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 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)

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.

d) Considering our dysfunctional public dialogue in 14 verses.

2018 was the climax of a decade long crescendo in my decades long effort to network with rationalists, scientists and science communicators, in what I fancied was our communal struggle to confront the nonsense that corporate funded science contrarians and select politicians were so successfully peddling to an under-informed and mostly disinterested public - and since New Year's Eve is upon us, I feel like collecting some of my favorite posts in another effort to summarize my perspective.  

This is the flip-side of my flier for the Democratic State Convention, it's a list of various important aspects of climate science communication along with key pit-falls and observations, in 14 verses.

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

1)  Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties

It is a disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion.

In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again.  

I’m not saying ignore uncertainties!  I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties!  Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective.

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

2)  Map vs. Territory Problem

Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will.  They do the best they can with the data they have available.

Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it's okay to ignore.  

That's getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory.  

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

3)  Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”

2/7 Neglected aspects of public science debates, in 14 verses.

Quick review of the background of this exercise.

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.

Engaging and arguing with contrarians should not be seen as an exercise in futility, they are teaching moments.  Air the false claim, explain why its wrong.  Dissect deceptions, expose them, how else can we break the power these childishly contrived memes continuing holding over political action?

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.  

When you’re challenged with things you haven’t learned about, making the effort to do the research, enriches you with a better understanding.  Seems to me it’s a win win.

Talking past each other offers no chance for recognition, growth, change.  

I always imagined the intellectual enlightenment was all about engaging in constructive arguments and reasoning with each other, we seem to have lost that spirit and it has stifled our society miserably.

Debating and defending scientific work to the public is not a scientist’s job.  Scientists have already defended their work to a learned skeptical audience and the record is openly available for continued public debate and education - scientists have more serious research to get back to.  

Where are the informed citizens with a willingness to debate?  Who will help us network?  

The public arena requires people outside of the scientific community.  Informed students, acquaintances, journalists, concerned citizens, to stand up to the tactical and malicious lies of corporate shackled politically motivated contrarians.  Any feedback, encouragement, networking, or support would be much appreciated.   

Thank you.

          1)  Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties

          2)  Map vs. Territory Problem

          3)  Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”

          4)  “Seepage”

          5) “Global Warming” vs “Climate Change”

          6)  Responsibilities of Scientists vs Responsibilities of Citizens and Students

          7)  Define the Debate, A to Z

          8)  Intellectual Confrontation

          9)  Call out False Claims & Lies

        10)  Better than Skepticism ===> Critical Thinking Skills

        11)  Confront Trash Talk with Rhetorical Jujutsu

        12)  Faith-based Thinking - God or EGO?

        13)  The pain of our brave new world

        14)  WE THE PEOPLE,

have the right to demand honesty when hearing what real experts are trying to convey, 

without constantly being out screamed by contrived, and maliciously deceptive GOP cross-fire!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

I am an Earth Centrist.

I've finally found a label I can wholeheartedly embrace and explain and defend.  I am an Earth Centrist !

The reason I'm posting this is because it's some thoughts I've been working on for decades and I'm finally getting close and I want to share even if it's far from finished.  Curious to see if anyone wants to bounce it around.

I am a fiercely independent guy and feeling more like H. Haller all the time so I don't make great internet intros, but feedback and networking is a requirement of life.  It's fine and poetic to be the sound of one hand clapping, but I'm concerned with finding out if any of this resonates with any one of the few who'll read it. Some of you folks know many people within the climate science communication and politics interface, one of them is looking for me.  Please help us connect.  

Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated in comments or email.

Thank you.   citizenschallenge at gmail com

_______________________________________________________
( revisited and revised 7/31/2018, 12/30/2020 )

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

I've finally found a label I can wholeheartedly embrace and explain and defend.

I am an Earth Centrist !

Meaning that Earth and her physical processes and the pageant of her Evolution are my touchstones.  Understanding Evolution, and the biosphere I'm part of, and how we got here, is the foundation of all I know. 

Religions, political beliefs, science, art, god they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down.  

Something real and to be reckoned with, yet in the end, it's only our mindscapes at work.  While the real creation, physical reality, keeps on unfolding outside of our minds regardless and we are left to hang on for dear life as time speeds us through our day to days.

In a way that mindscape is a product of Earth's evolution, yet it's certainly distinct and slightly separate from Earth's physical biological processes, something unique, ineffable, yet with the power to manifest personal gods and Earth shattering physical events.  

I suggest most people are unaware of the Map v Territory Problem, thus society commits the same ME FIRST self-destructive errors that it has repeated for thousands of years, never learning a god-damned thing.  

Just as mega-corporations that have grown big enough to destroy governments, so too our mega-species has become big enough to destroy our life sustaining biosphere.  

That evolving creation that has existed since Earth bounced back from the last big comet strike about 65 million years ago.  

The one that had achieved a splendid plateau 8-10 thousand years ago, but that now humanity has reset to something the likes of which Earth has not experienced in hundreds of millions of years.  It’ll take a few decades and centuries to fully blossom, but it is as down to Earth physically certain as tomorrow's sunrise.  Such a tragedy, yet that is where we find ourselves in 2018.  

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

Then there's the God v Science question.

Knowledge of God is the ultimate in personal intimate relationship, your experience cannot be transferred to, or replicated for, others.  

Religions are human constructs for enabling people to reconcile themselves with the seasons and hardships of their lives and to enable human societies to function in a civil organized manner. 

A God if there be one is All Things to All People, well beyond all human* understanding as the Holy Books warn us (* read petty, fearful, greedy, self-serving humans) individuals.  

If you are fortunate enough to be touched by God, that is your gift alone, something for you in your unique life.  It is not a recipe for your neighbors or the world.

Science on the other hand is humanity’s recipe for learning about the physical world and its processes as honestly as possible.

Science is:

Learning is the goal.

Fidelity to physical facts is the gold standard.  

Free Speech doesn’t mean it’s okay to lie and slander with malicious intent.  

Informed constructive skepticism is the rule.

Mistakes are for learning.   

Dishonest bluster and bullying is a crime.