Sunday, April 26, 2015

#11 Questions for Heartland's Burnett, re Dr. Mann and more - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate

{slightly edited at 10:00pm 4/26}


A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015 
Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University
______________________________________________ 

Steele writes:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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.  ... 
And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"
_____________________________________________________

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  
I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this eleventh installment I'm going to give Jim another pass in order to linger on Heartland Institute's Sterling Burnett's next question and his cheap shot at Dr. Mann which inspired a number of questions I'd like to direct to Mr. Burnett himself.
___________________________________________________________


"How should society contend with those who knowingly 
disseminate misinformation about climate science."  
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________
_________________________________
Heartland's BurnettWhat kind of impact do you believe this scientific misdirection of global warming and you know sort of the single point of view of global warming has had on science in general.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
What 
"scientific misdirection of global warming" ?

You don't explain a thing.
You don't specify what you are talking about.
You don't provide anything constructive to build upon.

Your goal seems to be sewing mistrust and confusion.
What about learning from the information at hand?
_________________________________________
Heartland's Burnett:  You know the media just focuses like a hawk, it seems to me, on whatever horror, horrific climate spin story is sent out.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
What's with this non sequitur?  

Are we discussing climate science, or profit driven sensationalistic media products?  Two very different issues buster brown, stop conflating them!
__________________________________________
Heartland's Burnett:  Just following the old Mann trick, I believe the lead on climate is the same way, if it's disaster it's the headline. 

Saturday, April 25, 2015

Come on Willie Soon, how about that debate?

I was reflecting on the final paragraph in my recently completed tenth installment of the great CC/Steele Debate, it came from an article by Lindsey Abrams regarding Heartland Institute's defense of Willie Soon's financial exposure, it reads:
"But the real scandal is that Soon, who is not a climate scientist and who has aligned himself with the decidedly unscientific Heartland Institute, is continuing to stand by the integrity of his work, which deviates sharply from the vast majority of climate science. 
If (Dr. Soon) is, as he claimed, “willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere,” he might want to start with the climate scientists listed in this exhaustive round-up of all the ways in which the substance of his research has been debated and discredited on its scientific merit alone. …"

I visited that last link and found an overwhelming collection of information detailing the fraudulent nature of "Dr" Willie Soon's game, which seems intimately interwoven with Heartland Institute's malicious focus on misleading and confusing leaders and the public.

With thanks to Connor Gibson and DeSmogBlog I'm happy to mirror this valuable source of information and its many links to yet more detailed and authoritative information regarding Soon's fraud against We The People and our right to learn about climate science and Earth observations in an honest manner.

Willie Soon's Climate Science Denial 
Wasn't Ever Credible: Climate Scientists

By Connor Gibson • Saturday, February 28, 2015

____________________________________________

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless.” - NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, to the New York Times

Recent revelations regarding Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon's financing and coordination with fossil fuel companies for studies undermining the science of climate change has received quite a bit of attention. Our friends at the Climate Investigations Center have links to source documents, letters to the IRS and Congress, letters to journals that Soon appears to have mislead, and some of the press covering all of this.

The drama has largely outshone the main point among most scientists: Willie Soon's work is vastly discredited. For those who aren't familiar with Willie Soon's fossil fuel company contracting over the last fifteen years, there is probably a legitimate question of whether or not this guy deserves to be in his current pinch.

Frankly, he had it coming.

#10 Heartland in their own words - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate


A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 


Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015 
Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University
______________________________________________ 

Steele writes:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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.  ... 
And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"
_____________________________________________________

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  
I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this tenth installment, we've arrived at Heartland's intermission advert which I've also transcribed because it perfectly demonstrates their infantile thinking as reflected in their dedication to politicizing, misrepresenting and sewing confusion - thus materially interfering with We The People's right to honestly learn about what's going on within our atmosphere and upon our planet.  This in turn, begs the question:

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 
disseminate misinformation about climate science."  
Lawrence Torcello
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________
_________________________________

Heartland's Burnett:  "A brief timeout on behalf of the Heartlander Digital Magazine. 
The Heartlander Digital Magazine is a unique product among right leaning think-tanks, published by the Heartland Institute this daily news site is overseen by managing editors for each of its six sections and produced by a team of writers who cover current events from a Free Market Perspective updated with fresh stories. Every day the Heartlander Magazine provides readers with vital counter-spin to the mainstream medias take on the important domestic policy issues of the day. 
... Get fully informed, get the Free Market angle to today's news, visit us."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"vital counter-spin", "Free Market angle" ?
What about learning from the information at hand ? ?

