Editor Frederick, Regarding Steele's Scary Campfire Stories. March 6, 2019

Letter to Editor Frederick, 

Regarding Jim Steele’s "What’s Natural?" Scary Campfire Stories.

March 6, 2019 - Pacifica Tribune - sent March 11, 2019

Dear Editor Fredrick,

What’s Natural? Indeed, that is the question.  It took a couple days to steel myself to tackle the Scary Campfire Stories column but I’ve been working on it much of the day and hopefully it’ll be posted soon.  I’m pretty sure my point by point review wouldn’t be of much interest around here, so I’m posting it at my ConfrontingScienceContrarians.blogspot.com - I’d much appreciate it if you could share that with your readers. Instead of details I’d like to share general impressions. 

Lets start with a summary of the column’s ten paragraphs: introduces topic with the Heaven’s Gate Suicide Cult (no crass politicization happening here); dismisses the seriousness of a 1°Centigrade rise within our global climate engine; misrepresents the facts in order to disparage a respected butterfly expert; quibbles about Polar Bear counts, while ignoring that the Arctic Ice Cap is melting away; ridicules penguin researchers for revolutionizing census gathering abilities and keeping up to date with their available data; heaps scorn on the entire climate science community because some scientist at some low point once said snow was going to disappear from England in the next decades; oh and we're to forget about “atmospheric insulation” because CO₂ is plant food; he tells us there’s far more important problems to address than our planet’s atmospheric insulation regulator going from 280 ppm when the steam engine was invented to over 410 ppm and rising fast today.

Then Steele’s coup de grâce: ”For several decades, bogus catastrophic climate-change claims have come and gone.” -“If we truly care about nature … the real problem is overhunting, invasive species and loss of habitat.”

So this is libertarian entertainment?  Is that it?  It sure isn’t serious education!  What’s natural about this contemptuous disregard for our physical Earth and it’s biosphere?  How on Earth can one hold the notion that raising the temperature of our global biosphere won’t profoundly alter its components?  

(Sd8) Heartland Podcast, LandscapesAndCycles Steele (1/27/15) the overview

This is important because the Republican's malicious power-political game of nonstop attack on serious science continues unabated.  I've discovered Jim Steele's bullshit factory continues bigger and better than ever.  Doing his best to stupefy and confuse people.  This stuff needs to receive more of a spot light, not to convert anyone, but simply to help our own community and rational citizens better understand what's going on!  Plus to offer some suggestions for confronting it with a dose of down to Earth honesty. 

A short overview of my 14 part series: "A virtual debate with Jim Steele" based on his Heartland Daily Podcast interview.

When I informed Jim Steele that I was writing a column about him and would also be posting about it at my blogs he responded with the following comment (his spelling, not mine):

"Meisler tells so many lies and creates so many distortions, I have indeed refused to discuss anything with him again. I once corrected he lies on his website and he deleted my posts. Meisler is also part of Slandering Sou's troll factory. I made one post regards Meisler's disinformation and one regards Slandering Sou's, that demonstrates their dishonest tactics. Nether is worth wasting any more time on despite their numerous sniping attacks. 

Responding to my (Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.  Steele offered a succinct, "tl;dr" (too long; didn't read).  When I offered a 230 word summary, Steele's response was: 

To citizenschallenge, only see more lies and more Miesler fabrications regards what I write as well as total ignorance of your scientific understanding. Further discourse with a liar and fool is a total wast of time.  I will now block your email as dishonest spam. {So says the big man behind the huffy climate debate challenge - but take Mr. Steele up on it and he runs and hides like a rat.  And folks wonder why I'm not more polite with him, look no further than his words - not towards me, no, - I'm talking about his malicious slander towards the solid honorable scientists who have helped him gather information. 

Such as Dr. Ainley, Dr. Breckner, Dr. Fretwell, Dr. Guillaume, Dr. Jenouvrier, Dr. Kaiser, Dr. Kato, Dr. La Rue, Dr. Tate, Dr. Trenberth, Dr. Mann among others.}

It's rather interesting how directly quoting Jim Steele is seen as a lie by Jim Steele.  

It's the lesson right out of Trump's alt-right playbook and the reason I'm taking the time to put all this together in order to highlight the base dishonesty and disingenuousness of our Republican opponents.

  

They have dedicated themselves to a strategy of absolutely refusing to even consider what their "opponents" are trying to explain.  Talk about blinded by the faith.  It's a terrifying level of absolutism that I never imagined seeing Americans stoop to.  What's even more terrifying is how many liberal, progressive, pluralist, science loving folks seem to have turned off and simply don't want to know about it or get involved.

Jim Steele and Sterling Burnett | Jan. 27, 2015 | Heartland Institute 

April 2, 2015

#1 Mtn warming? - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/04/1-mtn-warming-ccsteele.html

Jim Steele: "And we trust the scientific theory because it 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. …"

Well than OK Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals along with evidence and questions.  

