Thursday, August 9, 2018

(Sd6) Steele: "tl;dr." Okay, in 230 words. (Landscapesandcycles net)

Jim Steele responds:  “tl;dr"

Okay, lets cut to the chase:

In a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere. 

His intellectual underpinning is a self-certain, but never explained, rejection of CO2 science. He maintains it's a hoax with political underpinnings. Something his Republican audiences want to hear so he’s never asked to justify his super-natural assertion.

Once I got into researching Steele's claims and contacting most of the scientists he singled out for derision I was shocked at how shabbily Steele treated their hospitality and the collegial support he was given for whatever research project he claimed to be doing. 

I have put much effort into documenting Jim Steele's words and claims. I specify his errors, I point out his misrepresentations and then I provide the information he hides from his audience to support my claims and I invited Steele to debate many times. 

In closing, the letter’s complaint that “they don’t want debate” begs the question what kind of debate shall we have? Steele prefers the melodramatic political debate, where winning is everything while truth and learning becomes irrelevant.

I myself prefer the curiosity driven constructive debate. A scientific style debate where each side honestly represents their opponents position and the facts. Where both sides agree that a better understanding is the goal. I’d love to have that debate, but where’s Jim Steele?

Can you hear me now Jim?


citizenschallenge said...

Here's Steels response:

Jim Steele
1:53 PM (47 minutes ago)

to citizenschallenge,

I 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

Nullius in Verba (Take Nobody's Word for It)
Motto of the The Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge

citizenschallenge said...

There you have it folks, the Trump Strategy in action.
See what I mean by bare knuckles?

Agenda before rational assessment of objective information and thinking about it.

There is a lesson in this dance with Jim Steele, Republicans intend to continue trashing any bit of science that's in the way of their ME FIRST agenda..
They will take it personally and they have, and will continue to go for the jugular.
They been successful thanks to the "Serengeti strategy".

Those scientists need citizens to surround them and protect them and to stand up to YouTube and FaceBook astroturfing, make a teaching moment out of every childish argument and misdirection. That takes a huge community of engaged individuals, where are they?

What the hell are we Children of the Intellectual Enlightenment going to do about it?

For me it about speaking up for respecting and appreciating the physical reality of our planet which demands an understanding of deep time and
our planet's billions of years old evolution
in order to understand what we have today and what we have done to her future, our future.

I believe this needs to be talked about,
we are in deep trouble and our opponents have a seething anger and resentment (that easy going liberal types can't and don't want to imagine it). But,it's about to run us over unless we do a better job of engaging the real issues of today, and yes confronting their malicious lies, though they will push back with all they got.

citizenschallenge said...

Not just YouTube and FaceBook social media in general.

citizenschallenge said...

A Jim Steele flash from the past:

Jim Steele, Heartland Daily Podcast - January 27, 2015
Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis)
interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University
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 ..."

So why the hell does he constantly run from constructive debate?