Tuesday, August 14, 2018

(Sd8) Heartland Podcast, LandscapesAndCycles Steele (1/27/15) the overview

This is important because the Republican's malicious power-political game of nonstop attack on serious science continues unabated.  I've discovered Jim Steele's bullshit factory continues bigger and better than ever.  Doing his best to stupefy and confuse people.  This stuff needs to receive more of a spot light, not to convert anyone, but simply to help our own community and rational citizens better understand what's going on!  Plus to offer some suggestions for confronting it with a dose of down to Earth honesty. 

A short overview of my 14 part series: "A virtual debate with Jim Steele" based on his Heartland Daily Podcast interview.

When I informed Jim Steele that I was writing a column about him and would also be posting about it at my blogs he responded with the following comment (his spelling, not mine):

"Meisler tells so many lies and creates so many distortions, I have indeed refused to discuss anything with him again. I once corrected he lies on his website and he deleted my posts. Meisler is also part of Slandering Sou's troll factory. I made one post regards Meisler's disinformation and one regards Slandering Sou's, that demonstrates their dishonest tactics. Nether is worth wasting any more time on despite their numerous sniping attacks. 

Responding to my (Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.  Steele offered a succinct, "tl;dr" (too long; didn't read).  When I offered a 230 word summary, Steele's response was: 

To citizenschallenge, only see more lies and more Miesler fabrications regards what I write as well as total ignorance of your scientific understanding. Further discourse with a liar and fool is a total wast of time.  I will now block your email as dishonest spam. {So says the big man behind the huffy climate debate challenge - but take Mr. Steele up on it and he runs and hides like a rat.  And folks wonder why I'm not more polite with him, look no further than his words - not towards me, no, - I'm talking about his malicious slander towards the solid honorable scientists who have helped him gather information. 

It's rather interesting how directly quoting Jim Steele is seen as a lie by Jim Steele.  

It's the lesson right out of Trump's alt-right playbook and the reason I'm taking the time to put all this together in order to highlight the base dishonesty and disingenuousness of our Republican opponents.

They have dedicated themselves to a strategy of absolutely refusing to even consider what their "opponents" are trying to explain.  Talk about blinded by the faith.  It's a terrifying level of absolutism that I never imagined seeing Americans stoop to.  What's even more terrifying is how many liberal, progressive, pluralist, science loving folks seem to have turned off and simply don't want to know about it or get involved.

Jim Steele and Sterling Burnett | Jan. 27, 2015 | Heartland Institute 

April 2, 2015
#1 Mtn warming? - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

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. …"

Well than OK Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals along with evidence and questions.  

Let's see if you live up to your own challenge, I agree to share your response without editing any of your words in a stand alone post.  This first installment looks at your introduction and your pet theory about rising CO2 not impacting Sierra Nevada temperatures.

Steele:  "theoretical arguments that CO2 was accumulating heat”
That’s a foolish lie, they are physical measurements, not theoretical arguments!

April 2, 2015
#2 Fear of Debate - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this second installment I'm going to jump to the end of the interview because Mr. Steele made a grand speech about the need for debate and I think his words establish the legitimacy of taking on Mr. Steele in this public debate.  
Steele says: 
Nullius in verba, "take no one's word for it!”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Steele’s translation though often repeated is misleading and a set-up for failure. Here's how more serious minds have translated Nullius in verba:
”There is nothing in words. It is facts we seek.”

source: Popper and his fellow author ended their letter by saying: 
“As the founders of the Royal Society of London put it in 1663: 
Nullius in verba – 
”There is nothing in words. It is facts we seek.”
For a fascinating look at this particular translation controversy see:

April 2, 2015
#3 global temperature fallacy - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this third installment I'll be debating your claim that "global average temperature is a totally meaningless concept" and your claim that scientists are leaving information out of their studies, where I demonstrate that you are... how shall we say, misrepresenting the truth.

Steele:  and an ecologist knows also that a global average temperature is totally meaningless.  

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

Think in terms of our "global heat and moisture distribution engine" - it is a physical entity that can be measured.  That system is composed of ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere and land mass and the mass below the surface.  It possesses a real amount of heat within a virtually closed system.  That’s the problem with Republican Faith-Based system they have disconnected themselves from the reality of our physical measurable Earth.

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

Steele:  And the changes in local micro-climates are by far more critical measurements.  

Examine the local for what?  Critical measurements of what?  Wildlife changes?  Climate change indicators? All organisms act locally, but that doesn't mean they aren't at the mercy of regional and global forces.

April 4, 2015
#4 Temperature Homogenization - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this fourth installment I'll be debating Steele’s next shrill cry of fraud over how NOAA and others process raw temperature data.

Steele:  because climate scientists were actually altering the raw data. … But NOAA was creating warming trends by a process called homogenization at stations that never had moved and no warming trend had existed before, they were creating one.

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


No,  Adjusting Temperature Measurements Is Not a Scandal 

The point is, PDO and other global circulation currents will certainly continue circulating and impacting weather, but they are embedded within an increasingly warming and energized climate engine, and weather patterns will never be anything like pre 1970s ever again.  

