Robert Holmes 1000Frolly PhD slinks away.

An update for those who are curious, Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly, the character who jumped into the middle of my breakfast pounding his chest with all cap threats a couple weeks back, has slithered away back into the night.  

Refusing to let me know, the case number, name of alleged court or date of his supposed filling, or even what his alleged suit against one Bob Trenwith is about.  Nor what the heck it has to do with me.  

Seems to me if a normal person were to have actually filed a suit and then threaten others with it, they would be willing to share the particulars.  Or at least explain why one is being contacted and threatened.  Seems only decent.  Not to mention civil and legal.

But, instead of simple civil adult information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with an email sporting the official Federation University Australia letterhead, with its oaths of confidentiality, etc, etc,  along with a lot of condescending avoidance of my questions and the issues - So typical, these people always feel more comfortable keeping it within their own fantasy projections, rather than reality and the issues at hand.

Dr.Holmes aka 1000Frolly sends me an email (updated June 17, 9pm)

This morning I received this from Dr. Robert Ian Holmes:

clink on images for better viewing

Dr. Robert Holmes,

Let’s be clear, you are the malicious YouTube slandering liar Frolly1000.  Your letter arrived unsolicited and I’m not bound to any confidentiality with you, in fact you can be sure my dialogue with you will be carried out in public.  

I’m curious, was your letter written on University time?  How would the Federation University of Australia feel about you using their logo as a shield to impress and intimidate?

Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly why are you threatening me?

Though I was given the tip years ago, it wasn't until this morning that I'm able to confirm that the prodigious YouTube liar and AGW science slandering 1000Frolly is in fact one Dr. Robert Ian Holmes from Australia.  (not to be mistaken with Hulme!)  

A 'scientist' with rather tarnished credentials thanks to his efforts to convince folks that CO2 science is mistaken.  Writing that's so disconnected, even climate science contrarians dismiss him.   

Welcome to the Age of Trumpkins - where truth is despised and bullying is everything.  This is what decades of liberal intellectual complacency has achieved for our complex global society.

Right now I really need to focus on a more important writing project, so can’t let this sidetrack me more than it already has.  Besides it would be good to let this steep awhile, since I have a number of responses and questions for this Dr. Robert Ian Holmes, whom I actually had not had time for in years, but who seems scintillatingly upset at a couple confusing comments Bob Trenwith recently dropped at WUWTW.

“Inciting mob violence”?  Seriously Dr Holmes?  What are you talking about?  Please.  Or are we simply dealing with another frantic drama queen, . . . or what?  Can you explain yourself?

For now I'm going to settle for a trip down memory lane and a look at my tenuous involvement in this Dr. Holmes/1000frolly/Monckton distraction.

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.

5/7 Taking umbrage at the abuse of our Free Speech Rights. The Jim Steele files.

The Situation:

The disconnected-from-physical-reality GOP attacks on climate science (a.i.) have reached horrifying levels with the Trump Administration.  Yet science loving rationalists, pluralists, progressives, liberals, Democrats still haven’t developed effective messaging for directly confronting the most childish of Republican arguments.  Why?  Seems to me, mainly because rationalists rather sidestep that Me First driven willful ignorance.  This acquiescence to nonsense has been a fatal error for the national dialogue.

Always remember the onlookers, and appreciate by making the effort to explain some of the science, you’re doing homework that invigorates your own understanding.  (continued at ...) 

In this segment I share the summary of my couple years of actively dogging Jim Steele and his game of deception and crazy-making which I wrote up for my Four Corners Free Press column.  Steele never could engage in an upfront constructive debate, still won't.  Yet, he's first to demand that serious scientists debate with rhetorical clowns.  Why do we keep letting them get away with such nonsense?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

(Sd7) Abuse of Our Free Speech Rights (LandscapesAndCycles - Jim Steele) (FCFP)

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/08/abuse-free-speech-rights-steele.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Abuse of Our Free Speech Rights (LandscapesandCycles-Steele)

August 2018, Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado 

    

   

Back in January, my Four Corner Free Press column was built around a talk by climate scientist Dr. Trenberth, an authority on our planet’s global heat and moisture distribution engine. In March there was a Letter to the FCFP Editor offering an alternative. 

The writer offhandedly dismissed the scientific “consensus” as though it were just another opinion, while lamenting the politicization of science (Apparently oblivious to the reality that his letter was nothing but a gross politicization). 

