Considering Acquiescence to Malicious Vandalism

I shared my previous post with some of the scientists I got to know while investigating Jim Steele's Climate Horror Show.  I wasn't too surprised by the response which was not enthusiastic, still I'm disappointed at the casualness with which malicious lies and dirty tricks seems to have become accepted ways of life.

Guess you could say I'm an old world kind of person.  Honor, integrity, truthful to self and others is a way of life that feels good and has served me well.  But, now?  Such convictions seem as anachronistic as these old warnings from a wizened old General and Commander in Chief. 

President Eisenhower's Farewell Address (Jan 17, 1960)

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

8:30 - We should take nothing for granted, only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals. ...

10:45 - It's the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system.  Ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society...

11:10 -  As we peer into society's future, You and I and our government must avoid the impulse to live only for today plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow.  We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage.

We want democracy to survive for all generations to come not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. ...

Amen.  

Then I look up to the reality of today's public dialogue and it's heartbreaking.

I feel increasingly out of touch with a world where wanton misrepresenting of straightforward critically important scientific facts and understanding is considered a fundamental free speech right.  

Where confusion and fanning fabricated hostility is the game plan of a powerful oligarchy and the battle cry of the once Grand Old Party.  

A world where love of, appreciation for, and sense of duty towards this wonderful, fantastic physical Earth that created and nurtures us, makes one a marked enemy.  

It's bizarre beyond my wildest old world nightmares.  But, it is what it is.  

And the beat goes on.

Considering Criminal Mischief and Vandalism of Intellectual Property

It seems to me that scientific studies based on millions of dollars worth of state of the art observational instruments and thousands of man/woman hours - is very much a form of real property.  Intellectual property to use the specific legal term.  This intellectual property exists within a well defined legal code and system.

This legal code is the foundation of our civilization.  One of the reasons our legal codes were established, and are obeyed, is because people needed protection of their personal property from unlawful misappropriation or destruction - a necessity for a society to peacefully function and flourish.  

It really is fundamental, without such communal guidelines and their acceptance by all members of society as the way to conduct our affairs, we'd degenerate into a Lord of the Flies dystopia. 

I bring this up, because one of the fundamental cornerstones of the Republican/libertarian orchestrated PR attacks on serious science is their conviction that lying about what scientific papers are saying is their fundamental free speech right.  When in fact, it is nothing less than wanton vandalism of the intellectual property of legitimate experts.

I've been told "Rights" aren't given, they are demanded and struggled for.  When will we struggle for We The People's right to learn what scientists are saying without vandalism and the interference of the malicious poison of tactical lies and fabricated personal attacks?

Towards that end I'd like to share some food for thought.  A few typical legal codes that deal with Criminal Mischief and wanton vandalism.  Followed by a few sage words of warning from President Eisenhower.  Then a few links to further considerations including Lawrence Torcello's provocative essay at 'The Conversation' - "Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?"

________________________________________________________

Considering Criminal Mischief

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-mischief/

Criminal mischief is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state. It generally involves any damage, defacing, alteration, or destruction of tangible property with criminal intent.

The following is an example of a state law governing criminal mischief:

Considering Poptech's defense of funding (#3 in comment series)

This is the third Poptech comment, actually two sent minutes apart, it hardly needs introduction except that I hope it will help enlighten some to the tactics and base attitudes of your Republican/libertarian contrarian type.  

Andrew Poptech's comments are in comic sans font, where he quotes me I changed the type to back verdana and my commentary is mostly blue verdana.
Link to see the first comment, second comment.

________________________________________________________

Andrew at 6:44 PM, January 26, 2016

has left a new comment on your post "Poptech's boilerplate response": 

Poptech: 

The first link I actually provided was - Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

Yes and what kind of refutation is that post supposed to be?

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

     "direct" nice touch

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

     And you were expecting them to respond how?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

     And you were expecting them to respond how?  

CC: Besides, we all know (the evidence is pretty clear cut and copious) this is sort of a class war thing.  With the crisp clean-cut right-wing military-industrial-complex types, pissed at the environmental types and long haired scientists with their increasingly strident messaging that humanity was exceeding its limits for a comfortable sustainable life style - and that we needed to think about what we were doing and perhaps trying to change some of our unsustainable habits.

With the Reagan White House at their backs, they created a PR machine that made "sustainability" - "environmentalism" - "stewardship towards our biosphere" - "slowing down our ravenous consumption" into bad words and demonized notions.