That's not faith, it's physics!

April 5, 2015
#5 Prof Trenberth stifling "sceptics" - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

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:  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public.

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

Just who is doing the  "defiling" here?

What about you Mr. Steele?

Do you have an obligation to engage in a debate and respond to challenges?  If not, then why should real scientists debate with people who won't even take the time to learn the details about what they're talking about and who refuse to listen to corrections?  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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?

April 5, 2015
#6 Moose and the NWF - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this sixth installment I'll debate your 'moose' claims which offers some insights into how you jump around to select and censor the information you share with your public.  Along with that I'll look at your unfounded hostility towards the National Wildlife Federation and how you misrepresent what they say.

April 7, 2015
#7 Penguins, butterflies and consensus - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this seventh installment I'll debate your Antarctic penguin story, your misrepresentation of Dr. Camille Parmesan and your revulsion towards scientific "consensus".

April 12, 2015
#8 Mangroves, Dr. Cavanaugh, NPR's Joyce - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles debate

In this eighth installment I'm debating your denigration of a biology study led by Dr.Kyle Cavanaugh about Mangrove response to freezing temperatures.

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

Since I do check first sources I've exchanged a few emails with Dr. Cavanaugh.  I will share some quotes, so he can speak for himself.  

It makes another wonderful case study for 'THIS IS WHAT A SCIENTIST SOUNDS LIKE."  Dr. Cavanaugh offered a straight-forward learning experience that I could build on with further research.  Quite the contrast to your constant trickery and contrived gotcha's.


April 16, 2015
#9 Steele's heat waves and the AGW fallacy - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this ninth installment we'll look at one of Steele’s "biggest pet peeves that every heat wave get's trumpeted as evidence of global warming" ...oh my.

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

Animation: How temperature has changed in each country since 1900 - Aug 2, 2017 Carbon Brief


April 25, 2015
#10 Heartland in their own words - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this tenth installment, we've arrived at Heartland's intermission advert which I've also transcribed because it perfectly demonstrates their infantile ME FIRST thinking as reflected in their dedication to politicizing, misrepresenting and sewing confusion.

Thus materially interfering with We The People's right to honestly learn about what's going on within our atmosphere and upon our planet.  

Heartland's Burnett:  "A brief timeout on behalf of the Heartlander Digital Magazine. 
The Heartlander Digital Magazine is a unique product among right leaning think-tanks, published by the Heartland Institute this daily news site is overseen by managing editors for each of its six sections and produced by a team of writers who cover current events from a Free Market Perspective updated with fresh stories. Every day the Heartlander Magazine provides readers with vital counter-spin to the mainstream medias take on the important domestic policy issues of the day. 
... Get fully informed, get the Free Market angle to today's news, visit us.”

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

"vital counter-spin", "Free Market angle" 
What about learning from the information at hand ?  
What about respecting Earth bound physical reality ?  
Why are profits more important than people to Heartland Institute ?
What about enlightened self-interest ?

Not a word about assessing and learning from authoritative scientific information.  

Their mission statement reveals a similar level of self absorption and acceptance of self-delusion for political purposes which in turn forces them into a absolutist rejection of listening to, or learning from, the full scope of information at hand: 

The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

No interest in our planet's health.
Not a word about learning about how our planet and it's life sustaining climate operates.
Not a word about nurturing the heath of our global life support system. 

It's all about self-interest and getting their own way.
To such thinkers, the Earth is little more than a commodity to consume as fast as possible. 

Great for today's party but a nightmare for our children's future lives.
Not a word about learning, recognizing, or understanding, the physical laws our planet operates by! The physical reality that dictates our future health (or lack thereof) no matter what kind of ego-driven faith-shackled rhetorical fancy dancing this ME FIRST, profits over people, Heartland Institute can conjure?

April 26, 2015
#11 Questions for Heartland's Burnett, re Dr. Mann and more - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this eleventh installment I'm going to give Jim another pass in order to linger on Heartland Institute's Sterling Burnett's next question and his cheap shot at Dr. Mann which inspired a number of questions I'd like to direct to Mr. Burnett himself.

Heartland's Burnett:  What kind of impact do you believe this scientific misdirection of global warming and you know sort of the single point of view of global warming has had on science in general.  

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

What "scientific misdirection of global warming" ?

You don't explain a thing.
You don't specify what you are talking about.
You don't provide anything constructive to build upon.

Your goal seems to be sewing confusion and mistrust.
What about learning from the information at hand?
Get a clue about the geophysical reality of greenhouse gases and how we know:  whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/12/pruitt-co2science-certain-as-certain.html

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

Heartland's Burnett:  Just following the old Mann trick, I believe the lead on climate is the same way, if it's disaster it's the headline. 

Mr. Burnett, I challenge you to explain what the "Mann trick" was.  

Can you explain what bearing it has on the full spectrum of climate science?

Why never acknowledge the many investigations that have found the Mann et al. work is solid?  Likewise, you ignore that it's not just "Mann's" hockey stick, there is a hockey league worth of data being resolved by a full spectrum of paleo temperature studies.

