Tom Harris is a noted fossil fuel lobbyist and devout climate change denier. He works as the Executive Director of the
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), a group of climate change skeptics that has received funding from the
Heartland Institute. Besides working to further fossil fuel interests, he has done the same for the tobacco industry. What a resume.
(
UPDATE: Mr. Harris has objected to my above statements concerning his resume and has demanded a retraction. He acknowledges he worked for the Ottawa office of a Canadian PR and
lobbying firm called the High Park Advocacy Group (HPG), where he was the Director of Operations. According to
the Lobbyists Registration System, Government of Canada, HPG is
registered as a lobbying firm for several energy industry clients. He also acknowledges he worked for APCO worldwide, a group known for creating The Advancement of Sound
Science Center (formerly Coalition) (TASSC) which worked to advance
tobacco industry interests. According to Wikipedia, "an industry-funded
lobby group and crisis management vehicle, and was created in 1993 by
Phillip Morris and APCO in response to a 1992 United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report which identified
secondhand smoke as a Group A (i.e. confirmed) human carcinogen.
TASSC's stated objectives were to: 1) discredit the EPA report; 2) fight
anti-smoking legislation; 3) proactively pass legislation favorable to
the tobacco industry. Philip Morris hired APCO Worldwide, a
communications consultancy with expertise in crisis management, handling
sensitive political issues, lobbying, media relations, coalition
building, opinion research, market entry, corporate social
responsibility, and online communication. APCO's designed
strategies for TASSC aimed at establishing TASSC as "a credible source
for reporters when questioning the validity of scientific studies" and
to encourage the public to question – from the grassroots up – the
validity of scientific studies." All of Wikipedia's statements have references supporting them. Mr. Harris' complaint is that he did not serve as a lobbyist and he was not involved with APCO's efforts in regard to TASSC. You may see our entire conversation below in the comments section. - CK)
Some time ago, through means I am not clear on, Mr. Harris (NOTE: Mr. Harris has been introduced as Dr. Harris by the denier lobbyists, but he is not a Ph.D. He has a Masters of Engineering.) was able to be the lecturer for an
earth science class at Carleton University. Basically, it was a science disaster. Hang on to that statement, I'll get back to it.
Before I go on, let me explain that I am not attacking Mr. Harris here. I have no desire to say anything bad about him. I do not know him and cannot speak to his character. As far as I know, he is a good father and husband, gives generously to good causes, likes cats and dogs and is well respected in his community. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Harris is a very nice person. And, I will say this, he has been civil in our discourse, something very lacking from oh, so many deniers.
The purpose of this posting is not to discredit Mr. Harris. What I want to do is expose the industry he works for. I want to discredit his cause - the denier lobbyist industry that is so determined to lie to and deceive the public. It is unfortunate that Mr. Harris has decided to be a member of that group.
As it turns out, I received a guest submission on some statements Mr. Harris made to some local papers. You can
read the submission here. Along with the comments, which is what makes this interesting. So, let's discuss them.
Mr. Harris, it seems, took exception to the article and commented,
The above article is either all wrong or irrelevant, riddled as it is
with logical fallacies. But then that is standard stock for people who
are angry when their supposedly 'settled science' is shown to not be so
settled after all.
The following article lays out a sample of the
many scientists who do not support the dangerous anthropogenic climate
change hypothesis: http://www.worldcommercereview...
Tom, your target
This started a series of comments, especially a couple in particular,
Your introduction hit all the right notes. I would add that a simple
Google search for "Tom Harris Carleton University" will reveal a lot
about a particularly sordid episode in Harris' life.
Yikes! That's embarrassing.
Do the search and you'll see what I meant by my response. Apparently, this hit a nerve with Mr. Harris, who engaged with me a series of comments.
Here is one of my replies to this adolescent attack from an employee
of Carleton (I understand the university was not pleased to have one
employee attacking another in the press without taking any internal
steps first):
https://youtu.be/Zeb5XWjSKlA
Strangely enough, professors at universities have freedom of speech.