This dedication to playing games and sanctioning spin over substance and striving to understand the full scope of available information is appalling.

Not a word about assessing and learning from authoritative scientific information.  

Their mission statement reveals a similar level of self absorption and acceptance of self-delusion for power political purposes which in turn forces them into a dogmatic rejection of listening to or learning from the full scope of information at hand: 
https://www.heartland.org/mission
The mission of The Heartland Institute is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.
__________________________________

No interest in our planet's health.
Not a word about learning about how our planet and it's life sustaining climate operates.
Not a word about nurturing the heath of our global life support system. 

It's all about self-interest and getting their own way.
To such thinkers, the Earth is little more than a commodity to consume as fast as possible. 

Great for today's party but a nightmare for our children's future lives.
__________________________________

I'll close this installment with a few excerpts and links to various articles that look into this Heartland Institution.

Leaked Heartland Institute documents pull back curtain on climate scepticism
Leo Hickman | February 15, 2012
~ ~ ~
An Open Letter (by climate scientists) to the Heartland Institute
(in response to news of HI's document leaks) | February 2012
~ ~ ~
The Alternative Reality of the Heartland Institute’s “NIPCC” Report
Steve Newton | October 28, 2013
~ ~ ~
Good news: Media utterly ignored Heartland Institute/NIPCC at National Press Club
Mike Stark  |  April 11, 2014
~ ~ ~
Climate-denying researcher slams critics with help from climate-denying Heartland Institute
Lindsay Abrams | March 03, 2015

(I've added a couple highlights here and there.)
__________________________________

Thursday, April 23, 2015

University of Queensland in Australia offers online class: Denial101x

I received the following last week because I'm already signed up for this course.  Now it occurs to me that I really should be sharing this information with my audience, so with a little editing, here it is.

I'm hoping some of you will find this educational opportunity worth taking.  

Tell them CC sent you  ;- )
______________________________
University of Queensland in Australia 
offers online class:  
Denial101x


Making Sense of Climate Denial

____________________________________

STARTING APRIL 28, 2015

Denial101x: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial, and we’re getting really excited!

For the past 8 months we’ve been collecting interviews and lectures from climate science experts around the world. 

We’ve visited universities in Australia and England and Canada, participated in the American Geophysical Union Annual Conference in San Francisco and shot footage on location at The University of Queensland and at Heron Island on the Great Barrier Reef that includes an interview with Sir David Attenborough.

During the course, we’ll be taking you to each of these places to find out what experts have to say about the ways in which climate change myths are spread and debunked. With each new week of our course, we will respond to myths using science and evidence, and we’ll also help you begin to develop your own responses to myths. We can’t wait to begin this course with you and see what you will contribute.

As we prepare for the beginning of the course, we would encourage you to:
  • Follow the Denial101x team on Twitter at @denial101x or use #denial101x when tweeting and tell us why you are taking the course

  • Like the Denial101x Facebook page - view and share some of the videos and images we’ve posted as we prepare for the course

  • Recommend the course to friends who you might want to take this course with and ask them to register for the course

  • Subscribe to our Denial101x YouTube Channel - watch and share the videos we’ve already posted

Thursday, April 16, 2015

#9 Steele's heat waves and the AGW fallacy - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate


A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 


Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015 
Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University
______________________________________________ 

Steele writes:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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.  ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"
_____________________________________________________

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  
I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)
In this ninth installment we'll look at one of your "biggest pet peeves that every heat wave get's trumpeted as evidence of global warming" ...oh my.
______________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science."  Lawrence Torcello
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________
___________________________________
Steele:  You mentioned there was the sort of the high temperatures, you know one of my biggest pet peeves is that every heat wave get's trumpeted as evidence of global warming  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
To begin with you don't specify who's doing the "trumpeting", so it's a meaningless complaint.

Your consistent use of such deliberate vagueness underscores your deceptive intensions.

More important, why are you rejecting what scientists and researchers are observing?

NASA | 2014 Continues Long-Term Global Warming 



Published on Jan 16, 2015
The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, 
according to an analysis by NASA scientists.
_________________________________________
Steele:  but the heat waves usually occur under very dry conditions. Dry conditions allow the earth and air to heat up much more quickly.  And when you get this high pressure settle in, it allows for greater solar insolation, that heats the land more quickly and that high pressure dome prevents convection that would carry away that heat, much like rolling up the windows in your car, watching your car heat up.  And because water vapor makes up 80% of the greenhouse gases or even more, the heat waves are actually happening when there's a drop in the concentration of greenhouse gases.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Jim, your myopic focus on the local seems to have blinded you to the global.  That was a horrendous description of what a heat wave is all about.  

Since you won't allow yourself to trust me, how about learning from the venerable Farmers Almanac?

"A heat wave occurs when a system of high atmospheric pressure moves into an area. In such a high-pressure system, air from upper levels of our atmosphere is pulled toward the ground, where it becomes compressed and increases in temperature.

"This high concentration of pressure makes it difficult for other weather systems to move into the area, which is why a heat wave can last for several days or weeks. The longer the system stays in an area, the hotter the area becomes. The high-pressure inhibits winds, making them faint to nonexistent. Because the high-pressure system also prevents clouds from entering the region, sunlight can become punishing, heating up the system even more. The combination of all of these factors come together to create the exceptionally hot temperatures we call a heat wave."
_________________________________________
Steele:  But people are blaming heat wave increase on greenhouse gases.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mr. Jim Steele, here again is an example of you crossing the line into the realm of perhaps legally actionable offenses.  
I'm no authority on the law, but I do know a thing or two about upholding morals and ethics and the learning process.  

For a person who claims to be educated and enlightened in the ways and accomplishments of science, to stand in front of an audience and ridicule the overwhelming scientific and technical understanding regarding CO2 and other greenhouse gases holding in more heat within our global climate system is unconscionable.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

#8 Mangroves, Dr. Cavanaugh, NPR's Joyce - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles debate



A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute: 


Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015 
Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University
______________________________________________ 

Steele:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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.  ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"
_____________________________________________________

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  
I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this eighth installment I'm debating your denigration of a biology study led by Dr.Kyle Cavanaugh about Mangrove response to freezing temperatures.

Since I do check first sources I've exchanged a few emails with Dr. Cavanaugh.  I will share some quotes, so he can speak for himself.  

It makes another wonderful case study for 'THIS IS WHAT A SCIENTIST SOUNDS LIKE."  Dr. Cavanaugh offered a straight-forward learning experience that I could build on with further research.  Quite the contrast to your constant trickery and contrived gotcha's.

I thank Dr. Cavanaugh for permission to share from our correspondence, 
(Although it's worth pointing out all of this is already part of the public record, 
for those interested enough to seek it out.).
___________________________________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly 
disseminate misinformation about climate science?"  Lawrence Torcello
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________

Steele:  Another example, last year NPR and a few media was hyping that Florida's mangroves were marching north because of global warming.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
I've listen to that NPR story numerous times, there is nothing "hyped" about it - it was a crisp concise report of the known science and a pretty good description of a couple recent studies of mangrove biology.

Mr. Steele, I challenge you to attempt a critique.  Take the time to listen to NPR's three minute report.  
Detail what you believe is misleading about Christopher Joyce's reporting.

If you can't accomplish that simple challenge, it'll speak volumes.  
:- |
 ____________________________________

Steele:  The red mangroves that declined earlier was because Floridians removed or trimming trees that blocked their water front views. There were black mangroves that suffered because to control mosquitoes they were artificially flooding swamps to greater depths that would drown out the mangroves.  
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I thought there were three major species and asked Dr. Cavanaugh about it, indeed there are.  Curious Jim why only discuss two?  

More important, he pointed out that you are correct about what you say, but that it doesn't relate to their study.  A non sequitur so to speak.

Dr. Cavanaugh: "Yes, there are three main species of mangroves in Florida: red (R. mangle), black (A. germinans), and white (L. racemosa). I agree with Mr. Steele that coastal development and mosquito impoundments (http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Impoundments.htm) have historically had a big impact on mangroves in Florida. 

However, most of those buildings and impoundments are still there, and I don't think these things are responsible for the recent mangrove expansion that we have seen. 

We are seeing mangroves move into areas that have been salt marsh for at least 50 years. In some of these locations no one remembers mangroves ever being there. We have linked this expansion to a decrease in the frequency of extreme cold events. Again, I can't conclusively attribute those temperature changes to anthropogenic climate change, but our results suggest that future warming due to climate change will cause further northward expansion of mangroves in Florida."  

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

#7 Penguins, butterflies and consensus - CC/Steele Landscapesandcycles Debate


A virtual debate with Jim Steele, based on his interview at Heartland Institute:  

Heartland Daily Podcast | Jim Steele | January 27, 2015 
Research Fellow H. Sterling Burnett (for the National Center for Policy Analysis) interviews Jim Steele, ecologist, director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada field campus of San Francisco State University
______________________________________________ 

Steele:  "And we trust the scientific theory because its 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.  ... And I think those public debates would help create real climate literacy …"

Well then Mr. Steele, let's have our Great Global Warming Science Debate.  I will accept these responses from your Heartland Institute podcast as your opening round.  I'll offer my rebuttals, evidence and questions.  I agree to post your thoughtful responses unaltered. (Though it's looking like you're going to do your best to hide and ignore these critiques of your self-certain claims. Your silence will serve to expose your hypocrisy and inability to defend your statements on an even playing field.)

In this seventh installment I'll debate your Antarctic penguin story, your misrepresentation of Dr. Camille Parmesan and your revulsion towards scientific "consensus".
______________________________________

"How should society contend with those who knowingly disseminate misinformation about climate science?"  Lawrence Torcello
_________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Heartland Burnett: In earlier conversations you mentioned a couple other examples - you've already mentioned the butterfly, but you also mentioned the case of the Emperor Penguin.  Could you describe that case a little bit?
Steele:  Sure. There have been a few stories about the emperor penguin marching to extinction, 
~ ~ ~
Who wrote the stories?  Was it an opinion piece of a political type, causal newspaper, right-wing think-tank, left-wing think-tank, letters to the editor, serious science reporting, a retired PhD in an unrelated field but who possesses strong political motivations, a scientist who's active in the field, an actual peer reviewed study, a university press release?  

Mr. Steele, how do you weigh the relative reliability of those competing sources of information? 

You like dramatizing the extinction schtick, but you never mention that all this science you are picking on is about population dynamics.  The scientists are counting and observing populations and reporting trends they are witnessing.  
The few studies that touch on potential penguin extinction have it out on the century horizon.
__________________________________________
Steele:  it's sort of based on one colony 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
What is sort of based on one colony?   

Some studies from Dumont d'Urville, which at nearly 60 is the longest running penguin research lab in Antarctica?

Census and environment studies from throughout the continent that uniformly paint a grim picture for penguins' long term prospects?

After all, there are at least 22 active research programs dedicated to Antarctic penguins, all of them churning out studies painting a consistent image.

Australians – 3French – 1 on continent;  Crozet – 1New Zealand – 2 in Ross Sea;  USA – 4 in Ross Sea;  Bellingshausen – 1;  South Shetlands – 2UK – 2 at South Georgia;  UK – 1 at S Orkney;  Germany – 1Argentina – 1;  Japan – 1Italy – 2


______________________________________________
Steele:  that suffered a large decline between about 1960 and 1980 and it was the same colony that was used for the documentary March of Penguins.  But if you look at the British Antarctic Survey data, there was absolutely no warming trend. 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Jim, why are you ignoring the warming period in the late 1970s and early 80s when average temp rose nearly three degrees centigrade and ice conditions went to pot for penguins and the population lost around 3,000 penguins?  That's what the study you keep picking on was about.  So why are you trying to compare that study then to today?  

In the mid 80s temperatures did return to "normal" - but with a twist.