#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.

Heartland logic: if it hurts my financial interests, global warming must be false.

This morning I read Narahani's neat summation of the crazy-makers at Heartland Institute with their NON-IPCC Report created by their paid panel of a few scientific extreme outliers and non-climatologists, one and all unidirectional-science-skeptics who refuse to address the full scope of evidence out there.  

The NIPCC effort is an example of Science in a Vacuum where one can convince anyone of anything, so long as one can limit their audience's access to authoritative information.  

Beyond that Narahani says it quite well so with a tip of my hat to SkepticalScience.com I'll hand it over to her.  

As for the real IPCC report link: 

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/

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

Heartland logic: More people have heard of Fidel Castro than Michael Mann, therefore global warming is false. (via Skeptical Science)

Posted on 16 April 2014 by Guest Author 

This is a guest post from Narahani.   

Or is happening and is good for you, or has stopped happening, or is caused by CO2 but only a little, or is about to reverse due to lots of yet-to-be-discovered negative…

---

Heartland Institute's NIPCC Report, peer reviewed?

What to make of the new Heartland Institute's NIPCC Report?  
They say a thousand pages of "peer-reviewed" science?

Heartland Institute caught in a lie - Chinese Academy of Science objects

It's official, Heartland Institute and Anthony Wattsupwiththat have once again been caught out in a lie.

You can find the following statement at the official Chinese Academy of Sciences webpage:

http://www.llas.cas.cn/tzgg/201306/t20130614_3866222.html

I have added the highlights

The Statements on the Chinese Translation of the“Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC Report”

时间: | 2013-06-14 | | 【大 中 小】【打印】【关闭】

The Chinese translation of the “Climate Change Reconsidered—NIPCC report” was organized by the Information Center for Global Change Studies, published in May 2013 through Science Press, with an accompanying workshop on climate change issues in Beijing on June 15, 2013. However, the Heartland Institute published the news titled “Chinese Academy of Sciences publishes Heartland Institute research skeptical of Global Warming” in a strongly misleading way on its website, implying that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) supports their views, in contrary to what is clearly stated in the Translators’ Note in the Chinese translation.  The claim of the Heartland Institute about CAS’ endorsement of its report is completely false. To clarify the fact, we formally issue the following statements:

Chinese Academy of Sciences comments on Heartland / Watts claims

Since I've found that Anthony Watts and Heartland Institute can't be taken at face value, {considering their respect for the truth is non-existent}, I decided to email the Chinese Academy of Sciences in the hope of getting to the bottom of the mystery of the missing substance behind claims of a collaboration and June 15th Gala unveiling of the NIPCC attack on climate science.

Dear CAS Representative,

Anthony Watts at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/12/h ... -ceremony/

claims
Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by Chinese Academy of Sciences in special ceremony:

"All three men will be in Beijing for the Chinese Academy of Sciences event on June 15, 2013 to speak about the translation of Climate Change Reconsidered. Scores of additional scientists, economists, and policy experts reviewed and contributed to the volumes."

But I can't find any such event being announce at your website?
http://english.cas.cn/Ne/
=========================

Is this event happening?

Any information you can offer will be appreciated.
Thank you for your time and hopefully interest.

Sincerely,
PM

This morning I received a reply to my question.

Donors Trust, Barre Seid, Heartland Institution, NIPCC, follow the money

In doing research for my NIPCC related posts today I came across this aside.  Though after reading it again and considering money is at the heart of Heartland Institution motivations, it may not be such an aside after all.  In particular that first PDF "Fake2" is quite the interesting document.

You decide:

Fakery 2: More Funny Finances, Free Of Tax (via Desmogblog)

Follow the money.  October 23, PBS Frontline's Climate of Doubt gave viewers an hour's coverage of the tactics of climate anti-science, its advocates and a quick look into the funding behind it. Read on to follow the money deeper into the funny finances, all free of tax. Last February, Fake Science…

---

Climate Change Reconsidered - NIPCC Translation - Authors: Idso, Singer, Carter examined

Climate Change Reconsidered - Translation by the Chinese Academy of Sciences

 Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, Robert M. Carter – June 11, 2013

From the Heartland Institute's news release:
The first 856-page volume of Climate Change Reconsidered, published in 2009, and its follow-up, the 430-page Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report,were produced by a team of scientists originally convened by Dr. S. Fred Singer under the name of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The volumes were coauthored and edited by three climate science researchers:

• Craig D. Idso, Ph.D.
, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, editor of the online magazine CO2 Science, and author of several books and scholarly articles on the effects of carbon dioxide on plant and animal life;

• Robert M. Carter, Ph.D.
, a marine geologist and research professor at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia and author of Climate: the Counter Consensus; and

• S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.
, founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) and a distinguished atmospheric physicist and first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

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

It's amazing what a few ideologically committed folks with lots of financial support can do.  

