#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.

#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.

#6 Moose and the NWF - 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

______________________________________________ 

Mr. Jim 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 is 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 sixth installment I'll debate your 'moose' claims which offers some insights into how you jump around to select and censor the information you share with your public.  Along with that I'll look at your unfounded hostility towards the National Wildlife Federation and how you misrepresent what they say.

______________________________________

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

______________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Heartland Burnett: Let me ask you this: What first brought you to my attention was your discussion of the Moose decline.  Marketing material by the National Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society were linking global warming to declining moose populations particularly in Northern Minnesota - What did you find that undermined those claims?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Notice not for a moment is Burnett curious about how global warming might be linked to declining moose.  The issue is nothing more than another word game to win, couldn't care less about what's actually happening out there in the backcountry.

The National Wildlife Federation are not bad guys.  They are not wild eyed hippies or commies, but that's all you want to believe. l'll let them speak for themselves:

The Deepening Mystery of Moose Decline

Biologists are having a hard time pinning down the cause of a moose decline that imperils the species’ survival in several states

09-29-2014 // By John Carey

http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/national-wildlife/animals/archives/2014/moose.aspx

"To some researchers, however, one cause looms largest—Parelaphostrongylus tenuis, or brain worm. "

Historically, deep winter snow kept deer out of moose country, so the animals didn’t mix much. But a series of warm winters, like those the Northeast and Midwest have experienced recently, can allow deer—and brain worms—to move north into the boreal forest. It has happened before, Lankester believes, causing moose populations to crash in the 1940s and 1950s in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Minnesota ...

The leading threat in New Hampshire, where the moose population has declined as much as 40 percent in some areas during the past three years, seems to be the winter tick. ...

It could get even sadder. Both the brain worm and the tick problems are expected to get worse as global climate continues to warm. Milder winters with less snow cover enable more deer to move into moose habitat. And little or no snow in spring, when engorged adult ticks fall off moose to lay eggs, boosts tick survival. ...

Giving Moose a Boost

Wildlife managers also have other levers to pull to give moose a boost. They can reduce the white-tailed deer population in some areas or create more browse and prime moose habitat by cutting openings in the forest. In the late 1970s, for instance, the spruce budworm, a native species that experiences periodic outbreaks as part of a natural cycle, cut a devastating swath through Maine’s forest, and timber companies stepped up logging to salvage the timber. “That created moose nirvana,” Pekins says. “A population explosion of moose swept out of Maine into New Hampshire, Vermont and even a little bit of Massachusetts.” It could happen again. Another spruce budworm infestation is knocking on Maine’s northern door. “Maybe this is how we will grow more moose again.”

And so the mystery of the disappearing moose will not come to a simple conclusion. The moose’s prospects depend on complex and interacting ecological factors and relationships, and the animal’s numbers will rise and fall as those factors evolve. With climate change bringing increasingly mild winters, the species could disappear in some regions, wiped out by a triple whammy of parasites, pests and predators. But this massive symbol of the North Woods likely will continue to survive, even thrive, in other regions—and the new research will lay the groundwork for making that happen.

___________________________________

Steele:  Well every ecologist,

#5 Prof Trenberth stifling "sceptics"?? - 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

______________________________________________ 

Mr. 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.  ... 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 is 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 fifth installment I'll be debating your take on Dr. Trenberth and confront you with the ethical question raised by Lawrence Torcello: "How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?" 

____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Steele:  So you know, I've always advocated the need to be good environmental stewards and to be a good steward we need good science that we can trust.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yeah?  So what happened?

It's one thing to preach about stewardship and needing science we can trust.
It's quite another to practice what you preach.

Mr. Steele, may I ask you, do people have a right to expect our educators to be honest about the science they are presenting to students and public?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  And we trust the scientific theory because it's been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Steele, what kind of "lively debate" are you talking about?  
Have you given any thought to the two basic types of debate?

You know, the political style debate where winning your argument is all that matters.  This sort of debate invites rhetorical and emotional 'devices' and since the goal doesn't reach beyond winning the argument at hand, they tend to be won by the slickest speakers who are best at mesmerizing their audience.  More the stuff of theater than substance.

On the other hand, consider the academic debate, where the goal of the debate is getting to the right answer and achieving a better understanding.  This debate also requires ego and rhetorical skills and striving to win one's argument.  But, the goal of debating is better understanding of the issues at hand.  I'm fearing you, Mr. Steele and your Republican/libertarian pals, simply can not fathom such a concept.  Am I correct?

Winning the debate is fun, great, but it's the getting it right that's the most important.  Being caught in a mistake and "losing" or sustaining bruised feelings is chump change.  Learning from the added knowledge and lessons and then striving towards greater achievements in light of the newly gained knowledge, now that's pure gold.   

Consider the constructive debate.

Is it OK to ignore key evidence?
Is it OK to repeat known lies?
Is it OK to ignore the statements and evidence presented by a debate 'opponent' ?
Is it OK to employ emotional and rhetorical distractions that have nothing to do with the substance of the questions?

Is a debate an argument to win?
Or is a debate an opportunity for mutual learning?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public.