About Tom Harris's opinions in our local newspapers
RE: The value of knowledge
This is meant to inform you about the credibility of Tom Harris, a man-made global warming denier whose comment appeared in today's Duluth News Tribune. Here is a link to a reputable website which documents the ideas and credibility of known AGW deniers like Tom Harris:
Tom Harris does not have a degree in climate science but rather, a Masters of Engineering (thermofluids). Yet, he has accepted funding from climate denial organizations which work to aid the credibility of deniers in order to publicly rationalize the policies of large energy companies. Mr. Harris is also closely affiliated with The Heartland Institute—a conservative organization known for funding and supporting AGW deniers. And as he mentioned, he is the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, which is yet another notorious man-made global warming denial organization dedicated to discrediting the work of tens of thousands of truly qualified scientists who understand that the current climate change crisis is real, and is caused primarily by human activities. Harris has also, to date, not published a single peer-reviewed paper in any reputable scientific journal.
As far as the (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) which Harris mentions, this also, is a group dedicated to funding AGW deniers and which works towards discrediting the findings of 97% of today's peer reviewed climate scientists. The name is a variation on the name of the iconic Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or, the IPCC. However, since the IPCC's message is the direct opposite of the message disseminated by the NIPCC, and prestigious climate science organization all over the world refer to its findings, this very similar name may have been chosen with the intent of fooling laymen who are not as familiar with the climate analysis of the IPCC, as many scientists are. Here is a link to inform you about the NIPCC:
In general Harris's contention that reducing CO2 emissions will not help make the world safer, or even help at all, is absurd;
It's true that we may reach a tipping point after which the planet will perpetuate its worsening climate, but to suggest that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not help reduce the occurrence of extreme weather events, or help in any way, frankly makes no sense at all. If we have a fever, we know that taking aspirin may help. If we have to lose weight, we know exercise will help. And if we want to become successful in any field of work, we know that education will help us immensely. We also know that, if man-made greenhouse gasses are heavily produced by man, and if they are causing the planet to warm, (as they are), then reducing their amounts in the atmosphere will invariably help!
And as far as the billion spent on climate “finance” which Mr. Harris's letter to the tribune claims—even if that figure is accurate, we still need to recognize the untold billions that will be needed to clean up and recover from the devastation wrought by extreme weather events that are caused by AGW, as large losses of human lives which has already become manifest as one of the most tragic costs of such extreme weather events! We also need to honestly ask ourselves if maintaining a livable future for our children and theirs, isn't really more desirable than the ever increasing and devastating consequences of our own inaction?
The press sorely needs to become aware of the backgrounds and motivations of many supposed climate science “experts,” in order to become edified about what is really at stake. It's my sincere hope that soon, newspapers and journals everywhere, will print the ideas of AGW deniers, but in close proximity to, and including, direct scientific rebuttals of the many specific misconceptions and lies being spread by deniers.
Sincerely, Pete W. Johnson
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.ReplyDelete
The following article lays out a sample of the many scientists who do not support the dangerous anthropogenic climate change hypothesis: http://www.worldcommercereview.com/publications/article_pdf/948
Tom, your target
I did not write the article, but I do not see anything wrong with it. As for the settled science, yes, in fact, it is settled. Manmade emissions are changing the climate and it is not to our benefit. And, yes, 97% of all climate scientists, and 92% of all scientists in general, agree. If you are so confident of your falsehoods and false arguments, I would gladly (VERY gladly) debate you in any open forum. Any time, any where. You are in the wrong.ReplyDelete
"many scientists... do not support the dangerous anthropogenic climate change hypothesis"ReplyDelete
...and what about your hypothesis, Tom Harris?
If we aren't facing complete polar meltdown and 75 meters of sea level rise, just with the CO₂ we've already emitted, why isn't there a single example in Earth's history of polar ice caps withstanding CO₂ so high?
If you'd like to challenge my characterisation of the history, please cite your sources.
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.ReplyDelete
Yikes! That's embarrassing.ReplyDelete
OK - set it up, with my expenses covered (I won't charge a fee) and I would be happy to debate you, Christopher.ReplyDelete
Doesn't work that way. I pay my way and you pay yours.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
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):ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
Why does it matter who helps cover ICSC's operating costs?
