Interview 1117 – Jim Steele on How Bad Global Warming Science Hurts the Environmental Movement

12/08/2015121 Comments

jimsteelesquareJim Steele was the Director of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus of San Francisco State University from 1985 to 2009. Having taught courses on plants, natural sciences, bird banding and bird identification, his research into the causes of the declines in local bird populations led him to the understanding that natural climate cycles and landscape changes were causing disruptions of wildlife populations. He went on to author a book, Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and a website, where he explores how faulty, over-hyped C02-driven climate change fears are misdirecting environmental researchers and activists away from the true cause of environmental disruption.

Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism

Fabricating Climate Doom: Hijacking Conservation Success in the UK to Build Consensus

Reasons to Petition Congress to Investigate USGS Polar Bear Models

No Consensus On Antarctic Climate Change


Filed in: Interviews
Tagged with:

Comments (121)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nosoapradio says:

    Gust of fresh clean air. Looked up some of Mr Steele’s links – congratulations for the great work on various types of landscapes, either restoring cropped warmth for the butterflies, or raising the water tables back up restoring the wildlife and vegetation. And congratulations for your ability to put up with the intellectual bullies and censorship!

    Very interesting new perspective this “can do” local vision looking at the “grassroots” causes of geo-specific climate change due to hydrology, plant growth and rail road tracks! Apparently industry does affect the climate but NOT through CO2!

  2. Steve3 says:

    I believed in global warming up until about 18 months ago. After I heard James hint at it in one of his podcasts I just about chucked my phone out the window. It was like the day I found out Santa Claus wasn’t real.(If you are a parent please hide Santas wrapping paper!) At first I bartered,then I justified then was pissed. My reality was shattered. Hey I thought only Big Corporations and Conservatives denied global warming. I don’t qualify as either of those, hmm…
    Anyway as I started to do some reasearch I pealed back the layers and discovered the hiden evil adjenda behind the grand idea of global warming. There are presidents, scientists and prominate authority making this whole thing look very real. But I am still left puzzled are all of these Scientist’s on take? Mr. Steele is taking an honest look at population change and doing his job by fighting to preserve nature by practicing science and not politics.

    • ccuthbert2001 says:

      Steve, It’s hard to make a blanket statement about scientists who perpetuate false hypotheses. I think that often, they aren’t very good at science, so they don’t question the orthodoxy. They have accepted the dogma and therefore look to support it, rather than refute it. If the data don’t support the dogma, then the data must be wrong, rather than the other way around.

      Some are just ignorant–meaning they don’t know. Many moons ago, when the baloney about evil cholesterol was just starting, I knew the idea that cholesterol caused heart disease was wrong. I knew about the data from the Framingham study that showed the top correlations with heart disease were 1. lifestyle–diet and exercise, and 2. genetics. A VERY distant third was cholesterol. As you know, correlation does not mean causation. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of biochemistry knows how vital cholesterol is to the proper functioning of the body, and would never think it the cause. At one point, I was talking to two researchers from a major pharmaceutical company about this, and neither had even heard of the Framingham study, nor knew much about cholesterol’s biochemistry. But they were sure high cholesterol causes heart disease, and that I was crazy.

      What was the incentive for this obviously false hypothesis? You can’t make a little white pill for lifestyle, you can’t make a little white pill for genetics. But you can make a little white pill to poison the cholesterol pathway. Great. Now we have a whole generation of people being given drugs to poison their cholesterol pathway, and damaging their hormone production, CoQ10 production and destroying the myelin sheath of their nervous system. Big pharma and stupid mds are creating millions of iatrogenic Alzheimer patients, just in time for medicare to blow up. It’s sort of reminiscent of ancient Rome’s lead water pipes.

      There is so much brainwashing done in gov’t schools and so much peer pressure that independent, critical thought is extremely difficult. Add to that, if you have an idea that challenges the orthodoxy, it makes funding nearly impossible. Peter Duesburg comes to mind. In the US in the 60s and 70s, all basic research and much applied research became funded by the federal gov’t. That means that politics rules and everyone stampedes into fads. First is was the “war on cancer,” then aids, now global warming. Science can be corrupted by politics and money just like any other endeavor.

      You also have the zealots who truly believe that man is a virus on the earth–the East Anglia types who will lie to save Gaia.

  3. bladtheimpailer says:

    While I still believe that the use of carbon energies can have deleterious effects on the environment this recent series has changed my perspective greatly. Before I was a cautious fence sitter leaning towards to anthropogenic CO2 causation crowd, but this series and some other sources recent articles, which we can all thank James for putting together, has my thoughts now firmly within the skeptics camp.

    • nosoapradio says:

      Yes, drilling several kilometres into the earth would seem brutally invasive and like many people these days I’m asthmatic so exhaust fumes being copiously pumped into my face everyday would make me an ardent supporter of cleaner energies.

      However, NOT if they’re instrumentalized by known mendacious murderers with a history and a project of enslaving and the whole transition based on fudging numbers and graphs, misquoting scientists, psychological and emotional manipulation and bullying.

      Not if it’s based on disdain and repulsion for human beings, trapping them into fear, false fraternity and tittytainment, hypnotizing them with sleazy Jon Stewart-style hypocrisy and otherwise robbing them of their life’s blood, dignity, freedom and potential.

      Now I’m gonna go learn some new adjectives…
      ..I kinda like… “woo-woo”…

  4. BennyB says:

    Great podcast! What’s discussed here represents a topic which I really wanted to dive into, as part of a larger general idea about moving beyond some of the baggage which has been holding progress up (imo). I’ll have to come back to this in a bit, but this is great stuff and a great jumping off point for part of what I want discuss here. I know, I know… very vague and probably pointless comment on my part, but just had to say something for the time being.

    Nice one, James! =]

  5. VoltaicDude says:

    This is great work – activating people to free themselves from the monstrous control of centralized disinformation, and helping us all hone our critical thinking.

    Losing the “climate-change” “handle” is threatening to many because they think it means losing the fight against the enslaving and brutal realities of industrial corporatism – but that is a false conclusion.

    The corporatists are shaping this disinformation for a reason – to continue their control, which is always their twisted/twisting goal.

    Tearing apart the matrix of lies that they create requires a great deal of commitment to being honest about the facts at hand. When the dust settles the real issues can be sorted out more readily, but people know instinctually that this is the tip of the iceberg (so to speak).

    If they allow themselves to do so, when they see that clearly, they’ll have to deal with other issues that they’re also resistant to changing their minds about.

    It would be interesting to hear someone talk about that sort of process of change – awakening – that many of us have struggled with, but to which many others remain resistant.

    Even just semantically, when I reread the line above, it’s a slippery slope, so it’s imperative that we emphasize the integrity and quality of scientific knowledge, and how that can be manipulated dishonestly by any side of any political debate.

    We all need to train ourselves to not be dismissive of new ideas, whilst not turning ourselves into easily dupable foils, with no stable grounding. Smooth-talking snake-oil hucksters are always a concern. Come to think of it that’s how we got into this mess in the first place.

    • Jim Steele says:

      “We all need to train ourselves to not be dismissive of new ideas, whilst not turning ourselves into easily dupable foils, with no stable grounding”

      yes indeed!

      As Nobel laureate Feynman wrote, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”

      We are all binded by our beliefs. Beliefs are something that possess our mind. The only cure is critical thinking, self awareness and honest sincere discussions.

  6. graviv says:

    I agree to “fight against the enslaving and brutal realities of industrial corporatism”

    The fight goes out of people when they
    1. lose their problem solving skills
    2. are trapped in group think
    3. and can’t look at truth because of the implications

    The level of allowed radiation in the US is 10 million, compare to 3 (2012 recommended from Bioinitiative report) That’s 10 million microwatts per meter squared, in the space I am sitting in right now. It’s no wonder many can’t solve problems or think critically.

    There is pink elephant in the room in Paris, where many fingers and pitchforks are being pointed at “the worst emitters”, but not at the entity not only burning more fuel than anybody but many other things with immunity, impunity and unaccountability. They hate emitters but give the DOD a pass?

    CO2 is a patsy.


  7. candideschmyles says:

    It’s not great work at all. It is an interview with someone with no standing in any field who wrote a book crammed full of demonstrable lies. Further it attempted to rubbish the work of extremely cautious biologists, deliberately misquoting, misrepresenting conclusions, setting up staw man arguments and was further seasoned with a panopoly of arguments from ignorance.
    This is a man who needed a retirement plan fast and decided to write a book pandering to the cognitive bias of the ’till death’ climate sceptic. His findings are bogus. His methods deceitful. And his morality, in his attempted assassination of Parmesans reputation, that of a crack dealer

    • bd6951 says:

      Here we go again, more prevarications about climate change conspiracy. I’m not going to bother finding the link to the video showing a large stretch of ocean side cliff being destroyed by a relentless pounding of surf nearby to San Francisco. In the next couple of days the apartment buildings, many already condemned, will tumble into the ocean. These very powerful waves are being generated by the very powerful El Niño fully underway as I write this. What we are observing is run away climate change/planetary warming. This is just a guess but, the architecture of these apartment buildings suggest they are at least 20 years old. That means the people who built these units had determined the site was suitable for construction. They clearly were not thinking that an increasingly warming Pacific Ocean would cause their buildings to crash into the ocean 50 or more feet below. Oops. So I want to hear how the climate change denier crowd is going to explain this phenomenon. Or how the Jersey shore endured flooding more serious the than that caused by Sandy over the weekend just ended. You people lend a new meaning to uninformed. ( I wonder if JC considers the last sentence ad hominem and will snip it.) Seeing is believing, much like WTC7.. You’re watching climate change in real time. Get over it.

      • Jim Steele says:

        bd6951, your comments about the eroding cliffs in my home town are so profoundly ignorant of natural erosion processes that I gave your comments special mention over at WUWT where I just posted an essay on the science of Pacifica’s coastal erosion. It has nothing to do with CO2 global warming, but the end of the Las t Ice Age. That you could see a building threatened by the ocean and then make a quantum leap to conclude it is due to rising CO2 suggests you choose to avoid good scientific critical thinking, and would suggest you have no scientific background whatsoever.

        I suggest you read the essay and educate yourself. It would alleviate some of your unrealistic climate paranoia

        Read Pacifica, California’s Natural Coastal Erosion and the Lust for Climate Catastrophes

    • Jim Steele says:


      You are obviously unaware of the dynamics in Pacifica.. I live in the region. People have built on obvious flood plains and too close to eroding cliffs for years, ignoring natural evidence such that developers should be brought to trial for ignoring these inevitable natural calamities. The region south of San Francisco has suffered major documented episodes of coastal erosion for the past 100 years, since the Ocean Shore Railroad attempted to bring development to this region. Highway One has been frequently been moved due to landslides and the most recent solution to Devil’s Slide is the new tunnel. Furthermore Pacifica is just north of the Mavericks, where huge waves have always pummeled the steep cliffs abutting the ocean.

      That you bd6951 try to wed natural erosion to global warming, clearly reveals either your total ignorance of the natural factors affecting our region or illustrates your bankrupt political agendas that suggests all “bad” change is due to CO2 or both.

      Last year alarmist internet snipers like yourself pushed California’s LA Nina caused drought and lack of winter storms and snow in the Sierra Nevada as “evidence” of CO2 warming. Now due to El Nino, abundant storms hammer the coast, snow is abundant in the Sierra and the reservoirs are filling. So the alarmists are desperate for some catastrophic news to blame on CO2.

      bd6951 you should be ashamed. You defile good science with your fear mongering.

  8. bd6951 says:

    Here’s a corollary for you climate change deniers. And while I’m at it I imagine there is a fair number of Peak Oil deniers among your numbers. The ultimate trio: climate change deniers; Peak all deniers; flat earth proponents. What a country. NYTimes: Rapper B.o.B Insists Earth Is Flat. Take That, Neil deGrasse Tyson.

  9. tomas says:

    i think all agree the climate is always changing , and of course people and our consumption are part of the equation – just as all life forms and circumstances on this planet are intertwined in it as well .

    it is not possible to exist on this planet and not be involved in its course , as every single action has cause/effect.

    it seems the hanging point for some is they do not want to be brainwashed by the same system in place into accepting a standard that only results in the system profiting , and as always the planet will continue on and balance itself as it has for billions or whatnot years , and only difference being the masses will get duped and put on some more chains and restrictions to live with .

    it seems some relate those that don’t agree with climate change theory as though not caring about the planet or such , when i believe its more they understand that we are not greater then the planet , and need to live in harmony with it and not think we can somehow guide its course – especially with the same system leading the way . mankind’s fallacy seems to be believing they are greater then all and throw in those in control’s personal interest for power and control and the state we are in becomes very apparent .

  10. Jim Steele says:

    @candideschmyles That is the most libelous and unfounded attack by an internist sniper I have yet to encounter. If you have evidence of your asserted “demonstrable lies” by all means present them. Otherwise yo are just engaging in slander. Furthermore the arguments in my book are supported by over 900 citations of peer reviewed science, and has been reviewed by several top experts in the field and given top reviews. Your attempt at character assassination is reminiscent of Peter Meisler, whose blog you linked to, is dedicated to bashing any skeptic and has demonstrated his total lack of knowledge and integrity . Here is a link to my total refutation of just a few of Meisier’s lies and fabrications

    Your vile and fallacious attempts at character assassination actually raise suspicions that you are just one of Peter Meisler’s pseudonyms and that your comments are not designed to promote honest scientific debate.

  11. Jim Steele says:

    Here is a link to the PSMSL tide gauge showing that sea level rise has slowed since 1970 around San Francisco. The rate of sea level rise was much higher between 1900 and 1970 due to natural factors. Those who blame global warming for the erosion of Pacifica CA’s sea cliffs reveal their total ignorance about the local situation, and their lust for climate fear mongering.

    • bd6951 says:

      Jeez, I guess you haven’t seen the video showing chunks of the San Fransican coast crumbling into the raging Pacific. This is cognitive dissonance in the extreme. An analogy is the Planned Parenthood debacle. Even though the evidence demonstrates that PP did nothing of which they were accused the know nothing republicans vow to pursue that which is not there. Much the same for climate change denial. Deny all you want in spite of the overwhelming evidence right in front of your noses. 2015 was the hottest year since record keeping began and the December just finished the warmest month. These conclusions are the product of looking at a thermometer. I guess the researchers’ thermometers must have been gamed.

      Some comments here would be hilarious if they weren’t so frighteningly ignorant. One guy – I assume it’s a guy – says that Gravity has only existed for 400 years. That statement deserves an ad hominem for sure. Things have been falling FOREVER. Maybe he meant that gravity hadn’t been quantified until Newton put numbers to the observation. I really worry that people this dim frequent this website.

      • Jim Steele says:

        I have walked by those buildings and sea cliffs many times. Crumbling cliffs have nothing to do with climate change or Planned Parenthood. Your pathetic attempt trying to defend your bad unsubstantiated climate science by alluding to Planned Parenthood is transparently ridiculous. Your method of denigrating skeptics reminds me of Slandering Sou’s (Miriam OBrien from Hotwhoppers) tactics.

        Have you ever been to Pacifica or are you stuck in Australia? Do you want to discuss PAcifica’s history of trying to control natural erosion and amplifying it by disrupting the along shore sediment transportation? Are you aware of the erosion in the area created by placement of dredging material?

