#8 Mangroves, Dr. Cavanaugh, NPR's Joyce - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | 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 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.)

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 

disseminate misinformation about climate science?"  Lawrence Torcello

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________

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.

http://www.npr.org/2013/12/31/258699479/floridas-mangroves-move-north-as-temperatures-rise)

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.

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."  

#7 Penguins, butterflies and consensus - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | 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 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.)

In this seventh installment I'll debate your Antarctic penguin story, your misrepresentation of Dr. Camille Parmesan and your revulsion towards scientific "consensus".

______________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?"  Lawrence Torcello

_________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Heartland Burnett: In earlier conversations you mentioned a couple other examples - you've already mentioned the butterfly, but you also mentioned the case of the Emperor Penguin.  Could you describe that case a little bit?

Steele:  Sure. There have been a few stories about the emperor penguin marching to extinction, 

~ ~ ~
Who wrote the stories?  Was it an opinion piece of a political type, causal newspaper, right-wing think-tank, left-wing think-tank, letters to the editor, serious science reporting, a retired PhD in an unrelated field but who possesses strong political motivations, a scientist who's active in the field, an actual peer reviewed study, a university press release?  

Mr. Steele, how do you weigh the relative reliability of those competing sources of information? 

You like dramatizing the extinction schtick, but you never mention that all this science you are picking on is about population dynamics.  The scientists are counting and observing populations and reporting trends they are witnessing.  
The few studies that touch on potential penguin extinction have it out on the century horizon.
__________________________________________

Steele:  it's sort of based on one colony 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What is sort of based on one colony?   

Some studies from Dumont d'Urville, which at nearly 60 is the longest running penguin research lab in Antarctica?

Census and environment studies from throughout the continent that uniformly paint a grim picture for penguins' long term prospects?

After all, there are at least 22 active research programs dedicated to Antarctic penguins, all of them churning out studies painting a consistent image.

Australians – 3;  French – 1 on continent;  Crozet – 1;  New Zealand – 2 in Ross Sea;  USA – 4 in Ross Sea;  Bellingshausen – 1;  South Shetlands – 2;  UK – 2 at South Georgia;  UK – 1 at S Orkney;  Germany – 1;  Argentina – 1;  Japan – 1;  Italy – 2

http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/InfoAntarctica.html

______________________________________________

Steele:  that suffered a large decline between about 1960 and 1980 and it was the same colony that was used for the documentary March of Penguins.  But if you look at the British Antarctic Survey data, there was absolutely no warming trend. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jim, why are you ignoring the warming period in the late 1970s and early 80s when average temp rose nearly three degrees centigrade and ice conditions went to pot for penguins and the population lost around 3,000 penguins?  That's what the study you keep picking on was about.  So why are you trying to compare that study then to today?  

In the mid 80s temperatures did return to "normal" - but with a twist.

#6 Moose and the NWF - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | 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

______________________________________________ 

Mr. Jim 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 is 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 sixth installment I'll debate your 'moose' claims which offers some insights into how you jump around to select and censor the information you share with your public.  Along with that I'll look at your unfounded hostility towards the National Wildlife Federation and how you misrepresent what they say.

______________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?"  Lawrence Torcello

______________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________

Heartland Burnett: Let me ask you this: What first brought you to my attention was your discussion of the Moose decline.  Marketing material by the National Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society were linking global warming to declining moose populations particularly in Northern Minnesota - What did you find that undermined those claims?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Notice not for a moment is Burnett curious about how global warming might be linked to declining moose.  The issue is nothing more than another word game to win, couldn't care less about what's actually happening out there in the backcountry.

The National Wildlife Federation are not bad guys.  They are not wild eyed hippies or commies, but that's all you want to believe. l'll let them speak for themselves:

The Deepening Mystery of Moose Decline

Biologists are having a hard time pinning down the cause of a moose decline that imperils the species’ survival in several states

09-29-2014 // By John Carey

http://www.nwf.org/news-and-magazines/national-wildlife/animals/archives/2014/moose.aspx

"To some researchers, however, one cause looms largest—Parelaphostrongylus tenuis, or brain worm. "

Historically, deep winter snow kept deer out of moose country, so the animals didn’t mix much. But a series of warm winters, like those the Northeast and Midwest have experienced recently, can allow deer—and brain worms—to move north into the boreal forest. It has happened before, Lankester believes, causing moose populations to crash in the 1940s and 1950s in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Minnesota ...

The leading threat in New Hampshire, where the moose population has declined as much as 40 percent in some areas during the past three years, seems to be the winter tick. ...