How do you justify taking very minor imperfections in a pioneering scientific study and using it as a bludgeon for attacking and defaming the entire field of climatology?  

What's your justification for continuing to ignore that the Mann et al. "hockey stick graph" has withstood the test the time?

Seems to me, you folks have dedicated yourselves to never ever learning a damned thing from the many detailed explanations and legitimate information sources you're offered.  

As though your need to guard your own convictions and tender egos is more desperately important than your curiosity to understand the world as it is.  What's up with that?    

April 29, 2015
#12 "Pushing this global climate alarmism" - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this twelfth installment we return to Mr. Steele's words as he responds to Heartland Burnett's previous question (see #11)  by complaining that people are "alarmed" at what they are witnessing and what scientists are telling them.  Jim also claims climate science education is missing important information, though he never explains what that might be.

Steele:  You know I agree, I think people that are pushing this global climate alarmism it's sort of a mixed bag.  I think some people have become incredibly fearful because they've heard these stories and just kind of amplify it and echo it.  

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

Jim, here take a look at what's "pushing this global climate alarmism."  Why do you want people to ignore that reality?

Figure 17.35: Global CO2 emissions are rising rapidly. The industrial revolution began about 1850 and industrialization has been accelerating.

April 29, 2015
#13 Critical Thinking and "keep the debate alive" - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

In this thirteenth installment I want to look at Jim advocating that we empower our youth to judge the veracity of experts and other such notions in "critical" thinking.

Steele:  We're only hurting our science education in that way...We can't just spoon feed students science and have them memorize and spit it back like propaganda.  You gotta encourage students to be critical thinkers.
We gotta let them decide whether or not, ah, if global warming is something they agree with because they look at it more in depth …

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

Be serious, students are in school to learn the fundamentals of the world around them.  High school and early college is about teaching skills, such as mathematical, scientific fundamentals, critical thinking, learning and communication skills - tools required for the advanced learning that's required before one can judge experts and seasoned professionals.

Just like with your running skills, first you needed to learn to sit up and crawl, only then could you put weight on those legs and begin first tentative stubbles until you learned the tricks of the trade.  Then, only after many years of learning and development were you finally able to beat your dad in a race.  And only then were you finally poised to take that skill on to further levels of achievement.  Brain development is not so different.

What makes you think students can or should sit in judgmental "debate" on their professors?  Were you a Maoist back in da day and missed the bulletin about what a disaster the Great Leap Forward was?

As for critical thinking, keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out, or to frame it more constructively I'll rely on an expert Robert Ennis PhD 

The Nature of Critical Thinking: 
Outlines of General Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities 


Thursday, April 30, 2015
#14 Considering Malicious Falsehoods vs Right to Learn - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

With this fourteen installment I complete my critique of Mr. Landscapesandcycle's interview with Heartland Institute's Sterling Burnett.  

In this installment Mr. Steele voices an impassioned plea on behalf of the poor people of the world - encouraging us to continue burning fossil fuels as fast as we can get them out of the ground so they can live better lives. 

And me, I wander off point a little and consider concepts like "malicious falsehood”, “slander", "Intent to deceive" and such.

You know, things like strategic interference with scientists’ duty to report on the science according to the data collected, rather than what the masters of the universe want to hear.  

I wonder out loud whether We The People have a right to demand honesty in the information we receive from scientists, free of malicious interference and tactical crazy making (manufactured doubt).

I'm hoping there are some people over at San Francisco State University who also believe these are questions worth confronting here in the summer of 2015 when we finally need to be spending our time, treasure and energy on constructively dealing with what's coming our way and not pretending that the science isn't solid and conclusive.

Stephen Schneider PhD at Stanford

Saturday, February 7, 2015
Jim Steele watt's up with your venomous self-indignation?

Dear Jim Steele,

With time to reflect, I'm confused by your display of moral outrage in that January 7th WUWT broadside? Come on, lighten up, you should recognized the Shakespearian overtones and appreciate we were made for each other.  

Besides, it was you who jumped into my lil climate change sparing camp over at SkepticForum back last spring.... you were the big shot daring anyone to dispute your nonsense.  Did you really think I was going to allow your Republican/libertarian "hey no worries, it's all a hoax" challenge to go unanswered?  Then in your IEEE 'climate science horror' series and LandscapesAndCycle you're the one that told folks to check original sources.  Well, I have and I've received responses including many full texts of published studies from:
Dr. Ainley,
Dr. Breckner,
Dr. Fretwell,
Dr. Guillaume,
Dr. Jenouvrier,
Dr. Kaiser,
Dr. Kato,
Dr. La Rue,
Dr. Tate,
with a couple still in the pipeline.  {And that's just for my most recent project reviewing your 7/1/14 "Blinded by Beliefs, Penguin Poop" article.  Due to be posted any day now.}

Be happy!  Here we are, "Citizenschallenge" vs. "LandscapesAndCycles"

You the defending champ of "NoWorries - it's a hoax" 
Me the advocate for "Learning about our Global Heat Distribution Engine"  

No comments: