Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Years of Living Dangerously the creepy side of the internet debate

{Updated 5/8/14 with counter-invitation to Mr. Steele, quoted at the end of this article.}

A while back I tried to engage the "ScottishSkeptic" in a constructive debate by taking his "The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5)" and reviewing it's various claims - which I countered with my opinions, which I supported with copious links to authoritative work by the experts.  In response ScottishSkeptic threatened me with legal action claiming copyright infringement, although he backed down and invoked William Connelley to mediate, but that didn't work out as he'd hoped either and I was shown to have acted ethically and legally.  Which was about the last I heard of the ScottishSkeptic who never did confront my claims debunking his points in a constructive learning focused manner.

Now it's Jim Steele, the man who feels he has the right to misrepresent climate science and maliciously attack the character of scientists he disagrees with, who's threatening me, though not with legal action.  Nor by any challenge for a constructive debate.  No, he has chosen the veiled threat of stalking and physical confrontation.  It's neatly framed so plenty of deniability - still see for yourselves if the whole thing don't feel creepy:

Re: Years of Living Dangerously Sea level Rise

Post #38  Postby JIm Steele » Tue May 06, 2014 8:53 pm

Citizenchallenged writes Because I got the cahones to go toe to toe with internet thugs like you.


In your dreams you have the cahones to talk mess because you are not face to face with the people whom you denigrate with your malicious personal attacks. Typically such people as yourself are freakin' wimps in real life, and only have "courage" when they can hide in the ether. Again Peter Meisner what is your expertise that allows you to denigrate scientists like myself who have spent their lives promoting wise environmental stewardship???? I'll be visiting Dr. Opler in Colorado this year and perhaps we can visit and discuss the accuracy of your attacks. What is your address? And again what is your expertise that gives you the 
ammunition to shoot at those with whom you disagree?

(my red highlight)
if you are curious about the context leading up to my remark link to:

Steele ignored the fact that my intellectual ammunition is the copious links to authoritative sources that I share to support my various claims {something he does in a very sparing manner}.  Steele seems to think ignoring it makes it go away.  Not a particularly ethical approach.

Worse Steele seems to believe he himself does have the right to viciously denigrate accomplished and respected scientists right and left.  Add to that believing that it's OK to willfully misrepresent scientific facts and evidence.

And now this favored denialist tactic, I denounce claims made by Steele and he morhps it into perceived personal attacks and things escalate into the sublimely ridiculous, as though we were a couple roosters at a Friday night skid row bar.

Admittedly "thugs" is not a nice word, {though the record at SkepticForum reveals he's called me worse things}, but then consider the malicious talk that inspired such language on my part:
rabid CO2 advocate
slightly schizophrenic

reduced Nature Journal to a conspiratorial "advocacy journal"

That's Jim Steele from just one article, and lately the man seems to have gone into overdrive now that he's found a fan base at SkepticForum.  Here's a partial list of his recent posts.

Pastor Joyner a better scientist in Years Living Dangerously
Post #1  by JIm Steele » Wed May 07, 2014 12:19 am
‘Years of Living Dangerously’ false alarm on climate fire!
Post #1  by JIm Steele » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:39 am
Fires not related to CO2 "Years of Living Dangerously"
Post #1  by JIm Steele » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:41 pm
Katherine Hayhoe's mistaken analysis of global warming.
Post #1  by JIm Steele » Sat Apr 26, 2014 8:39 pm
Exploiting Human Misery and Distorting the Science: An envir
Post #1  by JIm Steele » Mon Apr 14, 2014 2:19 pm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
I'm actually trying to stay away from SkepticForum much as possible so don't have anything more to say about that list, except that Steele's "authority" seems to be getting broader by the day, and that his attacks on scientists and the science keeps getting more extreme and disconnected from the actual facts of the matter.