Considering Poptech's standards of excellence (#1 in comment series)

Here's is a comment I received from Andrew Poptech, since it's an excellent case study into 'limiting one's sphere of awareness' I'm featuring it along with a look at one of his vaunted papers.

When you read Poptech's posts and words carefully, you'll see that his bellicose bluster is all about proving that "climate science skepticism/contrarianism happens".  So what, lordie do we know climate science contrarianism has old roots*.  

The thing to notice is that Poptech's list has little to do with actually learning about what serious climate science has to tell us about our planet. To quote Poptech his list: "supports a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism,"  it's intended to be a resource for other contrarians to cut and paste.   

And I'm thinking, why does Poptech leave out the serious science and learning?

Poptech doesn't seem to understand the difference. 

Now we'll look at one of Poptech's vaunted papers.  This one is 16 years old and lays out ten reasons for questing the considered consensus opinion among experts.  If nothing else here we see an example of Poptech's standards in action.

*Please note, in the good old days there were many seemingly valid skeptical arguments, but with time and observations those have one by one been relegated to history - well except for the zombies that the Republican/libertarian PR machine keeps propping up.

_____________________________________________

Andrew has left a new comment on your post "Debating Malicious Ignorance - Poptech, a few ques...": 

January 26, 2016 at 1:22 AM

Now you are making libelous claims that I attempt to "overwhelm with self-serving rhetoric"? 

{I have responded to these cries of libel in the comments.}

PICK ANY ARGUMENT FROM THE SIX LINKS YOU SPAMMED AND DEMONSTRATE THAT MY REBUTTAL TO IT IS "SELF-SERVING RHETORIC".

{Don't have the time, those articles speak for themselves, your busy objections notwithstanding.  Instead I'll look at one of your LIST, a paper you hold up as some sort of evidence that we should distrust the larger community of bona fide climate experts.}

Everyone who attacks my work is so certain the links they copy and paste have to contain at least a single valid argument, surely you can find one?

{Now, now, watch the double-stand, you're a master at cut and paste yourself.  I hope to offer plenty of valid arguments, I look forward to seeing what you make of them.}

Koch bros, private surveillance, plan of attack

Read a jaw dropping story by Kenneth Vogel today that's mortifying but sadly believable.  Another indication of how much our democracy has been crippled by little minds with mega war-bucks.  A foreshadowing of what rationalist types are facing in the coming election.  So much for fair play and a sense of cooperation as we prepare for coming challenges.  
I share these excerpts because people should know what's going on and I encourage you to read the entire article at Politico.

The Koch Intelligence Agency   

(takes aim at 2016)

As the billionaires’ network works to reshape U.S. politics, it keeps a close eye on the left.

By Kenneth P. Vogel | 11/18/15 

The political network helmed by Charles and David Koch has quietly built a secretive operation that conducts surveillance and intelligence gathering on its liberal opponents, viewing it as a key strategic tool in its efforts to reshape American public life.  …

The competitive intelligence team has a staff of 25, including one former CIA analyst, and operates from one of the non-descript Koch network offices clustered near the Courthouse metro stop in suburban Arlington, Va. It has provided network officials with documents detailing confidential voter-mobilization plans by major Democrat-aligned groups. It also sends regular “intelligence briefing” …

Whatever happened to Dr. Mann's "hockey stick graph"? part 2

Dr. Mann's Hockey Stick times three dozen!

I came across this collection of over three dozen climate studies that examined Earth's climate history from various angles.  Interestingly these studies consistently produce a hockey stick shape graph reflection of what's happened here on Earth.  

The list was put together by Professor Jim Milks over at EnvironmentalForest.blogspot.    It underscores the substantive nature of the much maligned and misrepresented "Hockey Stick Graph" which actually first appeared in the iconic Keeling Curve, but was made infamous by the Republican/libertarian's malicious attack against the paleoclimate studies of Dr. Mann, et. al.  
{I informed Dr. Mann of posting this. He pointed out: thanks Peter,

yes—it’s a good site, and I have linked to some of their stuff before.

There is one slight error in the piece below (the Keeling Curve is definitely *not* the Hockey Stick!).
To which I responded: That's my layperson's sloppiness at work - From my perspective seems to me that our planet's skyrocketing CO2 levels over the past couple centuries looks frighteningly akin to a "hockey stick" shape.  But your point is taken.}

This PR campaign singled out Dr. Mann lead researcher of a large team of experts who's evidence these special interests simply refused to acknowledge.

