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 Steele’s take on Carl Sagan?- 97% - Pacifica Tribune 2/20

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

What’s Natural? (#5)  Jim Steele, Pacifica Tribune, February 20, 2019

The Scientific Baloney Detection Kit. 

This is the second half of the previous post, please refer to it for an introduction.  

Basically Jim Steele is lecturing us on how to interpret Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit.  It promises to be an insightful journey into the workings of the libertarian deception.  

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)

Before we begin, let me share Sagan's (or was it Dr. Richard Feynman) sage advice for us science spectators: “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out!”

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

Jim Steele writes:  “To overcome our biases and strive for a greater scientific truth, our discussions will be well served if guided by Sagan's principles. Below I paraphrase the most pertinent points in Sagan's Scientific Baloney Detection Kit. (I add my comments in parentheses.)” 

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

Wait a minute.  Check out what’s going on here, reread that first line.

“To overcome our biases” and “striving for a greater scientific truth.” Those are two very different things and must be recognized as such. 

Carl Sagan’s book was written to and for us regular people, non-scientists, we who look at the scientific community and their studies from the outside.   

Recognize that not everyone can be an Earth scientist.  It takes a particular perspective on life and a burning curiosity to understand nature, along with a disciplined character that’s always striving for greater scientific truth.  

The point I’m trying to get across is that before we can continue with this discussion - we must openly recognize who’s who.

What’s natural about Steele’s baloney kit #1 - via Pacifica Tribune 2/20

Apparently, Jim Steele's What's Natural? column is a weekly affair.  This week he cancelled his promised Changing Sea Levels #2 and instead shares pointers from Carl Sagan in his What's Natural? "The Scientific Baloney Detection Kit" Feb. 20th, Pacific Tribune.  It promises to offers an interesting journey into the mindscape of double standards and blindspots.  I'm limiting this post to his introduction which offered it's own share of talking points.  Then I'll be looking into Sagan's specific points in a later posting.

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)

Jim Steele writes: "Politicians from all sides manufacture "crises" and "demons" to promote their agendas superficially designed to fight those crises."

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

Okay, no arguing that.  So far so good.

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

"In his book “The Demon Haunted World," Carl Sagan famously published his Scientific Baloney Detection Kit, a "do and don’t" list to guide honest scientific inquiry." 

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

Wait a minute.  How did we get from “Politicians” to “Scientific Inquiry” via a book written for laypeople?

In the book Sagan “aims to explain the scientific method to laypeople, and to encourage people to learn critical and skeptical thinking.” (WIKI)

Serious scientific inquiry is something that only the learned can do.  Of course, one can be self-taught.  But expert status in any field demands, learning, acquiring real knowledge, skills and experience.  

That is quite different from being a spectator trying to understand what the scientists and experts are talking about.

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

"Sadly, climate science has been too politicized. But Sagan's advice can help separate the politics from honest science regards claims of a "climate crisis.”"

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

Here again Steele strives to coalesce science with politics and public spin - that is deceptive nonsense.

Sagan’s advice is for us laypeople to develop some critical thinking skills in order to better recognize our thoughts and what to look for as we assess the various claims being tossed at us.

What drives scientists? - Richard Alley's Golden Nugget

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Published on Aug 24, 2015

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The very foundation of scientific inquiry demands a vigorous skeptical challenge to every hypothesis. Several different hypotheses can explain the same phenomena. Anyone, scientist or layperson, can make assertions and models." 

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

No Jim.  Not anyone can make assertions about climate models and other complex aspects of climate science.  It may work in that Hollywood world so many seem to be inhabiting, but not in the real physical world that we depend on for our life support systems.

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 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. 

  {This post last edited at 8:00PM - 2/20/2019}

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, 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)

Jim Steele's 'What's Natural?' via Pacifica Tribune - an overview

In a sober world, learning is a constructive process, it requires a willingness to look at all the evidence that’s available.

A couple months ago I had a friend from near Pacifica, California inform me that Jim Steele had attained a new soapbox, a regular column titled ‘What’s Natural?’ in the Pacifica Tribune.  (For what it’s worth, I've noticed the contrarian blog “WattsUpWithThat” hosted by the infamous Anthony Watts is mirroring Steele’s column.)

The column was bugging my pal since he could recognize Steele was playing fast and loose with the facts but didn’t have the scientific background, nor familiarity with Jim Steele’s game, which tends to overwhelm the uninitiated, to do the column justice. 

He knew I was no scientist, but that I was a dedicated life long self-taught student of Earth and climate sciences, and that considering I graduated high school in ’73, I’ve seen a thing or two.

He kept challenging me to explain the rest of the story.  So, here I am.  Priorities and to-do lists rearranged and I’m on the way to finishing my second (link for the first one) detailed examination of Steele’s “What’s Natural?” column.  

I’m trying to be as concise as I can, so this morning, when a new introduction came streaming into my thoughts, I didn’t know what to do with it.  At 280 words it was too long, besides I already have a short to the point intro that’s more appropriate for the lean clinical examination approach I’m striving for.

Still it’s a good overview of my perspective and why I’m doing this, so I’ve decided to post it as a stand alone comment on Jim Steele’s writing in general and what I’m trying to document.

You see Jim Steele deals in doubt - he brews together a bouillabaisse of scattered information and then folds in his political message, which is basically: don’t pay any attention to the settled facts, focus on tiny nuances, expect super-human perfection from opponents, laugh off scientists and ridicule real experts.  

Steele’s brand of science comes from pundits with political attitude for sale and his advice is: don’t prepare, wait and see how bad it gets before changing your ways.  Oh and deliberately ignore the evidence we are accumulating.

In a sober world, learning is a constructive process, it requires a willingness to seriously look at all the evidence that’s available.

It requires honest curiosity, objective evaluation along with a willingness to accept, understand and learn from one’s own mistakes.

Constructive learning also requires some self-skepticism and a willingness to allow the evidence to direct what one believes.  

Meaning even one’s most cherished ideas are on the chopping block, if new valid information reveals a different, I should say more refined, truth.  ^(§)  

But you’ll never know, if you don’t go, look at the evidence and learn from it!

In reading through Steele’s words, please notice that he never writes in a constructive clarifying progression of evidence, it’s always a disjointed cherry picked combobulation with his opinion pasted on top of it.

A witches’ stew brewed up from tidbits of information, not used as building blocks, but rather as props in the hands of a rhetorical magi casting a sleeping spell.

______________________________________________________

If you've never read this essay by Isaac Asimov you should:

^(§)   The Relativity of Wrong By Isaac Asimov

The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44

https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

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.