A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:
______________________________________________
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.
