Reflecting on moon landing, how far have we come? (2009)

 

Here's a blast from the past.

 JULY 19, 2009

Reflecting upon the moon landing and how far we have come

or as the editor to the Four Corners Free Press put it:
"The Dark Side of the Moon Landing" ;-)

At fourteen I got permission to camp out in the living room for three days running, no summer school, no play, little sleep. Seldom leaving the couch and then only for a quick pitstop frigstop & occasionally going outside to meditate on the actual crescent moon up there in the sky, then back to the TV.

Something fantastic was happening and I didn’t care how many times I listened to repeated news-flashes gone stale because I was determined to hear every next world premiere news-flash as it happened. Besides, the repetitions echoing on the TV networks gave me a chance to digest the story. Even better there were these great side-stories about mission details that never made the news shows.

Come Neal Armstrong’s small step for a man, but big leap for mankind and it was my Dad’s Birthday. The living room was full of family and a few hours of celebration infused with the profoundest aura: For the first time ever! People were actually standing on that midnight orb of my imagination ~ while the whole world watched!

After the party I remained glued to that TV until Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin blasted off from the moon to rejoin Michael Collins and begin their return to earth. My, and I dare say humanity’s, gaze upon the moon has never been the same. It was a fantastic achievement, exemplifying America’s ingenuity, can do and promise.

Yet, even at my tender age there was also an unshakable sadness about the moon landing. The man who made it all possible had been taken from us by forces unseen but resented ever after. It felt as though along with Kennedy a certain attitude of solidarity, (or was it just civility?), with the rest of humanity was systematically being abandoned.

Championed by Ronald Reagan and his driven economics ~ along with all the dirty-tricks needed to make it happen. Before our eyes the rest of the world was becoming nothing more than a potential profit point.

I believe it’s this evolution in our collective outlook that has step by step and season by passing season, ushered in today’s reality of a world full of intensely pissed off people running amok. Nor to be forgotten is the creation of uncountable masses of dispossessed refugees huddled in destitute pockets throughout the world. For what? So westerners can pretend living has no limits?

For nearly fifty years I’ve listened to the beautiful promises made by politicians, businessmen and scientist. Great strides have undoubtedly been made, but I’ve noticed there has been a tremendous cost attached to everyone of our successes. Disaster after disaster the battle cry remains: “Move along; don’t look back; let’s not dwell on it (read “think” about it); put the past behind you; move along now.” All these years watching “solutions” consistently creating more “unanticipated” problems than anyone of 'em solved is really disheartening.

All the while the masters of the universe continue selling each other more weaponry and ideological garbage, and our major religions continue playing their role of turning “God’s Will” into bludgeons for beating everyone who makes them uncomfortable.

The moon landing was a political act meant to prove we could do it, thus awarding us a feeling of invincibility. Why than, have our ‘quality of life’ issues imploded?

As much as I loved it back then, today I can’t help but think people would be far better off pulling their heads out of their heavens and refocusing their attention back down here, to this incredible little battered blue gem of a planet.

The one and only speck in the vast void of our Universe that can claim to be the cradle of all life. And, incidentally, the only home our future has.

It's late, just playing around after busy day, then the moon landing was brought up and it was down memory lane, a number of them.

I'll save current events for another time.

Introduction to Cc's Pageant of Evolution part two.

They say a true test of how well you've learned about something is how well you can explain it to others and in its essence this months long Pageant of Earth’s Evolution project has been that sort of a self-evaluation for me.  Both to see how well I understand it and to see if I could convey the story in a way that might resonate with regular people.  

Why is that important to me?  Because I believe clearly appreciating Earth and her story is one of human society’s greatest failures - and greatest challenge for enabling any sort of future functional human society, since our avarice has pretty well condemned this globally connected modern society we depend on.  

I keep struggling with; How could intelligent people allow such self-destructive disregard to the need of our life support system, the one that sustains our society?  I mean seriously, never accepting that our long term economy depends on a healthy biosphere (no matter how much we’ve learned about it)?  WTF!  

