What's Natural about Polar Bear Habitat Destruction?

Steele Which Narrative to Believe?

This review of May 1st What’s Natural? will take the form of a direct letter to Mr. Steele.

Jim Steele,

I thought your title “Polar Bears. Which narrative to believe?” was apropos considering your freewheeling narrative. You ask which narrative to believe?  Indeed, that is the question.  So, lets get on with it.  Why should we believe your’s?

In the first column (4/17/18) of this double-bill, you use an Inuit word in a way, which I found out, locals of Nunavut found foreign.  Yes, I shared your column with a few.  That got me to thinking that perhaps your usage was simply a gratuitous prop to impress your audience.  Or what?

Then you drag a scientist from the middle of New York City into the middle of the Nunavut Polar Bear controversy - though said scientist has never spoken on the topic in any way.  He’ll tell you frankly: “I know nothing about it.” 

Why did you need to fabricate words to put into Gavin Schmidt’s mouth?  Simply to set him up as the straight-guy for your zinger punchline:  

“If you dare disagree with models of gloom and doom, you are attacked as an ignorant denier.” 

What's Natural about Jim Steele's Astroturfing?

After reviewing Steele’s odd April 17th “Safe Space” column about opinions regarding Polar Bears in the Inuit’s warming Arctic world, I became curious and looked up the word Kappiananngittuq which Jim tossed around so glibly. 

I googled _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ and I’ll tell you, I was blindsided by the four pages worth of google search results to forty articles - it turned out that upon closer examination there were 29 links to articles that mirrored the same deceptive What's Natural? article.  

What is going on?  Have Jim Steele, Sherman Frederick, Anthony Watts mainlined into a social media troll factory or something?  Or is it just astroturfing?  

Then I thought of the rationalists, the science respecting side of this public dialogue, ten years I’ve been working at trying to network with like minded, but there’s no network out there.  Like everyone is off doing their own thing and no one has the time to care about the rest of it.  Or something like that.  

I don’t know.  It's like very few seem to appreciate the gravity of the Faith-Blinded political drive to destroy rationalism and democratic governance.  Think I'm exaggerating, ever listen to American Christian radio!?  Ever listen to FOX, or Trump?  

All I do know is the clock keeps ticking and the ruthless intellectual frauds and rhetorical bullies continue having free reign to mislead and deceive and slander and astroturf their utterly self-destructive delusional crap as much as they like.  It’s a disgrace, the founding fathers of the intellectual enlightenment would be appalled.

Below I include the google screen shots if anyone cares to investigate.  After that I share a good sized collection of articles about Social Media manipulation.

Google search results for _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_ (May 28, 2019)

click on the images for a clear view:

Kappiananngittuq, Inuits, Constructive Learning in Nunavut, The Safe Space

http://inuktitutilinniaqta.com/naq/

In reading through Steele's followup column about Polar Bears in a warming world, I became curious and decided to look up the word Kappiananngittuq, so I googled _Inuit Kappiananngittuq_.  I was blindsided by the four pages worth of google search results to forty articles that upon closer examination turned out to include 29 that mirrored the same deceptive Steele article.  What is going on?  Is Steele and Sherman Frederick and Anthony Watts mainlined into a social media troll factory or something?  

Never mind, those questions will have to wait for another post.  Here I want to share the results of my search to learn about “Kappiananngittuq.”

After I recovered my bearing and turned to the remaining eleven links, I found what I was looking for http://inuktitutilinniaqta.com - it seemed to me an authoritative source for Inuit language.  To my confusion I found “Kappiananngittuq" actually translates to “It’s not scary.” 

click on image for clearer viewing

http://inuktitutilinniaqta.com/naq/

Fundamentals - Earth's Carbon Cycle By The Numbers - R.Rohde

The single most important lesson to understanding the physical reality of manmade global warming: IT’S THE ATMOSPHERIC INSULATION SILLY!  

One simply can not comprehend anything else about current climate changes without first achieving that bedrock understanding.

Today’s science-contrarian industry has made it their goal-one to muddle and hide away that fundamental physical certainty from public view - and frankly, rationalists at all levels have been compliant suckers in going along with the bully con job and turning a blind eye on the obvious.  Rather than focusing on and explaining what is known for certain.

