part 7 - Dave (and CC) final round with sock-puppet

This is my hobby, my passion, but I must squeeze it into a crowded life preoccupied with more mundane but unavoidable matters.  That's why it can get scatter-shot around here.  The debate between AL and me, joined by the worthy Dave (For more background on Dave see part 4), has been ongoing and now adds up to over 35,000 words.  There are a couple previous long exchanges between Dave and AL that I had wanted to share in these pages, but don't think that will happen, too many other projects waiting to get finished.   

But I do want to share what might be the last couple rounds.

I do this for those interesting in dissecting science contrarian debate tactics and style, in the hope it might help inform some who are beginning to engage in the public climate science awareness dialogue (er, debate).

A reminder - this comes from the comments thread begun by MarathonS Feb 22, 2014 on the dubious YouTube video The PseudoScience of CO2 Based Climate where yet another coddled "old white guy" who knows nothing of climate science, feeds his audience what they want to hear.

Note - Dave and AL's words are unchanged, though I have corrected minor typos and made formatting changes including some highlights and of course I've also interjected a few comments and more links to educational sources.

It's difficult keeping the participants in this virtual dialogue separate, please bear with me - Dave's words are in Arial font, AL's comments are in purple, my additions are light green highlighted.

__________________________________________________________________________

Dave Smith responding to AL  8:36 PM, 12/10/2015 - Part 1

"Of course there is. Every ecosystem has an optimal CO2 level for that particular ecosystem" - 

Why? based on what? how do you measure what is optimal? 

There are numerous rainforests around the world, is one better than another? and which one of the dozens extant on the planet (do you) want to cater for? and what about the thousands of previous ecosystems? or the ecosystems to come? And how do you assess what is optimal for that ecosystem? What measurements do you use? And is this for earth now, in the past, or in the future? And why have you chosen a particular ecosystem as your determinant for optimal CO2 concentrations? 

It is not that I do not know, it is absurd to declare that there is an intrinsic optimal CO2 level without first applying arbitrary, moralistic or desirous conditions upon that statement.

"But since you now have admitted that you don’t know what that level is, why are you then promoting a certain level of CO2 when you lack that knowledge?" - 

I haven't admitted that I don't know, I am stating positively that it doesn't exist based on knowledge. And I am not promoting any level of CO2 at all.

____________________________________________________________

Consider for a moment that before the industrial revolution our global climate system had its atmospheric CO2 "regulator" slowly fluctuating between about 180 ppm (parts per million) to 280 ppm. And I mean slowly, taking about five thousand of years to go from peak to trough (±100 ppm), with profound changes from ice ages to temperate periods. 

Around 1850 this gaseous regulator was set at the prehistoric peak of ±280 ppm, but by 1995 this greenhouse gas regulator increased 80 clicks, up to 360 ppm. It has taken only twenty years to ratchet up another forty clicks and bust through 400 ppm, which is setting up the earth for a hothouse future. 

This added atmospheric insulation warms our climate system. Simple undeniable physics! This warming then forces the troposphere to hold more moisture. (…) 

The point is that human history and our complex society developed under a climate regime where that CO2 regulator was set below 300 ppm.  Since 1850 we've jacked up that regulator to 400 ppm.  Historically such a shift of ±100 ppm took more than 5,000 years, before swinging back to the other extreme - now humans have added another 100 ppm on top of that long lived rhythm.  

Here's a challenge - If Global Warming Is a Hoax …

By Phil Plait

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/28/global_warming_if_it_s_a_hoax.html

Will, this one's for you - What we knew a half century ago.

(Well that was one of the worst intros I've written in a while, let me try that again. - edited Nov 8th PM)

I read an article that fits right into my recent retrospective musings* regarding global warming and what we are willingly doing to our children's future.  

The key point:  

On 5 November, 1965, the group now known as the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) cautioned President Lyndon B. Johnson that continued accumulation of atmospheric carbon dioxide resulting from fossil-fuel burning would “almost certainly cause significant changes” and “could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.”