Basically, we have a claim that three outlier scientists with a handful of helpers have proven thousands of professional scientists over decades, nay over a century, of research and observation can't do basic science.  Think about it.  

Keep in mind the NIPCC report was done within an Heartland Institution which is openly committed to pushing a "Libertarian" political agenda - ones that clearly places economic interests above and beyond real geophysical realities.  Look at Heartland's "Mission Statement" there is nothing in their about striving to learn about our planet's climate.  

I'm talking about our 'global life support system' and it's treated with thoughtless contempt by Republicans of every stripe... it simply does not make sense to me!

Heartland’s NIPCC report to be accepted by CAS in special ceremony... WUWT?

This morning when I visited SkepticForum.com I found one of the regulars gleefully reporting on the reports of the Chinese Academy of Sciences translating the NIPCC's contrarian review of climate science.  He was so happy you'd almost believe the CAS endorsed the study. 

When in fact, it sounds like it could have been a for-pay translation - without any investigation or review beyond that needed to translate a technical paper.

In reporting this story Heartland and it's surrogates such as Anthony WattsUpWithThat have been doing their best to lather this into way more than it is.  Anthony's cover note before handing it over to Heartland Institute: 

"Note: I’ve been aware of this effort being underway for sometime, and I’m happy to be able to report it today. The fact that the Chinese undertook the effort speaks volumes. – Anthony Here is the Heartland press release from their website:"

From the Heartland PR release:

"The Chinese Academy of Sciences in June 2013 translated and published a Chinese edition of Climate Change Reconsidered and Climate Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, two hefty volumes containing more than 1,200 pages of peer-reviewed data on climate change originally published by The Heartland Institute in 2009 and 2011. "

Anatomy of Denialist Tactics, or how to know you're being conned

Fortunately I’m a self-employed working stiff, since it’s great having work and people hiring me... the unfortunate part is that when I have work it doesn’t allow me the time to properly pursue this main interest of mine.  That being to participate in the struggle against the dysfunctionality that our Anthropogenic Global Warming discussion has been forced to descend into - Thanks to a selective few, supported by some very rich individuals who’s wealth enables them to create “Think Tanks” dedicated to agenda over substance; to debate over learning; to self interest over citizenship.  
 
Heartland Institute, being but a recent superstar in that arena of public relations manipulation over substantive learning, recently released papers showing us how one ultra rich “Anonymous Donor” can supply the backbone for a group of ideologues to manufacture what amounts to nothing more than political crazy-making. - focused on diverting attention from the real issues we should be facing.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
 
Unfortunately right now my time is limited so all I can do is post the following outline, one that was ironically supplied by Professor Peter Gleick some five years ago.  Still the following is a good outline of the deceptive tactics employed by the likes of Heartland Institute - and I will find many examples to attach to it, as time permits.  
 
That’s why I’m looking forward to examining Heartland Institute’s own ruthless actions over the years against the moralizing cloak they have draped themselves in...
but alas, that will take a few days... stay tuned.

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

The following comes from Senate testimony Dr. Peter Gleick gave regarding the degeneration of the standards of discussion and the tactics global warming denial organizations such as Heartland Institute resort to in their attack against rational peer reviewed science.

http://www.pacinst.org/press_center/press_releases/20070207.html
Pacific Institute
Reported:  Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Washington’s Attacks on Science “Pervasive” 
Peter Gleick Provides Testimony to Senate Hearing

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Political distortions of the scientific process have undergone a dramatic rise in Washington over the past six years, according to the Senate testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. Gleick’s testimony (download - PDF) was provided to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing on Climate Change Research and Science Integrity Wednesday. Misuse of science and attacks on scientists, Gleick finds, have been pervasive and categorical.

“Good, independent science – indeed good information in general – is crucial to making good political decisions,” Gleick wrote. “It is difficult enough to make intelligent policy choices given the complexities of today’s political, environmental, economic, and social challenges. It is almost impossible when good science or data are ignored or distorted, or when bad science is sought out to support pre-determined political conclusions.”

