Reviewing John Cook’s "Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change"

I was surprised to receive an email from John Cook the creator and driving force behind SkepticalScience.com inviting me to review his new book “Cranky Uncle vs. Climate Change.”  Having received the challenge, I couldn’t refuse.  An easy to read graphic book that at 164 pages frames important climate science and communication lessons within cartoons, artwork and concise sentences.

It reads to me as a light hearted, inoffensive, easy to comprehend look into the conundrum of conveying climate science facts to folks in a world that’s swimming in disinformation.

John Cook doesn’t shout or agitate instead preferring to explain the well understood science, while offering only fleeting glimpses into the past decades of full blown malicious dirty tricks that the contrarian campaigns against climate science understanding are guilty of.

The Cranky Uncle’s opening chapter is “How did Climate Change get so Controversial?” tells the story of a few corporate funded (Republican) political operatives who were able to completely distort how climate science was presented to the public.  

Diary, 11/5/19 - Small Victories, USA's newest Library District

I'll keep this short.  We had two local rural libraries facing closure because of shrinking County financial support, so local citizens took the matter in hand.  Long story short, we gained 400 signatures to qualify for a special tax district ballot measure #6D.  The County Clerk has now declared it a victory.  Truth be told the victory margin of 4% is rather disappointing, but not near as disappointing as losing, so I'll take it.
Long live Fort Lewis Mesa Library and Sunnyside Library and the Southwest LaPlata Library District, the nation's youngest, that will operate them.  Now we simply need to do better job of engaging and winning over our entire rural community.

https://everylibrary.org

Earth Centrist, why it matters.

The human spirit keeps us striving.  Making an effort matters.  Lately, I've been telling myself I need to speak up, as in go beyond just writing.  Not an exciting idea for an introvert.  Still, these days there are go-arounds.  I'm old enough to be in total awe at this iPhone of mine.  I mean beyond phone, it's a good camera and mic, texting apparatus, adding machine, compass, internet connection, I mean it's better than Star Trek which was outta this world not that long ago.  

So here it is, my Take #1,  "Earth Centrist" introduction, less than two minutes.  A short overview of why it matters to me.  Spoiler, I'm not big on staring into the screen, besides it's the words and ideas they are trying to describe that are important.  Also, I love where I've been blessed to live and might as well share some of the beauty.  It's prettier than I am, that's for sure.   ;- )

If you're curious about what comes next you might like reading, 

"Peter, why are you an Earth Centrist?"*

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2019/04/citizenschallenge-why-you-earth-centrist.html

(*Needs some work, but it's a good start.)

Editor Frederick, Regarding Steele's Scary Campfire Stories. March 6, 2019

Letter to Editor Frederick, 

Regarding Jim Steele’s "What’s Natural?" Scary Campfire Stories.

March 6, 2019 - Pacifica Tribune - sent March 11, 2019

Dear Editor Fredrick,

What’s Natural? Indeed, that is the question.  It took a couple days to steel myself to tackle the Scary Campfire Stories column but I’ve been working on it much of the day and hopefully it’ll be posted soon.  I’m pretty sure my point by point review wouldn’t be of much interest around here, so I’m posting it at my ConfrontingScienceContrarians.blogspot.com - I’d much appreciate it if you could share that with your readers. Instead of details I’d like to share general impressions. 

Lets start with a summary of the column’s ten paragraphs: introduces topic with the Heaven’s Gate Suicide Cult (no crass politicization happening here); dismisses the seriousness of a 1°Centigrade rise within our global climate engine; misrepresents the facts in order to disparage a respected butterfly expert; quibbles about Polar Bear counts, while ignoring that the Arctic Ice Cap is melting away; ridicules penguin researchers for revolutionizing census gathering abilities and keeping up to date with their available data; heaps scorn on the entire climate science community because some scientist at some low point once said snow was going to disappear from England in the next decades; oh and we're to forget about “atmospheric insulation” because CO₂ is plant food; he tells us there’s far more important problems to address than our planet’s atmospheric insulation regulator going from 280 ppm when the steam engine was invented to over 410 ppm and rising fast today.

Then Steele’s coup de grâce: ”For several decades, bogus catastrophic climate-change claims have come and gone.” -“If we truly care about nature … the real problem is overhunting, invasive species and loss of habitat.”

So this is libertarian entertainment?  Is that it?  It sure isn’t serious education!  What’s natural about this contemptuous disregard for our physical Earth and it’s biosphere?  How on Earth can one hold the notion that raising the temperature of our global biosphere won’t profoundly alter its components?  