Reality is that Dr. Mann's work isn't needed to make the point that we are really screwing up our planet's climate system, (the thing we and our society depend on for everything).  

With thanks to Dr. Milks' for his permission, I reprint his Hockey Stick Graph Collection:

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Enough hockey sticks for a team

http://environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2013/10/enough-hockey-sticks-for-team.html

One of the persistent denier myths is that the Hockey Stick (usually meaning Mann et al. 1999) has been discredited.  Not only is that myth false but Mann et al. (1999) has been validated through the publication of numerous hockey stick graphs since 1999.  Here is a brief list of the ones I know:

Crowley 2000: Used both his own and Mann et al. (1999)'s hockey sticks to examine the cause of temperature changes over the past 1,000 years.  Found that natural forcings could not explain twentieth century warming without the effect of greenhouse gases.

Huang, et al. 2000: Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 616 boreholes from around the globe.

#2 - Matt Ridley let's debate your "cheerleaders for alarm"

Matt Ridley this is the second installment of my review of your blogpost What the climate wars did to science where I describe the various failures in your arguments.  Last week I contacted you about the first installment and to offer a formal invitation to debate.  But, you've remained silent.  
(Admittedly Matt, I can appreciate that hiding from my intellectual challenge, like Jim Steele does, makes more sense than joining the debate in a fair and square manner and revealing how bankrupt your arguments are - still the invitation remains.)

Now on to considering your "cheerleading for alarm" section.

______________________________

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

By Matt Ridley |  The "Rational Optimist.com" |  Published on Sunday, July 05, 2015
Part Two ±450-935 (out of 5950 words)

Matt Ridley:  Cheerleaders for alarm. This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. 

__________________________

What precisely?  You define nothing!

"Cheerleaders for alarm" ? - Who, What, Where, When?

"climate debate" -  It's tough to get any more inclusive than that.

Then you pull the dirty trick of jumping from the nebulous "climate debate" to the "whole reputation of science."  Matt, where do you get off pinning what pundits have said onto scientists?  That's pure dishonestly!

By playing this game you allow yourself to smear any scientist with whatever nonsense you like.  Even though that nonsense never came from any real scientist to begin with.  

That's called fraud and has nothing to do with learning about the why and how of the scientific understanding that underpins the current global warming "consensus."

_____________________________________________

Matt Ridley:  The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses. 

______________________________

Matt, I suggest your "bad idea" is to tailor your sentences toward belittling scientists and rejecting their evidence without ever even considering that evidence.

Here you deliberately ignore the severe impacts that past climate changes had on the biological systems that had developed under their previous climate regime. 

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

CAGW. Ask a simple question, get a revealing answer. Dodging the issue.

{edited 11:15 pm}

citizenschallenge asks, "Just what does it take to qualify as a 'catastrophe'?"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It seems to me that an intelligent, rational, constructive dialogue requires understanding what each other mean; and that each side takes the time to explain what they mean when using certain terms.  

For instance, CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) has become a term of derision among the climate science denying crowd, yet it's never defined.  

Their attitude baffles me.  These people profess that they don't deny the science behind how greenhouse gases make our planet habitable, implying they recognize that increasing our planet's greenhouse gas insulation will warm the planet.  Yet in the next sentence, you'll hear them ridicule the notion that a warming world will inflict increasing levels of catastrophe upon our society.

Makes me wonder just what do they mean with "catastrophe" anyways  -  what level of destruction are we talking about?

I mean, haven't these free marketeers learned the fundamentals of compounding interest?  Or do they conveniently suspend those mathematical realities when it comes to thinking about the geophysics of our planet... you know, that stuff that provides our life support system?

That's why I ask that opening question now and then, usually to silence, but this afternoon I got a bite.  

It turned out to be such a good example of a typical Republican/libertarian PR machine response that it deserves to be added to this collection.

Though I still can't enunciate exactly how this ties into "Seepage" there is a connection that I'm sure sharper minds can puzzle out once they decide to think about it.  What I can do is offer some observations on how these denialista's weave their intimidation while destroying constructive dialogue.

joseph p. 1:32 PM - 6/8/15 
Short version of an Answer: When the alleged cure to a still only alleged disease, is already known to be much worse than the alleged disease, and applying the "cure" just keeps on creating more of its own very real disease catastrophes. And then you yourself +citizenschallengeYT can even vie to become the "King of Catastrophes"!