Proudly proclaiming that endless growth was/is our economic priority and that Greed is Good along with convincing ourselves that Too Much Is Never Enough.  From my perspective it’s always been nothing less than sociopathic self-interest and faith-induced-blindness.  Along with being absolutely self-destructive.  As those who dare to open their eyes and minds can see when surveying the growing carnage covering our planet.  But I digress.

(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. 

Such as Dr. Ainley, Dr. Breckner, Dr. Fretwell, Dr. Guillaume, Dr. Jenouvrier, Dr. Kaiser, Dr. Kato, Dr. La Rue, Dr. Tate, Dr. Trenberth, Dr. Mann among others.}

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

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/04/1-mtn-warming-ccsteele.html

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”

(Sd7) Abuse of Our Free Speech Rights (LandscapesandCycles-Steele)

August 2018, Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado 

    

   

Back in January, my Four Corner Free Press column was built around a talk by climate scientist Dr. Trenberth, an authority on our planet’s global heat and moisture distribution engine. In March there was a Letter to the FCFP Editor offering an alternative. 

The writer offhandedly dismissed the scientific “consensus” as though it were just another opinion, while lamenting the politicization of science (Apparently oblivious to the reality that his letter was nothing but a gross politicization). 

Ironically to underscore his legitimacy the writer encouraged us to read Jim Steele’s “LandscapesAndCycles” collection for a second opinion. As it happens, I’ll bet there are few who have studied Steels’s collection more than I have and I welcome this challenge to write about it.

You see, from my first introduction it seemed to me that what Steele was doing was a perfect example of “malicious abuse of our free speech rights,” though I didn’t have the words for it then. 

That started me on his trail.  I did a detailed review of Steele’s 2014 talk to the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers, I also transcribed his January 27, 2015 interview with Heartland’s Sterling Burnett in order to dissect his method. That one required fourteen topic-specific posts to do his torrent of misinformation justice. 

(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?

(Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.

Since I have Jim Steele’s attention (among others) it’s time to respond to his 2015 LandscapesAndCycles’s blog article: “Clarifying Peter Miesler’s (aka CitizenChallenged) Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins” before moving on to my recent FCFP column.

My investigation into Jim Steele and his LandscapesAndCycles nonsense was/is also intended for students of the climate science disinformation campaign, as a dissection of arguments and strategies.  Along with a close up look at their amoral bare-knuckles approach to winning arguments, while dispensing with truth and honesty as their free speech right. 

Thus the concept of malicious abuse of our free speech rights - along with an example of what I call direct constructive intellectual confrontation.  Sure “engagement” is better, but sometimes one must confront before serious engagement is possible.  

Jim Steele’s blog post:

Clarifying Peter Miesler’s (aka CitizenChallenged) 

Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins

landscapesandcyclesnet/clarifying-citizenchallenged-emperor-penguin-lies

has the highlighted background - Complete as he wrote it, I added only some red highlights, I have not done any courtesy spell corrections, thus allowing Jim to shine through.

Jim Steele's introduction: Miesler is not a scientist nor does he understand biology. He is simply obsessed withe discrediting any skeptical interpretation. 

______________

I never claimed to be a scientist.

Jim Steele is not a scientist either. 

opps

I had a serious formatting malfunction that I couldn't fix and had to rebuild this page, I posted it at a new location.  Please visit:

(Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2018/08/landscapesandcycles-poop-hits-fan-steele.html

(Sd4) Jim Steele Responds to Citizenschallenge - LandscapesandCycles fraud

Preferring to ignore the email I sent him, which read:

Dear Jim Steele,

Some know-nothing from Kettering, Ohio wrote a Letter to the Four Corners Free Press complaining about my "one-sided" description of climate science, and the guy waved you around as some alternative expert to counter Dr. Kevin Trenberth's words.  You can imagine that got my goat, so you're back in play buddy .  

I once again invite you to a written debate - a honest constructive debate where lying about objective facts is prohibited.  You know where to find me.

Oh and if you instead choose to take your complaints to the shelter of Anthony Watts, or poptech, or such, please at least show me the courtesy of sending me a link.  I'd love to hear what you have to say this time around.