Jim Steele Responds To Citizenschallenge

Jim Steele responds to my challenge to debate his confusion strewn “What’s Natural?” column. 

from: Jim Steele | to: Sherman Frederick, Editor of the Pacifica Tribune | cc: citizenschallenge

Feb 23, 2019, 7:20 PM

Re: Steele’s take on Carl Sagan & 97% Consensus claims - via Pacifica Tribune 2/20

    

"Sherm I am sorry that you will be hounded by Peter Miesler as he attempts to denigrate me and every skeptic. 

Twice replied to his website and corrected his dishonest distortions. He deleted my posts. Thus I promised him I will not ever again bother engaging him. He has twisted that for 4 years always suggesting I am afraid to debate him.

Hmmm, ironic.  

Look at what I received a few weeks back.

(After posting this I was surprised to see the date was before I’d written the Pacifica Tribune for the first time.  But the bigger point, Jim’s easy with the fibs.)

Steele continues: "He is infamous on the internet for dishonest and relentless attacks.  He has hounded colleagues at SFSU and other experts who have supported my opinions. 

Since learning I have the What's Natural column he keeps emailing me all sorts of dishonest BS so I am no going to block all his emails. (I’ve been showing him the courtesy of copying him on my submissions to the Pacifica Tribune.  Why this hysterical reaction?) So I will no longer be privy to his attacks that he emails you. (i.e. diving deep and running silent) He is simply an obsessed internet sniper. Sniping at me somehow gives purpose to his wretched life."

Jim

Mind you, this is the same guy who wrote:

Later I share the index to my thoughtful look at Steele’s presentations 

which he’s too intellectually bankrupt to debate and 

apparently somewhat desperate for no one to read or think about it.

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

Response from Editor Sherman Frederick:

Sat, Feb 23, 8:36 PM

to Jim, Jim, citizenschallenge

No worries, Jim. 

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

Citizenschallenge's Response to Pacifica Tribune’s Frederick:

Sun Feb, 24 - 12:06 PM

Dear Editor Frederick,

In response to Mr. Steele’s email,

1¶   What is Jim saying?  That any critique of his words is an “attempt to denigrate (him) and every skeptic”?  

¶ 2   I have a clear comment policy - rational and direct challenges to what I’ve written are welcome.  But, I will not become a billboard for garbage that totally sidesteps my dialogue.  This was clearly explained to Steele at the time. 

Steele forgets to mention that he has a standing invitation to submit an on-point guest post at my blog, which I’ve promised to publish unedited, nor annotated.  Though I would certainly follow it with my own post examining his words.

¶3   You can read all about the SFSU incident, I was seeking accountability and a bit of protection insurance, (the guy can get scary).

Steele saga - Repost 1/5 - Open let to San Francisco State University March 8, 2016)

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2016/03/steele-saga-15-open-let-sfsu.html

¶4   Steele writes: “He is simply an obsessed internet sniper. Sniping at me somehow gives purpose to his wretched life,”  the same guy who writes:

3. Don't: Don't attack the arguer, attack the argument. 

Steele comments: (mud-slinging dominates politics. Dismissing valid arguments by calling the arguer a (“internet sniper” or “wretched human”) muddies the science.) 

  

Doesn’t that sounds like there’s a mighty totalitarian double standard in play here?  What’s happened in our country?  I thought in America we still believed in fair and open constructive debates, or what?  Oh, and what about simple honesty?

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

Incidentally, this should be of interest:

What’s natural about Jim Steele trashing Dr. Mann? - via Pacifica Tribune

We The People of the United States have a moral, ethical right - along with a pragmatic need - to learn what scientists have learned about this planet's biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire.   

We should not tolerate serious scientists constantly being drown out by amoral, ruthless and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless GOP PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us.  

Here you'll find a pared down version of the previous post - Focusing on that malicious 'libertarians' need to trash Dr. Michael Mann and science in general.

Based on Jim Steele's “What’s Natural?” column, “Changing Sea Levels, Part 1” (2/13/19), published in the Pacifica Tribune.

I’ll admit the following is aimed at rationalists, children of the intellectual enlightenment so to speak, since I’ve found that trying to engage in a constructive debate with Jim Steele is a fool’s errand.  He hides.  Thus I settle for this informative Virtual Debate format.  

There is value in exposing and understanding the tactics of libertarian deception, so I continue to strive to share my discoveries and learning curve with anyone interested in confronting the lies and deceptions being broadcast about our planet’s physical reality.

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

I think it's only sporting to allow Dr. Mann a few words.