Question: Best liar wins? re CC/Steele Debate

I'll admit, regarding my little SFSU/Steele project, recently I've spent a lot of time spinning my wheels.  Seems no one wants to get close to the touchy question of professors/instructors having a duty to honestly represent the scientific work of others.  

Apparently outright lying about the work of scientists is considered a sacred part of the academic process.  I still can't get my mind around that logic.  Admittedly I'm on the outside of academia looking in, so if anyone within the process would care to correct me or enlighten my interpretation please (If not here at WUWTW, how about an independent venue).  After all, constructive learning is what this is supposed to be all about.

What I find even less comprehensible: 
How is it that maliciously slandering honest professional scientists falls under the same acceptance?  Or is it a blind eye?

So I've gone back to reviewing and learning some more while pondering the fundamental requirements for a constructive* rational debate - as opposed to the politicians lawyerly debate to win at all costs regardless of fidelity to the truth.

I have to wonder what the hell, has all of modern society accepted the myth that the best liar deserves to win?  

In any event, this morning I saw that Victor Venema (at his consistently thoughtful blog Variable Variability) wrote something that I believe fits right into this series of foundation laying "exhibits" in my continuing "Great CC/Steele Climate Science Debate."  

That's why, with a tip of my hat, I share his thoughts in this post.  But first, as learning goes, looking at related links led to other things and I was reminded of the following helpful chart by "Communicating the Science of Climate Change" and their effort to teach climate science communication skills. 

https://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Somerville-Hassol-Physics-Today-2011.pdf

Communicating the science of climate change

It is urgent that climate scientists 

improve the ways they convey their findings 

to a poorly informed and often indifferent public.  

Exhibit Two: The Fundamentals of Critical Thinking. re CC/Steele Debate

Exhibit Two is a quick review of the Critical Thinking skills that are required for honestly evaluating the difference between serious science and tactical misinformation created within a politically motivated echo-chamber.  First I repost Professor Robert Ennis' outline, followed by a short and simple video from YouTube's QualiaSoup which does a wonderful job of summarizing key components of critical thinking.

Then I share a couple videos that introduce an interesting recent study:

"The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks" - 2012

A study that finds political social associations are often more powerful than scientific knowledge when it comes to rationally evaluating climate and other scientific information.

I close out with links to Craig Rusbult's "Critical Thinking Skills in Education and Life." 

______________________________________________________

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

Exhibit One: Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent? re CC/Steele Debate

As I'm slowly working on my next step, summarizing the 14 chapters of my recent Landscapes and cycles debate with Mr. Steele, (in order to enable me to present a concise complaint to the powers that be at San Francisco State University), I'm thinking maybe I should explain what this is all about, but first about me.

I'm no scientist, I'm no scholar, I'm a skilled worker with a respectable mastery of two trades under my belt and a good reputation within my community.  More importantly, I have been paying attention to Anthropogenic Global Warming dialogue since 1970 high school science classes.  My bias is a visceral appreciation for our Earth's infinite folds within folds of constructive harmonic complexity - yes, I love my planet and I hug a tree now and then with genuine spiritual emotions of thanksgiving.  But, I'm also an active member of our modern society with it's many marvels and growing up in Chicago I learned to appreciation it and how to navigate within the city before I did the mountains and natural places.

Though I may not be able to keep up with scientists on the nitty gritty of the details, I most certainly have achieved a deep understanding of climate basics through being an attentive witness to a half century of Earth Science discoveries and observations. 

I have also been paying close attention to the public "debate" which actually should be a public learning process - if not for the deliberate cynical interference of a small clique of egomaniacal "masters of the universe" with more money than brains or foresight or empathy or compassion - folks who for personal gain have purchased an alternate universe based on faith and personal desires coupled to a religious rejection of rational evaluation of the evidence all around us and making everyone who knows differently an enemy. 

Enough about my background, now, why am I doing this?  Filling a vacuum I suppose… because too few people who know better are taking responsibility and confronting deliberate misinformers such as our Mr. Landscapesandcycles. 

What am I trying to achieve?  A rejection of deliberately lying about known science and respectable scientists.

For my Exhibit One in this summation compilation of my CC/Steele Debate I'm reposting the work of Professor Torcello who asks the key question:

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

1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. 
   

The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

Lawrence Torcello  |  March 13, 2014

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

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