        Are you disappointed that the California drought is naturally over and now you need another dramatic issue to blame on CO2?

        If we look at satellite data that has NOT been subjected to homogenization adjustments or not overwhelmed by urban heat effects, then we do not see the “warmest year evuh”. NOAA’s US Climate Reference Network (CRN)designed to measure climate change has reported a slight cooling over the past decade. Most tree ring data that measures natural habitat suggest the 1930s to 50s were the warmest.

        So are you suggesting cooler satellite data, CRN data, tree ring data have been gamed??? It seems the “warmest year evuh” is simply a matter of subjectively choosing one’s politically preferred data set.

      • tomas says:

        bd6951 , just so you are not mislead , it was not said gravity has only EXISTED for 400 years , but that the current belief has been agreed upon by “scientists” for roughly that long. And even then can be argued which version , Gallileo’s , Newton’s , or even more recently Einstein’s . ( And the persians will have a say as well as they had their own discovery’s quite some time before)

        point being , scientists change , scientific theories change , hence they are called theories. You can read things how you wish and interpret them as you wish , but don’t twist it to make a point , you only do harm to your own words then,

        Don’t think anyone is arguing as to the fact an apple falls towards earth from a tree. yet scientists have yet to agree as to why exactly , and they never will for they look for the answers where they cannot get it .

        kind of like they are trying to discover climate change by looking into co2 , they can look but will not find .

        • candideschmyles says:

          While I have some issues with the way BD misrepresented you, not to mention his conflation of local events to climate in general, he is correct in his antipathy toward your superficially clever but wholly disingenuous interpretation of scientific progress. You choose to call a key strength of science, that it can be overturned by new data, into an assault on the foundations of science itself. The same science that has given us the technological revolution that allows you to misrepresent it in the first place. You are a Luddite with a laptop incapable of seeing his own hypocrisy.

          • tomas says:

            nothing against inventors or entrepreneurs . scientists work for whoever pays their wage . easy to then see the bias that occurs . not only in climate , but in all facets of the world where scientists are. ( agriculture , medicine , climate , etc etc )

            in days of old philosophers were the first scientists , and they searched with truth as their guide. Since truth did not fit in with the system’s agenda it quickly became an extinct field , replaced by “scientists” , where theory and guessing became “accepted fact till proven otherwise” . And those paying the fees could and did and do direct the pressure of the study .

  12. nosoapradio says:

    To the attention of Mr Jim Steele: an extract of a comment posted on another Corbett Report comment board:

    As an average non-scientific citizen, I just got a totally new perspective only Yesterday on so-called anthropogenic climate change… thanks to a professional assignment…

    To make a still confused story in my head short, I had a sort of crash course in the devastating effects of the mismanagement and overexploitation of land that leads to the disruption of small water cycles, erosion, flooding and the paradoxical desertification of these lands.

    As vegetation can no longer grow in compacted and nutrient-depleted soil that is impenetrable to roots and worms, there is a reduction in the amount of cooling water vapor that should have been emitted into the atmosphere by this destroyed vegetation that could not grow back…

    It was a very compelling assignment that stressed the fact that overexploitation and the destruction of small water cycles with their resulting flooding and ultimate desertification of land was

    NOT the RESULT of so-called man-made carbon-based climate change but the CAUSE of weather events such as floods and localized warming.

    The much touted Green revolution and single-crop farming are very largely the instigators of this destruction and depletion of land and the consequential increase in harmful flooding and desertification.

    I wanted to ask Mr Jim Steele what he thought about these phenomena and if he thought that these changes constituted climate change in the respect that they could disrupt the fundamental dynamics and drivers of the planet’s climate cycles.


    • Jim Steele says:


      I totally agree with the conclusion that “ultimate desertification of land was NOT the RESULT of so-called man-made carbon-based climate change but the CAUSE of weather events such as floods and localized warming.”

      I titled my book Landscapes and Cycles to emphasize that very point that at the local/regional level human destruction of vegetation and hydrology can create conditions that raise local temperatures several degrees.

      I posted to WUWT an essay titled The Global Average Chimera

      Pointing out several mechanism that raise the global average temperature but have nothing to do with CO2. In agreement with your post, one mechanism I emphasized is the loss of vegetation and wetlands that ALWAY leads to higher local temperatures.

      • nosoapradio says:

        Wow, thanks for your reply! Yea, it seemed to me that it was listening to this conversation with you and Mr Corbett a while back that first offered me this new sort of reversed and localized perspective on man-made climate change. Then it was doing the voice-over nerration for a documentary day-before-yesterday that spoke about Michal Kravcik’s work and about the evils of single-crop farming, disruption of small-water cycles, erosion and the “water-proofing” of land that reminded me of your work restoring vegetation to “desertified” areas and rectifying the damage railroad construction had wreaked on the… water tables?

        I guess the question that remains for me is; can the way man is more or less reshaping the surface of the land masses (representing roughly 30% of the surface of the globe, roughly 43% of which is exploited in one way or another by humans) alter the predominant drivers of climate? Do we “just” create localized warming and otherwise render certain land surfaces and their surrounding areas uninhabitable for life – Or – can these surface, temperature and humidity dispruptions actually derail the apparently more powerful drivers of climate (the sun and Svenmark’s cosmic-ray cloud formation) altering the rythmn of glacial and interglacial periods??

      • nosoapradio says:

        Ok! Just started reading your paper and had to look up the punchline about Lewandowsky; who seems to be a thoroughly dangerous character whose mission is to give “concrete and clinical evidence” as to why skeptics should all be committed to asylums. His work is also probably designed to “scientifically” justify making “skepticism” illegal. Yes Dorothy, we ‘re not in Kansas anymore, we’re in Salem, Massachusetts…

        I’ll finish carefully reading your paper which after a skim does appear to answer the questions I put to you.

        Thank you for your attention and good luck in your endeavours.

  13. candideschmyles says:

    To start I do not consider myself a troll. I have informed opinions on climate that differ substantially from the herd here. I have studied ecology as a keen amateur for 30 years including numerous and sustained field surveys of small mammal populations and square metre surveys of biological diversity in two upland areas of Scotland. I have also, coincidentally, been part of a team studying lepidoptera populations in coastal marshlands. I have this one pseudo name for this and all other sites i engage on changed publicly from my real name due to duplication and resulting confusion in having a common name.

    A perusal of your fevered collection of typos and counter vitriol masquerading as a rebuttal changes my opinion on you not a single data point. I have looked at Parmesans work and it appears to me that you do indeed deliberately and knowingly misrepresent her statements and conclusions to fit your particular narrative. As a biologist you know how to obtain her papers and you are at perfect liberty to use the data therein to go and replicate her studies should you truly wish to. This smoke and mirrors attitude of yours may fool those who have never done a field study but it does not fool me. And if I were Parmesan I would not only not be engaging with you in any way I would be making representations to have you stripped of your emeritus position at SFSU for unprofessional conduct. Looking at Parmesans work I see nothing political. I see only careful and diligent measurements with few conclusions and all thoroughly consistent and the logical interpretation of the field studies. As you well know there is a range of variability over time on any species or system studied. Making a case based on biased inferences from disparate sources as you do is a model of deception, not good science. Trying to rubbish the work of a careful and measured biologist to sell a book and promote yourself is very very low.

    It pains me to read your site, its typos are symptomatic of your lack of diligence and regard for accuracy. You are not a sceptic but a denier that goes immediately to ad hominem when challenged and feign indignation when you get what you give.

    For your information I am not a supporter of state or international conventions on official climate doctrine. I can be and am as sceptical of as much of their output as I am of the deniers like you. What informs me is a cautious appraisal of all data I collect from all sources. This non partisan attitude to the question of climate variability leads me to conclude there is 100% probability that human activity is effecting climate and that we should no longer be debating this at all. We should instead be concentrating on mitigating its effects on vulnerable human populations and protecting the ever diminishing wilderness areas to allow the important but hard to quantify aspect of ecology, biodiversity, to continue. Not to hold a particular ecological habitat to be artificially sustained but to allow natural evolution to proceed unchecked. The Earth never has been and never will be in stasis and the question is not about sustaining a moment frozen in time but about stopping the ongoing dumping of pollutants into the wider environment. This is not just Co2 and methane but all the plastics, heavy metals, synthetic hormones, pcb’s, plastics and synthetic isomers that all pose an unquantifiable risk to all life and especially the long term sustainability of civilisation. Your cherry picking of a few details and then misrepresentation of them to sell a book and yourself is reprehensible. You have no shame. And the more I look at your work and narrative the firmer that opinion becomes.

    • Jim Steele says:


      Again you engage in ugly character assassination with nothing more than your opinion while never ever dealing with the facts. The best you could do is point out I make typos. You claim to engage in lepidopteran research? I know many of the top experts. Where is your study and who is its principal investigator?

      You are upset that I have revealed the Parmesan’s bad science and defend her work without ever addressing the issues or the evidence I have discussed. But actual evidence is not an ally of dishonest internet snipers.

      Do you really believe when a population of butterflies in a logged area “winked out”, while 10 meters away the same species was thriving better than ever in its natural habitat, that the extinct population was due to CO2 clime change as Parmesan asserts and climate scientists embraced.. If so, your lack of scientific skill is appalling. Perhaps you can educate us about how Parmesan’s bogus paper was valid in any way, shape or form.

      You blather on that I should be able to “obtain her papers and you are at perfect liberty to use the data therein to go and replicate her studies should you truly wish to.” But her data was never made public. There was no methods sections. So obviously you never read the papers or you are again just engaging in loathsome dishonesty. Slandering Sou tried to denigrate me and justify Parmesan’s withholding of data. But her husband was invited to Sou’s site and instead actually confirmed my contention as discussed in the essay here:

      Until you sincerely discuss the evidence instead of parading vile personal attacks that are only your ugly opinion, how can anyone take you seriously? HOw can we see see you as anything more than an internist sniper obsessed with attacking honest skeptical science.

      I encourage everyone to read my essays on Parmesan and check the peer reviewed science that supports my arguments. I have no doubt that they will come to the understanding that candideschmyles is engaging in despicable dishonest sniping and pure slander.

  14. Jim Steele says:


    Did you know that Peter Meisler whose website you linked to in an attempt to defame me grew up in a Nazi family? Is that what you aspire to? Read all about your “climate hero” at the Popular Technology blog site. The author was tired of Meisler’ constant sniping and researched his background.

    You know what they say, birds of a feather….

  15. candideschmyles says:

    Wow you are so shameless. The guy, whoever else he is, is not responsible for the fact that his father was a German man living in Germany at the time the Nazi’s and would have been shot had he refused to enlist. This kind of tactical slander reveals exactly the kind of man you are. Going on to imply that I am a Nazi too demonstrates your propensity to insane jumps of logic and shreds any notion that you are even capable of balanced and unbiased thought. It is no different to me stating that as a James Steele you must be a criminal and fraudster.

    Ridiculous? Yes of course. But no more so than the kind of excreta you spew forth.

    Perhaps the Parmesans will not but I shall be writing to SFSU asking them how they feel about your radical and slanderous vitriol being associated with the university.

    The respected entomologist Peter Wormell was my contact, guide and mentor on moth counting trips made on Claish Moss in the Ardnamuchan Peninsula in ongoing monitoring studies of this unique peat bog on behalf of Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Wildlife Trust. This was in 1992 and the main species of concern at that time was the Marsh Fratillary which was seen as under threat. Sadly Peter died a few years ago but is fondly remembered as an outstanding figure in Scottish land stewardship and a source of inspiration for a generation of people still at work protecting and enhancing Scotland’s biodiversity.

    I followed your links and reviewed your accusations. These include ample evidence that there is more than enough data for you to replicate the studies done by Parmesan for yourself if you were genuinely interested. These include detailed maps with marked locations so there is really no excuse and in a word you are bullshitting. Indeed it is you that deliberately misinterprets, misquotes and slanders. And this is amply illustrated evrery time you touch a keyboard. Your disingenuous methods are fraudulent and pander only to those without the will to pursue fact.

    Not that I would disagree that there is too much over interpretation in the global warming science. There certainly is. But your attitude and approach is of no use in any debate. There are dozens like you playing to a certain audience rather than informing the debate with reasoned and measured science. Your inflammatory attitude is deliberately provocative, as that audience demands. And your credibility amongst them rests on you being as despicable in your rants as they are vacant of the ability to see beyond their cultural brainwash. You are a bottom feeder. No more. No less.

    • Jim Steele says:

      candideschmyle it was you who introduced Meisler’s bogus ranting into the conversation in your first attempt to denigrate me. I thought turn around was fair play. Glad you enjoyed the comparisons. All anyone needs to do is read your first post to see who initiated these vile unsubstantiated dishonest attacks, Your feigned outrage about me using your same smear tactics on you is quite amusing.

      When you persist in claiming “I followed your links and reviewed your accusations. These include ample evidence that there is more than enough data for you to replicate the studies done by Parmesan for yourself if you were genuinely interested” reveals your obsessive dishonesty and also hides the fact that you were totally ignorant that Parmesan’s iconic paper you defend did not have a methods section. The only evidence in my links is that her husband and colleague Dr. Singer agreed that I requested her data and she refused, and that her data was needed for replication. That you would defend the her efforts to prevent independent replication again reveals your lack of integrity and disregard for the scientific process.

      And if you truly worked on Scottish butterflies you should be familiar with Downes 1948 The History of the Speckled Wood Butterfly (Pararge aegeria) in Scotland, with a Discussion of the Recent Changes of Range of Other British Butterflies. Downes compiled lists of specific butterflies in Scotland during the late 1800s and early 1900s whose populations often fluctuated. He provided a map and documented their locations (see link the numbers on map on the left)

      Parmesan then published her bogus research saying the Specklewood was limited to southern England (black dots) and didnt reach Scotland until the 1970s driven by global warming. (see Parmesan map on the right. Her map was blatantly deceptive and misleading. LIke Enron she keeps half the data off the books to push her myths. You just can’t trust peer/pal review catch such blatant misrepresentations.

      But you candideschmyle, you support those dishonest tactics. And to defend your catastrophic climate heroes, you attack me simply because I exposed her dishonesty.

      But you know what they say, birds of a feather…

  16. ad says:

    in the beginning, there was co2, a whole planet, blanketed with beautiful carbon gas. there was no oxygen, no life, just co2 everywhere, nice and warm, but no way to be appreciated for that.

    then green plants were created – somehow. they loved co2, and of course, they could not have existed without it. they immediately started polluting their environment by exhaling oxygen, though. perhaps even the temperature started to lower by plant made oxygen, a derivative in fact of plant made carbon residue extracted from the earth’s atmosphere. the plantogenic climate change of the plantocene era had begun. in a way, the plants existed because they could. the animals did not exist, because they could not. there was however an inherent weakness in the plants’ habitat. what after all co2 would have been consumed? all plants would die and leave the planet with a poisoned oxygen atmosphere, never to see plant life again.. very few plants or perhaps even none of them were aware of this doomsday scenario. plants may have a soul, but you would need at least the tiniest brain-like structure to think yourself into depression. they were just happily advancing towards the inevitable abyss.

    but then, with sufficient oxygen accumulated, and totally unexpected by the plants, the animals came into existence – somehow. and boy, how they evolved on the oxygen produced by the ever growing plants. the plants and the animals lived in peaceful coexistence now, together they even stabilized the co2 level and perhaps even the co2 driven climate to a certain extent. the plants routed the energy of the sun to the animals, supplying oxygen and carbon based foods. and without even knowing – they were just animals, remember -, the animals regenerated the co2 that the plants had destroyed for their living, only keeping the energy that came straight from the sun. both had found eternal life on earth, or at least some 10 billion years, together with the sun of course. a true case of symbiosis.

    so far this is a heartwarming story of balance and harmony. this is true nature, pure and simple, but it is all past happiness now. for nowadays, the animals started thinking, an art they are not yet very proficient at, and it so happens they now think co2 is a poison! and the production of this benificient gas should be banned altogether. is there a war breeding between plants and animals?