Okay, so how to explain Earth’s Carbon Cycle to people?  
As it happens Robert Rohde has managed to put together an amazing data visualization that drives home Earth’s carbon cycle like nothing I’ve seen before.  

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

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?  

Climate-Change Denial by Proxy, Polar Bears, Blogs and Steele

The two most recent "What's Natural?" columns worth of crazy making by Jim Steele revolves around Polar Bear studies, which Steele first misrepresents, then he offers his tortured conclusion, it's proof that manmade global warming is a hoax.  In reaching out to scientists he named, one shared the following with me when I asked if he knew of any serious papers that looked into contrarian deception on this topic:

“The paper by Harvey et al. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/68/4/281/4644513 is the best rebuttal against the deniers when it comes to polar bears.”  

I was so impressed with the read, and since it has a Creative Commons Attribution, I'm going to take advantage of their invitation and share the entire paper here and hope that a few make the time to read this informative collection of facts.

EDITOR'S CHOICE

Internet Blogs, Polar Bears, and Climate-Change Denial by Proxy

Jeffrey A Harvey, Daphne van den Berg, Jacintha Ellers, Remko Kampen, Thomas W Crowther, Peter Roessingh, Bart Verheggen, Rascha J M Nuijten, Eric Post, Stephan Lewandowsky 

BioScience, Volume 68, Issue 4, April 2018, Pages 281–287, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix133

Published: 29 November 2017

Abstract

Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. 

However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. 

Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. 

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. 

Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. 

By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. 

To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.   

 (CC:  May I suggest students and lay-people have a responsibility to defend the science - scientists are busy with their work!  Besides most contrarian arguments have nothing to do with the actual science and everything to do with rhetorical deception.)

Steele: What's Natural about the LIA? CC: Allow me to Explain.

Okay, time for some catch up - Pacifica Tribune’s ‘What’s Natural?” April 9th.

So what, who cares, you may ask?  Well, since it’s such a text book example of “libertarian” and GOP’s disingenuous climate education debate strategies - that is, distract, confuse, conjure up a false narrative, call it a victory, then slam the door on dialogue and thinking - I believe it’s important to familiarize rationalists with the tactics. 

Although this time I’m going to change up my approach and treat Steele's LIA story as though it were the homework assignment of a school boy, with me being challenged to tutor the recalcitrant fibber into appreciating the contrasts between the LIA and current human impacts on Earth’s climate.

I’ve reproduced his column then simply reference the paragraphs as I go through it for my hostile student.  Please skim all the way to the end, since I wait until after my dialogue with Steele for my usual cornucopia of further reading sources, re. LIA, who is Dr.Mann, what is the hockey stick, scientific consensus, etc.  

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

The Little Ice Age - Back to the Future

What’s Natural?  Pacifica Tribune,  April 9, 2019, by Jim Steele

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.

¶1

What’s with this “extreme scientists?”  Who are you calling extreme?  

Think about it, I know you often disparage the consensus understanding and the scientific community that put it together.  But those aren’t extremists, they are conservative, thoughtful, cautious, even establishment people.  Besides individuals go into Earth sciences for the learning about Earth, always seeking a more thorough understanding of the world that surrounds us.  Even if money grubbers can’t wrap their heads around the notion.  

UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

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

Published on Aug 24, 2015

Want to discuss “extremists”?
It's usually the overly self-certain, ironically though, they seem to produce work that colleagues and experienced experts and clients find inadequate.  When confronted with their errors and short comings, rather than owning the problem, they feel rage and anger towards the messengers.

Explaining Why Liberals Despise Trump

I was reading our local weekly, the Durango Telegraph, and came across a letter from an old letter-to-editor sparing mate.  His words hit me at the right moment.  (They were obviously tongue in cheek, yuck yuck fun'n stuff, as they say.  So what?) Since I've been wondering about how that ~35% of Trump believers can justify their steadfast faith in that transparent con-artist.  I decided to spent today's free time trying to enunciate why many of us find Trump so unpalatable. Then I couldn't resist weaving nearly seventy links into the lines.  Stories and resources for the curious - explore those hot links. 

Normally I’d cover the name, but in this case I think he’d feel insulted were I to do that, since he is a local letter writing legend and proud of his wordsmithing.