First of all, Mr. Harris, I am pleased that my letter to the editors of the Tribune and the Telegram, is sufficiently interesting to prompt a personal reply from you on this websiteI've also got to state the fact that what has been settled by science is the assertion that global warming is happening, and that it it's primarily caused by man. Outside of deniers and employees of oil companies, there are really very few scientists that don't accept that basic fact. However, climate scientists have never claimed they know all there is to know about this subject, rather they have a lot of research to do, concerning various aspects of climate change, since skepticism is in fact ,one of the motivating factors that contributes to genuine scientific curiosity.ReplyDelete
The relatively few facts that I have relayed about your status as a supposed authority on climate change are openly available on the DeSmogBlog and many of the contentions in the Tribune letter are just not true! They distort the nature of climate science and ignore the gargantuan amounts of research done by thousands of scientists all over the world, who concur that climate change is primarily man made, and happening.
There have been relatively few papers published by deniers, but not because they lack the opportunity to publish them--rather, because the process of peer review often results in rejections of their unsound arguments. And, although many scientific proposals have taken time to be accepted by the mainstream, this is because many new ideas are sometimes difficult to accept by other scientists. However, thanks to a dedication to the scientific method and the process of peer reviews, a paper's premise and fact are often finally accepted once scientists agree to thoroughly investigate them.
Its also been my experience that after investigating the works of the "many scientists who do not support the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis," their contentions invariably involve cherry picked data, misinterpretations of the data, or even outright attempts of decieve--in other words--lies. And, if anything, eminently qualified climate scientists are upset not because people like you continue to challenge the facts that actually have been settled about climate change, but rather, because you continue to advance your own misconceptions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and are much more resistant to change than many prestigious, and even Nobel prize winning scientists have ever been, about your right to raise the issues that you do.
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.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
I stopped reading when you wrote, "Outside of deniers". Why do you people stoop to such language when you know very well we deny nothing except that we deny that we deny climate change and that man plays a role.ReplyDelete
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?ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
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.
Because you deny science.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
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.ReplyDelete
Oh, pleeze. Now, I can say I deny that I deny science.ReplyDelete
Has he returned to Carleton?ReplyDelete
Has 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?ReplyDelete
You say you asked because you already know the answer. Oh, I see, you were trying to trick me.ReplyDelete
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.
Well, you certainly have not resorted to any science. Again, typical denier speak. You want to give the impression you are not rejecting science, but you never supply any scientific evidence to support your claims.ReplyDelete
Lol! Did you seriously just suggest someone pay for a platform for you to spread your lies, Tom Harris?ReplyDelete
If you're just going to make yourself look like a joke, what's the point of posting anything at all?
Who would pay a propagandist so incompetent?
"both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice."
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.ReplyDelete
Yes, it is It certainly is harassment, and a logical fallacy to boot, to ask what your motivation is.ReplyDelete
Good job, CB - you demonstrate better than I ever could how the climate debate is poisoned, largely by frightened anonymous posters like you.ReplyDelete
I stopped reading when I came to "Again, typical denier speak". I won't waste my time debating with people who spout such drivelReplyDelete
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?ReplyDelete
Tom, I really want to be civil to you, but you make it so hard. You use innuendo to attack the post doc, you hide your funding source, and now you attack someone because you think they are anonymous. There is nothing of substance in any of those things you are doing. How can you possibly think you are showing the massive amount of science is not valid with those claims and tactics?ReplyDelete
Then, stop using the same, debunked denier drivel. Give us something factual, Tom. Stop with the deception.ReplyDelete
"the climate debate is poisoned, largely by frightened anonymous posters like you"ReplyDelete
Lol! Tom Harris, I don't feel particularly frightened!
Who's the frightened person you're really talking about?
If it's so likely polar ice caps will be able to withstand CO₂ as high as we've pushed it, why isn't there a single example of them doing so in Earth's history?
What explains your fear of this question?
"the ice caps are melting at their base, caused by warming oceans."