Thank you,

Peter Miesler

aka citizenschallenge

(PS. Gail is editor of the Four Corners Free Press

Included your pal Paul for the hell of it.)

{plus a few bcc’s to select scientists.}

JULY 22, 2018

Revisiting Jim Steele's LandscapesAndCycles Fraud - first an index of past research - Steele debate #1

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/revisiting-steele-landscapesandcycles.html

JULY 28, 2018

Need a Real Dialogue About Climate - FCFP, January 2018 - Steele debate #2

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/real-dialogue-about-climate-fcfp.html

JULY 29, 2018

Mr.GOP don't buy Jim Steele's Fraud - Steele debate #3

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/mrgop-dont-buy-jim-steeles-fraud.html

With two more in the pipeline, though the last one will deal with real science and not your nonsense.

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

Jim Steele responded to my email by posting a comment at CSC. It talked right past me, so it won't get out of moderation, not that I mind sharing its steaming content, kooky spellings and all.  I've already told him my blog wasn't going to be billboard for him.  Comments at my blogs need to be serious comments or challenges to me, not self-promotional garbage.

Jim Steele's offered comment:  "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.

(Sd3) Mr.GOP don't buy Jim Steele's Fraud - Steele debate #3

My upcoming column at the Four Corners Free Press is a response to a Letter to the Editor that complained about my "one-sided" approach to telling the climate science story.  The writer, whom I’ll refer to as Mr. GOP, then steps into a steaming pile when his suggested alternative expert turned out to be my old pal Jim Steele.  

As it happens I’ll bet I’m as familiar with Jim Steele’s LandscapesandCycles fantasy as anyone.  Having spent easily a couple hundred hours studying his words and working on nearly fifty posts unraveling and exposing Jim’s many malicious deceptions regarding honest competent wildlife biologists the world over.   

My FourCornersFreePress column wasn’t the place for a line by line response, but I did want to write one up to help me gather my thoughts before composing my column.  I’m sharing it here, because this version gives me another opportunity to share all sorts of valuable supporting evidence.  I’ll be posting the FCFP column itself in a week or so.

Climate Science isn’t Settled, by Mr. GOP 

Four Corners Free Press - Letters to the Editor, March, 2018 

Mr.GOP takes issue with “We need real dialogue about climate” by Peter Miesler. 

1. It seems that the "science" is settled.  

Damned straight, the fundamentals are as settled as the promise of tomorrow morning's sunrise!  I wonder what the scare-quotes are for?

The fundamentals of our global heat and moisture distribution engine and society’s influence are well understood!  The explainable known physical certainties far outweigh the remaining uncertainties!  

Tragically the well understood certainties are constantly being deliberately ignored or lied about by contrarian types, thus our Mr. GOP winds up profoundly ignorant of down to Earth physical processes. Here’s a sampling of that climate science.

‘Climate models are unproven’ ?    

Actually, GCM’s (Global Circulation Models) have many confirmed successes under their belts.  

By Coby Beck on Nov 20, 2006

Schooling Pruitt's Red Team about our planet and its climate

I wrote the following column mid December for the Four Corners Free Press out of Cortez, Colorado.  Since then it seems that the GOP doesn’t think much of Pruitt’s Red team Blue team idea and his challenge appears dead.  Still as I explained at Confronting Science Contrarians I believe Pruitt’s challenge is worth exploring, if only in outline.  Beginning with an observation and a pointed question:

Pruitt, questioning the unquestionable is fine. 

Now, will you, can you, pay attention to the answers you receive? 

Science’s Blue team educates Pruitt’s GOP Red team

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/science-educates-pruitt-redteam.html

A rough outline for exploring the learning opportunities Pruitt's Red Team Blue Team challenge offers for exposing GOP's intellectual dishonesty.

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

The following column was inspired by a lecture that Kevin Trenberth  gave at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado on November 9th, 2017.  Pruitt's "challenge" happened to jump into the headlines giving this story the hook that had been alluding me for weeks.  Worth noting is that most of what I write here at WUWT and at CSC is intended for readers up to speed on the science and the public dialogue - these columns for the FCFP force me to write for an audience preoccupied with other concerns, which produces a different sort of piece.