    Of course, writing all these stupid words, i realise i am also just an animal with a very limited abacus inside and my analysis may be largely superficial and thus broken. because analysises should go deep enough to answer all questions on a subject to the satisfaction of the greatest living animal thinker, however little he may seem in the history of the cosmos.

    nevertheless, even in my rather foggy animal existence, some questions cry for answers. they relate particularly to quantification of all qualities involved and their relations. take the following, for example.

    – can we define upper and lower limits for the plant/animal living mass quotient between which sustainability is possible, or eternal life, if you like, because it sounds much more exiting.

    – apart from measuring only co2 levels with a microscope, how is the development of the oxygen level? i read somewhere it is about 20 percent now, and was about 30 percent 300 million years ago. what caused this drop, should we panic here too? what will be the future of the oxygen supply? can it be sustainable for eternity?

    everything in nature is balance. as soon as monopolies come to life, the resulting exponential growth will kill them sooner or later, unless some counterweight imposes itself. we seem destined to be able to define our own virtual balance, thanks to this funny process started in our heads. unfortunately, it seems our thinking and more important our thinking together has a long way to go and meanwhile time is running out, because some sub-species of ours seems to have very bad intentions. i call it sub-species, and even a degenerative one, because it apparently lacks the faculty of love, which i believe is essential among human animals.

    so let us be kind and listen to what others are saying, and just try to advance our understanding no matter who is talking. as to myself, i cannot fathom what happens to me everytime all sorts of exiting ideas just pop-up in my head. i have a theory that many ideas are collected through invisible channels between me and people around me. i believe telepathy is the original animal communication system. so now yall know how crazy i am.


  17. Jim Steele says:

    [SNIP – These snipes are now devolving into mere ad hominems and attempts at character assassination. If you two want to debate the science, great. Anything not related to the science under debate will be snipped from this thread. – JC]

    • Jim Steele says:

      I apologize! Outraged by his baseless lies, I was simply looking for a way to counter those lies and unsupported fabrications about my reputation, my book, and my interview, that candideschmyles was constantly repeating. Trying to unveil candideschmyles’ past character flaws does not negate whether or not his arguments are valid or simply complete BS. I am embarrassed that I sank to the same low level of character assassination. So I support your moderation snip and hope it will promote a more civil discussion. As demonstrated below, I will constrain myself to simply debunking his claims based purely on the evidence.

  18. BennyB says:

    @Jim Steele,

    I just wanted to take a moment to thank you for your important work on the subject matter. Seeing some of the gross attempts at character assassination here is a perfect demonstration of the fact that it takes a significant amount of courage and integrity to stand behind your work and present it for the sake of providing the public with further information to make intelligent assessments on these important issues when there’s such a concerted effort on the parts of so many in the professional community and outside (as is the case here) to malign not just your work but your reputation.

    I’ll be the first to admit that my skepticism on the C02 issue has been a slow evolution and my distrust of many of the more vocal skeptics has often led to questions about the integrity and sincerity of of their position, particularly when I perceive conflicts of interest, which may or may not be a factor. I don’t see any such conflicts of interest in your work. On the contrary, the point I see you making which resonates with me, is the fact that the C02 issue and much of the rhetoric which has evolved around defending the hypothesis, is a divisive tactic which has quite successfully distracted people from looking critically at the issues on a case per case basis and, in doing so, as suggested in the title of the podcast, taken energy away from addressing legitimate concerns about the environment on a proactive level.

    For me, one of the elements which makes your perspective so valuable and compelling is the fact that you’re not merely saying that the C02 hypothesis is wrong, but you’re doing some of the legwork to address legitimate concerns about what I think might be more accurately (and usefully) described as environmental degradation and disruption. One of the biggest obstacles in my skepticism over the C02 hypothesis has been the sense that much of the rhetoric seems to dismiss environmentalists as mindless dupes who look to undermine the concept of free market principles through undue burden and regulation. Just saying “climate change is a hoax” when people see very real elements of change, much of it alarming, is far from satisfying.

    The point I alluded in a comment I made earlier here (albeit somewhat uselessly and vaguely;) which I wanted to come back to is the idea that, those of us who are concerned with the environment, need to move beyond arguing about C02 and focus on specific issues. Everybody can see that these “climate summits” have achieved little more than bogus proposals which, even by the IPCC’s own brand of dodgy research and recommendations, barely scratches the surface of these theoretical catastrophic scenarios of small island nations disappearing beneath waves littered with polar bear corpses. So why even grant such summits an ounce of credibility to begin with?

    As is the case in politics in general (imo), the readymade “solutions” being championed by the self appointed elites are not intended to address the problems we face. If we want to affect positive change we need to make more intelligent assessments about the root causes of these problems and work towards specific solutions. As you mention in this podcast, issues like drought are obviously legitimate concerns, but one has to ask the question: which is more likely to yield results; examining poor water resource management in effected areas (including corporate plunder by the likes of Nestle) and trying to address these issues directly, or traveling to the next “climate summit” to kneel at the feet of the carbon gods and pray for reductions in C02 emissions? The answer seems pretty clear to me, but one of the missing links in the debate on climate change has been a lack of emphasis (or in some cases even admission) on the part of figures in the skeptic community on acknowledging that there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about environmental degradation and ecological disruption, it’s just a matter of recognizing that so long as we remain divided about the AGM theory, we remain susceptible to strategically manufactured distractions which obfuscate the findings of important real world scientific research such as yours which can serve as the basis for taking proactive steps to address these issues on a case per case basis instead of throwing our hands up hopelessly accepting the endlessly expanding blanket explanation that each disturbing environmental change or disruption is yet more proof substantiating the AGM theory and that our only (or best) remedy is to beg our “leaders” for “solutions” that are in reality just smoke screens for greater consolidation of power in the hands of the few under various nefarious pretexts.

    Thanks again for the great work. I appreciate your willingness to take a stand and not be deterred by some of the gross slanderous attacks which have unfortunately become such a common factor in this debate.


    • candideschmyles says:

      Hi Benny,

      I have gotten used to receiving little support here for my contrary views on climate but I find it quite sad that you wade in here with criticisms of genuine criticisms when Steele himself is a serial badmouther parading third rate opinion as science. I admit my first comment was strong and unequivocally harsh but I deny it was sniping. Steele himself uses adhominems in near every paragraph not just in his attempts at denigrating me but throughout his online presence. And not very successfully except to those rabidly seeking validation of their own confirmation bias. It does not stop there however but continues into the parading of deliberate misinterpretation, wild speculation and outright lies as good solid science. Politics is not my first love, it is science and I have spent 35 years daily immersing myself in the study of certain topics, amongst them the Earth sciences. I am not the kind of fool that believes every conspiracy theory and not the kind of fool who is convinced by every spin put on the good science by official bodies either. I am sceptical because any good science always is. Like in any subject it pays to gather as much raw data as you can before attempting to draw logical conclusions. Misinterpretations of misinterpretations, the mainstay of James and Steele’s arguments are not good science. They are nonsense masquerading as insight. So let’s analyse the “meat and potatoes” of this interview and see how it stands up.

      I will start by acknowledgment that there is bad science coming from large environmental organisations such as WWF. The case of Polar Bears in peril does appear to be such a case. And it is far from the first time that a “honeypot” species has been chosen as a fund raising focus with dubious science to back the claims. I reiterate I do not accept many of the arguments and data sets used to justify spurious claims on both sides of the fence. The truth is climate science is in its infancy and I have little doubt that Steele’s claim that much of today’s thinking will seem absurd 30 years down the line is correct. However his claims are already absurd and his statement stands true for all scientific disciplines. It’s called progress.

      Let’s take a look at some of the claims. Building on the dubious polar bear data he was keen to make a similar claim for the southern hemisphere and repeatedly claimed that penguin populations were thriving. They are not. Both King and Emperor penguins are well studied tertiary species that are in decline. As these papers clearly show:

      Now I am personally reluctant to claim certainty over studies of such populations as near all flora and fauna are, when looked at over the long term, subject to striking population fluctuations. However that is not Steele’s claim. He maintains a lie without evidence.

      Remaining in the Antarctic he claims that there is no net ice loss in Antarctica except a few stray icebergs naturally calving into the ocean. Utter nonsense. Ice loss in West Antarctica and the Antarctic peninsula in particular is spectacular and worrisome. Far from a few stray icebergs huge shelves of ice are breaking off, some as big as half the size of Wales.

      And the most up to date satellite data confirms this is speeding up at an alarming rate:

      In central and East Antarctica there is indeed ice gain and a thickening of the cap. However this is also bad news and indicates that there is a substantial change in Antarctic weather bring heavy snowfall where it was once rare. This is consistent with a warming atmosphere carrying more moisture, and thus precipitation deep into the continent. So this argument of ignorance of what ice gain actually means is proof of nothing except a poor understanding of the active dynamics of weather and climate. Trying to hinge his argument on continental rebound, a negligible effect in Antarctica, is simply scraping the barrel for something that ‘sounds’ credible.
      All in the data on Antarctica is quite unequivocal. Antarctica is in flux and to argue otherwise is dishonest. The only valid argument is that this flux is part of natural long term fluctuations, an argument but that is no use either due to data limitations.. But given the speed up of vast ice fields and the irreversible momentum they are gaining it is difficult to argue that these conditions have been present for hundreds of thousands of years. If it had there would be nowhere near the ice there today as there is.

      [SNIP – Please keep posts within (or at least within the ballpark) of the 500 word limit. Perhaps you can break your speculations about whether I am a CIA operative into another comment if need be. – JC]

      • candideschmyles says:

        Certainly James, the post after this one OK for you?

        Cont.from above
        Back to his own dubious expertise in land use changes he claims that California has sunk 100ft due to water extraction followed by a don’t quote me on that moment. A professional simply does not make such unsubstantiated claims. As it is a radical and far reaching, (subsidence issues alone could cost billions), claim it demands proof. But there is none. It’s almost as insane as claiming groundwater extraction is the real cause of the 1mm a year rise in sea levels. The truth is that the worst recorded subsidence by the USGS is 2ft over a 4 year period of drought and it was highly localised.
        To see some real subsidence the tundra regions around the Arctic circle will be the place to get that sinking feeling. Melting permafrost, driven by an unambiguous average temperature rise in the region of 0.6C since 1980, is threatening to bring twice the amount of carbon already released by humans since the industrial revolution back in to the global carbon cycle. In addition to the permafrost oceanic clathrates, sub sea permafrost, combine to hold not less than 1,400 gigatons (gt) of methane and methane hydrate. (shakova et Al 2008). Estimates from Russian scientists say that as much as 50gt is ready to pop. This is the same as 17 times as much methane as is in our atmosphere right now. The last time there was such a pronounced methane release was the Permian-Triassic extinction event, (the great dying), that saw 96% of all marine species, including 54% of genus present at the time, wiped from the fossil record. As methane is soluble in water and settles in silts subsequently to become rocks this is easily measured and as firm as science gets in giving us long term data to work with.
        The effects this may have in accelerating the rising Co2 problem are highly speculative. But my opinion, based on basic chemistry, is that it cannot be good news. Co2 effects, as I will tackle next, are slow burn effects. The methane is a turbo charge.
        James and Steele both both labour hard to maintain that the worst predictions of climate change are not evident now so they cannot be true. In this they not only grossly reinterpret the bulk of climate modeling to suit a thus moot argument but propagate a myth that very much has its roots in big oil propaganda. Now from a Republicrat like Steele its what I expect but in James its just plain weird. The effects of Co2 on climate are indeed evident in weather. Despite not being able to pin climate change on a specific weather event statistical modelling of all weather events is unambiguous in stating there is more energy in the system and that it continues to increase. In turn this supports all the other evidence that there is more heat and water vapour in circulation. When a region is getting hit by a once in a century deluge every 10 years then it kind of tells you something. Some don’t trust statistical modeling but the Gaussian statistics used for them underpin every aspect of modern life and they work.

        • candideschmyles says:

          As I have touched on before I was unaware of James stance on climate change before I subscribed in support. It was very much his history of the 20th century movers and shakers and 9/11, of course, that had my attention. Unfortunately very soon afterward he had Tim Ball, a guy who is proven funded by Exxon, on podcast. James talks about “gatekeepers” like Chomsky but when you review his other work and compare it to his big oil speil on climate its like gatekeeping too. It’s annoying and confusing. After all James is not a farmer but a chef. A sampler/mixer not a musician. He takes already public domain material and reformats it. With some skill too. It’s not denigration its a statement of fact. Even the open source investigations rely on us gathering already existing information. When you are engaged in such work it is incumbent on you to fact check yet on the climate issue there is only self confirmation from other misguided or paid sceptical individuals. Even Steele, in his mention of scientific consensus amongst scientists working on the Antarctic, acknowledges that science does have an open mind. Indeed there is much disquiet amongst them over the political pressure to produce simplified soundbites for an audience with a steadily declining IQ. The climate gate scandal was a direct consequence of such political pressure to produce statements they did not want to make. But the vast majority of those engaged in climate research have no doubt at all the effects are now with us. The real question is what are the effects going to be in coming decades. Denying the problem even exists is truly folly. Nitpicking around the fringes of highly interpretable data sets or making a big deal over petty taxation issues does not justify all the effort James goes to to produce these pieces when his caveats and concessions clearly indicate he cannot deny climate is clearly changing. Extreme weather events around the world are increasing at an alarming rate with record highs now out pacing record lows at a statistically significant rate of 2:1.

