What's Natural about Jim Steele's Astroturfing?

After reviewing Steele’s odd April 17th “Safe Space” column about opinions regarding Polar Bears in the Inuit’s warming Arctic world, I became curious and looked up the word Kappiananngittuq which Jim tossed around so glibly. 

I googled _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ and I’ll tell you, I was blindsided by the four pages worth of google search results to forty articles - it turned out that upon closer examination there were 29 links to articles that mirrored the same deceptive What's Natural? article.  

What is going on?  Have Jim Steele, Sherman Frederick, Anthony Watts mainlined into a social media troll factory or something?  Or is it just astroturfing?  

Then I thought of the rationalists, the science respecting side of this public dialogue, ten years I’ve been working at trying to network with like minded, but there’s no network out there.  Like everyone is off doing their own thing and no one has the time to care about the rest of it.  Or something like that.  

I don’t know.  It's like very few seem to appreciate the gravity of the Faith-Blinded political drive to destroy rationalism and democratic governance.  Think I'm exaggerating, ever listen to American Christian radio!?  Ever listen to FOX, or Trump?  

All I do know is the clock keeps ticking and the ruthless intellectual frauds and rhetorical bullies continue having free reign to mislead and deceive and slander and astroturf their utterly self-destructive delusional crap as much as they like.  It’s a disgrace, the founding fathers of the intellectual enlightenment would be appalled.

Below I include the google screen shots if anyone cares to investigate.  After that I share a good sized collection of articles about Social Media manipulation.

Google search results for _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ (May 28, 2019)

click on the images for a clear view:

Kappiananngittuq, Inuits, Constructive Learning in Nunavut - The Safe Space

http://inuktitutilinniaqta.com/naq/

In reading through Steele's followup column about Polar Bears in a warming world, I became curious and decided to look up the word Kappiananngittuq, so I googled _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_.  I was blindsided by the four pages worth of google search results to forty articles that upon closer examination turned out to include 29 that mirrored the same deceptive Steele article.  What is going on?  Is Steele and Sherman Frederick and Anthony Watts mainlined into a social media troll factory or something?  

Never mind, those questions will have to wait for another post.  Here I want to share the results of my search to learn about “Kappiananngittuq.”

After I recovered my bearing and turned to the remaining eleven links, I found what I was looking for http://inuktitutilinniaqta.com - it seemed to me an authoritative source for Inuit language.  To my confusion I found “Kappiananngittuq" actually translates to “It’s not scary.” 

click on image for clearer viewing

http://inuktitutilinniaqta.com/naq/

What's Natural about Jim Steele's Safe Space? Pacifica Tribune

https://nationalpost.com/news/so-many-bears-draft-plan-says-nunavut-polar-bear-numbers-unsafe

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?