John Cook interviews climate scientist Michael Mann on the most famous "climate gate" email, and how climate deniers distort and disinform, 2014 at a American Geophysical Union meeting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3riDY_a9vVc
greenman3610  |  Published on Apr 27, 2015

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

My reasoning is clearly laid out, as are my supporting links - ready for any challenger to pick up and dispute in a civil constructive manner.  First, my short response to Editor Frederick, then Mr. Steele's column, followed by my detailed review.  

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

Dear Editor of the Pacifica Tribune,

Jim Steele’s February 13th, Changing Sea Levels column is an example of propaganda rather than informative enlightenment. 

What's Natural about Sea Level Rise? - Jim Steele - Pacifica Tribune - EXAMINED

We The People of the United States have a moral, ethical, and pragmatic right to learn what scientists have learned about this planet's biosphere and climate engine without constant dishonest crossfire.  We should not tolerate serious scientists constantly being drown out by amoral, ruthless and frankly ignorant arguments - that an astoundingly ruthless GOP PR factory repeats over and over again, without ever learning a damned thing from the evidence in front of us.  {This post last edited at 8:00PM- 2/19/2019}

In "What's Natural?" Steele serves up his advice:  

“I urge local planning commissions to wait at least 20 more years for more data before giving up on our coastal cities of the world and moving inland.”

While offering me another opportunity to consider Constructive Learning versus Science by Rhetoric and Slander.

Here you'll find a paragraph by paragraph examination of Jim Steele’s suggestions and claims as they appear in his “What’s Natural?” column, “Changing Sea Levels, Part 1” (2/13/19), published in the Pacifica Tribune.

I’ll admit the following is aimed at rationalists, children of the intellectual enlightenment so to speak, since I’ve found that trying to engage in a constructive debate with Jim Steele is a fool’s errand.  He hides.  Thus I settle for this informative Virtual Debate format.  

There is value in exposing and understanding the tactics of libertarian deception, so I continue to strive to share my discoveries and learning curve with anyone interested in confronting the lies and deceptions being broadcast about our planet’s physical reality.

My reasoning is clearly laid out, as are my supporting links - ready for any challenger to pick up and dispute in a civil constructive manner.  First, my short response to Editor Frederick, then Mr. Steele's column, followed by my detailed review.  
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Editor of the Pacifica Tribune,

Jim Steele’s February 13th, Changing Sea Levels column is an example of propaganda rather than informative enlightenment. 

43 discombobulated sentences of admittedly (somewhat)* factual tidbits and anecdotes, but with raging omissions.  All artfully spun to keep the self-certain GOP crowd within their comfort zone.  

Along the way Steele devotes some 7 sentences to maligning Dr. Michael Mann, twice using the term “Mann’s followers” which, me thinks, is a bit of projection considering the Trump phenomena amongst today’s right wing.  

Incidentally, Dr. Mann works on paleoclimate and interpreting proxy data, so naturally he doesn’t write about local land movement, but to imply he is unaware of it or ignores it, is ludicrous. 

Why does Steele feel the need to destroy Dr. Mann’s reputation in the eyes of his audience?  That's not serious constructive dialogue, it’s political theater.   

In a talk about changing sea levels, our planet’s cryosphere is mentioned five times, all with a dismissive spin, finishing with “there is still no consensus”. 

In reality our planet’s Cryosphere is melting at an accelerating rate, alarmingly beyond what any experts anticipated.  Really!  Look it up.  We’ve already squandered the past 20 irretrievable years yet Steele’s advice is to squander yet another 20.  Really?

(* This letter was written after my first impressions.  Closer examination revealed how artfully deceptive many of Steele's sentences actually were. ) 

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

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

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

(please click on image for sharp view)

Steele’s ‘What’s Natural?’ Dissecting libertarian deception, a fishy tale.

A study guide to Jim Steele’s  “What’s Natural?”, featured in the Pacifica Tribune.

A friend from California has been sending me copies of a new column appearing in the Pacifica Tribune, a paper that, surprise surprise, is owned by a “libertarian” activist Sherman Frederick*.  I was able to sidestep the first couple, but this one.  Asked to do some fact checking and one thing leads to another.

Based on his first three columns it promises to be a revealing collection of artfully fabricated obfuscation, rhetorical misdirection, deliberate deception through omissions, spiced with a peppering of derogatory spin towards established experts in climatology and related Earth sciences.  All in all ripe to serve as a case study in political brainwashing.  

I'll begin with a short Letter to the Editor that I emailed to Pacifica Tribune this morning; followed by a copy of Jim Steele’s opinion piece; this in turn is followed by a detailed exploration of its mischief.

• I use the scare quotes because today’s “libertarianism” has nothing to do with pluralism and American Liberty and everything to do with Me First and an attitude of: ‘If I can grab it, it’s mine - what’s mine is mine and fuk you and yours.’   
• Worst, in practice most “libertarians” believe that lying about geophysical facts is some free speech right and they have convinced themselves it’s okay to ignore physical reality with a white wash of self deception, rhetorical gotcha tricks, and distracting malicious slander.  ___________________________________________

Letter to the Pacifica Tribune Editor about "What’s Natural?" a fishy climate tale. 

Dear Editor, 

Regarding your “What’s Natural?” column of January 30th (“Climate fish tales”).  What I found fishy was that if the goal was trying to better understand climate expert’s warnings Jim Steele would have been obligated to first explain the simple fundamentals from which all else follows.

First and foremost being the reality that global warming is caused in our atmosphere, by our atmospheric insulation regulator, that is greenhouse gases.

This scientific certainty was driven home by intensive Air Force atmospheric studies conducted from late ’40s through to the ‘70s by various nations, working independently, all arriving at the same figures and conclusions.

The next is recognizing that humanity is injecting on the order of 3 billion metric tons of CO2 month after month.  That translates to our ‘atmospheric insulation regulator’ being ratcheted from around 280 ppm when the steam engine was invented, to over 410 ppm and climbing today.

Discussing “natural” oscillations and impacts on fisheries is fine.  But not if you ignore the fact that all those oscillations merely push and pull heat around our global heat and moisture distribution engine which includes our oceans. 

Today’s PDO, AMO and others are embedded within a warming climate engine, so naturally they are also warming. 

Sincerely,

Peter M

_____________________________________________________________________

Next is the copy of Steele's column, followed by a detailed Student’s Guide regarding What’s Natural’ about Steele’s fishy climate tales.

Morning after, 2018Election. Ducking hard questions. R. Samuelson

Robert Samuelson a columnist for the Washington Post echoed some of my feelings so well that I want to share some of it over here.  

Considering the 2018 election results (not a complete disaster but, ...) it seems a fairly sure bet that the next two years will be filled with the Democratic House investigating our Russian obligate President and Trump’s all around lawlessness, while the GOP Senate continues focusing on completing their stacking of our Court system with ideological judges probably even more extreme than Kavanaugh.

On the "public dialogue" front Republicans will continue lathering-up their faithful with fear, hatred, and contempt for “others” while doubling down on their faith-based rejection of learning from objective facts and constructive dialogue - topped off by their all around placid acceptance of the malicious calculated lie as their best political weapon.

Democrats hold the key.  Continue avoiding the deliberate brainwashing messaging of FOX News and what Trump-Republicans are force-feeding Americans and Democrats will continue losing the hearts and minds of rational people, as yesterday’s election demonstrated.  It needed to be a clear landslide for American Pluralistic Principles and America's government of the people, by the people and for the people - instead it was a whimper.

 _________________________________________________________________

Robert Samuelson, Washington Post, Nov. 6, 2018

Ducking hard questions, we all lost the elections

WASHINGTON – We all lost the fiercely contested midterm elections.

They were a referendum on President Donald Trump, which suited both Republicans and Democrats just fine. Democrats were betting that the public had increasingly tired of Trump’s lies and his vile style. Trump and his supporters believed that Democrats were again underestimating his popular appeal.

What was missing was any realistic engagement with the difficult issues facing the country. In democracies, elections serve not only to select the country’s leadership. They also aim to gauge public opinion on the hard issues and to see whether some sort of consensus is possible. The campaign featured very little of this constructive politics.

What are some of the hard issues? There’s no secret. …

…

… Under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult to achieve. Politicians want to win. By and large, they tell voters what voters want to hear, even if it is exaggerated, selective or dishonest.

But the fixation on Trump and his antics turned a longshot into an impossibility. It destroyed the prospects of anything resembling rational debate. Indeed, public opinion may be worse informed at the end of this campaign than at the beginning. In this sense, the campaign may have been wasted.

Read the complete column at,

https://durangoherald.com/articles/249241-ducking-hard-questions-we-all-lost-the-elections

Robert Samuelson is a columnist for The Washington Post. © 2018 The Washington Post Writers Group

(#2)Fruits of our Failures to Engage, Sen. McConnell thanks "women clowns" - Kavanaugh debacle

At the previously mentioned dialogue over at ATTP the following article was introduced with: 

“Can better communication move people from a state of apathy to action on man-made climate change, or will it take a catastrophic Black Swan climate event* to do so?  For more about the apathy problem, read…https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/climate-change-apathy-not-denial-threat-planet.