{I have found it appropriate to add another category heading to Gleick's list}
==========
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science/categories_of_deceitful_tactics_and_abuse.pdf


Testimony of Dr. Peter Gleick, February 7, 2007  Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Categories of Deceitful Tactics 
and Abuse of the Scientific Process

(source: P.H. Gleick, Pacific Institute, 2007)

There are many tactics used to argue for or against scientific conclusions that are inappropriate, 

involve deceit, or directly abuse the scientific process. 

Appeal to Emotion

This is a large category and involves using various tactics to incite emotions in people in order to persuade them that a particular argument or hypothesis is true or false, independent of the scientific evidence. 

     Appeal to Fear
     Appeal to Flattery
     Appeal to Pity
     Appeal to Ridicule
     Appeal to Spite

 ~ ~ ~

Personal (“Ad Hominem”) Attacks

This approach uses attacks against the character, circumstances, or motives of a person in order to discredit their argument or claim, independent of the scientific evidence.

     Demonization
     Guilt by Association
     Challenge to Motive (such as greed or funding)

 ~ ~ ~

Mischaracterizations of an Argument

This approach typically mischaracterizes an issue or evidence and then argues against the mischaracterization. It can include.

     Begging the Question
     Circular Reasoning
     Partial Truths (willful ignorance)
     Selective Choice of Problems (willful ignorance)

~ ~ ~

 

Straw Man Argument (includes substituting a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented position for the one being argued

Loaded Question (includes posing a question with an implied position that the opponent does not have.)

 False Dichotomy (for or against)/False dilemma (includes assuming that there are only two possible opinions or choices.)

 Misplaced Burden of Proof 

 Confusing Cause and Effect

 Red Herring (includes presentation of an irrelevant topic to divert attention from another topic.

 Slippery Slope (includes the assertion that one event must inevitably follow from another)

Partial Truths

Willfully Ignoring (excluding all portions of information that undercut your argument)


~ ~ ~ 

Inappropriate Generalization

Accusing all of a group of people or arguments or set of facts as having the characteristics of a subset of that group. 

 ~ ~ ~

Misuse of Facts

     Numerical Mischaracterization 
     Selective Choice or Presentation of Data; Biased Sample
     Inadequate Sample; Hasty Generalization; 
                Leaping to a Conclusion
     Selective Omissions of Data  (willfully ignoring)
     Illusory Precision (where precision isn’t needed or available)
     Inappropriate Vagueness (where precision is needed)
     Unrelated Facts 
      (bringing unrelated facts that seem to support a conclusion)
     Willfully Ignoring (important facts)

 

 ~ ~ ~

Misuse of Uncertainty
     Misplaced Certainty
     Misrepresentation of Uncertainty

False Authority

Including appeal to authority not competent to address issue

Hidden Value Judgments

Including judgments based on ideological or religious rationales rather than reviewable and testable evidence.

Scientific Misconduct 

The violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research, including: 

    Fabrication (the fabrication of research data and observations)

    Falsification (manipulation of research data and processes or omitting critical data or results)

    Failure to Acknowledge and Correct Errors

Willfully Ignoring (inconvenient Earth Observation data)

~ ~ ~ 

Science Policy Misconduct 

The manipulation of the process of integrating science and policy, including:

    Packing Advisory Boards

    Imposing Litmus Tests

    Altering or Suppressing Information

    Bullying of Scientists

    Selective Funding or De-funding

HeartlandGate; FakeGate; DenialGate, what's the real debate

I listened to an interview that disturbed me. 

It highlighted a few core problems/symptoms of today’s crazy climate debate vs. climate science.  Since my perspective wasn’t represented in this discuss 
I’ve decided to make my own essay out of it.

I’ve, sort of, quoted from the broadcast, though with many gaps since in this exercise it’s the broader issues I want to touch on, besides no time for a polished version.  
The program is available at

================================
89.3 KPCC ~ AirTalk online
http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/2012/02/23/22646/heartland-leak
« Episode: AirTalk for February 23, 2012

Heartland leaker comes clean, stirs ethical debate
================================

Heartland Institute's Hired Guns & The NIPCC... Mr. Littlemore

Watts has been having a rager over at his blog... adding his own spin fast as he can.  Here's a recent update:  UPDATE 55: 1:50PM 2/25 The Weekly Standard has a great story up.
(Anthony) Loved this part:

Finally, “coordinated”? Few public policy efforts have ever had the massive institutional and financial coordination that the climate change cause enjoys. That tiny Heartland, with but a single annual conference and a few phone-book-sized reports summarizing the skeptical case, can derange the climate campaign so thoroughly is an indicator of the weakness and thorough politicization of climate alarmism.