          This was precisely the prediction given by atmospheric scientists, 25-30 yrs ago on how increasing Co2 levels would effect climate. There is more heat, more water and more extreme variability all consistent with the basic chemistry expected from a carbon induced greenhouse effect. Deflecting arguments to petty squabbles over coerced meaningless statistics is exactly the technique employed by big oil to cause confusion among the general public and their paid lackeys in government are part of that game knowingly demanding the ‘wrong’ sound bites. This set up to fail buys time for big oil to continue selling carbon with production now at all time record highs and harmful extraction methods such as fracking and deep sea drilling on the increase. So when I see James on the one hand produce his Oiligarchs video and on the other hand platform their propaganda I have to wonder is this gatekeeping? Tell us what we already want to believe in order to gain credibility and then deliver the climate confusion, which is the most pressing need of big oil over the medium term.
          James, IMHO, can do one of two things to maintain any semblance of credibility. He can either leave the subject well alone or actually go and study the subject properly and retract his erroneous conclusions admitting he has been duped. Those at the top of the food chain are not bothered by James producing videos on how big n bad they are. The opposite, they want a cognoscenti, their psychopathy demands an audience. But they do not want serious climate activism that threatens oil production and it is important to them to head off any potential for this. At the recent climate talks in Paris there were all sorts of protests permitted but the groups and individuals of deep ecologists who understand that everything is smoke and mirrors were subject to pre-emptive arrests, house arrests and incarceration without charge for the duration. These guys trying to highlight the big oil manipulations were ignored by almost every news source including James and buddies. Yet anybody would think them the natural allies of any exposure of the ongoing shenanigans of the Oiliogarchs! Such a disconnect troubles me. The two central planks of the evolved deep state is to have something on everyone and to own every dialogue. James trip to the infamous CIA ‘vacation’ spot of Acapulco last year, (and again there is a planned trip this year), produced very little in the way of tangible work on this site that I could see. So for me James is now suspicious. I can’t prove anything of course and I do not level an accusation. But when I see the big oil narrative here I would be stupid not to question it. As stated I have been looking at these issues in depth for over 30 years and climate change is happening. The method, the logic and obfuscation James presents on the climate issue are all big oil tactics. The only question that remains is has James been duped or is he owned.

      • Jim Steele says:

        Candideschmyles writes “ All in the data on Antarctica is quite unequivocal. Antarctica is in flux and to argue otherwise is dishonest.”

        Yet no one has ever argued that Antarctica is NOT in flux. The question is what caused the instability. One argument has been that since the end of Last Ice Age Maximum, the 120 meter rise in sea level as the Northern Hemisphere glaciers melted, allowed warmer deep waters to access and melt the glaciers with the deepest grounding points. Antarctica has yet to reach an equilibrium the high sea levels that have existed since the Holocene’s warm periods and those glaciers continue to experience basal melting and more frequent calving.

        Because Antarctica has been in flu for thousands of years I again quote Antarctic expert Dr Eric Steig, “I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this.” Due to his lack of historical perspective and a reasonable understanding of the climate dynamics involved, Candideschmyles does not realize his own ignorance, and thus calls more well informed scientists like myself “dishonest”

        Similarly candideschmyles argues that snowfall accumulation is something to be feared writing “this is also bad news and indicates that there is a substantial change in Antarctic weather bring heavy snowfall where it was once rare.” Clearly he did not read the Zwally paper showing for the last 18,000 years of the Holocene, that snowfall accumulating has increased and the least amount of ice accumulation counter-intuitively occurred during the lasts ICe Age Maximum. By such awkward reasoning, only a return to the Ice Age and less accumulation would be “good news” ??!!??!!!??!

        • candideschmyles says:

          I congratulate you Mr Steele on your notable restraint in the use of personal attacks and and hominems in these two recent posts. Still some way to go of course but its nice to see you trying. Not that they offend me, they don’t. On the contrary I have always found them useful indicators of weakness.

          I was amused at your dismissal of the King Penguins of the South Sandwich Islands not being an Antarctic species. As the these islands are within the Antarctic circumpolar weather zone such a dismissal is wholly invalid. Indeed being a top predator on the periphery of that zone they are a key indicator species of change effecting the region.
          Of the 45 Emperor penguin colonies it is true a handful are increasing and this is explained by blooms in Krill in specific areas, notably the Ross Sea, that are a temporary phenomenon set to cease as ocean warming increases. The long term prognosis for Emperor, Adelie and Chinstrap penguins is poor.

          Again you misrepresent the actual science when you talk about sea ice. As I stated before, and I reject your rebuttal based on the evidence I presented then, increased precipitation drives all ice gains in Antarctica. If not please explain to me any other mechanism where by ice thickens. It is notable that you ignore the excellent temperature measurement data that shows the surface ocean temperature around Antarctica is not just increasing over 3/4 of the region but is showed a doubling in the rate of warming since 1980. The only cooling in the gyre ,east of the Antarctic peninsula and off east Antarctica are due to to the effects of increased precipitation induced sea ice gains caused by pooling of colder water. The sea ice gains themselves are not evidence of cooling, quite the opposite. The mechanisms of increased sea ice gains, an annual phenomenon, rely equally on record summer melting of that same ice. These create large areas of open water, Polyayas, and the feedback loop of precipitation in a warming ocean and air environment.

          As you correctly state there is stratification of ocean waters and they play a leading role in the formation of sea ice. Though you mention two layers you neglect the topmost layer of freshwater that accumulates seasonally from that, increasing, melting sea ice and from increased precipitation. It is this layer, ultimately driven by higher sea and air temperatures that is responsible for the observed increase in sea ice. Thus your argument is moot. More your Zwally quote on ice gains throughout the Holocene actually confirm more heat = more precipitation. It’s like you look at everything through the wrong end of the telescope.

          • Jim Steele says:

            candideschmyles, Again you accuse me of misleading with the actual science, when it is your ignorance of all the facts.

            You blindly embraced a single woeful hypothesis that melting ice is causing more sea ice, when all research shows that sea ice is gaining where there is the least amount or NO glacier melt and that where sea ice growing ocean temperatures are colder.

            It is you who total misrepresents the science when you falsely accuse, “you ignore the excellent temperature measurement data that shows the surface ocean temperature around Antarctica is not just increasing over 3/4 of the region but is showed a doubling in the rate of warming since 1980.”

            There is no such data suggesting any such thing. That is simply a boatload of crap. Most of the suggested warming for the souther oceans has been attributed to the poleward displacement of the Circumpolar Current. A wind direction shift compressed insulating sea ice along the western peninsula and allowed more heat to ventilate. There is no evidence that CO2 radiative warming has added any heat. In fact just the opposite. Research stations all along eastern Antarctica show no warming. NONE

          • Jim Steele says:

            And once again KIng Penguins avoid ice and DO NOT live on Antarctica. Spin your continuous blunders however you wish. They are quite telling.

          • Jim Steele says:

            candideschmyles again makes up data and my intentions trying to denigrate what I wrote and spoke saying “It is notable that you ignore the excellent temperature measurement data that shows the surface ocean temperature around Antarctica is not just increasing over 3/4 of the region but is showed a doubling in the rate of warming since 1980.

            In contrast Antarctic experts wrote In the 2014 paper, “Recent Antarctic sea ice trends in the context of Southern Ocean surface climate variations since 1950”

            While candideschmyles oddly adheres to the idea that warming causes more sea ice, researchers that actually look at the data found sea ice increases where it is colder. Who woulda thunk physics would act that way??? LOL

            Key finding: “Apart from the Antarctic Peninsula and adjacent regions, sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures DECREASED during 1979–2011, consistent with the expansion of Antarctic sea ice.” [my emphasis]

            One has to wonder how the brilliant scientific mind of candideschmyles translates their “excellent temperature measurements” into “surface ocean temperature around Antarctica is not just increasing over 3/4 of the region but is showed a doubling in the rate of warming since 1980.” ????

            Here’s the abstract

            This study compares the distribution of surface climate trends over the Southern Ocean in austral summer between 1979–2011 and 1950–1978, using a wide variety of data sets including uninterpolated gridded marine archives, land station data, reanalysis, and satellite products. Apart from the Antarctic Peninsula and adjacent regions, sea surface temperatures and surface air temperatures decreased during 1979–2011, consistent with the expansion of Antarctic sea ice. In contrast, the Southern Ocean and coastal Antarctica warmed during 1950–1978. Sea level pressure (SLP) and zonal wind trends provide additional evidence for a sign reversal between the two periods, with cooling (warming) accompanied by stronger (weaker) westerlies and lower (higher) SLP at polar latitudes in the early (late) period. Such physically consistent trends across a range of independently measured parameters provide robust evidence for multidecadal climate variability over the Southern Ocean and place the recent Antarctic sea ice trends into a broader context.

            • candideschmyles says:

              Sorry but we are using the same data sets and while you dismiss, or at least attempt to dismiss, me as in error using words a quick look at the maps that support these studies clearly show the 3/4 to be accurate. In addition the other paper on the study of Polyayas and how low salinity water and surface ice is pushed around in the circumpolar gyre do explain the sea ice increase. There is nothing wrong with what I am saying. It’s like I said, you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope and attempting to shift the goalposts. Perhaps you should stick to being a twitcher?

              • Jim Steele says:

                No candideschmyles the two papers are not analyzing the same data. You are wrong again.

                Your link to the Zhang paper is a paper simply about modeled results hypothesizing that more melt water will cause more ice. Critical thinkers might wonder if that were truly the case then why isn’t Arctic sea ice increasing rapidly. LOL You then try to dismiss a paper that actually examined the sea surface temperatures and the relationship between SST and sea ice. You seem to have a disregard for reality. To use your analogy, perhaps you are forgetting to remove lens caps from your personal telescope.

                I don’t think you ever read or understand the peer reviewed literature you link to or to the links I provide. You appear to just do a google search and throw up something, no matter how irrelevant, hoping something might stick, like this Zhang paper or King Penguins. Your flow of errors have been exposed with nearly every post you make.

                And you might want to fix the other link it just brings up an index page with the lead story about Great Britain nectar resources. I know the literature on polynyas and their effects on Emperor penguins very well. So I look forward to your link to whatever paper you are tossing around and why you think it is evidence for CO2 warming.

    • Jim Steele says:

      Thanks Benny,

      It has been an amazing lesson, experiencing how internet snipers will attack and lie and distort my reputation simply because I point to natural factors more powerful than CO2 that ate affecting our environment. I welcome honest debate and sincere challenges to my interpretations. However slanderous lies are the fingerprints of dishonest internet snipers with no integrity. It is easy to spot slanderous snipers because they do never quote what is actually said nor do they provide relevant evidence that supports their attacks. It appears that these snipers adhere to the propagandist’s tactic if you tell a lie often enough people will eventually believe it.

      That said Candideschmyles has finally attempted to address his initial failure quote my supposed “lies” but fails to provide evidence that supports his vile accusations.

      1. candideschmyles says Jin Steele “repeatedly claimed that penguin populations were thriving. They are not. Both King and Emperor penguins are well-studied tertiary species that are in decline. As these papers clearly show”


      In my book I talked about the fact that nearly every penguin outside of Antarctica is threatened due to human disturbance and introductions of rats and cats and other predators to the penguins breeding islands that were once predator free.

      In contrast the two ice associated penguins of Antarctic are the Emperor and Adelies. And they are by all accounts thriving overall. Adelie population has nearly doubled despite a some lost colonies along the west coast of the peninsula.


      Satellite data has also revealed there are twice as many Emperor Penguins than previously thought. That doesn’t mean the population nescessarily doubled, only that more have been detected. The one large decline of Emperors was at D’umont Durville between 1960 and 1980, and that decline was most likely due to researcher disruption as discussed in my essay here:

      I received a few emails from top Antarctic penguin researchers supporting my claims made in that essay. Sworn to confidentiality due to fear of reprisals they also shared tales of how journal editors have tried to force a climate change interpretation on their publications.

      Candideschmyles’ “meat and potatoes” analysis nonsensically believes he has rebutted my claims by linking to an irrelevant King Penguin study. King Penguins are not found in Antarctica. And a paper showing that increased snowfall has “slowed sea-level rise by 0.12 ± 0.02 millimeters per year.”

      Go Figure.

      2. Candideschmyles states the Jim Steele “claims that there is no net ice loss in Antarctica except a few stray icebergs naturally calving into the ocean. Utter nonsense”

      Having never said such a thing, I would love to see my quote regards a “few stray icebergs”. If one reads the essay

      that James linked to and was the basis for this interview, one would understand that I wrote there is no consensus on net ice loss as discussed by the NOAA paper. HOwever all sides of the debate agree there has been a steady loss due to basal melting but in a relatively small areas of Antarctic mostly due to a unique bathymetry and close proximity to the Antarctic Circumpolar Current. As Antarctic expert Dr Eric Steig wrote, “I think the evidence that the current retreat of Antarctic glaciers is owing to anthropogenic global warming is weak. The literature is mixed on this, about 50% of experts agree with me on this.”

      One must wonder why Candideschmyles thinks he/she rebutted my essay when his link to a Scientific American article actually supports most of what I wrote and said about the dynamics of lost Antarctic ice. The articles quotes the researchers, “the glaciers’ quick disappearance is not caused by a reduction in annual snowfall or by warmer air temperatures.” ….”shifting winds are pushing warmer water toward the ice shelves, melting them from below”

      Air temperature is so cold in Antarctica the surface water temperatures are much colder than the deeper waters. The deeper circumpolar waters are relatively insulated from changing air temperatures and adjust only on century and millennial time scales. Glaciers that are ground in deeper waters are more susceptible to melting, while glaciers grounded in shallower depths have not lost ice. The instability of these deeply grounded glaciers have been discussed long before CO2 was considered a possible factor. If one actually reads what I wrote, they would quickly realize everything I said is fully supported by peer reviewed research and we can only wonder from what part of his anatomy Candideschmyles accusations of “dishonesty “ are being pulled.

    • bd6951 says:

      Take the time to read this. But be very careful because the article contains descriptions of observable changes that are ongoing as you and your ilk spew nonsense about gaming climate data. You guys just don’t get it. Positive feedback loops are now fully in play and the results are already wreaking havoc on the Arctic ecosystem. What about this do you not understand? Corbett continues to spread nonsense and you guys just lap it up. Stupi can’t be fixed.

      • tomas says:

        Referencing NY times does little . an article by two people who are high in the education system , went to climate conference , and are completely “victims” of the rockefeller’s teaching’s , totally kills this point.

        should watch the OLIGARCHY video by James , would shed some light on the wonderful education/university – teaching in general system .

        to go with this point you would be then stating that the rockefeller’s themselves are in favour of getting society off of oil .

      • jay.z says:

        One of the principle problems I find in the logic of most global warming alarmists (e.g. bd6951) is that they fail to accept or realize that with or without humans the planet’s temperature and ecosystem has and always will be in flux… We’ve had ice ages on this planet and we’ve had times where arctic areas were near tropical. And it’s foolish to assume that the way it has been for the last few millenia is the way it will be, and build major cities on edge of an ocean… We’re way too ego/anthro centered in all of this. And we so often fail to see the forest for the trees in this typical, near nauseating debate.

        I agree, humanity (but particularly corporations and their elite executives) are wrecking havoc on major areas of the world’s ecosystem. I didn’t hear anything about the island of microscopic plastic (the size of Texas) in the middle Pacific at the recent circle jerk in Paris tho! As far as I’m concerned the CO2 craze and anthropogenic climate change (global cooling in the 70’s, now it’s global warming) is not really concerned about the environment… We all know that Al Gore doesn’t really give a f*** about the environment… Just the profits of his environment corporation investments. Let’s dig deeper in our discussion and ask more questions before buying the rhetoric that CNN, CBS, CIA, MIT, WHO and all the other three letter agencies and institutions put in place so that we blindly parrot whatever the Orwellian, Kubrickian black boxes tell us is the “Truth”.

  19. candideschmyles says:


    I do apologise for the length of that but such questions do require some qualification as I hope you appreciate. As stated I do not level an accusation but ask a question.

  20. candideschmyles says:

    You should listen to this podcast if you want to know where you were dismissive of significant change in Antarctica and qwjhere you described ice loss in West Antarctica as a “little bit” and “a few stray icebergs”.