If a university employee wants to denounce you in public, they have a
right to do so. It's amazing how you want to silence your critics.
The person was a post doc, not a prof. Do you support a university
employee smearing another university employee (I was a sessional
lecturer) by going to the press before they have even tried to sort
things out internally first (I have never even met or spoken to the
person; the first I heard of him was when he went public in the press
with his attacks). Do you support a university employee misleading
university administrators to get video tapes of my lectures and then
launching an error riddled attack in the press without examining the
notes I provided students? Interestingly, he is no longer employed by
Carleton.
Internal procedures are for grievances. Like I said, employees
(post-docs are still employees) have the right to freedom of speech. In
your case, where you are deliberately misleading students and
misinforming them, I fully support his right to speak up on the matter.
That is his civil right, maybe even his civil duty. By the way, post
docs are temporary employees, typically employed for fewer than three
years total. What I find interesting is how you once again distorted the
facts to make it sound like he was fired when you have supplied nothing
to support that conclusion.
I stopped reading when you wrote, "In your case, where you are
deliberately misleading students" as that is just another insulting
logical fallacy. Do you claim to read minds now?
I read some of the statements you made and I know they were
deliberately misleading. Such as saying "Interestingly, he is no longer
employed by Carleton." Deliberate deception.
Has he returned to Carleton?
Christopher KeatingHas he? Do you know? And, how is that relevant, one way or the other?
Post-docs usually move on to another institution. Again, you are
deliberately trying to deceive. The specialty of deniers. Why don't you
try some science, instead?
Do you see how he is manipulating the facts? He makes it sound as if the problem isn't his teaching in the classroom, the problem is with a post-doc not using the internal grievance system. Then, he implies the post-doc was fired for his actions and not allowed to return. Both of those statements are unsupported (and probably libelous) and certainly intended to deceive.
But, he wasn't done. Take a look at this exchange that took place after I challenged him to a debate. He wanted me to cover his expenses.
Doesn't work that way. I pay my way and you pay yours.
Being a prof at a major university you have access to far more funds
than I do and are undoubtedly paid far more than I am as well. Will you
or your university cover my costs? You issued the challenge to debate,
not me.
I am a retired professor and the only funds I have access to are in
my personal savings. You, on the other hand, are funded by the fossil
fuel industry. Go to your friends at the Heartland Institute.
There we go - the typical misleading motive intent logical fallacy
from someone who "knows the truth." Forget about my agreement to debate
you. It would be a waste of my time to debate someone who uses such
infantile arguments.
Oh, please. The reason you won't debate me is because you know you'll
be embarrassed in front of an audience if you have to justify your
answers. Tell us you aren't supported by the fossil fuel industry.
No, looking over your site, I see that it would be easy to defeat you
in debate. For example, your poll question, "Is global warming real or a
myth?" is ridiculous.
Why does it matter who helps cover ICSC's operating costs?
Because of a pattern of behavior. Why is it every denier I know of is
funded by the fossil fuel industry? Why is it they routinely lie and
deceive about this fact? Why is it you are defensive about this? Where
is your research? Where are your satellites? Where are your research
ships? Where are your scientific expeditions? Where are your published
papers? Where are your models? The only thing you bring to the table is
doubt. And, that is done to protect your masters - the fossil fuel
industry.
If you think I am a liar, then why do you ask who my funding sources
are? You would not believe anything I answer unless it fit your
predetermined idea of who fund us.
Your question is just another logical fallacy - motive intent (and ad hominem,, since you claim me to be dishonest).
I would eat you alive in debate.
I ask because I already know you are funded by the Heartland
Institute. I just wanted to see if you would admit it. And, no, you
would never stand a chance against me. Go home and try to tell yourself
otherwise.
You say you asked because you already know the answer. Oh, I see, you were trying to trick me.
I
am off line for a while. I understand that Heartland donated to ICSC in
2007 (I started in 2008 at ICSC). Since then all donations are
confidential to protect donors from harassment from people like you.