Let's see if you live up to your own challenge, I agree to share your response without editing any of your words in a stand alone post.  This first installment looks at your introduction and your pet theory about rising CO2 not impacting Sierra Nevada temperatures.

Steele:  "theoretical arguments that CO2 was accumulating heat”

(Sd7) Abuse of Our Free Speech Rights (LandscapesandCycles-Steele)

August 2018, Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado 

    

   

Back in January, my Four Corner Free Press column was built around a talk by climate scientist Dr. Trenberth, an authority on our planet’s global heat and moisture distribution engine. In March there was a Letter to the FCFP Editor offering an alternative. 

The writer offhandedly dismissed the scientific “consensus” as though it were just another opinion, while lamenting the politicization of science (Apparently oblivious to the reality that his letter was nothing but a gross politicization). 

Ironically to underscore his legitimacy the writer encouraged us to read Jim Steele’s “LandscapesAndCycles” collection for a second opinion. As it happens, I’ll bet there are few who have studied Steels’s collection more than I have and I welcome this challenge to write about it.

You see, from my first introduction it seemed to me that what Steele was doing was a perfect example of “malicious abuse of our free speech rights,” though I didn’t have the words for it then. 

That started me on his trail.  I did a detailed review of Steele’s 2014 talk to the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers, I also transcribed his January 27, 2015 interview with Heartland’s Sterling Burnett in order to dissect his method. That one required fourteen topic-specific posts to do his torrent of misinformation justice. 

(Sd6) Steele: "tl;dr." Okay, in 230 words. (Landscapesandcycles net)

Jim Steele responds:  “tl;dr"

Okay, lets cut to the chase:

In a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere. 

His intellectual underpinning is a self-certain, but never explained, rejection of CO₂ science. He maintains it's a hoax with political underpinnings. Something his Republican audiences want to hear so he’s never asked to justify his super-natural assertion.

…

Once I got into researching Steele's claims and contacting most of the scientists he singled out for derision I was shocked at how shabbily Steele treated their hospitality and the collegial support he was given for whatever research project he claimed to be doing. 

I have put much effort into documenting Jim Steele's words and claims. I specify his errors, I point out his misrepresentations and then I provide the information he hides from his audience to support my claims and I invited Steele to debate many times. 

…

In closing, the letter’s complaint that “they don’t want debate” begs the question what kind of debate shall we have? Steele prefers the melodramatic political debate, where winning is everything while truth and learning becomes irrelevant.

I myself prefer the curiosity driven constructive debate. A scientific style debate where each side honestly represents their opponents position and the facts. Where both sides agree that a better understanding is the goal. I’d love to have that debate, but where’s Jim Steele?

Can you hear me now Jim?

(Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.

Since I have Jim Steele’s attention (among others) it’s time to respond to his 2015 LandscapesAndCycles’s blog article: “Clarifying Peter Miesler’s (aka CitizenChallenged) Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins” before moving on to my recent FCFP column.

My investigation into Jim Steele and his LandscapesAndCycles nonsense was/is also intended for students of the climate science disinformation campaign, as a dissection of arguments and strategies.  Along with a close up look at their amoral bare-knuckles approach to winning arguments, while dispensing with truth and honesty as their free speech right. 

Thus the concept of malicious abuse of our free speech rights - along with an example of what I call direct constructive intellectual confrontation.  Sure “engagement” is better, but sometimes one must confront before serious engagement is possible.  

Jim Steele’s blog post:

Clarifying Peter Miesler’s (aka CitizenChallenged) 

Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins

landscapesandcyclesnet/clarifying-citizenchallenged-emperor-penguin-lies

has the highlighted background - Complete as he wrote it, I added only some red highlights, I have not done any courtesy spell corrections, thus allowing Jim to shine through.

Jim Steele's introduction: Miesler is not a scientist nor does he understand biology. He is simply obsessed withe discrediting any skeptical interpretation. 

______________

I never claimed to be a scientist.

Jim Steele is not a scientist either. 

opps

I had a serious formatting malfunction that I couldn't fix and had to rebuild this page, I posted it at a new location.  Please visit:

(Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2018/08/landscapesandcycles-poop-hits-fan-steele.html

(Sd4) Jim Steele Responds to Citizenschallenge - LandscapesandCycles fraud

Preferring to ignore the email I sent him, which read:

Dear Jim Steele,

Some know-nothing from Kettering, Ohio wrote a Letter to the Four Corners Free Press complaining about my "one-sided" description of climate science, and the guy waved you around as some alternative expert to counter Dr. Kevin Trenberth's words.  You can imagine that got my goat, so you're back in play buddy .  

I once again invite you to a written debate - a honest constructive debate where lying about objective facts is prohibited.  You know where to find me.