It struck me as ironic coming on the heels of yet another profoundly damaging Democratic Party failure.  That is their inability to stop the GOP Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination atrocity against democracy.  It serves as yet another example of avoiding the real issue and talking past each other.  So I selected the following quotes before trying to enunciate what’s missing. 

"Climate change apathy, not denial, is the biggest threat to our planet”

By Leo Barasi, Oct 5, 2018, The Guardian

The easy way to cut emissions – closing coal power stations – is exhausted. Now the public has to be convinced to make sacrifices

“Partisanship is a problem, too. Arguments about climate change are often polarised between left and right, and the public widely see it as a left issue. This is a problem because people are more likely to believe what they hear from those they identify with, and to reject what they hear from others. …”

“And there are more psychological barriers. Cutting emissions requires people to trust authorities to be competent, honest and fair – a tall order at a time when only a third of people say they trust government. …”

“Yet, daunting though these barriers are, they can be beaten with political leadership and honesty. …” (nice, a wave in the general direction of the need for truthfulness, but it still misses the boat)

* Begs the question how many ‘Black Swan’ events do we want.  Have you checked in on the running tally over at the Understanding Climate Change channel lately?  *    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCo-r5Q-5TWB43oLI8eZ6euA

Regarding Senator McConnell gloating: “Mitch McConnell thanks ‘these clowns’ (aka rape victims) for protesting Kavanaugh”  by Kaiser,  October 08, 2018 https://www.celebitchy.com/595027/mitch_mcconnell_thanks_these_clowns_aka_rape_victims_for_protesting_brett_kavanaugh/

*Okay, that's just a tally of significantly destructive weather events, "black swan event" is of another order of intensity (see Chris Mooney's article, ).  The bad joke there, by the time we get to the truly hyper-storm stage, you can be sure society will have already been knocked resoundingly on its pins.  Consider the tempo of extended droughts, torrential rains, destructive winds, rising sea levels and cyclone intensity storm driven waves - that's not slowing down baby.

Personally I have a weather/climate baseline set in the 1960s and '70s, I remember getting dismissed (in the '70s, '80s, and since) for being into Earth sciences and climate science and concerned about stuff like increasing our atmospheric insulation and the fearful cascading consequences of the resulting global warming.  We first learned about the obvious, melting ice caps, shifting climate zones, weather disruption, worse storms based on commonsense physics.  

Still the fundamental physics driving all this was thoroughly understood that's to US Air Force scientists.  Its true that specific mechanisms were far from well understood.  But, please we knew about the fundamentals physics driving the show.  Warm a closed system, it's going to increase activity.  

Any fundamental appreciation for our biosphere and society's complexities makes it obvious that this is a lose lose situation for humanity and our individual lives, no matter where on the economic scale you stand.

But tragically back then society was too busy learning how to dance to the new Reaganomics' siren song, Greed Is Good, Too Much Is Never Enough, Maximize Profits-Minimize Expenditures and Externalities.  Endless economic growth was the promise most everyone bought into.  Encourage corporations to gobble up each other in a ruthless drive for personal enrichment, until they are big enough to buy up and privatize our US government.  

What's most galling is how little appreciation people have for the complexities of society and business and transportation and communication.  Everyone seems to be taking it all for granted as they run around chasing entertainment.  and so on and so forth. (10/22/2018)

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

My response:

I read Barasi’s article, can’t disagree with a thing. Although lets be honest that article was simply a repackaging of what’s been written many times, for decades now. It’s as ‘right on’ now as it was in the 90s, the problem is with its omissions.

I could not find a thing addressing the influence of lavishly funded and very methodical, strategic attacks based on deliberately dishonest media campaigns, intent on sowing confusion rather than constructive debate and learning.

You know, all those deliberate campaigns to lie about the facts, all intended to confuse an under-informed and rather apathetic public.  Instead, I’m told to look on the bright side.

I’m told that it would be impolite and only a jerk would dare actually talk right into contrarian faces and directly at their lies. 

Only a jerk would make a point of explaining God is in our minds and hearts and is profoundly personal; that no human has a one on one relationship with god, not now, not ever! That what we have is ego and personal drive to do better and have more. That what we need is each other to keep ourselves honest and moral.

Nope instead I’m told keep it polite, don’t ruffle any feathers. I’m wondering should my example be those old white men/women sitting on the Judiciary Committee who keep within everyone’s comfort zone. 

Even if it meant being incapable of exposing Kavanaugh’s rabid partisanship, which was on full display, threatening promises and all. Then standing up to demand that we recognize that in America, such behavior disqualified a person from judgeship, before anything else is even considered!! But no, our Democrat leaders fold yet again.