What's Natural about Jim Steele's Safe Space? Pacifica Tribune

https://nationalpost.com/news/so-many-bears-draft-plan-says-nunavut-polar-bear-numbers-unsafe

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a review of 'libertarian' deception in action.

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

Steele never explains that "safe space", instead he used his soapbox to praise Nunavut’s Inuit hunters for their superior wildlife observation skills that, according to Steele, put scientists to shame.

This column was so lacking in anything to do with climate science, that I have to change my approach again, this time simply dissect and comment.

The column’s title proclaims: “Can We Kappiananngittuq?” - subtitled, “We need a safe place to discuss global climate topics.” - and the center-piece quote reads: “I suggest we all could benefit by debating kappiananngittuq style.” 

         

Begs the question, what would a public “safe space to discuss” climate science look like Jim? 

What guidelines would you expect us to follow?  

Would honesty be important?

When I’m discussing facts I’ve gathered, would there be an expectation that I be truthful?  That I honesty and accurately represent the information I’ve collected?

When I’m describing the data and work of an ‘opponent’ would there be an expectation that I honesty represent my adversary’s data?

Would it be a general betrayal to substitute a dishonest argument that prop up false assertions, while hiding my opponent’s facts?

In a kappiananngittuq, is there an expectation to respect the experience, knowledge and merits of each individual, even your opponents?

In a kappiananngittuq, if it’s explained to you, how you are mistaken about something, do you sit there striving to listen, understand and absorb the lesson?

In a kappiananngittuq, is learning and a better communal understanding of our collective real world situation the goal?  

These are important questions.  I believe the answers are self evident: YES on all counts.  I wonder how Jim Steele would answer?  

Supplement - What's Natural about Steele's Conundrum? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/19

A supplement to "What's Natural about Steele's Greenland conundrum? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019."  Since I found way more information than I had room for I've decided to add this appendix of valuable science information about Greenland and our global heat and moisture distribution engine.

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a point by point review of 'libertarian' deception in action.

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

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

#A) Wrote about this in a previous post.

MARCH 29, 2019

Steele, what’s unnatural about the Glacier Girl? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019

Here I want to focus on the first couple paragraphs in March 20th, Pacifica Tribune’s What’s Natural? column.  It contains a melodramatic lead in with a curious narrative built around the P-38 dug out of a Greenland glacier.  Since this back story turned into such a fascinating fun, if oh so time consuming project, I figure it’s worth posting all this stuff on it’s own stage.

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/03/steele-glacier-girl-pacificatribune.html

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

#B)   Steele’s confusion about CarbonDioxide,

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang

Scientific Reports, volume 6, Article number: 21691 (2016)

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

… Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.  …

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

#C)  Steele continues, 

“But (ice loss) is rapidly reversing.”  

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

September 2017

Guest post: How the Greenland ice sheet fared in 2017

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-greenland-ice-sheet-2017

Dr Ruth Mottram, Dr Peter Langen and Dr Martin Stendel are climate scientists at the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) in Copenhagen, which is part of the Polar Portal.

What’s natural about Steele's confusion? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019

Here I want to focus on the first couple paragraphs in March 20th, Pacifica Tribune’s What’s Natural? column.  It contains a melodramatic lead in with a curious narrative built around the P-38 dug out of a Greenland glacier.  Since this back story turned into such a fascinating fun, if oh so time consuming story, I figure it’s worth posting all this stuff on it’s own stage.  

(click on images for clearer image)

My question to Jim, what’s unnatural about the location of the Glacier Girl?

The P-38 is up the east coast, though somewhat inland.

http://p38assn.org/glaciergirl/recovery.htm

It starts with the Lost Squadron and the P-38 that was discovered some 264 feet, not the 300+ Steele claims, a typical example of his easy disregard for accuracy, found under the surface and some three miles down stream in a glacier.  Here Steele continues:

Steele writes:  ". . .  Southeastern Greenland had been gaining ice at a rate of 4 feet per year.

In contrast, climate scientists project Greenland will increasingly loss ice at CO2 concentrations increase.  …”

To begin with, can't we even keep the simplest basics straight?  Rate and depth of ice formation varies on such a huge varied island.  Also, please be clear it’s snow that falls on Greenland, with years, that snow gets compressed into glacial ice.

Second, there is no secret that the southeast coast of Greenland is subject to extreme maritime snows.  

Third, even in a warming world Greenland will remain below freezing most the time for quite a while.  Plus there is more moisture in today’s atmosphere.  Snow fall will happen.  

Acting as though that’s supposed to be a surprise is goofy.

Fourth, Steele still can’t wrap his head around the simple fundamental reality driving all this - it’s the atmospheric insulation - you could very accurately say that our Atmospheric Insulation Regulator was set around 285 ppm when the steam engine was invented, now we have cranked it past 410 ppm and rising fast.  

That has geophysical consequences no matter how well anyone keeps their eyes, ears, and minds shut down. 

Melting Greenland glaciers is one of the resultant* down stream cascading geophysical consequences, yes it will continue following natural cycles.  But, realize those cycles exist within an energizing global heat and moisture distribution engine.

Now we get to the story of the Glacier Girl and what she can tell us about Greenland.

What's natural about Steele's scary stories? Why Pacifica Tribune? (3/6/2019)

My previous post gave a summary of March 6th’s What’s Natural? column in the ‘libertarian’ Pacifica Tribune.   So I’ll dive straight into this, the “too long, didn’t read” part 2 intended for the student of libertarian deception.  Here I dissect the words and offer links to serious sources for the other side of Steele assertions. 

Glib misrepresentations, insulting experts and weaving transparently deceptive tales is easy - learning the facts and understanding our biosphere and climate engine that’s what requires some serious self-starter effort.  Like the difference between a vandal and a builder. 

Jim Steele’s, What’s Natural? Pacifica Tribune | March 6, 2019

(click on the image for better reading)

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

{Since this is a Virtual Debate I drift back and forth between addressing Steele and addressing my readers}

First paragraph,  Steele gets into the Heaven’s Gate Suicide Cult.  Guess, to fluff up his audience.   When Steele tossed in:

Steele:  “the Heaven's Gate Cult. Highlv educated members …” 

I though I’d investigate, turns out People magazine printed a little bio of the unfortunates.  Not to disparage, but educationally they were actually a decidedly middling crowd: https://people.com/archive/cover-story-who-they-were-vol-47-no-14/.  Reading it, lonely people looking for simple answers is what came to my mind.

Odious sensationalistic smoke and mirrors, reckon it’s all one's left with when one doesn’t have any facts on their side?

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

Second paragraph,  launches into some heavy handed self promotion.  

Steele:  “I’ve pointed out how over-hunting and invasive organisms endanger species.  I’ve noted island extinctions occurred when humans imported rats, cats and mosquitos that attacked ill-prepared native species.”

Come on Jim, who’s kidding whom, that’s been text book stuff since I was in school, why do you spin it into sounding like original work or something? 

Steele:  “My research in the Sierra Nevada restored a watershed …”

I think the Sierra Valley Resource Conservation District (sierravalleyrcd.com) might not agree with Jim’s self-serving assessment.