It is certainly not harassment to ask what your motivation is. After
all, we require our politicians to reveal their supporters for just that
reason. Deniers just don't want anyone to realize they are being paid
to lie by the very people that are causing climate change and stand to
lose money if we do anything about it. Very suspicious.
Yes, it is It certainly is harassment, and a logical fallacy to boot, to ask what your motivation is.
If that is true, then why do deniers keep invoking that tactic with
regards to climate scientists? Are you telling people to do as you say
and not as you do?
Again, we see he threw out a strawman and tried to change the subject. When asked if his funding came from the fossil fuel industry, he refused the answer and tried to change the subject. If his funding did not come from the fossil fuel industry, what not say so? And, if it did, why wouldn't he be willing to admit it? Why the need for secrecy when it comes to his motives? These kinds of questions are very valid. That is why they are allowed in courts and why politicians must reveal the names of their donors. And, as I referenced, if this isn't important, why do the deniers constantly question the motives of climate scientists who receive government funds for their research?
So, why all the fuss? What is this all about, really? Go back to the beginning. In the 2010/11 school year, Mr. Harris
taught an earth science class at Carleton University,
Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective" (ERTH 2402).
The course caused an uproar, which led to an investigation. The results of that investigation were released on February 28, 2012,
Climate Change Denial in the Classroom: A report
on the course "Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective"
(ERTH2402) at Carleton
University. You can read the entire report here, and it is very damning. Some of the highlights of the report are:
We describe a case in which noted climate change deniers
have gained access to the
Canadian higher education system through a course taught at Carleton University. These academics are closely
associated with a number of organisations that have involvement with the energy
industry.
*****
Carleton
University teaches a
range of courses on various aspects of climate change and the vast majority
adhere to the highest academic standards. However, the content of this particular
course is heavily biased against the scientific consensus concerning the
anthropogenic causes of dangerous climate change. Through an
extensive audit of the
course material, we identify 142 claims made during the
lectures by the instructor, Mr Tom Harris, and various guest lecturers, that
run counter to established scientific opinion.
*****
However, it is important to note that the unbalanced nature
of the course, the lack of peer-reviewed literature cited, and the non-science
audience mean that the course fails to constitute‚promotion of debate‛ and
instead merely presents a biased and inaccurate portrayal of contemporary
climate science.
*****
First we note the lack of scientific evidence that is
actually cited in the course.
Rather than present the peer reviewed literature for his
students, Harris frequently claims to have spoken to or emailed scientists to
ask them for their opinions on particular issues.
As a result, many of Harris’ arguments do not appear to be
based on peer reviewed published research.
*****
Like much of the climate change denial movement, Harris'
course is structured around concentric sets of arguments. The first line of
defence is to claim that climate change (more specifically, global warming) is
not happening. This makes the title of our report accurate: as well as a role
for humans in contemporary climate change, Harris disputes even the existence of
and our ability to detect warming in global temperatures in the face of
substantial scientific evidence and, therefore, qualifies as a climate change denier.
*****
Perhaps the best summary of the questionable arguments used
in the course is given by Harris in the final lecture, where he provides take-away
slogans for the students:
- “The
only constant about climate is change.” (TH)
- “Carbon
dioxide is plant food.” (TH)
- “There
is no scientific consensus about climate change causes.” (TH)
- “Prepare
for global cooling.” (TH)
- “Climate
science is changing quickly.” (TH)
There is a lot more, including an appendix detailing the 142 false claims made by Mr. Harris. 142! The class was for three 50-minute periods a week for 15 weeks. That means he was making a false claim (not including repeats) every 16 minutes, on average.
You can see a more substantial review of the report on
Climate Progress, here.
In conclusion, we can use Mr. Harris' own tactics. It turns out he is no longer teaching at Carleton:
“Thank you for your concern on this. The course in question has not
been offered this year, and Tom Harris is no longer teaching at Carleton
University.
Best regards,
Malcolm Butler
Dean of Science”