    This statement “Sworn to confidentiality due to fear of reprisals” is most disingenuous. Having one or two scientists your corner with your aggressive manner might equally be telling you what you want to hear. This is a dishonest tactic. As the saying goes ‘put up or shut up’. You have a bare faced cheek questioning consensus while claiming it also in anonymity.

    The ironic thing is we probably have a lot in common over our perception of the risk of climate change. It’s just this Co2 thing. Your position on that is simply indefensible. Why? Chemistry.
    Co2 effects are so well studied and quantified by experiment that there is as close to certainty as science ever gets that it is causing radiative forcing effects leading to an increase in water droplets in the atmosphere. These experiments are as secure as secure can be, easily replicated and replicated many times. Even the sceptics like you and James have been forced to admit the Earth is warming. So why deny the simplest most plausible and experimentally verifiable explanation? It makes no sense. The only reason to deny the obvious is if you have a vested interest in Co2 creating products.
    There is no way to deny that there has been a near 40% increase in atmospheric Co2 in the past 150 yrs and that takes the mean to levels not seen in over 800000 years. There is absolute certainty on that and the measurement of ice extent is well graphed throughout that range showing a clear relationship in receding and advancing ice sheets.
    Just these facts alone make scepticism over the effcts of Co2 on climate untenable and irrational. So there has to be another cause for such scepticism. The biggest and most plausible is that the carbon producers want to continue selling it. If everybody accepted the basic, and it is basic, premise that Co2 is a potent greenhouse gas then the carbon industry would be under exponential pressures to cease and desist. So it is in their interest and their interest alone to muddy the waters. And that is exactly what they have done. Whether you and James are dupes or knowing participants/employees I do not know. But given the situation is so serious your weak arguments are no cause to attempt to disarm the campaign against further carbon release. You are arguing against caution based on good science. That is irrational and suspicious.

    • tomas says:

      candid, this co2 rise , could a contributing factor be human population ? and hence less forest / wilderness areas ? as in , and this is the extent of my scientific knowledge , but we exhale co2 and they exhale oxygen , so as the supposed population has gone from , and I’m only guessing , say a billion some 2000 years ago to 7 billion now , and somewhat similar ratio on the side of wilderness decreasing , would that not in itself be a major factor in this ?
      again , i am in no way defending these oil and fossil fuel corporations , and the ill effect they have on the planet . i just don’t accept what i perceive as their interest/motive for this climate movement .

      • tomas says:

        i recall watching those BBC dinosaur documentaries , and the “scientists/archeologists” were saying how in those days with few mammals or reptiles around that oxygen level’s were high and hence the forests were booming all over , and then millions of years pass , yadi yada , and due to the high oxygen the mammals that were started becoming massive , ( as in later dinosaur ages ) .

        is our current situation yet another “age” in the worlds cycles ? as in a result of the lifeforms that are currently living here now and their chemistry ?

        • candideschmyles says:

          Thanks for the question Thomas,

          The short answer is no. You see over the age of man all our burning and land clearing has only been shifting around carbon already in circulation on the planet surface. Watch or read something on “the carbon cycle” and its easily understood.
          The additional carbon in our atmosphere has to come from out with the reservoir of surface carbon. There are two possible sources. Below surface extraction of hydrocarbons and volcanic gas emissions. The later have been well studied by vulcanologists for decades and are factored into the calculations. By far the main sources are gas, oil and coal, carbon that the biosphere spent millions of years taking out of circulation and in doing created a temperate Earth over maximum geographical range.

          • tomas says:

            so are we talking carbon then , or carbon dioxide ( as in the stuff we exhale ) ? or am i missing something completely ? or is carbon creating carbon dioxide ?

            • candideschmyles says:

              Co2 is a carbon atom joined in a linear chain to two oxygen atoms. I suggest you go to Wikipedia for a comprehensive list of carbon based molecules, there are many.

  21. Jim Steele says:


    what is your obsession with repeating irrelevant factoids over and over again. No matter how many times I or any skeptic tells you the issue is “climate sensitivity” you bring up CO2 is a greenhouse gas” and it is “rising”. I have always agreed with that. But to repeat more slowly the issue is “c-l-i-m-a-t-e s-e-n-s-i-t-i-v-i-t-y!” There is no consensus on sensitivity and the models all over the place and the models all overestimate the observed temperatures for the past 20 years. Instead of dealing with that, you make up stuff suggesting we deny rising CO2 and then you attribute nefarious motives to us for your straw man agreement. As noted above you are too quick to accuse people of being dishonest when it is simply you ignorance of the issue.

    There are many reasons for warming i addition to the natural warming that took us out of the LIttle Ice Age.

    Read The Global Average Chimera

  22. candideschmyles says:

    Ànother great question.

    There is not an atom in the universe ever across the whole of time that has remained unchanged for a second. Change is the most fundamental given you can get. And its fliters through everything.

    I am not a doomsayer. I think whatever damage we do to this ongoing experiment called civilisation, Earth is more than capable of bouncing back. What concerns me is the impact more energy in the climate system will have on the most disenfranchised communities of humans around the world. The sceptical argument was born in and is sustained largely by north Americans. The north american mentality craves such an argument to sustain a disconnect between north american consumption and culpability for the degredation of the whole Earth such an unsustainable consumption demands.
    The richest are at far less risk of the harmful effects of climate change than the poor. And that’s what worries me. I want to see an end to the release of any more carbon from fossil sources and clean electric poweralternatives developed and expanded to replace them. James demonstrated in his Rise of the Oiliogarchs how they terminated that avenue of progress to sell carbon. So why is it difficult to believe that policy is still with us?

    Even to civilisation worst case scenarios for global warming may not be near as catastrophic as are imagined. I do not undervalue the ability of science to provide the tech to allow adjustment. But it will be innocent poor families and community’s needs who try to scrape a living of the Earth who will suffer hardest, soonest and most. I believe with current tech we can sustain a 12bn population at the standard of living of the average European without any further degradation to the natural environment. It is the political systems and the greed of elites that prevents this. And carbon is the unnecessary currency used to maintain the imbalance.

    • WannabePhilosopher says:

      You know candid, it’s interesting that you denigrate us on most issues, but on this issue you really bring out all the stops. I’m not saying that you’re wrong because I simply don’t know enough about the issue of climate and its variability to categorically say that with 100% certainty. However, the issue of global warming and the way it’s framed in the mass media does seem to be the perfect issue for globalists. The argument that there is no way to deal with it without some sort of “global governance” is just too simplistic and intuitive for most people to see threw it. Makes one think, who is the shill?

      • candideschmyles says:

        I’m sorry you feel that way but I think you are mistaken. The only issues on which I am consistently opposed to James are climate and his flirtations with US wingnuts. On most other issues he covers I am quietly supportive. That I only tend to post in disagreement distorts that perception.

      • candideschmyles says:

        As for this ‘global governance’ in the context of climate it just does not make sense. From Kyoto to Paris what is actually striking about all the treaties and agreements are just how toothless they are and how little they change. In many cases it has been the world’s poorest economies in regions most affected by drout, famine and sea level rises that want change implemented but find it strongly resisted by the US. It has only been in the last 10 years the US even acknowledged human induced climate change as real and was never a signatory of the Kyoto agreement. So there is a disconnect between the political reality and your perception.

        • WannabePhilosopher says:

          So what’s the solution then? If it’s legislating that people less privileged around the world can’t use whatever form of energy is necessary for their survival while you sit in your comfortable climate controlled setting then you have mental issues. Plain and simple. And next your probably gonna tell me that doing so would be great for population control.

          • candideschmyles says:

            Absolutely! That’s me and my wannabe philosophy! And my hobby is skinning babies!
            What a moronic accusation.

            • WannabePhilosopher says:

              So, the problem with all the “toothless” global agreements and treaties is that they did not give enough power to the oligarchs that will benevolently direct their enforcement. Correct?

              • candideschmyles says:

                No. The problem is that they are outrageous concessions to the fossil fuel industry and that they do nothing at all to protect the ordinary people around the world who are most at risk from adverse weather events brought on by climate change.

    • Jason says:

      “I believe with current tech we can sustain a 12bn population at the standard of living of the average European without any further degradation to the natural environment. It is the political systems and the greed of elites that prevents this.”

      Overpopulation should really be the point of discussion instead of climate change. The latter will self regulate itself. The planet and its cycles have proven this, if not a cataclysm, which happen on regular basis will sort this out.
      We can discuss climate change and its causes and effects until we are blue in the face, but unless we dont come to a consensus about how we manage to regulate the number of our species wie will be pretty much fucked (pardon my french).
      Its the not the political system or elite who create this. Its all of us. Its human nature which is causing this problem.

      • candideschmyles says:

        Nothing does more to curb birth rates than high living standards. Fair distribution of wealth/resources very likely would bring population stability.

      • Jim Steele says:

        Jason in many ways we are self regulating our populations. In high tech societies where more education is required, marriage is delayed. LIke all K selected species there is a lower value for having many children and higher survival rate.Those countries’ reproductive rates have fallen below the replacement rates. In poorer countries subsistence farming benefits from cheap child labor and lower survival encourages bigger reproductive rate. When people are not starving they are not forced to choose between survival and protecting the ecosystem.

        Due to hIgh tech farming marginal farmlands have returned to the wild. Vermont was 80% deforested in the 1900s but has now returned to 80% forested. If we improve our use of wetland and restore the hydrology as we did in the Sierra Nevada, the vegetation and wildlife can rebound immediately.

        • jay.z says:

          Thank you Jim Steele for offering (what I would argue is) a more balanced, nuanced, thought out view from an expert in the field that is intimately involved with the effects of humans on our earth’s ecosystem. The fact is, you do care about the present/future ecological and sociological state of our world. And too often we forget that the real culprits of a lot of our environmental woes are the culture creators, the technological stipulators, and the mass conciousness manipulators at the top of the socio, economic, political food chain/pyramid they’ve created… Most people would gladly choose hemp polymer products over plastics, public transit systems over gridlock, biofuels over fuel, etc, etc… But the elite not only manipulate and shut down technological and ecological progress, they make us take and accept the blame for the fucked up, ecologically/technologically/socially backward stepping systems that they’ve created and are managing…

          And let’s not be so sure that the CO2 craze/anthropogenic climate change “movement” isn’t yet again another globalist agenda for us to accept eugenics, depopulation, further monetary/political enslavement and be the scapegoat, the “blood sacrifice” for what the elite and their monopolization of almost all facets of existence are doing to our world!

          • candideschmyles says:

            “And let’s not be so sure that the CO2 craze/anthropogenic climate change “movement” isn’t yet again another globalist agenda for us to accept eugenics, depopulation, further monetary/political enslavement and be the scapegoat, the “blood sacrifice” for what the elite and their monopolization of almost all facets of existence are doing to our world!”

            Your whole perception is arse end backwards. Big Oil and Wall Street up until about five years ago were openly and vociferously hostile to any talk of anthropogenic induced climate change and spent many millions funding the few scientists willing to create the data to support their rhetoric. The only reason they changed their tune was because the mounting stats from independent scientists around the world made that position untenable. and so they no longer try to oppose the bare facts and instead have switched their tactics to propagandising for limited consequences and taxation fearmongering to put people off demanding action. Both of which suit their wish for business as usual.

            And if you want to dream up an effective method of wiping out the bulk of the non white peoples on Earth its hard to think of a more effective weapon to achieve that than a 4c-5c average temperature rise. That would more or less devastate agriculture between the tropics.

            Oonce again; “Its simple chemistry” The only rational reason to deny the effects of Co2 in the atmosphere is if you are a snake oil salesman and want to keep on selling.

            • Jim Steele says:

              A alarmists snake oil salesman would argues todays rise in temperatures are catastrophic, as if the 0.8 C rise since the Little ICe Age was a bad thing. During the LIttle Ice Age, tree line retreated and trees stopped growing in many places. Thicker Arctic ice reduced ocean productivity by reducing sunlit areas where photosynthesis could occur. Growing seasons were shortened reducing food supplies for humans and wildlife, and expanding glaciers covered wild and human habitat.

              in a pitiful display of self righteousness, candideschmyles desperately plays the “race card” and a woefully exaggerated rate of warming, trying to show that he is driven only by really caring. He blathers “if you want to dream up an effective method of wiping out the bulk of the non white peoples on Earth its hard to think of a more effective weapon to achieve that than a 4c-5c average temperature rise.”

              But the truth is recent warming has been associated with a longer growing season and tremendous increases in agricultural production, increasingly removing the threat of starvation from world’s population, benefitting people of all color.

              This summer I blogged “Apocalyptic Fear-mongering: Sometimes Rush Limbaugh is Right!”


              that thoroughly examines how humans are reversing the extinction threats imposted by a starving and ignorant population during the LIttle Ice Age. It is apocalyptic climate fear mongering that is now resulting more damage to the environment and threatens people of all color.

              • candideschmyles says:

                They say as people age they lean increasingly toward the right.
                Rush Limbaugh!! Nice to see you nailing your colours to the mast at last.

              • Jim Steele says:

                Once again candideschmyles misinterprets. The last part of title was “Sometimes Rush Limbaugh is Right!”, and the purpose for stating it that way was to hopefully signal people on both left and right there is a common ground. Many conservatives see all environmentalists as “watermelons”, greenies on the outside and commies on the inside. Unless you are a political fanatic, you realize there are elements of truth in every political belief. I figured those who can not get past the title were likely fanatics who can’t see beyond their own blinkers. I want all parties to embrace wise environmental stewardship and avoid fear mongering.

              • candideschmyles says:

                Today he is sometimes right.
                Tomorrow he is always right.
                The day after he’s too left wing.

                If you are capable of making any concessions to Limbaugh then you are already to far down thehelter skelter to stop. A moderate and balanced sentence never passed his lips.

                Back peddle, excuse, redefine. Makes no difference. You have revealed your colours.

        • BennyB says:


          This is a great example of what I liked in this interview. Looking at specific issues that can be addressed instead of throwing our hands up in the air and feeling helpless. That’s not to say these are simple tasks per se, but as suggested in the description for the podcast, not simply chalking problems up to being the effect of AGW and that we’re basically screwed if we don’t address it through some sort of comprehensive global climate summit agreement (which never pans out anyway).

          One of the frustrations I’ve had with many, if not most, of the skeptics I’ve encountered is that it feels like everything seems to hinge on the idea that climate change is a hoax and therefore somehow concerns or calls for modifying our behavior in relationship to the ecosystem should be either ignored or looked on with suspicion, or even resisted.

          This isn’t the same thing as advocating for the status quo of continued environmental exploitation, degradation, and extraction of fossil fuels, but it often feels that there’s an implicit suggestion that “nothing’s wrong, nothing to see here, you can move about your business”, that would naturally play to the interests of the fossil fuel industry among others such as big agribusiness; particularly massive cattle farming operations, which (rather suspiciously) tend to avoid scrutiny.

          I suppose I can understand candideschmyles’ suspicion about your theoretical “motives” for being a so-called “denier”, but quite frankly I don’t see any of these allegations holding up and I’d say your rebuttals of these assaults on your work and integrity have gone above and beyond establishing your credibility from what I was initially able to deduce (I honestly stopped following the technical back and forth after a while, based on this) and, although I don’t see these attacks as an act of “trolling”, in part based on intelligent discussions candideschmyles and I have participated in elsewhere, I do view them a slanderous and, beyond that, a symptom of the polarizing (pun intended) nature of the discourse.

