As some of you know I’ve got a blog dedicated to examining the tactics and dialogue
of unidirectional climate science skeptics. Over the past year a good deal of my energy has been going
to dissecting the talks and writings of a character from California who Anthony Watts seems to have discovered and promoted
into one of the rising stars of the climate science is a hoax crowd.
Heartland Institute interview: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/05/landscapesandcycles-debate-index.html Talk to the IEEE: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/02/index-landscapesandcycles-mr-jim-steele.htmlThis Mr. Steele claims he agree's on the science that greenhouse gases really do behave as atmospheric insulation - but in the next breath he'll ridicule the notion that this warming will cause any problems, while insinuating that atmospheric scientists don't know what they are talking about… because… as he tells us: landscape changes and natural cycles are more powerful than the global heat distribution engine they exist within. A truly bizarre notion that only a politically motivated mind, removed from any interest in constructive learning could have cobbled together. It's tailor made for an apathetic crowd that only wants assurances and who totally reject learning and self skepticism in favor of guarding their preconceptions and faith-based mentality at all costs. Since this man wears his San Francisco State University emeritus status like a badge of authority (he was director of their Sierra Nevada Field Station for quite a while) I though that confronting the administration over at SFSU with a list of his deliberate malicious misrepresentations and worse his tactic of slandering a number of honorable honest wildlife scientists was unacceptable, might bring some constructive results. Instead, I've achieved little more than getting on their Ignore List. Yesterday I wrote a post where I invite discussion over here - not that I'm holding my breath - so I figure I at least need to start a thread on the topic. Here's the intro to that WUWTW blog post.
Question: Best liar wins? re CC/Steele Debate http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2015/05/bestliar-wins-ccsteeledebate.html Seems no one wants to get close to the touchy question of professors/instructors having a duty to honestly represent the scientific work of others. Apparently outright lying about the work of scientists is considered a sacred part of the academic process. I still can't get my mind around that logic. Admittedly I'm on the outside of academia looking in, so if anyone within the process would care to correct me or enlighten my interpretation please (If not here at WUWTW, how about an independent venue [inserted a link to CFI]). After all, constructive learning is what this is supposed to be all about. What I find even less comprehensible: How is it that maliciously slandering honest professional scientists falls under the same acceptance? Or is it a blind eye? So I've gone back to reviewing and learning some more while pondering the fundamental requirements for a constructive* rational debate - as opposed to the politicians lawyerly debate to win at all costs regardless of fidelity to the truth. * that would be dedicated to learning. I have to wonder what the hell, has all of modern society accepted the myth that the best liar deserves to win? ...Any thoughts, anyone?