Ironically to underscore his legitimacy the writer encouraged us to read Jim Steele’s “LandscapesAndCycles” collection for a second opinion. As it happens, I’ll bet there are few who have studied Steels’s collection more than I have and I welcome this challenge to write about it.

You see, from my first introduction it seemed to me that what Steele was doing was a perfect example of “malicious abuse of our free speech rights,” though I didn’t have the words for it then. 

That started me on his trail.  I did a detailed review of Steele’s 2014 talk to the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers, I also transcribed his January 27, 2015 interview with Heartland’s Sterling Burnett in order to dissect his method. That one required fourteen topic-specific posts to do his torrent of misinformation justice. 

All told, I have some fifty posts unraveling Jim Steele’s deceitfulness over at my ConfrontingScienceContrarians.blogspot. 

In a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere. 

(Sd8) Heartland Podcast, LandscapesAndCycles Steele (1/27/15) the overview

A short overview of my 14 part series: "A virtual debate with Jim Steele" based on his Heartland Daily Podcast interview.

When I informed Jim Steele that I was writing a column about him and would also be posting about it at my blogs he responded with the following comment (his spelling, not mine):

"Meisler tells so many lies and creates so many distortions, I have indeed refused to discuss anything with him again. I once corrected he lies on his website and he deleted my posts. Meisler is also part of Slandering Sou's troll factory. I made one post regards Meisler's disinformation and one regards Slandering Sou's, that demonstrates their dishonest tactics. Nether is worth wasting any more time on despite their numerous sniping attacks. 

Responding to my (Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.  Steele offered a succinct, "tl;dr" (too long; didn't read).  When I offered a 230 word summary, Steele's response was: 

To citizenschallenge, only see more lies and more Miesler fabrications regards what I write as well as total ignorance of your scientific understanding. Further discourse with a liar and fool is a total wast of time.  I will now block your email as dishonest spam. {So says the big man behind the huffy climate debate challenge - but take Mr. Steele up on it and he runs and hides like a rat.  And folks wonder why I'm not more polite with him, look no further than his words - not towards me, no, - I'm talking about his malicious slander towards the solid honorable scientists who have helped him gather information. 

Such as Dr. Ainley, Dr. Breckner, Dr. Fretwell, Dr. Guillaume, Dr. Jenouvrier, Dr. Kaiser, Dr. Kato, Dr. La Rue, Dr. Tate, Dr. Trenberth, Dr. Mann among others.}

It's rather interesting how directly quoting Jim Steele is seen as a lie by Jim Steele.  

It's the lesson right out of Trump's alt-right playbook and the reason I'm taking the time to put all this together in order to highlight the base dishonesty and disingenuousness of our Republican opponents.

  

They have dedicated themselves to a strategy of absolutely refusing to even consider what their "opponents" are trying to explain.  Talk about blinded by the faith.  It's a terrifying level of absolutism that I never imagined seeing Americans stoop to.  What's even more terrifying is how many liberal, progressive, pluralist, science loving folks seem to have turned off and simply don't want to know about it or get involved.

Jim Steele and Sterling Burnett | Jan. 27, 2015 | Heartland Institute 

April 2, 2015

#1 Mtn warming? - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/04/1-mtn-warming-ccsteele.html

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. …"

Well than OK Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals along with evidence and questions.  

Let's see if you live up to your own challenge, I agree to share your response without editing any of your words in a stand alone post.  This first installment looks at your introduction and your pet theory about rising CO2 not impacting Sierra Nevada temperatures.

Steele:  "theoretical arguments that CO2 was accumulating heat”

(Sd7) Abuse of Our Free Speech Rights (LandscapesandCycles-Steele)

August 2018, Four Corners Free Press, Cortez, Colorado 

    

   

Back in January, my Four Corner Free Press column was built around a talk by climate scientist Dr. Trenberth, an authority on our planet’s global heat and moisture distribution engine. In March there was a Letter to the FCFP Editor offering an alternative. 

The writer offhandedly dismissed the scientific “consensus” as though it were just another opinion, while lamenting the politicization of science (Apparently oblivious to the reality that his letter was nothing but a gross politicization). 

