A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute:
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 its 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 …"
_____________________________________________________
Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.
I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round. I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions. I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)
I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round. I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions. I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)
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.
I thank Dr. Cavanaugh for permission to share from our correspondence,
(Although it's worth pointing out all of this is already part of the public record,
for those interested enough to seek it out.).
___________________________________________________________
"How should society contend with those who knowingly
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________
Steele: Another example, last year NPR and a few media was hyping that Florida's mangroves were marching north because of global warming.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I've listen to that NPR story numerous times, there is nothing "hyped" about it - it was a crisp concise report of the known science and a pretty good description of a couple recent studies of mangrove biology.
Mr. Steele, I challenge you to attempt a critique. Take the time to listen to NPR's three minute report.
Detail what you believe is misleading about Christopher Joyce's reporting.
If you can't accomplish that simple challenge, it'll speak volumes.
:- |
____________________________________
Steele: The red mangroves that declined earlier was because Floridians removed or trimming trees that blocked their water front views. There were black mangroves that suffered because to control mosquitoes they were artificially flooding swamps to greater depths that would drown out the mangroves.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I thought there were three major species and asked Dr. Cavanaugh about it, indeed there are. Curious… Jim why only discuss two?
More important, he pointed out that you are correct about what you say, but that it doesn't relate to their study. A non sequitur so to speak.
More important, he pointed out that you are correct about what you say, but that it doesn't relate to their study. A non sequitur so to speak.
Dr. Cavanaugh: "Yes, there are three main species of mangroves in Florida: red (R. mangle), black (A. germinans), and white (L. racemosa). I agree with Mr. Steele that coastal development and mosquito impoundments (http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Impoundments.htm) have historically had a big impact on mangroves in Florida.
However, most of those buildings and impoundments are still there, and I don't think these things are responsible for the recent mangrove expansion that we have seen.
We are seeing mangroves move into areas that have been salt marsh for at least 50 years. In some of these locations no one remembers mangroves ever being there. We have linked this expansion to a decrease in the frequency of extreme cold events. Again, I can't conclusively attribute those temperature changes to anthropogenic climate change, but our results suggest that future warming due to climate change will cause further northward expansion of mangroves in Florida."
