and acceptance of self-delusion for power political purposes which in turn forces them into a dogmatic rejection of listening to or learning from the full scope of information at hand: 

https://www.heartland.org/mission
The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

__________________________________

No interest in our planet's health.

Not a word about learning about how our planet and it's life sustaining climate operates.

Not a word about nurturing the heath of our global life support system. 

It's all about self-interest and getting their own way.

To such thinkers, the Earth is little more than a commodity to consume as fast as possible. 

Great for today's party but a nightmare for our children's future lives.

__________________________________

I'll close this installment with a few excerpts and links to various articles that look into this Heartland Institution.

Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism

Leo Hickman | February 15, 2012

~ ~ ~

An Open Letter (by climate scientists) to the Heartland Institute

(in response to news of HI's document leaks) | February 2012

~ ~ ~

The Alternative Reality of the Heartland Institute’s “NIPCC” Report

Steve Newton | October 28, 2013

~ ~ ~

Good news: Media utterly ignored Heartland Institute/NIPCC at National Press Club

Mike Stark  |  April 11, 2014

~ ~ ~

Climate-denying researcher slams critics with help from climate-denying Heartland Institute

Lindsay Abrams | March 03, 2015

(I've added a couple highlights here and there.)

__________________________________

#9 Steele's heat waves and the AGW fallacy - 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 ninth installment we'll look at one of your "biggest pet peeves that every heat wave get's trumpeted as evidence of global warming" ...oh my.

______________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science."  Lawrence Torcello

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________
___________________________________

Steele:  You mentioned there was the sort of the high temperatures, you know one of my biggest pet peeves is that every heat wave get's trumpeted as evidence of global warming,   

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To begin with you don't specify who's doing the "trumpeting", so it's a meaningless complaint.

Your consistent use of such deliberate vagueness underscores your deceptive intensions.

More important, why are you rejecting what scientists and researchers are observing?

NASA | 2014 Continues Long-Term Global Warming 

NASA Goddard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtPkFBbJLMg

Published on Jan 16, 2015

The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, 
according to an analysis by NASA scientists.

_________________________________________

Steele:  but the heat waves usually occur under very dry conditions. Dry conditions allow the earth and air to heat up much more quickly.  And when you get this high pressure settle in, it allows for greater solar insolation, that heats the land more quickly and that high pressure dome prevents convection that would carry away that heat, much like rolling up the windows in your car, watching your car heat up.  And because water vapor makes up 80% of the greenhouse gases or even more, the heat waves are actually happening when there's a drop in the concentration of greenhouse gases.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Jim, your myopic focus on the local seems to have blinded you to the global.  That was a horrendous description of what a heat wave is all about.  

Since you won't allow yourself to trust me, how about learning from the venerable Farmers Almanac?

"A heat wave occurs when a system of high atmospheric pressure moves into an area. In such a high-pressure system, air from upper levels of our atmosphere is pulled toward the ground, where it becomes compressed and increases in temperature.

"This high concentration of pressure makes it difficult for other weather systems to move into the area, which is why a heat wave can last for several days or weeks. The longer the system stays in an area, the hotter the area becomes. The high-pressure inhibits winds, making them faint to nonexistent. Because the high-pressure system also prevents clouds from entering the region, sunlight can become punishing, heating up the system even more. The combination of all of these factors come together to create the exceptionally hot temperatures we call a heat wave."

http://farmersalmanac.com/weather/2010/04/12/what-causes-a-heat-wave/

_________________________________________

Steele:  But people are blaming heat wave increase on greenhouse gases.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mr. Jim Steele, here again is an example of you crossing the line into the realm of perhaps legally actionable offenses.  

I'm no authority on the law, but I do know a thing or two about upholding morals and ethics and the learning process.  

For a person who claims to be educated and enlightened in the ways and accomplishments of science, to stand in front of an audience and ridicule the overwhelming scientific and technical understanding regarding CO2 and other greenhouse gases holding in more heat within our global climate system is unconscionable.

#8 Mangroves, Dr. Cavanaugh, NPR's Joyce - 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:  "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 eighth installment I'm debating your denigration of a biology study led by Dr.Kyle Cavanaugh about Mangrove response to freezing temperatures.

Since I do check first sources I've exchanged a few emails with Dr. Cavanaugh.  I will share some quotes, so he can speak for himself.  

It makes another wonderful case study for 'THIS IS WHAT A SCIENTIST SOUNDS LIKE."  Dr. Cavanaugh offered a straight-forward learning experience that I could build on with further research.  Quite the contrast to your constant trickery and contrived gotcha's.