Ironically to underscore his legitimacy the writer encouraged us to read Jim Steele’s “LandscapesAndCycles” collection for a second opinion. As it happens, I’ll bet there are few who have studied Steels’s collection more than I have and I welcome this challenge to write about it.

You see, from my first introduction it seemed to me that what Steele was doing was a perfect example of “malicious abuse of our free speech rights,” though I didn’t have the words for it then. 

That started me on his trail.  I did a detailed review of Steele’s 2014 talk to the International Electrical and Electronic Engineers, I also transcribed his January 27, 2015 interview with Heartland’s Sterling Burnett in order to dissect his method. That one required fourteen topic-specific posts to do his torrent of misinformation justice. 

(Sd6) Steele: "tl;dr." Okay, cut to the chase, 230 words. (Landscapesandcycles net)

Jim Steele responds:  “tl;dr"

Okay, lets cut to the chase:

In a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere. 

His intellectual underpinning is a self-certain, but never explained, rejection of CO₂ science. He maintains it's a hoax with political underpinnings. Something his Republican audiences want to hear so he’s never asked to justify his super-natural assertion.

…

Once I got into researching Steele's claims and contacting most of the scientists he singled out for derision I was shocked at how shabbily Steele treated their hospitality and the collegial support he was given for whatever research project he claimed to be doing. 

I have put much effort into documenting Jim Steele's words and claims. I specify his errors, I point out his misrepresentations and then I provide the information he hides from his audience to support my claims and I invited Steele to debate many times. 

…

In closing, the letter’s complaint that “they don’t want debate” begs the question what kind of debate shall we have? Steele prefers the melodramatic political debate, where winning is everything while truth and learning becomes irrelevant.

I myself prefer the curiosity driven constructive debate. A scientific style debate where each side honestly represents their opponents position and the facts. Where both sides agree that a better understanding is the goal. I’d love to have that debate, but where’s Jim Steele?

Can you hear me now Jim?

(Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.

Since I have Jim Steele’s attention (among others) it’s time to respond to his 2015 LandscapesAndCycles’s blog article: “Clarifying Peter Miesler’s (aka CitizenChallenged) Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins” before moving on to my recent FCFP column.

My investigation into Jim Steele and his LandscapesAndCycles nonsense was/is also intended for students of the climate science disinformation campaign, as a dissection of arguments and strategies.  Along with a close up look at their amoral bare-knuckles approach to winning arguments, while dispensing with truth and honesty as their free speech right. 

Thus the concept of malicious abuse of our free speech rights - along with an example of what I call direct constructive intellectual confrontation.  Sure “engagement” is better, but sometimes one must confront before serious engagement is possible.  

Jim Steele’s blog post:

Clarifying Peter Miesler’s (aka CitizenChallenged) 

Dishonest Internet Sniping: Emperor Penguins

landscapesandcyclesnet/clarifying-citizenchallenged-emperor-penguin-lies

has the highlighted background - Complete as he wrote it, I added only some red highlights, I have not done any courtesy spell corrections, thus allowing Jim to shine through.

Jim Steele's introduction: Miesler is not a scientist nor does he understand biology. He is simply obsessed withe discrediting any skeptical interpretation. 

______________

I never claimed to be a scientist.

Jim Steele is not a scientist either. 

opps

I had a serious formatting malfunction that I couldn't fix and had to rebuild this page, I posted it at a new location.  Please visit:

(Sd5) Correcting Jim Steele’s poop on Peter Miesler, aka citizenschallenge.

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/08/correcting-landscapesandcycles-poop.html

(Sd4) Jim Steele Responds to Citizenschallenge - LandscapesandCycles fraud

Preferring to ignore the email I sent him, which read:

Dear Jim Steele,

Some know-nothing from Kettering, Ohio wrote a Letter to the Four Corners Free Press complaining about my "one-sided" description of climate science, and the guy waved you around as some alternative expert to counter Dr. Kevin Trenberth's words.  You can imagine that got my goat, so you're back in play buddy .  

I once again invite you to a written debate - a honest constructive debate where lying about objective facts is prohibited.  You know where to find me.

Oh and if you instead choose to take your complaints to the shelter of Anthony Watts, or poptech, or such, please at least show me the courtesy of sending me a link.  I'd love to hear what you have to say this time around.

Thank you,

Peter Miesler

aka citizenschallenge

(PS. Gail is editor of the Four Corners Free Press

Included your pal Paul for the hell of it.)

{plus a few bcc’s to select scientists.}

JULY 22, 2018

Revisiting Jim Steele's LandscapesAndCycles Fraud - first an index of past research - Steele debate #1

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/revisiting-steele-landscapesandcycles.html

JULY 28, 2018

Need a Real Dialogue About Climate - FCFP, January 2018 - Steele debate #2

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/real-dialogue-about-climate-fcfp.html

JULY 29, 2018

Mr.GOP don't buy Jim Steele's Fraud - Steele debate #3

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/07/mrgop-dont-buy-jim-steeles-fraud.html

With two more in the pipeline, though the last one will deal with real science and not your nonsense.

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

Jim Steele responded to my email by posting a comment at CSC. It talked right past me, so it won't get out of moderation, not that I mind sharing its steaming content, kooky spellings and all.  I've already told him my blog wasn't going to be billboard for him.  Comments at my blogs need to be serious comments or challenges to me, not self-promotional garbage.

Jim Steele's offered comment:  "Meisler tells so many lies and creates so many distortions, I have indeed refused to discuss anything with him again. I once corrected he lies on his website and he deleted my posts. Meisler is also part of Slandering Sou's troll factory. I made one post regards Meisler's disinformation and one regards Slandering Sou's, that demonstrates their dishonest tactics. Nether is worth wasting any more time on despite their numerous sniping attacks.

(Sd1) Revisiting Jim Steele's LandscapesAndCycles Fraud - first an index of past research - Steele debate #1

This month my Four Corners Free Press submission considers a Letter to the Editor in March which accused me of presenting a one-sided opinion about our manmade global warming reality.  Worse, Jim Steele got held up as some authority who’s opinion must be considered on a par with serious scientists, which he certainly is not.

Ironically, I know all about Jim Steele’s LandscapesandCycles scam and welcome the challenge to resurrect this bit of unfinished business.  That’s why I’m posting this index of my extensive research into Jim Steele’s dubious thesis as supporting evidence for the couple of related posts that will follow in the next couple weeks.

You see, in a nutshell, Jim Steele proposes that landscapes and natural cycles are more powerful drivers of global warming than our insulating atmosphere and humans profligate fossil fuels burning. 

His intellectual underpinning is a self-certain, but never explained, rejection of CO₂ science. He maintains it's a hoax with political underpinnings. Something his Republican-libertarian audiences want to hear so he’s never asked to justify his super-natural assertion.

Steele has parlayed his general environmental studies background to travel around the world learning about various wildlife studies with an eye towards finding errors to exploit, that is, to use as "proof" that global warming is a hoax.  A most bizarre train of logic indeed.  

I've tried debating with him numerous times, but Jim isn't interested in a serious constructive debate where learning is the goal; where opponents' words / evidence are honestly represented; and where objective physical truth and facts carry the day.

_________________________________________

By way of setting the stage:

Science red flags - Science Or Not

Hat tip to Collin Maessen, this is exactly the sort of ideas and awareness more people should be sharing, particularly as we get closer to this crucial election in the USA.  I've shared screen shoots of their list to encourage people to link through to their site and study this important information.

Science red flags

https://scienceornot.net/science-red-flags/

These red flags are indicators of either bad science or unscientific nonsense. The more of them you can identify in a claim, the less reliable it will be. They should be compared to the Hallmarks of science, which indicate science that’s conducted properly.

You think seeing is believing, that your thoughts are always based on reasonable intuitions and rational analysis, and that though you may falter and err from time to time, for the most part you stand as a focused, intelligent operator of the most complicated nervous system on earth. You believe that your abilities are sound, your memories perfect, your thoughts rational and wholly conscious …  

The truth is that your brain lies to you. Inside your skull is a vast and far-reaching personal conspiracy to keep you from uncovering the facts about who you actually are, how capable you tend to be, and how confident you deserve to feel. That undeserved confidence alters your behaviour and creates a giant, easily opened back door through which waltz con artists, magicians, public relations employees, advertising executives, pseudoscientists, peddlers of magical charms, and others.

David McRaney, You Are Now Less Dumb, 2013

Use these links to find out more about each of the science red flags. 

(This list will grow as new red flags are posted on the blog.)

These are only screen shots,

click on images for clearer viewing.