Monday, March 7, 2016

Step right up Mr. Steele, let the debate begin.

This morning I found this waiting for me:

Jim Steele said...
I came here once and demonstrated your lies. You deleted my posts and continued to lie. I told then, as I remind you now. I will not ever come here to engage in a sincere debate because Peter Meisler is not to be trusted. 

Set up a debate in a neutral place that can be videoed and where Peter Meisler can not manipulate the facts, then I will gladly debate you and put your dishonest claims to rest. 

Jim, you tell folks I've censored you.  But, we know I haven't. 

Manipulate facts, hardly.  
That's why I prefer my debates in writing;
both to clearly state what I have to say, 
and to give you something to work with, 
well, and also, so you won't be tempted to put words in my mouth.
If it's a matter of trust, as you claim, we can find a solution.

Send me your statement, I'll post it.  Then before I write one word, you can visit and leave a comment acknowledging that your words are accurate.  Then we can begin.

Or a far better solution would be that you send me your debate-points to post at WUWTW, while also posting them over at your Landscapes'n Cycles blog - we can check each other.   Then our respective 'fans' can keep track where they want.  I'll have my chance to confront your lies.  You'll have your chance to set me straight, fair and square.

Jim, as you know I've done a systematic detailed review of your talk in front of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and also your January 27, 2015 interview with Heartland Institute's Sterling Bennett.
For the complete list you can link here.  

You are welcome to pick any one of those for your rebuttal and I'll take it from there.  Admittedly the formatting isn't fantastic, but it's clear enough for you to find all my assertions and my supporting evidence.  Everything is in writing as they say.  Have at it.

Or we can start from scratch.  Here is my rough outline of the problems that I've found in your talks time and time again.  It could be the starting point of an interesting debate.

Steele's message: 
A)  Local landscapes are drivers of global climate change. 
B)  Internal cycles are more powerful drivers than the atmosphere that envelopes our planet

The way I see your tactics:
    Obsessive focus on flaws in extremely challenging wildlife population studies.
    Misrepresent the scope of those flaws and the learning process. 

As an excuse to:
     Ignore the physics of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
     Ignore the fact that industrialized society has increased our planet's atmosphere's insulation medium (GHGs) by 30%.
     Ignore the fact that our climate system is a global heat and moisture distribution engine.
     Ignore the overwhelming observational evidence of continued global warming.

    Political theater to dismiss well established science.
    Slander to disparage dedicated professional scientists.
    The magician's tactic of distraction and rhetorical sleight of hand.
    The Serengeti Strategy which is explained here and here.

1 comment:

citizenschallenge said...

It appears Jim Steele still hasn't mustered the intellectual courage to actually engage in my debate challenge.
His speciality is in creating confusion and spreading trash-talk, rather than trying to learn any thing.

Oh but he demands that super-busy hard working experts to drop everything to debate with know-nothings like he is, in contrived circus debates that have more to do with lawyerly tactics of deception than the constructive educational debates going on between serious scientists.