          In all fairness, I recognize I’m not immune to the effect of this polarization. I know some of my initial resistance to climate skepticism had a lot to do with the sociopolitical ecosystem (if you will) this skepticism tended to revolve around (or gravitate to). At this point I think I’ve begun to be able to see nature in which this politicization eschews the debate into a set of disingenuous arguments that serve the purpose of keeping us divided, distracted, and at a disadvantage when it comes to tackling what would most likely be common concerns.

          What I find refreshing about your skepticism is that, to me, it seems like it’s coming from a place of sincere interest in addressing legitimate environmental issues related to various forms of manmade degradation and disruption. I think there are very good reasons to be concerned about the negative impact various practices have on the environment, but it’s important that we understand what the correlation between our actions and these negative impacts are, if we want to come up with appropriate solutions. I find it particularly valuable that your work looks at specific issues which we actually can address, like restoration of wetlands for example.

          At this point, I’ve sort of evolved to position where I’d prefer to move away from arguing about climate change/AGW and stick to specific issues of immediate concern. Institutions like the IPCC, even if they call for actions I support, like moving away from fossil fuels, don’t deserve and shouldn’t be taken seriously. There are far more valuable and critical forms of action like preventing fracking, drilling, and mountaintop removal projects which these sort of large international (let alone national) bodies aren’t capable of tackling, even if many of those within them sincerely would want to or believe that this is what they’re trying to do. Certainly the true nature of these programs were never designed by those who created them for the purpose of what they’ve been marketed as.

          Again, thanks Jim. I appreciate the work that you’re doing. It’s incredibly valuable to have someone who’s not just stating that climate change (as it’s being marketed) is a scheme which needs to be discredited, but that it’s really serving as a distraction from forms of environmentalism which we have the capacity to address in ways which alarmism often seems to effectively obfuscate.


  23. candideschmyles says:

    What Mr Steele has said or done is precisely that obfuscation you decry Benny. His professional job was land use study not climate and the kind of things he claims as breakthroughs have been standard practice in nature conservation for decades. Why he chooses to enter the debate on climate at all is queer.
    I came down hard at the outset after reading how aggressive he is of any critique of his notions. And because it comes on top of a whole lot of other climate change piffle on this site. And if anyone is to blame for my attitude just listen to James “Oil funded shills” gauntlet at 1min20.
    I maintain my position that Steel is not watching the science as a whole but cherry picking and miscontextualising to suit a predetermined narrative. His back peddling to a position of “climate sensitivity” after a whole podcast of spurious claims and outright oil shill rhetoric is almost comic. Looking at his ideas they are a blend of old school conservational orthodoxy and misconstruing data sets of misconstrued data. He has a lot in common with James there. So you are right in something Benny this whole climate debate on this site isn’t worth a word.
    But that begs the question why? James has openly claimed “10 years study” of this issue yet almost every argument is directly out of the big oil handbook of breeding doubt. After 10 yrs study of the issue nobody with any ability to read could possibly see the presented ideas as evidence of anything but distraction.
    Polar bears and penguins futures are important but the real threat is the boiling frogs effect of more than fractional, relentless warming, especially around the arctic. In Svalbard for example, and its typical of the whole Arctic, average summer temperature has gone up by 1.6c and winter a staggering 3.5c since 1990.
    This sustained recent warming will bring about the imminent release of 15+ times the amount of methane currently present in the whole atmosphere. And we know such warming sustained over decades is exactly the type of warming that melted a mile thick ice sheet that was where I sit now some 15,000 yrs ago. The heat from thawed vegetation that has been frozen away for tens of thousands of years starting to compost will accelerate the methane release. It’s not some far off scenario from a model its happening now. So to prattle on about any denial is not just absurd its morally bankrupt too.

      • Jim Steele says:

        Antarctica has thousands of icebergs as glaciers are always calving into the sea.

        candideschmyles you are obsessed with your own fabrication of “random little icebergs”.

        Adelie penguins do not breed on the ice and abandon breeding colonies where there is too much fast ice to walk across. As the article says there is evidence that such things have happened before and indeed there is a lot of evidence. LIke all species, Adelie Penguins experience random crashes in any given population. But the fact remains Adelies penguins have doubled their Antarctic population over the past few decades.

        As Adelie Penguins breed in land there is no direct impact to their breeding site and the bergs irregularities would allow plenty of open water for them to enter the ocean. The problem is its so cold, the open water is freezing all around the berg. You really need to read more about penguins because you keep getting things backwards. More ice (not warming) means less penguins.

        • candideschmyles says:

          I personally have no issue in accepting that using studies on a particular species over short to medium terms produces data that is dubious in predicting the long term reality. I have already stated that.
          My point is you overvalue what you choose to see as evidence in the same way as you accuse me. And the overall impression you give, despite your denials in response to me, is that of a climate sceptic.
          It all hinges on Co2. You consistently deny its effects even though its effects have been experimentally verified in 1000s of university labs for near 150yrs. Do you deny the ice core and ocean sediment data that irrefutably show Co2 steadilly rising since the industrial revolution? Do you deny radiative forcing as an effect of increased Co2?
          I apologise if I have misquoted you on “a few stray icebergs”, though I have definitely heard that said on one of the podcasts here. And I appreciate you clarifying you accept there is major melt in west Antarctica though note you fail to mention the latest high precision satellite data that the whole western ice field is gaining speed and rushing toward the ocean at an alarming rate.
          BUT on the other hand you have been mercilessly trying to rubbish critical and highly pertinent points of mine and keeping the focus on Antarctica, which is so far of limited consequence as the C02 and its effects are still largely pooled over the northern hemisphere. Will you deny the runaway melting in Greenland?, record average temperature across the arctic?, thawing permafrost? These are all far more useful indicators that the effects of increased Co2 are kicking in but you ignore them.
          I may not be right about everything but I am damned sure you are not either. The difference being I dont sell myself as a pundit. Your debate with me an others online seems to be more about you selling your position than reaching truths and I find that annoying.
          And for the record you might want to read this before you again go stating ground water extraction is responsible for rising sea levels. Like I say some effects are counter intuitive.

          • Jim Steele says:

            candideschmyles finally admits his wrongdoing ” I apologise if I have misquoted you on “a few stray icebergs”, though I have definitely heard that said on one of the podcasts here.”

            The difference between me and candideschmyles is that despite my protests, candideschmyles never checked to see if he was blinded by his own beliefs but instead chose to continue to posting his fabrication and made it the basis for a few more snide remarks.

            I know how easily we can fool ourselves, so I checked to be sure. If you truly want to engage in a truth seeking discussion I suggest candideschmyles that you “check yourself before you wreck yourself.”

            And further along on the delusional front, no matter how many times candideschmyles is told it is about climate sensitivity, when out of scientific ammunition he plays a meaningless denier card, asking “Do you deny the ice core and ocean sediment data that irrefutably show Co2 steadilly rising since the industrial revolution? Do you deny radiative forcing as an effect of increased Co2?”

            The answer has always been “NO” . NO! N- O ! How much slower must I repeat it ad nauseum. Its a very simple answer that should not be so hard to remember.

            So why do obsessively repeat your question? Do you really think you can make the simpleton jump from a single fact that there is rising CO2 to a conclusion we are all going to climate hell? Do you deny that the ocean’s are opaque to CO2 infrared? Do you deny that heat is not trapped by CO2 but merely slows its journey back to outerspace?

            Do you not understand the tremendous complexities of natural climate change and how easily it dominates climate change? Are you just trying to falsely smear me as a denier of facts with that question? Do you not understand the issue is climate sensitivity?

            Do you refuse to accept the issue of sensitivity because of cognitive dissonance? Do you not understand that we must understand natural climate change before we can point to any CO2 effect? Do you deny that ice core and sediment evidence typically shows CO@ as a result to a cause of climate change? Do you understand that the argument that increasing CO2 causes significant climate change is a hypothesis, not a LAW of science? LIke all hypotheses, CO@ caused climate change must be tested and thoroughly examined. Do you deny the scientific process?????

      • Jim Steele says:

        And” as if on cue” cooler heads are now prevailing

        from LiveScience

        Let’s All Chill: Antarctica’s Adélie Penguins Are Probably Fine

        “In fact, experts think there’s a less horrific explanation for the missing birds: When the fishing gets tough, penguins simply pick up and move. It wouldn’t be the first time Adélie penguins marched to new digs”

        • candideschmyles says:

          Probably? Well that’s the kind of hard fact I have come to expect from you. Regardless such things are peripheral and have little consequence in the grand scheme of things. What is pertinent is all the changes taking place in the Arctic, where our carbon footprint is causing major change.

    • Jim Steele says:

      candideschmyles, Again if you want to criticize my views then quote me exactly and then provide the evidence. When all you do is obsessively try to smear me as “What Mr Steele has said or done is precisely that obfuscation you decry Benny.” the only evidence you are providing is that you are an internet sniper not interested in honest debate. You are the only one dishonestly obfuscating the issues here! WHy do you refuse to quote me exactly?

      You also show your ignorance of what ecologists must understand when you blather “His professional job was land use study not climate and the kind of things he claims as breakthroughs have been standard practice in nature conservation for decades. Why he chooses to enter the debate on climate at all is queer.” We ecologists understand any change is complex and trying to push one variable like CO2 as the driver is what really “queeer”. We must understand how landscape changes and biological interactions affect a population. We must understand how microclimates, regional climates and hemispheric climate interplay and affect a population. What is really “queer” is that candideschmyles thinks that the plight of a single population of Adelie Penguins has anything to do with CO2. Why you “choose to enter the debate” when your scientific knowledge is so deplorable can only explained within the framework of trolling!

      What’s really “queer” is you have yet to provide a single quote but you maintain your sniping that I am “cherry picking and miscontextualising to suit a predetermined narrative. His back peddling to a position of “climate sensitivity” after a whole podcast of spurious claims and outright oil shill rhetoric is almost comic. ” Seriously? No you play the oil shill card. How pathetic. But if you lack the scientific ammunition to rebut what I have actually argued, then such dishonest tactics area all you have to offer.

      There has been no “back pedaling”. The argument has always been about climate sensitivity, but you fail to understand or refuse to understand the climate sensitivity issue, perhaps because there is no consensus.

      Since the 1940s maximum temperatures have cooled in many places like California and much of the USA like Texas. As seen below on the right map of California (from Rapacciouolo 2014) most of the state has not experienced a rise in maximum temperatures since 1940. Thus there is NO accumulation of heat in those regions, NO heat tress for organisms, NO contribution to droughts and NO s-e-n-s-i-t-i-v-i-t-y to rising CO2. There has been a rise in minimum temperatures but higher minimum temperatures are largely the result of urbanization where pavements hold the heat and waste heat warms the boundary layer.. Minimum temperature obfuscate the amount of heat being trapped when it is combined with the maximum. Us ecologists who work outdoors measure, feel and understand these things. Climate modelers living in a computerized virtual reality often miss all the contributing factors.

      Clearly candideschmyle you have no real science background but that doesn’t stop you from making unsubstantiated assertions things and accusations about things you don’t know or understand

    • BennyB says:

      Perhaps I don’t have the same reaction to Jim Steele’s work because I’m not under the impression that he’s trying to demonstrate that climate change isn’t happening in the sense that it’s part of a sort of package deal, so to speak. What I see him doing is contesting specific assertions based on his expertise and perhaps expressing these views, particularly in this debate with you, in a somewhat exasperated tone, because the intended scope is meant to be two dimensional, yet you’re forcing a three dimensional debate by placing the argument within a larger issue as to whether climate change is something we should be concerned about.

      “His professional job was land use study not climate and the kind of things he claims as breakthroughs have been standard practice in nature conservation for decades.”

      He never made any “claims” about these standard conservation practices being “breakthroughs”. Once again you are making misleading and slanderous statements by taking Jim’s comments and mixing them with assertions he’s never made, then accusing him for backpedaling when you’ve caused enough confusion that it’s difficult to distinguish what he’s really said, versus assertions you’ve falsely attributed to him.

      I stated previously that I wasn’t under the impression that you’re a “troll” based on other conversations I’ve participated in with you, but it’s reached a point where I’m honestly not sure anymore. At this point it doesn’t matter. Well intentioned or not, you’ve passed the threshold of what I’m willing to put up with on a personal level in the spirit of debate. By all means carry on, but I see no value in pursuing this matter with you, so I intend to try to exercise some restraint moving forward on this topic with you, regardless of whatever cheap shots I imagine you’ll choose to respond in an effort to denigrate my statement and contrast yourself as playing the moral high ground.

      • candideschmyles says:

        “He never made any “claims” about these standard conservation practices being “breakthroughs”. Once again you are making misleading and slanderous statements by taking Jim’s comments and mixing them with assertions he’s never made, then accusing him for backpedaling when you’ve caused enough confusion that it’s difficult to distinguish what he’s really said, versus assertions you’ve falsely attributed to him.”

        From around the 6min mark Mr Steele embarks on a tale of grazing initiatives in conservation in which he very much implies that this is some arcane gnosis that Parmesan is unaware of. Either that or he implies she, a professional lepidopterist, is ignorant of such basic conservational method. Take your pick. As I actually do have hands on experience within conservation that directly related to this particular type of habitat management I know what he says makes no sense at all. Either way it was skewed and to my ear very much sounded like he was half boasting and stating something novel. He was not.

        I actually do regret coming into this thread with all guns blazing but not because I changed my mind on the overall value of what Steele has to say. After all if he is not denying climate change as a fact of life how can he deny it effects habitats? It makes no logical sense.

        • Jim Steele says:

          Indeed candideschmyles should “regret coming into this thread with all guns blazing” I would wager that you never read my book, (we can test that here with a few specific questions and I’ll give you the page numbers ) yet you libeled me saying it “a book crammed full of demonstrable lies”

          I can only imagine what part of your anatomy you pull your ideas from when you said I was “boasting” and stating something “novel”. The implication was never Parmesan was unaware of those efforts. There is little doubt she knew full well about those conservation efforts. The issue was Parmesan was less than honest. But your ears refuse to hear anything other than CO2-climate change is the cause of everything. Wallowing in your extreme cognitive dissonance, all you can do is play a vile game of shoot the messenger. When people are not intellectually strong enough to consider all things, they push for an intellectual tyranny that fits their beliefs, and to do so eagerly persecute others for simply disagreeing. candideschmyles is giving a textbook demonstration.

          James’ question was about Parmesan’s highjacking conservation success and her suggestion global warming was the driver of the butterfly moving northward. I described how conservation success had allowed some butterflies to move northward and reclaim lost northern habitat. Indeed Parmesan knew about those efforts. But in her IPCC paper, in which she claimed her “model” could separate habitat changes from climate changes, she used the threatened silver-spotted skipper as here best example of her model’s skill. She wrote, “Consider the case of the silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) that has expanded its distribution close to its northern boundary in England over the past 20 years. Possible ecological explanations for this expansion are regional warming and changes in land use. Comparing the magnitudes and directions of these two factors suggests that climate change is more likely than land-use change to be the cause of expansion.”

          You can get all the details at the link below.

  24. Jim Steele says:

    A good propagandist follows the maxim that if you repeat a lie often enough people will soon believe it. I confess I have been vulnerable to such a tactic. As a lie was obsessively repeated here, and began to doubt my ability to recall what I had actually said in the above interview.

    candideschmyles wrote “Remaining in the Antarctic he [Steele] claims that there is no net ice loss in Antarctica except a few stray icebergs naturally calving into the ocean. Utter nonsense. Ice loss in West Antarctica and the Antarctic peninsula in particular is spectacular and worrisome. Far from a few stray icebergs huge shelves of ice are breaking off, some as big as half the size of Wales.”

    I knew I had never said such a thing because it is a ludicrous assertion. Indeed Antarctica is filled with many many large icebergs, so I asked for a direct quote. candideschmyles insisted it was in the interview and then followed with comments referencing some statement about a “few stray ice bergs” I realize that sometimes in an interview I can jumble my thoughts, so I thought perhaps I mis-spoke. The only way to know for sure was to revisit the interview.After doing so to my great relief I never said such a thing. My memory was intact. It was a total fabrication either due to a bad memory or an attempt to obfuscate by candideschmyles.

    So to clear the matter, the best I can figure, candideschmyles misunderstood when I had said there were relatively “small regions” undergoing rapid basal melting and causing a net loss of ice in that region. Calving of ice bergs is always happening. But a net loss of ice only happens when calving rates are greater than ice accumulation. A giant ice berg as big as Rhode Island calved in the Ross Sea about 20 years ago, but the ice shelf grew and exceeded it past limits, so there was a net gain of ice despite a massive calving event.

    Below is a map of Antarctic with the red dots showing where basal melting exceeds accumulation. As I talked about in the interview, those reddish regions where glaciers grounded at depth are most susceptible to upwelling of relatively warm deep waters. As you can see those regions are relatively small with respect to the entire Antarctic coastline.

    • candideschmyles says:

      Basal melting. Unlike you I see a very different view when I look at that basal melting map. The direction the ice flows from central Antarctica is shown by black lines. These marry well with satellite data of where truly vast flows of ice are gaining speed and a possibly unstoppable momentum. Basal melt is cited as a contributory cause to this speed up. Thats the area marked as between about -136 and -75 degrees tp the center. If the nascent melt between 135 and 80 degrees progresses in the same manner then we do face sea level rises in the tens of meters range.

      Again you are careful to state “maximum” and “minimum” temperatures when the only relevant figure is the average. That shows about a 0.8 degree rise since 1918.

      California temps.

      • Jim Steele says:

        Please strut you scientific skills and defend your empty assertion, “Again you are careful to state “maximum” and “minimum” temperatures when the only relevant figure is the average”

        Please explain how the minimum temperature helps us measure the amount of heat accumulating in the global system? The average simply combines the maximum and minimum and divides by 2. To state the average is the “only relevant figure” then you must defend why the minimum is relevant because it skews the average.

        I argue that only the maximum temperature is useful and that is easily defended.

        • candideschmyles says:

          Certainly. The paper quoted runs from 1918 to 2006. Over that period there was not a colder year than the average at 1918 after the mid 1950s. Out of the top 10 warmest years 8 out of ten have been since the mid 80’s and have formed a cluster of sustained average higher temperature over the past three decades. The singular anomalous higher maximum temperatures you quote were in 1931 and 1959 and are evidence of nothing. So the lower average is rising and the higher average is rising. Hmmmm what could that mean? Too difficult for you Mr Steal?

          I quite recently returned to an area I help extensively survey some 25 years ago. The area had been dominated by grasses and sedges that can tolerate the odd drought. Now none of these species are to be seen and the whole hill has been colonised by mosses and rushes. That supports the early climate change predictions that Scotland would get wetter and warmer, which IS confirmed by the meteorological record. I can see the evidence with my own eyes over decadal timescales. There has been no land use change in the area.

          You have made many complaints to scientific bodies in regard to the work of Camile Parmesan. They have conceded openly that there are some minor errors but have consistently concluded that your allegations against her are your own misrepresentation of her work. In short you seem to have it in for her for some reason or another and this is amply illustrated in your poisonous rhetoric toward her.
          Indeed your online presence is marked with these aggressive and relentless assaults on people using misconstrued opinion as though Mr Steal could never be wrong about anything. You have a bee in your bonnet about climate s-e-n-s-i-t-i-v-i-t-y, which is ironic since it is the most ambiguous and difficult to define area in which to be certain of anything. Perhaps that is precisely why you chose it? An area of maximum uncertainty gives you the wiggle room to assert what you like with a high degree of impunity.

          I have never read your book and nor will I. But I am sure you can get yourself on Fox News to plug it if you drop them a line. Your muddying the waters is right up their street.

          I did quote you despite your lies that I did not and you focus on my one mistake, which I had the grace to apologise for, is so very typical of your style. Despite your U-turns and invective I have presented more than ample evidence to demonstrate you do indeed cherry pick and hang your whole argument on the most tenuous of opinions only gross extrapolation and shameless exaggeration can qualify.
          But on this site you have the support. So your ego is sated. And I am wasting my virtual breath.

          • Jim Steele says:

            Well first I must give you kudos for admitting that you never read my book and thus admit your opening attack that I wrote “a book crammed full of demonstrable lies” was simply your vile lie and a fabrication used to distort the debate!

            As evidenced by your false fabrications, do you really wonder why many of us see you as an untrustworthy troll?!? That you now try to denigrate my name from Steele to Steal is a common troll tactic.

            As for your subsequent commentary my response was ROTFLMAO!

            Regards your link about California temperatures you write, “So the lower average is rising and the higher average is rising. Hmmmm what could that mean? ” But your understanding again appears limited to what your blinkers allow you to see. The authors wrote,” Accompanying the observed statewide warming from 1970 to 2006 [warming driven by the minimum temperature], regional cooling trends in Tmax are observed during winter and summer.” Thus their statement supports my argument that there has been no increase in maximum temperatures since the 1930s , and your reply only avoided my question that you only pretend to answer. So I repeat, “Please explain how the minimum temperature helps us measure the amount of heat accumulating in the global system?”

            It appears your forum swan song is befitting of all your past fabrications as you now try to accuse me of a having a vendetta for Parmesan. But that you can not understand how bad her science was only speaks to your lack of scientific background. Again your attacks are remarkably similar to internet snipers Slandering Sou and Pete Meisler’s attack. You have no evidence to support your smear that my “allegations against her [Parmesan] are your own misrepresentation of her work.” My evidence is undeniable, and the editor’s refusal to retract her fabrications and distorted science is just more proof that some editors protect bad climate science. Everyone can read the facts at


            That you would defend Parmesan’s distortions, defend her refusal to allow independent replication, defend her failure to publish that populations she claimed had gone extinct due to global warming are now thriving, or her undeniable attempt to keep half the evidence off the books a la Enron, is only testimony to your crass acceptance of dishonest science whenever it supports your climate delusions.

            It is also hilarious that you would launch another parting shot, “You have a bee in your bonnet about climate s-e-n-s-i-t-i-v-i-t-y, which is ironic since it is the most ambiguous and difficult to define ”

            Clearly you have no understanding of climate sensitivity nor its critical and primary importance for determining if the observed rising concentrations of a greenhouse gas (CO2) have any significant climate impact or not. Indeed it is the most difficult parameter to define. And that is precisely why any claims that rising CO2 is, and will cause catastrophic change, are totally unreliable.

            But as you have clearly demonstrated multiple times, you will simply make up whatever lies you want to support your delusional beliefs.

            • candideschmyles says:

              The data set I quoted runs from 1918-2006. It’s shows warming at both minimum average and maximum average with most warm years since 1980 over the whole state. I am sorry you don’t see why only averages are relevant in measuring average trends. I thought you cleverer than that. But redefining your parameters comes easy to you so I am thinking you are bluffing stupidity.

              I wonder how many submitted papers you have had published? I have been to your links and read your arguments and that’s all they are. You do indeed misconstrue and refuse to believe otherwise. So what’s the point. Rush Limaugh eat your heart out!!

              You had the opportunity to retract your “ground water extraction is the cause of sea level rises”. But never had the balls to do so. I wonder have you ever conceded anything? Strange you like to quote Feynman, you are about as opposite to him as I come across. Seems your self image is truly distorted. And I bet that’s not the first time that’s been said to you.

  25. rtamaki says:

    While I am reticent to engage in this conversation, in part because I can’t afford the time to get into an extended online debate, and more particularly, because Jim is handling himself quite well on his own (with some supporting cast), I consider perhaps candideschmyles is finally catching on, even if he/she doesn’t recognize it. The adage, “give him enough rope, and eventually he will hang himself” is entirely apropos here.

    His comment:

    “You have a bee in your bonnet about climate s-e-n-s-i-t-i-v-i-t-y, which is ironic since it is the most ambiguous and difficult to define area in which to be certain of anything. Perhaps that is precisely why you chose it? An area of maximum uncertainty gives you the wiggle room to assert what you like with a high degree of impunity.”

    Exactly! Sensitivity is indeed highly ambiguous and something which it is very difficult to be certain about. But this is not a peripheral issue. It is THE ISSUE! In fact, every other argument advanced by candideschmyles is actually peripheral to this issue. Yes, we have observed some warming. Yes, there may be patterns of glacial recession in some parts of the global ice caps. Yes, CO2 has been “proven” to be a greenhouse gas a thousand times in the lab. BUT the $64 trillion dollar question is how sensitive is the real climate to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

    The problem with people like candideschmyles is that they don’t ever try to figure out what those they call “deniers” actually deny. Instead, they assume that “deniers” deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that humans have caused its levels in the atmosphere to increase, or that the earth has warmed, or that glaciers are melting. Of course, this is utter nonsense. Every sceptic of the CAGW hypothesis readily agrees with these things.

    When it is pointed out to them that the central issue is SENSITIVITY, they accuse the “deniers” of trying to obfuscate the issue because that issue is just too hard to understand. Why worry about sensitivity because we have good computer models that tells us that we are headed for 4 – 6 deg C of warming over the next 85 years, and that sea levels are guaranteed to rise anywhere from 0.6 to 2.0 m?

    The problem is, the real world is just not obeying the global computer climate models. Real temperature trendlines using the highly adjusted NCDC/GISS datasets are less than half the rate of temperature rise as the computer-based CMIP5 average. The satellite datasets show temperature rise of about one third of that. It’s folly to dismiss the observational data in favor of the computer models – the very antithesis of the scientific method – but that is what is happening broadly in the climate science establishment. CAGW skeptics are shouting this aloud from the rooftops, but the true believers persist with primary digits firmly embedded in aural canals.

    • candideschmyles says:

      Utter nonsense. There is highly accurate data from throughout the Arctic area that shows significant sustained temperature rises that exactly fit the predictive models for Co2 in the northern hemisphere. Which is where most of it is released and remains. The sensitivity of the Arctic to radiative forcing was suggested well before these rises took place. And throughout the northern hemisphere temperatures are indeed rising as the California paper above very typically demonstrates. That Steele in his bluster to a sympathetic audience that doesnt even know the difference between an atom and a molecule openly distorts the facts that they will never check even though the findings are as clear as day is to be expected. It’s his style. Nobody here cares that he has failed to address any of the evidence that Co2 forcing has kicked in as expected. All its has really been about is he and I demonstrating there is wiggle room in data interpretation and an opportunity for both of us to throw insults at each other, something we both seem to enjoy.
      I may not have read his book but I have been to his site and I have read his numerous exchanges in several other places. His tactic is to define an error, or simply to create one by deliberate misinterpretations, and to pick away at it so that it is an open wound. Not to advance the debate but to confuse and muddy and to provide ammo for the deniers cognitive biases. And that is amply demonstrated here where he redefines everything I say to suit himself, with copious slanders included. I have attempted to moderate and concede where I can but rather than meet me halfway he sees that as an opportunity to strike harder. So I have found out winning is more important to him than truth. Again ironic on a site where he will face next to no doubt at all.
      I have been out in the field my whole life. I have seen the real effects of climate change on the environment in which I live, particularly the dramatic increase in precipitation and mild winters. I know first hand Steeles arguments are a crock of shit and that he makes things up without evidence. Because I understand study method. Steele can say what he likes here to general applause. He is welcome to this win. He has persuaded a few people who knowno better to know no more. Congratulations!!

      • Jim Steele says:

        Actually all the CO2 driven models were wrong about both the Arctic and Antarctic ice.

        The CO2 driven models underestimated how much ice would be lost in the Arctic and overestimated how much ice would be lost in the Antarctic. Climate scientists who based their models on CO2 back radiation simply got it wrong. Read Rigor 2002 Response of Sea Ice to the Arctic Oscillation. UNlike the Antarctic the Arctic’s confining geography leads to cycles of ice being trapped in the Arctic where it thickens and thus resisting melt in the summer. As subfreezing winds shifted, that thick ice was blown out into the Atlantic. The consensus has been in agreement with Rigor’s work showing that the ice wasn’t melted by global warming but blown out. Once the insulating cover of ice was removed only then did Arctic temperatures rise as heat ventilated from the ocean. There is enough heat stored below the surface of the Arctic OCean to melt the ice several times over.

        candideschmyles you entered this discussion wielding nothing lies and insults. You have been the only one here that has made up stuff. Now you grouse about me “winning”. I take no pleasure in winning or losing. I take pleasure in meaningful debates that get us closer to the truth. I did not win. You simply lost because your lies and fabrications were revealed. No meaningful debate can happen with such a liar whose goal was simply to denigrate a skeptic. Still you were given the opportunity to quote my mistakes and discuss them sincerely. Instead you lied creating straw men arguments you could attack, and boast that because you have stepped outdoors, then you must be right. ROTFLMAO

        • candideschmyles says:

          The only thing I lost here is hope in the Corbett Report and the community that supports it. The only thing you won was the support of those with a cash backed investment in believing everything Corbett so relentlessly puts out to dominate their thinking. Still amazes me what one man can do!
          We are closer to WW3 than we have ever been but the focus here is on the distraction conspiracies validated with the odd “no shit Sherlock” rehashes.

          • tomas says:

            seems though you are the main antagonist in this distraction , both sides the system wins .

            Arguing either or , carbon , co2, penguins ,bears ,oil, arctic or antarctic ice etc , does not matter , because either way one seeks the system for the answer. only way to win is each person doing their most to consume less , period . The system wants all to debate which way to go , they benefit both ways .

            • candideschmyles says:

              You are right I am the antagonist. Antagonized by all this climate bumkum. I have no right to be antagonized. And arguing is just fiddling while Rome burns. But now, after being forced to a new perspective on the content here, all I am seeing are flaws and a neotabloid superficiality. And if Corbett, whos been studying the dark side for 11 years, makes this stuff then I with 35+ years solid non partisan observation does understand something.And can smell shit when its in front of me.

              • tomas says:

                got to be careful though that it aint your own shit your smelling though . that can be the hard thing most times . again , i don’t go with either the article’s reason or yours , but i appreciate the article that it explains and offers another view to the one being fed everyone by the system .
                this is what i see as the value of alternative media – not as another “truth” , but in bringing down the walls people have in their own minds by making them think its not as it seems .
                one day , and hopefully soon – enough number of people will finally understand that everything is manipulated for someone’s gain , that truth is not at this party at all , and then maybe things may start to change in this world . but i see no benefit following the dogma in any case – neither you or the writer or the article . then we just continually switch chains from one to another . and my chains were heavy enough , and refuse to accept any more going forward .