How ridiculous! Did this guy ever think to actually listen to himself? How embarrassing for his family.ReplyDelete
Here is the full CASS report which this sweetheart interview doesn't come close to rebutting.ReplyDelete
Tom is now defending himself by saying he misled students but not deliberately. LOL. I guess mere incompetence would be a step up for him, but everything in his prior history as a PR flack suggests he was aware what he was doing.ReplyDelete
Tom always stops reading when it gets close to a truth he doesn't like.ReplyDelete
The thing I find interesting is he never said anything of substance. He only gave us strawman nonsense. Scientists provide mountains of evidence and they provide double talk.ReplyDelete
This is a truly amazing report. Mr. Harris certainly did not portray the situation correctly. To him, it was all about one post-doc making statements outside of the grievance system. In reality, he made, by the count of the investigators, 142 scientifically incorrect statements in his classroom. There is so much more I have decided to do a posting on this report. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.ReplyDelete
What do you mean by, "You People?" It almost sounds like you're referring to some downtrodden minority which you consider which you consider nothing but "rabble."
Two arguments commonly used by deniers are that climate scientists are creating a religion when simply adhering to the principles and the valid data they have discovered, or, that climate scientists are trying to discredit deniers by actually criticising their work? But undoubtedly many climate scientists are atheists and many are believers. So religion has little to do with this. And from what I understand one of the prime duties of scientists is to question and reexamine the work of their peers. So why all of the hostility when your research is simply questioned?
Its actually a pretty cheap debating trick to immediately insult and stereotype one's opponents and dehumanizing one's adversaries. However none of that is needed. This should also not be about partisan politics, as scientific research itself is not really obligated to conform to the policies of any political party. Unfortunately I am realizing that part of denier's strategies is to welcome discord and polarization, simply because those kinds of things help deniers to create doubt about the findings of bona-fide scientists, who merely accept the fact of man-made global warming.
By the way, are you affiliated with the Heartland institute or not? How about some basic yes or nos?ReplyDelete
By the way, once again, have you received funding from the fossil fuel industry or not, and are you affiliated with organizations like the Heartland Institute or not?ReplyDelete
We're still waiting for a simple yes or no to answer any of these questions.
Again, how about simply stating whether the charts above are accurate or not? Isn't that the stuff that a real debate is made of? And are there not all kinds of reasons that those who work for special interests, can be influenced and motivated by the people and groups they receive funding from? If our politicians were say, discovered to be known recipients of funds from the KKK, wouldn't that make a significant difference in their credibility, or of how valid their arguments are? So why should your poor funding sources risk being "embarrassed" by simply revealing who they are. Are they just bashful businessmen? Don't they have the gumption to stand up for their principles. All of this secrecy is very, very suspicious indeed!ReplyDelete
It was necessary to to ask for remuneration establish his position as a victim. As hard as it is to deny science, its easy in comparison to characterize scientists and academia as liberal elites, making him the oppressed minority.ReplyDelete
As you suspected, Mr. Harris' comment was deliberately deceptive. A bit of research shows Dr. Christopher Hassall, the lead author of the report, is currently a Lecturer in Biology at the University of Leeds after completing a three-year post-doc term at Carleton University and by all appearances doing very well for himself.ReplyDelete
It is remarkable (and laudable) that a post-doc would commit the time and resources to lead such a study considering the stresses and uncertainties many of them labour under.
He never replied, did he?ReplyDelete
I received a comment from Mark Shore that is not appearing, for what ever reason. I thought it was important, so I am copying it here. Thanks, Mark and I'm sorry your comment isn't appearing.ReplyDelete
As you suspected, Mr. Harris' comment was deliberately deceptive. A bit of research shows Dr. Christopher Hassall, the lead author of the report,
is currently a Lecturer in Biology at the University of Leeds after completing a three-year post-doc term at Carleton University and by all appearances doing very well for himself.
It is remarkable (and laudable) that a post-doc would commit the time and resources to lead such a study considering the stresses and uncertainties many of them labour under.
Another example of the fact that deniers come across more like lawyers than scientists---because juggling all of the lies and falsehoods they distribute, require deft legal posturing to maintain.ReplyDelete
If you are going to compare them to lawyers (which I have been guilty of and have apologized to lawyers for), I would point out that no lawyer would permit his arguments in court. They are false arguments as well as being falsehoods.ReplyDelete
You're right. I probably insulted a lot of good lawyers by using that comparison.ReplyDelete