Friday, May 16, 2014

Jim Steele this is 2014 !

Lately I haven't had much time for this, but Mr. Steele smacked me with another one yesterday.  After reading his SKEP thread reprinted below and his full article and looking up some stuff I started a response but it's such a gish gallop with the guy, then I got all caught up in an aside now I've run out of time. So I'll just post it over here.  Let him know I'm doing my homework and I'll be back. 

Re: Amputating Contrary Data:Stock & Trade of Climate Alarmi

Post #46  Postby JIm Steele » Thu May 15, 2014 6:14 am
Not only did warming alarmist amputate data that showed improving polar bear condition, in a dubiously named 2012 article " Effects of climate warming on polar bears: a review of the evidence" they amputated data that reported it is actually heavy ice years that are the worse for seals and bears.

Polar bear experts Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher {check out the links I added} (who predicts by the middle of this century, two-thirds of the polar bears will be gone due to rising CO2) published in a section titled, “Why progressively earlier breakup of the sea ice negatively affects persistence of polar bearsubpopulations" to illustrate the importance of ringed seal pups they wrote, “In the mid-1970s and again in the mid-1980s, ringed seal pup productivity plummeted by 80% or more for 2–3 years…. A comparison of the age-specific weights of both male and female polar bears from 1971 to 1973 (productive seal years), to those from 1974 to 1975 (years of seal reproductive failure), demonstrated a significant decline in the latter period.”

They referenced those years of bad seal and bad bears in Stirling’s 2002 paper. But if you actually read that paper Stirling contradicted his own “review of the evidence” writing, Heavy ice conditions in the mid-1970s and mid-1980s caused significant declines in productivity of ringed seals, each of which lasted about 3 years and caused similar declines in the natality of polar bears and survival of subadults, after which reproductive success and survival of both species increased again.” In 2012, Stirling coauthored another paper with a seal researcher and concluded all declines were caused by heavy ice years. Their paper proposed that “the decline of ringed seal reproductive parameters and pup survival in the 1990s could have been triggered by unusually cold winters and heavy ice conditions that prevailed in Hudson Bay in the early 1990s, through nutritional stress”

{my red highlights}

Here we have a favorite tactic.
Think about what's going on here,  
Steele is reaching back to the seventies, eighty when conditions had been relatively stable, and had been for millennia (even considering the LIA/MWP).  

Amount of old ice in Arctic, 1987 2013

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

We're living in 2014, and should be focusing on 2020s, and beyond.

Instead, Steele/Watts/ want us to focus on the rear-view mirror, imaging conditions haven't changed these past few decades.  Unfortunately, my dear Republic/Libertarian/AynRand-lovers we are no longer in the golden age of the twentieth century, 
we are well into the twenty-first century 
and we have really and truly screwed the pooch big time.  

Our kids face an increasing hostile weather environment.
Guaranteed no two ways about it - 
and all you folks want to do is keep fanning flames of distrust 
and contempt, WHERE IT AIN'T DESERVED, in order to protect vested interests and further delay focusing on our planet?

We know why these things are happening.  
Mr Steele, CO2 is not something to be treated like a comedy routine.

All you do is crazy-making.  The entire way you frame your articles and make claims based on finger pointing and quite a degree of assumed "authority" - you like knocking me for my lack of genuine "expertise" - the difference is that I share what smarter people have amassed.  I'm pointing to information, not asking people to take my word for things.  

Also I'm not a fool, and like humans who love learning about the world around me, I seek out and absorb as much information as my little gray cells can digest, then I go for more.  I have that in common with real scientists and  that's why I love and trust them.  

And even with the few screw-ups turned fabricated scandals, great things have been learned.  {Real students of our planet learn from mistakes and failures, politician make bludgeons out of them}  The discussion is alive and well and the ideas that make most sense are winning the dialogue/constructive-debate  Life is all about making mistakes and then hopefully learning from them - building a more complete understanding.

But, you do it differently Mr. Steele.  You are on this binge of attacking one scientist after another via finger pointing and science by rhetoric with craftily composed gish gallops of claims and innuendo all intended to berate some of the most respected scientists in their respective fields.  Watts up with that dude?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Re: Amputating Contrary Data: Stock & Trade of Climate Alarmist

Post #50  Postby JIm Steele » Thu May 15, 2014 11:22 pm
To suggest climate had endangered the polar bears, the USGS amputated the data about polar bear movements so that the missing bears were interpreted as dead in their models instead of just having moved out of the study area. The data from collared bears would have shown that but that data was amputated. … bears.html

Who's kidding whom?  All you're doing is pointing back to your own self-agrandized claims.

You won't even list specifically which paragraphs in their study, or which data sets you claim were manipulated.  You just "tell it like and it is" according to your mind, that's not science that's messianic.

MR. Steele, you have accused Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher of scientific fraud.  I WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THIS FRAUD WAS TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE.  
Please provide specific sources in the literature and or data sets.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
{For the record (12/15/14) Jim never has bothered to offer any of the information I've requested, then as today}; 
and no I haven't rejected any comments from Jim Steele, he just doesn't "lower" himself to offer any over here.  Trust me, I'm looking forward to hearing what he has to say for himself, you bet I'll share.}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

PS about those Polar Bears

Summary of polar bear population status per 2013

~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
and other details
Ice-Loving Seals and the Loss of Sea Ice

Sep 24, 2013

more to come on this topic

No comments: