Jim Steele's 'What's Natural?' via Pacifica Tribune - an overview

In a sober world, learning is a constructive process, it requires curiosity and a willingness to look at all the evidence that’s available.

A couple months ago I had a friend from Pacifica, California inform me that Jim Steele had attained a new soapbox, a regular column titled ‘What’s Natural?’ in the Pacifica Tribune.  (For what it’s worth, I've noticed the contrarian blog “WattsUpWithThat” hosted by the infamous Anthony Watts is mirroring Steele’s column.)

The column was bugging my pal since he could recognize Steele was playing fast and loose with the facts but didn’t have the scientific background, nor familiarity with Jim Steele’s game, which tends to overwhelm the uninitiated, to do the column justice. 

He knew I was no scientist, but that I was a dedicated life long self-taught student of Earth and climate sciences, and that considering I graduated high school in ’73, I’ve seen a thing or two.

He kept challenging me to explain the rest of the story.  So, here I am.  Priorities and to-do lists rearranged and I’m on the way to finishing my second detailed examination of Steele’s “What’s Natural?” column. (link here for the first one)  

I’m trying to be as concise as I can, so this morning, when a new introduction came streaming into my thoughts, I didn’t know what to do with it.  At 280 words it was too long, besides I already have a short to the point intro that’s more appropriate for the lean clinical examination approach I’m striving for.

Still it’s a good overview of my perspective and why I’m doing this, so I’ve decided to post it as a stand alone comment on Jim Steele’s writing in general and what I’m trying to document.

You see Jim Steele deals in doubt - he brews together a bouillabaisse of scattered information and then folds in his political message, which is basically: don’t pay any attention to the settled facts, focus on tiny nuances, expect super-human perfection from opponents, laugh off scientists and ridicule real experts.  

Steele’s brand of science comes from pundits with political attitude for sale and his advice is: don’t prepare, wait and see how bad it gets before changing your ways.  Oh and deliberately ignore the evidence we are accumulating.

part 5 - Now AL's complaining about me appropriating WattsUpWithThat's name.

AL responded over at YT and since it was a rather interesting response I'll add it to our virtual debate with my responses. {touch up edits 12/11/15 am}

____________________________________________________

AL Yesterday 9:18 PM

+citizenschallengeYT Sure I can debate, and I have done so here too. I have given you links to scientific papers and facts in respond to what you have posted here. But I never get any responses if you red them or not. You have at least a months worth of reading just about MWP. {Thank you for that remark, you have just given me the seed for my next serious essay "MWP and Our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine considered" - unfortunately this little wage-slave has a hell of a lot of work lined up currently so it'll be a while.  But I love the challenge.}

What I (and others) don't like about what you're doing here with your blog, is the cheap way to try and drive traffic to it and not to mention the blatant choice of domain name for it - a way to ride on another site's success that is frowned upon by most people that deals with the web professionally. {Oh, the irony.}

The other thing about your "debate" style is exactly what you are doing in the post I'm responding to - as soon as you get a little hurt either by facts or opinions, you immediately throw shit on people, like you now did with Anthony. Just like most warmists.  {Why not list specifics?}  

At least NOAA asked Anthony for his work so they could use it themselves, so his work is appreciated. {Why not cite the specifics?  

I don't care what you believe Anthony did, 
we expect you to show us specifically where those valiant efforts are written up.  
Then we can proceed with a debate.  
Smoke'n Mirrors isn't enough.}

But I guess if you react to what he has done, then you must absolutely hate Mann and his team. Because that is documented tampering with data that even led to a hearing.  {Where's this documented, in a private email where a frustrated human allowed himself to vent to a trusted colleague?  
WHAT DATA WAS TAMPERED WITH? WHERE? WHEN?}

Oh, no I forgot - anything goes from that side of the debate.

{Always charges and claims, how about some specifics?}

Edit: And you will never figure out what's going on with those science denying, since you're the one denying it. The science is clear, and so are the empirical data we have now since at least 20 years. This goes both for the temperature, the levels of CO2 and how CO2 acts in the atmosphere with no positive feedback.  {Why can't you acknowledge that I've spent years looking into those claims and arguments, in depth - which my record at WUWTW makes abundantly clear?}

Give it a few more years and you will accept the data too.

{again no hint of what or where this data is coming from.  
Always the mystery.  It's almost mystical.}

-------------------

AL, 

review my blog, you will notice that over the decades I have looked into these MWP claims in way more depth than you have.  Anthony like McIntyre have built their contrarian careers on misrepresenting the science and attacking Dr. Mann's integrity, rather then delving into understanding the science.