You see climate science contrarians I deal with continue pretending there's still substantial doubt regarding the fundamentals of what we are doing. Nonsense!  

The foundations of a clear understanding that society actually was conducting a global geophysical experiment go back over 60 years.  In fact, we recently passed one of the early big milestones of that growing recognition - which Dana Nuccitelli reports on. 

With thanks to SkepticalScience.com, here's something to think about next time some contrarian character tries telling you there's a lot of uncertainty regarding climate science and what injecting over two gigatons of greenhouse gases into our thin atmosphere month, after month, after endless month will do.  

(Will, I gotta tell you, I sit slack jawed wondering, how can people so delude themselves that they trivialize this reality in favor of demanding to know the exact speed of our rush to catastrophe. Or waste precious time arguing total trivialities while ignoring the gorilla in the room.

Re. CAGW, if you think upending our planet's climate system isn't catastrophe on every level, you're lost within your own daydreams, oblivious to this Earth and the workings of this complex society you depend on but take oh so for granted.

Remember what environmentalists were saying back in those 'innocent' 60s: 

~ ~ ~ "You can kid yourself, but you can't fool mother nature!" ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  "No Deposit No Return Earth." ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  

What a tragedy so few were paying attention.            

__________________________________

Scientists warned the US president about global warming 50 years ago today

Posted on 5 November 2015 by dana1981

Fifty years ago today, as the American Association for the Advancement of Science highlighted, US president Lyndon Johnson’s science advisory committee sent him a report entitled Restoring the Quality of Our Environment. The introduction to the report noted:

Pollutants have altered on a global scale the carbon dioxide content of the air and the lead concentrations in ocean waters and human populations.

Part 4 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re GHG physics and models

This is the forth in a series debating Will H. who I met at ClimateDepot.  Here I look at the closing sentence of his comment featured in part 3 of our dialogue.

I admit that in a way this is all rhetorical - l'll inform him of these 2 blogposts, but I don't know, nor do I care much if Will shows up again, as he did for my first post.  His comments would be welcome and I'll post them and respond, if he chooses to submit any.  

However, I'm actually writing this for me and folks like me who are trying to figure out the mind-scape of contrarians types and their faith-based certitude.  This is my exploration and sharing of ideas, hoping to find a few receptive minds interested in thinking about these matters.
________________

Will Haas  at 5:00 PM, Oct 26, 2015

Will H writes:  ... (first portion of this comment can be found in the previous post)  "There is no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to the warming and the models that they generated do not provide that evidence."  

After my lecture, I list resources that provide the information proving how wrong that belief is.
______________

It's a ludicrous statement on every level.  But, just the sort of disconnected nonsense we've come to expect from the Republican/libertarian crowd.

The supporting evidence that scientists do indeed have a thorough understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases begins with pioneering Air Force atmospheric studies during the 1940s/50s/60s.  Not just the United States Air Force but also the Australian, and Russian (though the Reds weren't sharing their information.).  Without an accurate understanding, air to air heat seeking missiles would be impossible.  

The point being it's unassailable physics that we better learn to live with - not pretend we can wish away.   

As for folks and their armchair insights, attacking and rejected the established scientific understanding because of personal convictions, that's a bit over the top and worth looking at.

Denialists Dodging Debate, (the landscapesandcyles saga)

It'll probably be another few weeks before I can file the final installment(s) of my Landscapesandcycles project, namely, a "document of complaint," regarding Mr. Jim Steele's mis-representation of modern climate science understanding and worse his many slanders of honorable professional scientists.

I thought I'd try one last shout out to Mr. Steele, for that Climate Science Debate he keeps demanding of others.

Considering that my emails remain ignored, I've decided to share the 'update email' I sent to Mr. Steele and various Administrators of San Francisco State University a couple days ago. 

I appreciate many serious scientists don't like my seemingly belligerent approach, sorry, seems to me sometimes it takes a little table thumping for people to take notice of rapidly approaching situations they want to ignore.  I'm no scientist, I'm no scholar, I'm a witness trying to draw attention to a serious situation that's being ignored.  Namely, the acceptance and entertaining of the Big Lie, slander, misrepresentation of established facts, etc..

In any event, this blogpost will serve as my summation of my Landscapesandcycles-CC/Steele Debate Project, along with another invitation to Mr. Jim Steele to step up to a honorable debate of the specifics.  It is also an invitation for the Administrators of the San Francisco State University to start considering the nonsense that is being presented as science under their flag.

{Mr. Steele, you are invited to respond, I assure you I welcome and will post any complaints, corrects or thoughts you care to share over here at WUWTW.}

____________________________________

sent Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:52 AM - open email

Jim Steele, honorable individuals of the San Francisco State University, others,

Since Jim and SFSU folks ignored my earlier emails I haven't bothered sharing new installments as they've developed.  But, we're at a point I owe you an update.

It does concern the reputation of San Francisco State University insofar as the public perception of your commitment to 'fidelity to the ethic of truthfully teaching current scientific understanding'... and, matters such as not lying about the facts; not engaging in character assassination to argue science, and such.

I'm no scholar so I don't have experience organizing this sort of document thus I'm doing a bit of flailing but trust I'll figure it out. -  What you should know is that after much time and effort I have gathered extensive evidence and I hope to be able to put together a coherent persuasive 'complaint' before too long.

Major issues I want to focus on?  

Slander of honorable professional scientists - is unacceptable ... 

Dismissal of the scientific understanding of greenhouse gas geophysics - is unacceptable given contemporary understanding ... 

Misrepresenting scientific studies - is unacceptable … 

The notion that "landscapes and natural cycles" dominate the global climate system within which they exist - is science fantasy, more deception than science ...

With that, and the following list of pertinent background blog posts, I wish you all good days till we meet again.

Sincerely, PM/CC

_________________________________________

Jim has ignored my detailed critiques of his claims, he's ignored my evidence.  But he has posted about me within the protective confines of his echo-chamber.  

Here's a comparison of two different styles and attitudes toward learning - Mr. Steele's complete unaltered words along with my responses.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Clarifying Landscapesandcycles Dishonest Internet Sniping #1

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/06/landscapesandcycles-internet-sniping1.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

Clarifying Landscapesandcycles Smears and Internet Snipers #2

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/06/landscapesandcycles-clarifying-smears2.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

This is when I put my Steele/SFSU project aside and I went into a few weeks of letting it simmer, taking in new information and thinking about how best to explain myself, it's a work in progress for sure, but I'm getting closer.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Question: Best liar wins? re CC/Steele Debate

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/05/bestliar-wins-ccsteeledebate.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

If Mr. Steele were sincerely into a Scientific Debate (the constructive type) here's a good place to start, it would establish a baseline upon which we could build.

Friday, January 30, 2015

Mr. Jim Steele, Can you clarify your argument?

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/01/landscapesandcycles-clarify-your.html

A) That wildlife biologists working in extreme conditions and over continental landscapes make mistakes ?

B) Disputing that Anthropogenic Global Warming with it's profound changing climate driven landscapes alterations causes adverse cascading consequences for wildlife and eco-systems (read our biosphere) ?  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I admit I've played hardball and have written some harsh words, but please consider the difference of insults/sins of exasperation compared to the tactical use of insults/sins to negate your opponent's information.  

Jim seems all venom and anger.  Then the extrapolations begin, as he frantically paints me with all the hideous suspicion he can muster.  Watts up with that?  Where's the humor, where's an acknowledgement of our fellow humanity, where's a little self-skepticism and dare I say touch of self-deprecation?

Saturday, February 7, 2015

Jim Steele watt's up with your venomous self-indignation?

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/why-your-venomous-indignation.html

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Dear Mr. Steele, regarding your 1/7/15 WUWT post - an open letter...

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/01/jimsteele-wuwt-anopenletter.html