Yes it is disgusting that a tiny Heartland can get the type of financial backing to pay professional contrarians in a media effort far removed from doing actual science.  But, folks like Anthony are so focused on their political goals they feel justified doing anything and saying anything so long as they can out shout the voices of science and rationality.

Richard Littlemore at DeSmogBlog.com has a great article highlighting one aspect of that rational.  Hire scientists - not to learn but to create rhetorical parlor debate tricks intent on stonewalling any recognition of what climate science is teaching us. 

Check out The Heartland Institute’s “Brain Trust” - who are incidentally, pretty much the same dozen folks who produce the Nongovernmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

I'm posting this {words are all Littlemore, highlight are all mine} because in conversations at various internet discussion forums, one of the main refrains that gets tossed in my face is how it all comes down to which scientist you choose to believe.  Coupled onto that is the claim that government and university scientists manipulate their data to achieve some mandated consensus.  

Sadly those charges come from people who have either remained blessedly ignorant of the parade of scientific literature and the history of their learning process - or folks who are hired guns and for whom honesty is a joke when it gets in the way of 
their corporate wild west style free-market agenda.

As support for this image of The Heartland Institute as ruthlessly dedicated to a message rather than learning about climatology I copy the following from Richard Littlemore’s February 24, 2012 post at Desmogblog.com because it contains names and sums and reveals Heartland Institute for the agenda driven lobby organization that it is.  Dedicated to undermining serious rational science.  

It scares the hell outta me that such people remain so powerful and are allowed to cause such counter productive crazy-making...  since there's not much I can do, here's my contribution to the effort... to witness and document this scandal as it plays out.
 

What passes for a Brain Trust at Heartland?

Murdoch Media Ignores DenialGate News

 The following appeared at the  http://www.science20.com/chatter_box 

column by Patrick Lockerby.  I found it so relevant I've decided to print all of it.

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

The Heartland Institute And Murdoch Media

By Patrick Lockerby | February 20th 2012 08:32 PM |

The Chatter Box

The Heartland Institute and Murdoch Media

The Heartland Institute story broke on February 14th.  The revelation that anti-science bunkum has been funded by corporate dollars was no surprise to those of us who have been investigating these propaganda mills.  Peter H Gleik has confirmed that he was the one who obtained the secret documents.  In confirming that he got them straight from the Heartland Institute he also confirms their authenticity.

The world at large also needs to know that Rupert Murdoch's media empire - which often cites the Heartland Institute as a source for "climate science" - has managed to block publication of anything relating to this denialgate story in all but two of its outlets.

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

Perhaps the finest example of the crazy-making Anthony Watts champions is the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Anthony tells us we are supposed to trust a handful of scientists ~ while disregarding the efforts of tens of thousands of hardworking researchers.  

Ironically the 2011 Interim NIPCC Report's list of intrepid independent scientists consists of a total of three lead authors Craig Idso, Fred Singer, and Robert Carter and eight contributing authors Susan Crockford, Joe D'Aleo, Indur Goklany, Sherwood Idso, Anthony Lupo, Willie Soon, Mitch Taylor, and Madhav Khandekar.

So while WUWT glibly demonizes thousands of mainstream scientists for their greedy grant money grubbing bias ~ we should remain blind to the fact that most of NIPCC scientists are on the Heartland payroll.  

Check it out: “The overall Heartland budget for the NIPCC reports from 2010 to 2013 is nearly $1.6 million ($388,000 in both 2011 and 2012), with $460,000 going to the lead authors and contributors ($140,000 in both 2011 and 2012).”

As those Dana over at SkepticalScience.com have pointed out: 

“Basically these scientists are paid with the specific goal of arguing against the scientific evidence in the IPCC report, whereas the only goal of the IPCC authors {who donate their time}is to produce an accurate, comprehensive review of the climate science literature. 

Indeed, this represents the biggest difference between the IPCC and NIPCC: the former is a comprehensive literature review, while the latter is a very select literature review.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

RealClimate took a look at NIPCC’s alternate reality back in 2008, it’s worth a read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

SkepticalScience reports on the breaking story as do many other good sources.  To mention just a few:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlights-heartlands-selective-nipcc-science.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-insider-exposes-institute-s-budget-and-strategy

http://scienceprogressaction.org/intersection/2012/02/dissuading-teachers-from-teaching-science-the-leak-of-alleged-heartland-institute-documents/
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~