It could get even sadder. Both the brain worm and the tick problems are expected to get worse as global climate continues to warm. Milder winters with less snow cover enable more deer to move into moose habitat. And little or no snow in spring, when engorged adult ticks fall off moose to lay eggs, boosts tick survival. ...

Giving Moose a Boost

Wildlife managers also have other levers to pull to give moose a boost. They can reduce the white-tailed deer population in some areas or create more browse and prime moose habitat by cutting openings in the forest. In the late 1970s, for instance, the spruce budworm, a native species that experiences periodic outbreaks as part of a natural cycle, cut a devastating swath through Maine’s forest, and timber companies stepped up logging to salvage the timber. “That created moose nirvana,” Pekins says. “A population explosion of moose swept out of Maine into New Hampshire, Vermont and even a little bit of Massachusetts.” It could happen again. Another spruce budworm infestation is knocking on Maine’s northern door. “Maybe this is how we will grow more moose again.”

And so the mystery of the disappearing moose will not come to a simple conclusion. The moose’s prospects depend on complex and interacting ecological factors and relationships, and the animal’s numbers will rise and fall as those factors evolve. With climate change bringing increasingly mild winters, the species could disappear in some regions, wiped out by a triple whammy of parasites, pests and predators. But this massive symbol of the North Woods likely will continue to survive, even thrive, in other regions—and the new research will lay the groundwork for making that happen.

___________________________________

Steele:  Well every ecologist,

Is misinformation about climate science criminally negligent? Lawrence Torcello

In researching my previous debate blogpost I came onto the story of Professor Lawrence Torcello in an article at the Union of Concerned Scientist blog (Yeah, they are on the Republican enemies list too, it's tough not to be).  Torcello finally enunciated something I've been struggling with and that's at the heart of all these posts I keep putting up.

How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science.

It started with an article he wrote for 'The Conversation' where he discussed the Italian trial of geologists in the wake of the 2009 earthquake.  There's no point in retelling it since his Conversation article does a better job and thanks to their Creative Commons License I have permission to reprint all of it.  Following that I've included the full text of the Union of Concerned Scientists article.  I've added some highlights.

Food for thought.

1. ____________________________________________________________________
2. 
   

The Conversation

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

Lawrence Torcello  |  March 13, 2014

Is misinformation about the climate criminally negligent?

The importance of clearly communicating science to the public should not be underestimated. Accurately understanding our natural environment and sharing that information can be a matter of life or death. When it comes to global warming, much of the public remains in denial about a set of facts that the majority of scientists clearly agree on. With such high stakes, an organised campaign funding misinformation ought to be considered criminally negligent.

The earthquake that rocked L'Aquila Italy in 2009 provides an interesting case study of botched communication. This natural disaster left more than 300 people dead and nearly 66,000 people homeless. In a strange turn of events six Italian scientists and a local defence minister were subsequently sentenced to six years in prison.

The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. On the contrary, as risk assessment expert David Ropeik pointed out, the trial was actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties were accused of providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”. As one citizen stated:

We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices.

Crucially, the scientists, when consulted about ongoing tremors in the region, did not conclude that a devastating earthquake was impossible in L’Aquila. But, when the Defence Minister held a press conference saying there was no danger, they made no attempt to correct him. I don’t believe poor scientific communication should be criminalised because doing so will likely discourage scientists from engaging with the public at all.

#5 Prof Trenberth stifling "sceptics"?? - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | 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

______________________________________________ 

Mr. 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.  ... 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 is 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 fifth installment I'll be debating your take on Dr. Trenberth and confront you with the ethical question raised by Lawrence Torcello: "How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?" 

____________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________

Steele:  So you know, I've always advocated the need to be good environmental stewards and to be a good steward we need good science that we can trust.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Yeah?  So what happened?

It's one thing to preach about stewardship and needing science we can trust.
It's quite another to practice what you preach.

Mr. Steele, may I ask you, do people have a right to expect our educators to be honest about the science they are presenting to students and public?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  And we trust the scientific theory because it's been fairly tested by others - the theory must out perform all alternate explanations, eliminate confounding factors plus lively debate. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Steele, what kind of "lively debate" are you talking about?  
Have you given any thought to the two basic types of debate?

You know, the political style debate where winning your argument is all that matters.  This sort of debate invites rhetorical and emotional 'devices' and since the goal doesn't reach beyond winning the argument at hand, they tend to be won by the slickest speakers who are best at mesmerizing their audience.  More the stuff of theater than substance.