==========================

January 2018 - Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado

Early in December U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers he intended to organize a “Red team v Blue team” exercise to debate climate change science.

Pruitt is being willfully blind to the fact that the scientific aspects of global warming have already been thoroughly debated by experts. It’s expected that Pruitt will orchestrate a lawyerly winner-take-all debate. One that’s based on rhetorical trickery and a ruthless disregard for facts.

It’s a shame, since we Americans needs a constructive educational dialogue. A debate where honestly representing your opponent’s arguments and data is as important as honestly representing your own data. One where objective learning is the goal, and where truth matters.

Speaking of honestly representing the science, November 9th Dr. Kevin Trenberth (the distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder and a lead author for IPCC’s Scientific Assessment in 1995, 2001, and 2007, a giant in the field of climate assessment), gave a talk at the Fort Lewis College Climate Symposium explaining what scientists have learned about our planet. It sounded to me like a potential Blue team opening statement.

Since, today climate scientists and the science itself is under attack like never before it’s critical for more citizens to become aware and engaged. That’s why I want to share what Trenberth explained to us, along with some additional science. Information that makes clear what an internally consistent understanding scientists have achieved.

Trenberth underscored that pretty much all scientists agree. As for the few outliers, they are driven by other causes, such as religious and political inclinations. He explained that: “… as a whole the data are of mixed quality and length. If you were to look at one little piece of it you might be able to be skeptical that climate change is happening, but when you put it all together there's no doubt whatsoever that this is happening.”

Reflecting on our failure to appreciate the weather, our weather.

Yup, "our" weather as in, you break it, you own it.   Republicans believe it's okay to deny observable facts - They believe it's their personal "Free Speech Right" to fabricate lies and malicious nonsense, then insist their cynical misdirections are reputable facts. Which they most certainly are not - as any good-faith full spectrum examination makes clear.   They refuse to listen to any corrections and thoughtful explanations, they slander honest, accomplished and respected scientists with hysterical claims, sans all serious evidence.  Since arguing the facts of the matter is a loser for them, they derail discussions with character assassination attempts on all who dare defend climate scientists against the outlandish paranoid machinations of fiction reporters - all this rather than rationally listening to what scientists have to teach.  

Of course, taking our changing global environment seriously does demand changing the way we think and do things.  It demands growing up and recognizing we have a huge population on a warming planet with shrinking resources and we no longer have the luxury of behaving as though Earth was still a limitless cornucopia.  Since I'm still not getting the time I need to write, I want to share an article from last year where I try to describe our failure of vision and curiosity when it comes to addressing humanity's most fateful "geophysical experiment."   (some touch up editing 12/24)

Reposted from 
 http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/12/our-failure-to-appreciate-our-weather.html
__________________________________________________________________

Twenty years ago I came across a cartoon by Mike Keefe in the Denver Post that captured an attitude I had found all too pervasive among my fellow Americans: the attitude of entitlement and detached disregard for understanding how our global climate system operates.

It inspired me to write an essay describing my understanding of our planet’s climate system, and it was published in the November/December 1995 issue of the Humanist magazine. Rereading it recently, I noticed some minor errors but the basic story remains as accurate today as it was back then. Since anniversaries are a good time to reflect on history and how far we’ve come (or not), I wrote a twenty year reflection which the Humanist printed in their Nov/Dec 2015 issue.  This is a slightly altered version and I've included many links to further information.

I thank Mike Keefe for the permission to use his cartoon.

I think it’s worth recalling where our understanding of global warming induced climate change was twenty years ago.  Though there were fewer media outlets back then, they were more objective and for the most part offered straightforward climate science information. After all, it’s not that tough a story to summarize, even if the details get devilishly difficult.

By ’95 we had learned that weather is the product of climate conditions and that Earth’s climate conditions fluctuated. We knew that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were a major regulator of those fluctuations because they regulated how much of the sun's incoming heat was retained within Earth's climate system.

At the same time we were also being forced to confront the reality that it was our own burning of fossil fuels and the machines behind our modern marvels and lavish lifestyles that were increasingly belching “gaseous insulation” into our atmosphere.