But you'd better not call him on it, or else...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
PS.  CC's Jim Steele collection:

Mar 19, 2014
A paragraph by paragraph review of Jim Steele's "Fabricating Climate Doom: Parmesan's Butterfly Effect" - it's quite a marathon ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mar 21, 2014
Interesting news today, particularly in light of my own recent experience at with one Jim Steele and the moderator of said forum. The same moderator who believes injecting graphics of an exploding head into what's supposed to be a serious discussion about climate science is fair play ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mar 28, 2014
In a previous post, "Fabricating Climate Doom: looking at Jim Steele's deception" I did a paragraph by paragraph review of Jim Steele's article "Fabricating Climate Doom: Parmesan's Butterfly Effect" that turned into quite the marathon, this is a trimmed down version focusing on Steele's various science based claims ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mar 30, 2014
Steele muses: "More critical analyses and respectful debate are the only paths to follow if we are ever to free ourselves from the shackles of our own illusions."  I couldn't agree more.  Yet Steele's own rhetoric fails his lofty hope of engaging in an intellectually honest and constructive debate.   Allow me to explain ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Apr 08, 2014
There’s a new documentary series out that has traveled the world to chronicle the dramatic changes upon our planet and the cascading consequences of those changes to age old climate patterns.  It's not about models or forecasts, it's about impacts happening today ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Apr 25, 2014
It seems to me, sometimes there's no choice but to do a sentence by sentence review in order to reveal the various tactics and tricks contrarians such as this Jim Steele employ. Here I offer my analysis of Steele's opinion piece.  I invite Steele to respond, though it's worth noting that Jim Steele refuses to address previous thoughtful critiques of his articles ...
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And then there's the HotWhopper collection:

Monday, April 14, 2014
Living Dangerously: Jim Steele denies Texas warming

Thursday, January 2, 2014
Jim Steele, science denier, gets lost in Florida's mangroves

Wednesday, Jully 31, 2013
Jim Steele, another WUWT science denier, gets it wrong about Kivalina

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

After thinking on it I decided to send a counter-invitation:

Re: Years of Living Dangerously Sea level Rise

Post #45  Postby citizenschallenge » Thu May 08, 2014 
JIm Steele wrote:I'll be visiting Dr. Opler in Colorado this year and perhaps we can visit and discuss the accuracy of your attacks. What is your address?

Been mulling on it and you know, it would be fun to meet you and Dr. Opler,
why not let me know when you'll be up there at Fort Collins.
I can come up for a visit and we can try our hand at a civil conversation.
Are you interested?
User avatar


citizenschallenge said...

I just received an interest and excellently timed comment from an "Anonymous" saying:
"Actually, Mr.CC (wrong name previously - Steele is who I'm writing) has checked your numbers and graphs with the numbers and graphs from the Western Regional Climate Center. the WRCC holds the official climate data so yes, being a scientist and working at the WRCC, I have to ask...where do you get your data? You shouldn't get angry because people question you. [on Years of Living Dangerously the creepy side of the internet debate"]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Steele is who I'm writing" So are you claiming to be Mr. Steele or writing this on his behalf? You also say you work at the WRCC? Which office? You say you've checked the numbers with the WRCC? Is that a fact -
Then why not share some of those details??

Funny that, I too have checked with WRCC a couple different times - they tell me a different story, please refer to: Steele's Yosemite Nat'l Park mystery temp graph? (12/2/14)

And most ironically just today I received another email from them responding to my second inquiry:

January 23, 2014 1:40 PM (9 hours ago)
And I quote:

"First - Mt Shasta’s record began Aug 1986 then no data from Nov 1986 till Jan 1988 so … long term, didn’t really start till Jan 1988.  Where he is getting his data from the early 1900 is beyond me.  Perhaps he is putting a few stations together to create a graph with a long term record, who knows.

Because of this, obviously the numbers are wrong.
As you can see from the table I provided, these numbers don’t match up.
I didn’t make a graph but one could easily…

Second - what is Minimum RAW vs Adjusted mean?

I don’t get what this guy is trying to prove..?"

Service Climatologist
Western Regional Climate Center
Desert Research Institute
2215 Raggio Parkway
Reno, NV  89512-1095

So how about it?
Where's your WRCC evidence or am I supposed to take your word for it?

Perhaps you can explain why Mr. Steele won't respond to my direct email asking him about his source?

citizenschallenge said...

I committed two of those dastardly typos:
In first sentence should have read "interesting" and the email date should have said 2015, not 2014.