              • candideschmyles says:

                Thomas you are correct the easiest person to fool is yourself. And yor own shit does not smell as bad as anyone elses.
                However Steele is saying nothing of value and cherry picks a bit here and a bit there to glue together and make it seem there is something where there is nothing. It’s not just wrong it has to be deliberate disengeniousnous. Have a look at the distribution of 24hr emission of millions of cubic tonnes of Co2 daily on the link below and ask yourself if you think it has “no effect”.

              • Jim Steele says:

                Dang candideschmyles, your trolling and internet sniping knows no bounds.

                To prove you are not a troll you have been asked to quote me exactly and provide the evidence that rebuts what I said. But you never do.

                Istead all you ever do is engage in unsubstantiated name-calling. You entered this thread spewing hateful lies about my book that you later admitted having never read. And now you continue in the same vein spewing more lies and denigrations.

                Of course, when we see the increase in CO2 emissions its logical to ask If the climate is sensitive to rising CO2. But that doesn’t mean there is. ANd certainly doesn’t mean it has been catastrophic. That theory must stand up to scrutiny and it hasn’t. YOu dismiss all the contradictions as cherry picking, despite a boatload of cherries. THat is the real denial.

                I have presented many well substantiated lines of evidence. In contrast you display your critical thinking skills by denigrating a poster for using capital letters to emphasize it just a theory that we need to test. Only sincere debate gets us to the truth of the matter. WHile LIARS and TROLLS always obfuscate.

              • candideschmyles says:

                Steele, It was a mistake of mine to come into this so hard without having read your book. Yet I did research you and given your own natural tendency to the ad hominem I was attempting to speak to you in a language you understand.
                Above I presented more than enough evidence to show that there is more than one way good scientists and bad choose to interpret the data. You failed time and time again to do anything other than hinge your scepticism on a retarded argument of sensitivity, obscuring the real issues in the process and distorting perceptions along the way. Your argument is not even about sensitivity as a dynamic in the climate system but about being able to bolt doubt to it to feed the collective doubt of those ready to doubt. It is disingenuous, fraudulent and shameful.
                You admit to almost every relevant data sets findings but ridiculously choose to interpret them or reinterpret them to fit your own agenda. For example choosing to use a freak high temperature in the 1930s as evidence that a rational look at averages over a century is incorrect! It’s sheer dishonesty from someone with your background.
                You state you want to discuss the actual points yet 95% of what you write is just trying to slam me down. Not that it bothers me but it does say a lot about the strength of your logic that you have to rely on that to have any argument at all. But you are infamous for this tactic and it has been noted by commentary at several sites I have been to, but I have yet to visit the Australian one you seem to so despise. Is it because she, like Parmesan, is a woman. Is all this venom just pure unbridled mysogeny? I wonder.
                I will continue to reply to others where I see fit. But I have had it with you. You disgust me.

              • Jim Steele says:

                ROTFLMAO yes candid, it was my fault that you started with gorse lies and continued with lies and continue to avoid honest discussion. It is not my lack of integrity that has been demonstrated.

                Your lack of any science skill is further revealed when you call the issue of climate sensitivity “retarded”. Not only did you not read my book you lied about, but you obviously do not read the scientific literature.

                And now instead of discussing evidence you now try to paint me as a misogynist because I criticized the flawed science of Camille Parmesan just like Slandering SOu has tried. LOL

                The facts remain, 1) Parmesan refused to share data to allow independent replication of her catastrophic claims. 2) Populatins she claimed went extinct to global warming are now thriving. 3) Like Enron she claimed CO2 caused extreme weather had killed butterlifes in a logged area and failed to mention in natural habitat just 10 meters away the same species was thriving. 4) She hijacked conservation efforts to suggest increased range was due to global warming.

                But you and Slandering SOu some how feel threatened that false claims of climate catastrophes are not real and due to bad science. So you launch these ad hom attacks. Read my official request for a retraction

                or any other post on Parmesan’s bogus climate science.

                There is never a hint of misogyny and your allegations all show that candideschmyles will lie and fabricate to promote climate alarmism. But such are the tactics climate alarmist trolls.

              • candideschmyles says:

                “Your lack of any science skill is further revealed when you call the issue of climate sensitivity “retarded”. ”

                It is your use of, method and logic, of s-e-n-s-i-t-i-v-i-t-y that is retarded.
                You were given a fair hearing by the journal, they investigated your claims. They found it was you that was misinterpreting the data which is extant and good enough if you should truly care to replicate.
                I am not a climate alarmist, I am an observer.

              • Jim Steele says:

                Candi says “he data which is extant and good enough if you should truly care to replicate. I am not a climate alarmist, I am an observer.”

                You are also a horrendous liar because that is not what has been determined.

                Second, Parmesan’s deceptions has nothing to do with climate sensitivity. Why do you embarrass yourself.

  26. SoniaG says:

    Thank you Jim Steele, I really enjoyed this interview and I look forward to reading your book. I am disgusted (but not entirely surprised) by the slanderous comments & pathetic attempts at character assassination and general insults directed towards yourself and anyone who dares dispute the CO2 Climate Change THEORY on this post. When you immediately have to compare someone with genuine points to a crack dealer, rather than refute statements in a factual way….game over right there.

    • candideschmyles says:

      Anybody that has to upper case the word ‘theory’ is already displaying a prejudice that is beyond reasoning. I will take your statement as an endorsement that only the scientifically illiterate can swallow this crap.

      • tomas says:

        candid , absolutely agree co2 does affect the planet , this is not my angle . but so does every other thing that we do on this planet . nothing is without effect , and all effects have a cause – never ending circle .

        going with the system’s environmental outlook and solutions is what i am against. all it will do is switch – if one believes co2 or carbon is the problem – from one problem to another . and it will take maybe another few decades until that is “discovered” and then tackled . in the meantime the population will be the only ones to suffer , be it financially ( for sure ) or any other way .

        i never , and i will repeat never , believe that oil or gas or pollution etc are not a issue. they are. i don’t trust in the system’s answers to it . over and over again the people put their good faith and hearth & soul into a cause and change their lives even , only to continuously be duped . from now on it needs to be “false/lies until proven otherwise” with anything the system puts out . they have lost all trust and credibility over the thousands of years ( that we know of ) of running the show .

        again ; less consumption of all things – food/products/energy – by all people is the only way not on the system’s chess board. but then again that is the hardest thing , both from 1st world nations – they are used to a certain standard and hard to go backwards (as it will seem) – and less wealthy nations – most from very young dream of “western” society standards , so when they get a chance hard to say “no, its alright , ill pass” .

        the few that can must lead the way , i do believe leading by example is top priority , and also that eventually more and more will agree with the next big “lifestyle” change .

        • candideschmyles says:

          Perhaps it’s been lost in my arguments but that is essentially the cause of my bitterness toward James and the flavour of climate scepticism he promotes here. It is the most trivial, inconsequential crumbs dressed up as a three tier cake. And I have found it incongruent with his other work, it baffles me. Well that and his incomprehensible attitude toward Julian Assange and Wikileaks but that’s another issue.
          The climate is subject to variation with or without man’s input, always has been and always will be. But as you say it’s not just about Co2 which is one of the more benign chemical compounds released from burning fossil fuels. It’s about the way we approach our environment in general. You don’t shit in the bed you have to lay in yet for no better reason than maximising profits for Wall Street and The City that’s precisely what we are doing. And out of the thousands of bits of evidence supporting pollutants are having serious consequences you get Steele and his ilk arguing about a few butterflies, fudgeing fudged data like that makes it good data, and generally proposing the propaganda of big oil that there’s nothing to worry about. It’s a crass set of arguments and the people here are being duped into promoting the bullshit of the people they spend so much of their time despising. So I am annoyed.

          • Jim Steele says:

            Are you backpedaling or did you completely miss the point of the interview? The point is the focus on CO2 has misdirected our efforts to be better environmental stewards. My career has pushed for exactly that, to restore habitat and watersheds.

            • candideschmyles says:

              Sheer nonsense. The biggest threats and damage already done to the environment are directly related to the oil industry which is the primary source of the carbon. Co2 could not be a better indicator of how we are stemming, or not, environmental degradation.
              With the roll out of ultra polluting fracking and tarsand extraction it is plainly apparent the environment is not a factor in the big oil equations.
              When you, and people like you, try to dismiss the Co2 data as relevant it is you that muddies the waters on behalf of big oil. You bring no clarity, no refocus on more pressing issues because there is no more pertinent indicator than Co2.

              • tomas says:

                trusting the system with the biggest threat – co2- , even if it is a lesser threat , is the problem with most . they have no interest in what is better for the masses . but they will manipulate everything in their favour , as has always been the case .

                jim seems to be stating co2 is not the only issue with climate , which you seem to agree with , but it looks like you take it that in turn its automatically assumed he’s for oilgarchy . i truly think after all this dialogue , if both of you were to forget all that was put out before and start fresh right now , you would both be on the same page really .

                i cannot believe candid that you would be on this sort of website , into alternative media , if you were honestly believing that leaving this issue in the hands of the system would benefit in any way shape or form the people or planet .

                hence , we should forget the previous “taking things personally” posts , and work together to not let the system have its way in any way we can . we argue within , and they win .

              • candideschmyles says:

                Thank you Thomas, it is noble of you to be a peacemaker.
                Unfortunately in regard to Steele and I really arguing the same thing I have to disagree.
                I will try putting it another way. If Steele, and Corbett for that matter, are correct and, as they admit, atmospheric Co2 is rising and big oil is bad then what purpose is there to their argument at all? It cannot be distraction, as that is what their argument is, and it cannot be to inform, because all they are saying is “no proof” on a single issue when there are reams of data from 100 different disciplines that all state rising Co2 will and has changed the climate in subtle and not so subtle ways.
                Scientists involved in climate study and related fields are overwhelmingly cautious about predictions and assumptions, not gun ho as has been suggested. They know the IPCC is guilty of putting out flawed statements and that is because it’s politicised and constrained by that politicisation. The so called “climate gate” was a prime example of how political demands for a specific nonsensical measure led to so much doubt. Just who did that benefit? And do you really think it was proof of climate fearmongering or a well orchestrated operation to rubbish science the scientists would never attempt to publish? But the alternative news reader here has been double bluffed, so I am wasting my breath.
                Big oil loves to recruit retired people with some relevant specialisation to keep up the sceptical mindwipe. There are dozens of them now and they are effective. As Corbett platforming their bluff time and time again demonstrates. I thought the people here, Corbett included, were anarchist leaning, not neo-cons medievalists with no more ability to discern a bluff than cousin ugg. Well the real Anarchists were in Paris trying to tell the world the facts but they alone were subject to hastily introduced special powers, due to the Paris False Flag that saw them either arrested without charge and held in custody or subject to and armed police monitored house arrest. All the organisations, like the one I worked for, had their security ID’s and scheduled photo op-ops of their smiley shout on an issue. But the people, many of the educated in the sciences, who wanted to shout this is a bullshit conference, were the ONLY ones prevented.
                Real Anarchists, Real issues. Not covered at all by Corbett. Why? I am sorry not more see the disconnect. Especially Corbett himself, he is better than this.
                So there is a huge chasm between where Steele is and where I am. And as I see it only I am not doing the leg work of big oil propaganda.

  27. anacardo01 says:


    You can’t get bent out of shape over this. I’m not sure how many goes you’ve had here at the Corbett Rodeo but this is candide’s hill to die on and by God he’s gonna do it if he has to flip off every last one of the rest of us, including Corbett. This is a phenomenon I’ve noticed more than once among certain UK alt commenters – ‘better to die with my brains running liquid from my ears than consider for a second that an idea associated with the boorish American right could possibly have any truth in it.’ We can only pause to say a few words for those unlucky enough to come up in the birthplace and laboratory of the modern Fabian mind control state, once the signalman of liberty, alas fair Albion.

    Add this thread to the list of bullet points that make me ever hungrier for what could be the grand-daddy of open-source community investigations – the roots of the 21st century Culture Wars in the Anglophone world, in this corner the social justice warriors, in that one the so-called “Alternative Right,” stuffed on the mantle the corpse of liberal skepticism – and did the seeds of this mess spring unavoidably from her, or not?

    Certainly no doubts in my mind that this plebe-on-plebe culture hostility is heavily engineered – just a cursory look at the chain of custody – the ‘radical leftists’ turned Yale professors and Soros-fund babies, the white nationalist think-tanks emerging from Rockefellers’ own U of Chicago, the fine folks that brought us a few fraudulent ‘social sciences’ and Leo Strauss’s neocon cabal on the other – cries out for the interpretation of yet another grand strategy of divide and conquer, but for the folks here at TCR to put our heads together and really get into the nuts and bolts of it, that could really be one of the finest fruits of the open-source paradigm to date.

    • Jim Steele says:

      Thanks anacardo01, I was well aware that when I started writing my book I would be attacked with lies and fabrications by rabid alarmists with no integrity. candideschmyles revealed his total lack of integrity with his first post so I don;t take his lies personally but neither do I want to let his lies sit.

      Indeed when the folks here at TCR to put their heads together and really get into the nuts and bolts of it, that could really be one of the finest fruits of the open-source paradigm to date.

    • candideschmyles says:

      ” This is a phenomenon I’ve noticed more than once among certain UK alt commenters – ‘better to die with my brains running liquid from my ears than consider for a second that an idea associated with the boorish American right could possibly have any truth in it. ”

      There is no single sector in the US that is so well manipulated into screaming a manufactured rhetoric than the American Right. And no people on Earth more full of Fear, hatred and self righteousness. As it is obvious to anyone not so brainwiped that the seeds, soil and very organic fertiliser of your own self destruction is inextricably woven into the fibre of your logic. I anticipate your self annihilation.

      • Jim Steele says:

        Wow! Speaking of people who are “full of Fear, hatred and self righteousness” have you taken a good look in the mirror lately?

  28. candideschmyles says:

    [SNIP: As I said when I snipped Jim earlier in this thread: “These snipes are now devolving into mere ad hominems and attempts at character assassination. If you two want to debate the science, great. Anything not related to the science under debate will be snipped from this thread.” – JC]

    • candideschmyles says:

      Sorry James, that was comedy not sniping. And the link was an effort to show that comedy is alive and well here in Scotland and the perception I have of American values is more or less mainstream here.
      It is true we gave the world Masons, Central Banking and Haggis. Three surely criminally decietful conceptions. And for them I apologise. However the comedy aided critical perception of how things really work is now a part of the fair Albion’s zeitgeist and in part may help to clarify the way I myself write.
      Perhaps Mr Steele is of the same blood. Perhaps he is descended from one of the 300 or so Steele families forcibly evicted from their lands in Skye and Ardnamuchan during the Highland clearances. Every single Steele family in the region. Who knows?
      Whatever, I repost the link of Frankie Boyle, Scotland’s most loved and hated comedian. Purely for educational purposes or to demonstrate we are perfectly justified to have a dim view of the self righteousness so apparent in American Exceptionalism, something nowhere more apparent than in the American Right.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top