On the other hand, consider the academic debate, where the goal of the debate is getting to the right answer and achieving a better understanding.  This debate also requires ego and rhetorical skills and striving to win one's argument.  But, the goal of debating is better understanding of the issues at hand.  I'm fearing you, Mr. Steele and your Republican/libertarian pals, simply can not fathom such a concept.  Am I correct?

Winning the debate is fun, great, but it's the getting it right that's the most important.  Being caught in a mistake and "losing" or sustaining bruised feelings is chump change.  Learning from the added knowledge and lessons and then striving towards greater achievements in light of the newly gained knowledge, now that's pure gold.   

Consider the constructive debate.

Is it OK to ignore key evidence?
Is it OK to repeat known lies?
Is it OK to ignore the statements and evidence presented by a debate 'opponent' ?
Is it OK to employ emotional and rhetorical distractions that have nothing to do with the substance of the questions?

Is a debate an argument to win?
Or is a debate an opportunity for mutual learning?
___________________________________________________

Steele:  But, what I was finding was the scientific process was being defiled when scientists refused to debate in public.

#4 Temperature Homogenization - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | 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

______________________________________________ 

Mr. 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.  ... 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 is 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 fourth installment I'll be debating your next shrill cry of fraud over how NOAA and others processes raw temperature data.

______________________________________
______________________________________

Steele:  In addition when I analyzed California's local climate trends in relationship to wild life changes, much of the raw data that I saw

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Specifically what data sets did you gather for this "analysis"?  Where can we view that?  Can you explain your methods for processing the data and arriving at your conclusions?  

Or were you just doing casual "research" for a story book you were writing?   

I ask because turning to your Landscapesandcycles article, "Unwarranted Temperature Adjustments: Conspiracy or Ignorance?" I only found a few scattered rough temperature graphs and your anecdotal stories.  

Worse, the logic you employ totally demands an a priori assumption that scientists must be fraudulently manipulating data, while you ignore all sorts of available information about why certain adjustments are made.

You never present a plausible mechanism for how such a surgical manipulation of data could possibly be pulled off, without the output devolving into chaos?  Or, why bother?

Well, you do rely on one study, authored by Anthony Watts no less.  A study that has been shown to be a terribly flawed piece of science, as I demonstrate at the end of this debate.  But you treat it as thee gold standard. 
~ ~ ~ 

Jim, for your edification, here's what a serious attempt to research the PDO and impacts on California looks like:

California Climate: Pacific Ocean Connection 

http://essea.strategies.org/module.php?module_id=122

At the end of this 'debate' I provide a couple studies looking at California conditions and how they are intimately related to our warming global heat distribution engine.
_________________________________

Steele: suggested typical warming and cooling associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and those cyclical patterns were not obvious at first...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
At your blog I found this: "The results seen below (figure b) suggest recent climate change has been more cyclical. Those cyclical changes parallel the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)."

#3 global temperature fallacy - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

A virtual debate with Jim Steele based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | 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 …"

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.

In this post I'm going back to the beginning of what will be a long journey.  (Gotta hand it to you Jim, you know how to pack in a lot of talk into a short period of time.)  The Heartland audio track doesn't have a time signature so I can't offer the start point.  Basically this continues where part one ended.

In this third installment I'll be debating your claim that "global average temperature is a totally meaningless concept" and your claim that scientists are leaving information out of their studies, where I demonstrate that you are... how shall we say, misrepresenting the truth.

______________________________________

Steele:  So I know changes in the eco-system can't be reduced to simple changes like CO2, 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
No educated person says they can be reduced to simple changes like CO2, lots of interactions going on, or as I like to say: folds within folds of harmonic cumulative complexity flowing down the stream of time.   ;- )
______________________________

Steele:  and an ecologist knows also that a global average temperature is totally meaningless.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That's not true.

Think about the concept of our "global heat and moisture distribution engine" to appreciate what our climate is all about.  That system is composed of ocean, atmosphere, cryosphere and land mass, it possesses a real amount of heat.

Arriving at that number is exceedingly difficult and it requires various teams working independently and in cooperation to establish that number.  The number may not be absolutely perfect, but the thing it's trying to measure most certainly is a very real thing - and it's an important indicator of our planet's energy state, even if we don't fully understand it or it's implications.
______________________________

Steele:  You have to examine the local change.It might be wise to say globally, but all organisms act locally, always. And the changes in local micro-climates are by far more critical measurements.