Oh and if you instead choose to take your complaints to the shelter of Anthony Watts, or poptech, or such, please at least show me the courtesy of sending me a link.  I'd love to hear what you have to say this time around.

Thank you,

Peter Miesler

aka citizenschallenge

(PS. Gail is editor of the Four Corners Free Press

Included your pal Paul for the hell of it.)

{plus a few bcc’s to select scientists.}

JULY 22, 2018

Revisiting Jim Steele's LandscapesAndCycles Fraud - first an index of past research - Steele debate #1

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/revisiting-steele-landscapesandcycles.html

JULY 28, 2018

Need a Real Dialogue About Climate - FCFP, January 2018 - Steele debate #2

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/real-dialogue-about-climate-fcfp.html

JULY 29, 2018

Mr.GOP don't buy Jim Steele's Fraud - Steele debate #3

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/mrgop-dont-buy-jim-steeles-fraud.html

With two more in the pipeline, though the last one will deal with real science and not your nonsense.

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

Jim Steele responded to my email by posting a comment at CSC. It talked right past me, so it won't get out of moderation, not that I mind sharing its steaming content, kooky spellings and all.  I've already told him my blog wasn't going to be billboard for him.  Comments at my blogs need to be serious comments or challenges to me, not self-promotional garbage.

Jim Steele's offered comment:  "Meisler tells so many lies and creates so many distortions, I have indeed refused to discuss anything with him again. I once corrected he lies on his website and he deleted my posts. Meisler is also part of Slandering Sou's troll factory. I made one post regards Meisler's disinformation and one regards Slandering Sou's, that demonstrates their dishonest tactics. Nether is worth wasting any more time on despite their numerous sniping attacks.

(Sd3) Mr.GOP don't buy Jim Steele's Fraud - Steele debate #3

My upcoming column at the Four Corners Free Press is a response to a Letter to the Editor that complained about my "one-sided" approach to telling the climate science story.  The writer, whom I’ll refer to as Mr. GOP, then steps into a steaming pile when his suggested alternative expert turned out to be my old pal Jim Steele.  

As it happens I’ll bet I’m as familiar with Jim Steele’s LandscapesandCycles fantasy as anyone.  Having spent easily a couple hundred hours studying his words and working on nearly fifty posts unraveling and exposing Jim’s many malicious deceptions regarding honest competent wildlife biologists the world over.   

My FourCornersFreePress column wasn’t the place for a line by line response, but I did want to write one up to help me gather my thoughts before composing my column.  I’m sharing it here, because this version gives me another opportunity to share all sorts of valuable supporting evidence.  I’ll be posting the FCFP column itself in a week or so.

Climate Science isn’t Settled, by Mr. GOP 

Four Corners Free Press - Letters to the Editor, March, 2018 

Mr.GOP takes issue with “We need real dialogue about climate” by Peter Miesler. 

1. It seems that the "science" is settled.  

Damned straight, the fundamentals are as settled as the promise of tomorrow morning's sunrise!  I wonder what the scare-quotes are for?

The fundamentals of our global heat and moisture distribution engine and society’s influence are well understood!  The explainable known physical certainties far outweigh the remaining uncertainties!  

Tragically the well understood certainties are constantly being deliberately ignored or lied about by contrarian types, thus our Mr. GOP winds up profoundly ignorant of down to Earth physical processes. Here’s a sampling of that climate science.

‘Climate models are unproven’ ?    

Actually, GCM’s (Global Circulation Models) have many confirmed successes under their belts.  

By Coby Beck on Nov 20, 2006

(Sd2) Need a Real Dialogue About Climate - FCFP, January 2018 - Steele debate #2

I've been finishing up my line by line dissection of Mr. GOP's March Letter to the Four Corners Free Press Editor.  Since he was complaining about how I presented climate science I figured I should include the column he was taking issue with.  It appeared in the January 2018 Four Corners Free Press.

We need a real dialogue about climate.  

by Peter Miesler, January 2018, Four Corners Free Press.

Early in December U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers he intended to organize a “Red team v Blue team” exercise to debate climate change.

Pruitt is being willfully blind to the fact that the scientific aspects of global warming have already been thoroughly debated by experts. It’s expected that Pruitt will orchestrate a lawyerly winner-take-all debate. One that’s based on rhetorical trickery and a ruthless disregard for facts.

It’s a shame, since we Americans needs a constructive educational dialogue. A debate where honestly representing your opponent’s arguments and data is as important as honestly representing your own data. One where objective learning is the goal, and where truth matters.

Speaking of honestly representing the science, on November 9th Dr. Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and a lead author for IPCC’s Scientific Assessment in 1995, 2001, 2007, a giant in the field of climate assessment, gave a talk at the Fort Lewis College Climate Symposium explaining what scientists have learned about our planet. It sounded to me like a potential Blue team opening statement.