I thank Dr. Cavanaugh for permission to share from our correspondence, 

(Although it's worth pointing out all of this is already part of the public record, 

for those interested enough to seek it out.).

___________________________________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 

disseminate misinformation about climate science?"  Lawrence Torcello

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________

Steele:  Another example, last year NPR and a few media was hyping that Florida's mangroves were marching north because of global warming.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I've listen to that NPR story numerous times, there is nothing "hyped" about it - it was a crisp concise report of the known science and a pretty good description of a couple recent studies of mangrove biology.

Mr. Steele, I challenge you to attempt a critique.  Take the time to listen to NPR's three minute report.  

Detail what you believe is misleading about Christopher Joyce's reporting.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/31/258699479/floridas-mangroves-move-north-as-temperatures-rise)

If you can't accomplish that simple challenge, it'll speak volumes.  

:- |

 ____________________________________

Steele:  The red mangroves that declined earlier was because Floridians removed or trimming trees that blocked their water front views. There were black mangroves that suffered because to control mosquitoes they were artificially flooding swamps to greater depths that would drown out the mangroves.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I thought there were three major species and asked Dr. Cavanaugh about it, indeed there are.  Curious… Jim why only discuss two?  

More important, he pointed out that you are correct about what you say, but that it doesn't relate to their study.  A non sequitur so to speak.

Dr. Cavanaugh: "Yes, there are three main species of mangroves in Florida: red (R. mangle), black (A. germinans), and white (L. racemosa). I agree with Mr. Steele that coastal development and mosquito impoundments (http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Impoundments.htm) have historically had a big impact on mangroves in Florida. 

However, most of those buildings and impoundments are still there, and I don't think these things are responsible for the recent mangrove expansion that we have seen. 

We are seeing mangroves move into areas that have been salt marsh for at least 50 years. In some of these locations no one remembers mangroves ever being there. We have linked this expansion to a decrease in the frequency of extreme cold events. Again, I can't conclusively attribute those temperature changes to anthropogenic climate change, but our results suggest that future warming due to climate change will cause further northward expansion of mangroves in Florida."  

#7 Penguins, butterflies and consensus - 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:  "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 seventh installment I'll debate your Antarctic penguin story, your misrepresentation of Dr. Camille Parmesan and your revulsion towards scientific "consensus".

______________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?"  Lawrence Torcello

_________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Heartland Burnett: In earlier conversations you mentioned a couple other examples - you've already mentioned the butterfly, but you also mentioned the case of the Emperor Penguin.  Could you describe that case a little bit?

Steele:  Sure. There have been a few stories about the emperor penguin marching to extinction, 

~ ~ ~
Who wrote the stories?  Was it an opinion piece of a political type, causal newspaper, right-wing think-tank, left-wing think-tank, letters to the editor, serious science reporting, a retired PhD in an unrelated field but who possesses strong political motivations, a scientist who's active in the field, an actual peer reviewed study, a university press release?  

Mr. Steele, how do you weigh the relative reliability of those competing sources of information? 

You like dramatizing the extinction schtick, but you never mention that all this science you are picking on is about population dynamics.  The scientists are counting and observing populations and reporting trends they are witnessing.  
The few studies that touch on potential penguin extinction have it out on the century horizon.
__________________________________________

Steele:  it's sort of based on one colony 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What is sort of based on one colony?   

Some studies from Dumont d'Urville, which at nearly 60 is the longest running penguin research lab in Antarctica?

Census and environment studies from throughout the continent that uniformly paint a grim picture for penguins' long term prospects?

After all, there are at least 22 active research programs dedicated to Antarctic penguins, all of them churning out studies painting a consistent image.

Australians – 3;  French – 1 on continent;  Crozet – 1;  New Zealand – 2 in Ross Sea;  USA – 4 in Ross Sea;  Bellingshausen – 1;  South Shetlands – 2;  UK – 2 at South Georgia;  UK – 1 at S Orkney;  Germany – 1;  Argentina – 1;  Japan – 1;  Italy – 2

http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/InfoAntarctica.html

______________________________________________

Steele:  that suffered a large decline between about 1960 and 1980 and it was the same colony that was used for the documentary March of Penguins.  But if you look at the British Antarctic Survey data, there was absolutely no warming trend. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jim, why are you ignoring the warming period in the late 1970s and early 80s when average temp rose nearly three degrees centigrade and ice conditions went to pot for penguins and the population lost around 3,000 penguins?  That's what the study you keep picking on was about.  So why are you trying to compare that study then to today?  

In the mid 80s temperatures did return to "normal" - but with a twist.