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:

Heartland's James Taylor's shameless deception, some video responses.

Here's some background for better understanding the Red Team's limited mindset, an oldie but goldie.  Heartland’s Institutes’ spokesman James Taylor, also president of the “Spark of Freedom Foundation” and contributor to Forbes magazine wrote a sensationally titled May 30, 2013 article: “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims,” containing melodramatic language such as:

“As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. …”

“Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed. …”

“… These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.”

_________________________________________________________

I read Taylor’s 1300 word article shaking my head at the childish, yet malicious, deception he was shamelessly unfurling.  Then in the comments section one ‘Scottar’ stepped up with 13 claims loosely based on Taylor’s disingenuous ramblings.  It struck me as a challenge worth tackling.

The result was “The Forbes conversation continues - 13 points examined” June 16, 2013 at my WUWTW.  For this exercise, rather than my own responses, I responded to each of Scottar’s claims with a short video that clearly addressed said issues with important information that helps clear up the errors.  At least if good-faith constructive learning is your thing. 

Since the videos are 2013 and earlier I figure this will make a good start for CSC’s video collection.  Also worth noting is that Heartland Institute has been instrumental in developing EPA Pruitt’s Red Team, Blue Team concept. Though, now Heartland is frustrated with Pruitt.  Read all about it: