Tom Harris' Deceit On Display

The opinion piece “A new EPA approach for Pruitt” (Washington Post, March 1, 2017) is written by Tom Harris, a known fossil fuel advocate. You can read more about Tom Harris and his activities here. The following is an examination of this piece to expose various instances of deceit, false logic and outright lies.

Lie Number 1: The opinion piece subtitle is “Climate science must be subjected to fair and open debate.” The anti-science people who deny climate change have demonstrated the last thing they want is a ‘fair and open debate’ on the topic. The reason is simple – they don’t have any credible science to support their claims and have never produced any despite essentially limitless opportunities to do so. I have repeatedly offered to debate the issues in public and am still waiting for any of them to accept. I will renew my offer right here: I am willing to engage anyone who denies manmade climate change is real in an open and public debate. You may contact me via this blog. I am not the only one willing to do this. The only reason there has been no ‘fair and open’ debate is because they have failed to accept the invitations to do so. Harris know this.

Deceit Number 1: In the first paragraph, Harris states the Clean Power Plan (CPP) “would have no measurable impact on climate (sic).” Let’s look at the facts. No reduction in greenhouse emissions will remove the gases already present in the atmosphere. Future climate change from these gases is inevitable. There is very little that can be done about that. Actions such as the CPP work to reduce the additional emissions we will be emitting in years to come and help prevent additional damage that will be done on top of what we have already dialed in. Harris is deceitful in his statement by leading the reader to believe the CPP will have no effect at all. Read the review of the CPP by the Union of Concerned Scientists here. 

Deceit Number 2: In the second paragraph, Harris speaks of former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and characterizes her guidance as a “misguided support for the climate scare.” This is a statement provided with no supporting evidence at all and prejudices the reader to believing the policies of Administrator McCarthy are unfounded. McCarthy has a Master of Science in Environmental Health Engineering from Tufts University and has had a long career working in the public environmental policy at the state and federal level. She has a long and distinguished track record. Her policies on climate change are supported by over 99% of climate scientists published over the last several years. This amounts to several tens of thousands of scientists from countries all over the world. In summary, Administrator McCarthy has the training, background and the expert science to justify her policies. Harris failed to mention any of that. Read more about Administrator McCarthy here.  Scott Pruitt has a bachelor’s degree in political science and communication and is a lawyer. He has no background in science.

False Logic Number 1: Harris states, “The United States has a moral obligation to set a good example in addressing serious global issues. Whether man-made climate change concerns are warranted or not, trillions of dollars and millions of lives are at stake.” This is very confusing. Harris has already called climate science “climate scare” and stated McCarthy’s support for policies addressing the problem were “misguided.” How can there be millions of lives and trillions of dollars at risk?

Lie Number 2: Harris states, “It should certainly not be Ms. McCarthy’s approach of considering only one side of the science and demonizing experts who disagree.” This, of course, is an outright lie. Science does not have more than one side. It is the understanding of the natural world. There is science and that’s it. Harris is not a scientist, but he has a degree in Mechanical Engineering and it is not reasonable to believe he does not know this. By inferring there is more than one side to science is a falsehood – a lie. All fact and credible science is considered and it is all available for all people to see. This includes the public, administrators and even Mr. Harris. The people who are being demonized are the ones who lie about the science in order to interfere with any actions to address the problem – the same problem Harris has already stated will cost trillions of dollars and put millions of lives at risk. This interference benefits the fossil fuel industry – the same people who are providing the funds for this campaign.

Deceit Number 3: Harris then states, “The public needs to have confidence that the government is giving a proper hearing to all reputable points of view, not cherry-picking the science to support a politically convenient narrative.” Here, without actually stating it or providing any kind of supporting evidence, Harris has led the reader to believe the climate science community is cherry-picking the science and that there is a political motivation to their actions. The fact is, if there was any science to support Mr. Harris claims, there are plenty of organizations that would be very pleased to support that research and publicize the results. ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal would gladly provide any such support. In fact, ExxonMobil has a climate science group it has funded for decades and this in-house research has confirmed the reality of manmade global warming and climate change. ExxonMobil states it "believes that climate change is a serious issue requiring research for solutions." Mr. Harris repeatedly talks about research supporting his claims. And yet, I have never seen him produce any supporting science. He has had plenty of opportunity and means to do so, but has never produced any.

Lie Number 3: Speaking of Mr. Pruitt, Harris states that Pruitt “has repeatedly promoted fair and open debate about climate change science.” In fact, Pruitt tried to scrub EPA web pages of climate change information, but was forced to back down.  Scientists at the EPA have been told their scientific findings will need to be reviewed on a “case by case basis” before it can be disseminated to the public. This is far from promoting a “fair and open debate.” This is censorship.

Lie Number 4: Continuing, Mr. Harris states, “In light of the recent charges by a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist that agency researchers are manipulating data to support climate alarmism.” This is in reference to an article that appeared in The Mail, a less than reputable media source in the UK. The writer of the piece, David Rose, is well known for writing false articles and not verifying his facts. This was one of those times. He claimed a former NOAA scientist, John Bates, stated the NOAA data had been manipulated improperly in order to support papers published on climate change. The problem is that John Bates never said that and was quick to make that clear, stating “The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.” Bates also stated in an interview, “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.” It is not reasonable to believe Mr. Harris was not aware of this. He is trying to walk a fine line by not actually stating the data was tampered with. Instead, he is stating a former NOAA scientists made these charges. In fact, that did not occur. Read more here. 

Deceit Number 4: Referring to people who disagree with the science, he calls them, “the many scientists who do not support the climate scare,” and “the courageous men and women who take a more realistic stance.” The problem is he is unable to produce anyone who is not knowingly taking funds, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry and can produce any credible science to show manmade climate change is not real. And, he is dismissing the many tens of thousands of climate scientists who agree that manmade climate change is a reality. And, don’t forget that Harris has already stated that trillions of dollars and millions of lives are at risk. Why would that be the case if manmade climate change isn’t real?

Lie Number 5: “Mr. Pruitt must instruct EPA staff to stop pretending that the science is settled and instead listen to both sides of the controversy.” The science is settled. Any statement contrary to that is a lie and Harris knows this. In fact, Harris has frequently stated in comments sections that he has never stated manmade climate change is real (Yes, he has, but that’s another issue). If he is willing to state for the record that he has never stated it isn’t real, then why is necessary for him to encourage Pruitt to ‘stop pretending the science is settled’ when Harris has already stated it is settled?

Deceit Number 5: The next paragraph contains a legal argument with the claim this procedure applies to science, one of “questioning, re-examining, changing ideas and rejecting old ones when reputable new information surfaces.” Mr. Harris is trying to convince the reader that this isn’t happening in climate science. In fact, the exact opposite is true and Mr. Harris, as a mechanical engineer, knows this. He also knows that if someone were to find evidence that published papers were in error, that person would gladly, and quickly, publish his or hers own results. No scientist in the world is going to pass up the opportunity to publish a good paper. And, as I stated before, there are plenty of organizations that would enthusiastically support that research. Mr. Harris knows all this, but fails to mention it.

Deceit Number 6 and False Logic Number 2: Harris stated, “the 11 EPA “public listening sessions” in 2013 on the Clean Power Plan avoided states where electricity price increases would have been the highest as a result of the new rules. Of the top 10 states with the highest percentage of electricity generated from coal, not one was included in the EPA meetings.” He is careful to limit his claim to 2013. There is no mention of meetings in other years and the CPP was not announced until 2015, leaving plenty of time for those meetings Harris laments. But, what is the relevance of that statement? State EPA agencies are responsible for public meetings within their states, not the EPA.

Lie Number 6: Harris uses one of the current favorite lies among climate change deniers when he refers to carbon dioxide pollution and states, “grade school students know is the stuff of life, the very opposite of pollution.”

Grade school kids know this is pollution:

Grade school kids know this is pollution:

Grade school kids know this is pollution:

Mr. Harris wants you to believe this is all natural and the very stuff of life and isn’t pollution. Fortunately, even grade school kids know better.

Deceit Number 7: “Cleaning up climate-related parts of the EPA website should be very high on Mr. Pruitt’s priority list.” This, of course, is censorship. Why is Mr. Harris advocating censorship in an article he claims is encouraging a “fair and open debate?” There is a major disjoint in his statements for all to see.

False Logic Number 3: Interestingly, referring to Pruitt, Harris states, he “needs to help the U.S. concentrate on hardening its infrastructure to extreme weather and other inevitable natural phenomena.” Why do we need to take these measures when, according to Harris, it is only a ‘climate scare?’

Lie Number 7: “The Obama administration’s foolish attempts to control global climate.” No, the Obama administration did not attempt to control the climate and Harris knows this. What they did was an attempt to address manmade climate change. Harris is stating another falsehood here.

False Logic Number 4: Harris made one last false statement when referring to Obama he stated, “and left the country more vulnerable than necessary to natural disasters.” Again, he already claimed it is ‘climate scare,’ so why are we more vulnerable to natural disasters by addressing our ability to deal with natural disasters?

So, the final tally is that I have identified four instances of false logic, seven instances of deceit and seven outright lies. There may be more, these are simply the ones I addressed.

Now, you decide for yourself if you are going to consider Tom Harris a credible source.

Fighting The Denier Lobby With Humor

Climate scientist Michael E. Mann wrote a truly outstanding book on the climate wars, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. It not only explains the science, but it gives a detailed insider look of the continuous battle with the denier lobby. I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in learning more about the topic.

Now, Mann has teamed up with Pulitzer Prize–winning political cartoonist Tom Toles to produce another book, The Madhouse Effect. Together, they confront the denier lobby not only with science and facts, but also with humor. I have not had an opportunity to read the book yet, but am looking forward to it.

Meanwhile, feel free to let me know what you think of it, if you get a chance to read it.

Guest Submission: The Global Warming Alarm is Meant to Control and Not Save Humanity

The following was submitted as a guest posting. My rebuttal and comments follow at the end.

CK

The Global Warming Alarm is Meant to Control and Not Save Humanity

Global warming and climate change are the biggest threats facing human society, so say some scientists. But are human activities solely responsible for this problem?

There’s no denying that we have witnessed unusual global climate in the last few years, like the weird San Diego weather in 2015, or 2016 being the hottest year till date. But can we attribute this unusual occurrence only to man-induced industrial activities like burning fossil fuels or vehicular emissions? I bet not.

The answer, in all likelihood, will be no. Scientists, however, have thrusted that fear upon us and have made us think twice before we even rev our scooters. I have been closely reading and staying abreast of climate-related events and news and couldn’t help but notice the exaggerated claims that point heavily towards man-made CO2 emissions.

There are enough research papers on global warming and climate change that justify those who believe it to be a serious threat. Hence, before arriving at a conclusion, I did some thorough research, certainly not limited to mindless comments about global warming being a hoax.

Here’s what I found

Climate scientists from the UK have released a set of “actual data” before it was doctored to support their false claims about global warming. The charts show that the temperatures are actually falling, and the global climate is getting cooler, heading towards a mini ice age.

Supposedly, even NASA has been reporting false climate records for years now as per data computational expert Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Veteran Journalist Gunter Ederer reported Ewert’s findings which shows that the last 100 years’ climate data (especially post the WWII) have been altered to show non existent rise in temperatures.

News pieces on ‘soaring temperatures’ and ‘hottest recorded weather in many years’ highlight that scientists blame it all on industrial productions. However, this is probably not justified. Industrial activities have followed a rising trend over the last 150 years and over this period, the average global temperature has fluctuated multiple times as listed below.

1881: 13.8 Degree Celsius

1895: 12.9 Degree Celsius

1905: 14.3 Degree Celsius  

1920: 12.9 Degree Celsius

1930: 13.9 Degree Celsius

1975: 13.0 Degree Celsius

2000: 14.0 Degree celsius

2010: 13.2 Degree Celsius

These numbers are as per the records released by Ewert. Nasa has now reported the 2016 average temperature as 14.8 Degree Celsius, which is debatable. But looking at the above changes, we can expect the number to fall somewhere close to 13.5 Degree Celsius in the next 10 years.

The fluctuating numbers got me wondering about the melting snow caps and the “classic” polar bear clinging on to the last remaining ice berg images used as a sign of threat. There is an explanation to this as well. The Arctic region is the first area prone to be affected by the warmer waters brought in by the Atlantic current’s cyclical shifts. It’s a common phenomenon that slowly melts down the ice for years before forming it back. The images uploaded by the Daily Mail show this variation and an increase in the Arctic ice caps after 2012.  

Controlling People’s Minds

The global warming scare has now turned into a $1.5 Trillion dollar industry which the UN Programs and Governments would be minting through fundings. Millions of tax dollars are flowing into the banks of the UN clean energy programs. They justify nuclear power to be the largest clean energy source that could replace the threat caused by fossil fuel emissions. But what they ignore is the immediate threat of a nuclear accident similar to the Fukushima radiation that could cause irreparable damage to the environment.

The Climate Change industry has grown at a rate of 17% - 24% between 2005 and 2008, and 15% in 2011 alone, as reported by the Climate Change business journal. They use climate threat as a justification for the high priced renewable sector, green buildings and hybrid vehicles.

The robust increase of this industry also accounts for the $1.9 billion dollar climate change consultancy market, with $890 million earned solely in the US.

Climate change deniers do care about the environment

As a citizen of my country, I too am concerned about the environment, and the pollution caused by everyday human activities, but do not believe that it is the sole cause of climate change. There is a difference between caring for the environment and scaring people into believing in climate threats. True environmentalists do not play with people’s fears.

Although we must shift to greener alternatives to contribute to the betterment of our environment, it should not be done at the cost of making people believe a lie. I will keep reading up on the true causes of climatic variations and whether they are really contributing in nearing doomsday.

Author Bio:

Ethan Miller is a private ESL teacher who also works as an online tutor. Apart from his passion for teaching, he loves to write and holds a degree in creative writing. When he is not teaching or writing his book, Miller loves to blog and is a huge fan of educational technology. You can follow Miller on Facebook and Twitter and check out his blog.

REBUTTAL AND COMMENTS

Mr. Miller’s comments are welcome here, but there are many factual problems that are typical among claims made the by the anti-science community. In emails, Mr. Miller stated he believes in global warming, but his views were “thrashed and vividly abused” at a discussion forum. As a result, he researched what the deniers where saying to him and his research led him to the viewpoint expressed above. 

Let’s start at the beginning. In his first line, Mr. Miller states climate change is the most important issue facing humanity “so say some scientists.” No. This is incorrect. Essentially, every single climate scientist agrees that AGW is real and over 92% of all scientists across the board agree with the statement. What this means is anyone who denies the reality of global warming is immediately claiming to be smarter than all of the climate scientists in the world combined. Finding a few online denier sites that provide false arguments and deceitful claims does not trump years of graduate school and professional experience doing research. 

Mr. Miller then “bets not” that human activity is responsible for all of the climate changes we are witnessing. Don’t bet a lot, Mr. Miller. You’d lose. The reality is solar activity is declining. Deniers like to say the climate changes on its own and then leave it to the audience to assume that means the climate is warming on its own. Why can’t the climate be cooling on its own? The reality is solar activity is declining and the climate, if left to itself, would be cooling right now. That means we are not only responsible for the warming above the baseline, we are also responsible for the warming between the cooler temperature that would prevail naturally and the baseline. So, yes, we are responsible. 

Mr. Miller continues with the statement, “Scientists, however, have thrusted that fear upon us…” and states they have made “exaggerated claims” about carbon emissions. I would first note that these are unsupported statements. What does he mean by “thrusted that fear”? What scientists do is research and discovery for the purpose of increasing our understanding. We are not in the business of ‘thrusting fear’ on people, only increased understanding. If the work of scientists causes people to be fearful, it is most likely because people are acting in an irresponsible manner. Medical researchers were not attempting to scare people about the dangers of smoking, they were only trying to make them aware. It was the understanding of the dangers of their harmful habits that made them fearful. Likewise, informing the public about the dangers of climate change and global warming is not an attempt to scare them, it is an effort to make the public understand the science. If you are now scared because of our bad habits, then do something about it. Don’t blame the scientists for informing you we are driving on a dangerous road. It is not knowledge that makes the road dangerous. The road would still be dangerous without any understanding.

Mr. Miller continues by stating, “There are enough research papers on global warming and climate change that justify those who believe it to be a serious threat.” Click on his link and look closely. You should immediately see the serious, fatal flaw in his statement. These are not “research papers.” They are “essays.” A research paper is something that is written after applying the scientific method to scientifically valid data. This paper is then submitted to a refereed journal for review by fellow scientists for accuracy and validity. Only then is it published. Something posted in a blog (including this one) does not meet that standard and is not a research paper. You can say anything you want in an essay and you are not required to produce any supporting science or data. Just opinion. In the above reference to the 99% of climate scientists, the researchers found only one paper out of 24,000 did not support AGW. Stating “there are enough research papers” to justify climate change deniers is not factually correct. There are no research papers to support their claims. 

Wow! This response is getting pretty long and we haven’t even gotten through the first page of Mr. Miller’s submission. This, unfortunately, is pretty typical of anti-science claims. There’s a whole lot of falsehoods and not a lot of truth. Take Mr. Miller’s next comment as a perfect example:

“Climate scientists from the UK have released a set of “actual data” before it was doctored to support their false claims about global warming.” 

Yikes! I could spend an entire day discussing just how false and misleading this one sentence is. Let’s just summarize it by saying it is a prime example of not knowing how scientific instruments work. There is raw data and adjusted data. The reason it is adjusted is because the data is provided with no reference or calibration. Two instruments sitting side-by-side should produce the same result. If they don’t, the data is adjusted in a calibration process. There is nothing nefarious about this. In fact, just the opposite. It is the calibration process that makes the data valid. You cannot use raw data for any scientific work because it means nothing until it is calibrated. I don’t want to get into all of the details here because this posting is already getting too long, but you can read a detailed explanation (from real climate scientists, not bloggers) in this article here. There are many, many more credible explanations of the process. This is just one of them.

This last explanation should cover all of Mr. Miller’s claims involving the temperature record. There is only a problem if you use the raw data. Using the calibrated data, we get this for the world temperature from 1880 to 2014. (Source: NOAA):

Really. Does anyone have any questions after that? By the way, 2015 would top out as the hottest year and 2016 is on track to beat even that one.

Continuing, Mr. Miller states the ice fluctuates through natural cycles and the Arctic sea ice has recovered after the disastrously low minimum of 2012. First, you have to define ‘recover.’ If he means the extent became larger, then that is a correct statement. If he means it returned to a healthy state and stayed there, then the statement is totally false. Here are the facts: the ice extent for 2016 has already become the second lowest extent on record, surpassed only by that 2012 record. Here is the trendline (Source: National Snow and Ice Data Center) for the September sea ice extent (the 2016 number is not yet included but may have bottomed out at 4.137 million square kilometers).

Clearly, the Arctic sea ice is not recovering to a healthy state and any claim to the contrary is simply not true.

Mr. Miller then uses a single, unsupported reference to claim there is a ‘climate change industry’ worth approximately $1.5 trillion per year. As I said, these numbers are not supported and the term ‘climate change industry’ is very vague and includes things such as environmental engineering. By this definition, putting insulation in your attic to reduce your air conditioning bill qualifies as ‘climate change industry’ and you are, somehow, contributing to some international conspiracy. He also, inexplicably, assigns this industry to the UN, the favorite bogeyman of the anti-science crowd. But, if we are going to discuss money, let’s discuss the estimated costs of climate change – approximately 400,000 deaths and $1.2 trillion dollars per year. That study is a few years old. I would expect both numbers to be significantly higher by now.

Mr. Miller concludes by claiming climate change deniers care about the environment. This is like saying a smoker cares about his health. Sorry, no can do. Either you care about the environment and work towards protecting it, or you don’t. You cannot go around rejecting the science, obstructing all efforts to address the problem while spreading the lies, and then claim you care about the environment. No matter how much they object, it is easy to see deniers don’t care about the environment because their words and actions show otherwise.

One last comment, Mr. Miller referred to “mindless comments about global warming being a hoax.” I love this statement. Claims about global warming being a hoax are the ultimate tin-hat moment and shows how utterly incapable deniers are of being able to produce any science to support their claims. Anyone taking even a few minutes would quickly come to the conclusion there is no reality to it.  First, consider how many people would have to be involved in this hoax. The number of ‘climate scientist’ is hard to pin down because that covers such a broad range of specialties. For instance, I am a physicist who does research in climate change. Does that make me a climate scientist? If so, no register anywhere in the world would reflect that. In fact, climate is a mostly geophysical process so a great number of climate scientists are geophysicists. Obviously, biology is also a major feature, so many climate scientists are biologists. You can see how this trend would continue with all sorts of disciplines. How do you go about counting them? We can make some rough estimates based on the number of papers being published. In the above reference to the 99% consensus, the researchers found nearly 70,000 authors published climate research papers over a two-year period. Using those figures, it would be easy to estimate the number of climate scientists is into the hundreds of thousands. Add in support staff, students, interns, etc. and you are talking about over a million people worldwide. Now, imagine that each and every one of these million-plus people are complicit with this hoax and all of them are keeping it secret. And, remember we are talking worldwide, including some countries that don’t like us and have no motive to cooperate with us. Truly, you have the greatest conspiracy in the entire history of mankind. And, the amazing thing is that there isn’t even a single shred of supporting evidence.

Here’s the fundamental truth about the greatest hoax in human history – it isn’t happening. What you have are people who can’t accept reality and make up for that deficiency by cooking up impossible scenarios. Oh, and don’t bother with any evidence. Who needs evidence? Well, scientists do, for starters.

In conclusion (thankfully), Mr. Miller’s submission is full of inaccuracies and false statements. But, that is what the anti-science lobby produces.

 

Peabody Coal Funded Climate Change Deniers

Anyone following the current events associated with the science of climate change should be aware of how the fossil fuel industry funds the anti-science climate change deniers. There is hard evidence of this in government filed documents, court documents, and insider statements. Now we can add the bankruptcy documents Peabody Coal filed with the court to that list. You can read an in-depth article about the list here.

When I reviewed the list I wasn't surprised to see some familiar names, people I've debated the issues with over the years. One I find very notable is Richard Lindzen. This is important because he spent years telling everyone he didn't receive any funds from the fossil fuel industry for his research. What he failed to say is that he was receiving massive amounts of funds for 'consulting' services. It is well-known, by his own admission, he was receiving money from ExxonMobil the whole time. Now, we find he was also receiving money from Peabody Coal. No wonder he left Harvard.

Another favorite is Roy Spencer, the former scientists who has been caught so often falsifying his data and writing false papers that he can no longer get published in any journal. The last time he did the editorial staff resigned in protest. He has sacrificed every bit of credibility he ever had, but he is still collecting money from Peabody Coal.

The Idso family also showed up. Yet another group of former scientists who thought easy money was preferable to hard work.

Willie Soon, the infamous engineer with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims in public to be a climate scientist and was caught hiding his fossil fuel payoffs.

Oh, and CFACT, those guys who produced the anti-science film 'Climate Hustle'? They're on the list.

Speaking of disgusting groups (and we were), how about ALEC? In case you don't know this organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council arranges for law makers to meet with donors. In these meetings the donors will arrange for the law makers to submit bills favorable to the donors industry in exchange for financial support. This way, the name of the donors and their industry are not associated with the bill. ALEC does not deny this and this activity is not illegal (remember who rights the laws). To no surprise, we see ALEC received funds from Peabody Coal.

And, it is to no surprise to see the anti-science political party is well represented on the list. No fewer than eight separate Republican organizations received funds from Peabody. Two Democrat organizations are listed.

It is interesting to see the documentation of how this corrupt corporation was able to spread it's influence far beyond the purview of mining coal.

Guest Post: News Media Bias Against Science

There are still a number of news media outlets that chose to support climate change denialism. This is done in a number of ways. Some simply don't allow any credible science to appear in their pages, while others suppress science and promote the pseudo-science (see Fox News). Others, such as in the example below, print the scientific viewpoint but do so in a manner to indicate it is faulty. The below guest post consists of exchanges of letters between a reader and the opinion page editors of the Duluth News Tribune and the Superior Telegram. Both of these newspapers have previously supported the anti-science positions of climate change deniers.

*********************

(Note: Chuck Frederick and Shelley Nelson are, respectively, the opinion page editors of the Duluth News Tribune, and the Superior Telegram)

Good Morning Chuck and Shelley,

Today's Tribune (January 7, 2016) ran a puzzling local view article written by a well educated person having a PhD in aquatic ecology, and was also reviewed by another well educated person with a degree in climatology, who is an assistant professor at Large Lakes Observatory, in Duluth.

What was puzzling about this guest post column offered by Duluthian David Gerhart, is that it lists a number of very solid and valid scientific reasons why the concentration of Earth's CO2 levels is much greater now than it was 800,000 years ago, and also that today's rise in global mean temperatures is not due to the orbit, or the intensity of our sun--actually the sun is delivering less energy to the Earth than is has previously, and would actually decrease the Earths temperature if it were truly driving global warming. The article also makes readers aware of the fact that the Earth goes through normal glacial cycles that scientist have known about for many, many years and are now trying to prudently warns us about the fact that Arctic areas are continually loosing ice mass and that this will directly affect future sea levels---so why is all this very valid and very well known scientific evidence, presented directly beneath a cartoon showing an ad for a Godzilla movie, and another movie depicting a giant glacier, with the caption, "Run for your lives! It'll melt in 1000 years?"

Why are you depicting actual science in such a way, as to imply that those who are warning others about man-made global warming, are nothing more than hysterical alarmists worried about something which might happen 1000 years in the future? In truth, most scientists project only a 3 to 6 foot sea level rise by the end of the century, which in itself will pose a problem to many large populated communities occupying coastal areas that are already established near sea level. And, no climatologist, or scientist in any related field, has ever encouraged us to panic about what might happen a full millennium in the future!

When the Arctic ice cap and the Greenland ice cap melt, they not only release more water into our oceans, but the loss of snow and ice in those regions will prevent large amounts of sunlight from being reflected back into space---also increasing temperatures averages. Then there is the fact that since the actual Arctic land surface contains vast amounts of accumulated methane gas, which may be released into the atmosphere relatively quickly and, if so, suddenly increase the rate of global warming. That's because methane is one of the most potent green house gasses in regards to heat trapping properties!

Why then do you present actual facts provided by qualified experts, and then simultaneously run a cartoon implying that all this climate stuff---(my words)---is nothing but hysteria? If this is what journalist call balance, it's only because most of you are sadly misinformed or uninformed about the real problems posed by climate change and the fact that we must begin taking aggressive actions NOW to reduce emissions world-wide. Unfortunately, when the news industry knowingly or unknowingly distorts or prevents real knowledge from being available to the public that only reinforces the environment of political paralysis created by legislators who are in the pockets of large oil and large coal. So preventing real information from reaching voters is tragically closing the limited window of time which we will need to make big changes---if our future Earth is to be a comfortable and safe place for our progeny to live! You may not realize it, but the FALSE BALANCE, you feel you must provide, is not only contributing to the problem, but also preventing the necessary political will required for us to successfully deal with the real problems created by AGW and its attendant effects on our climate.

Sincerely,

Peter W. Johnson

(from Chuck Frederick, Duluth News Tribune opinion page editor).

We provide space on our Opinion pages for all viewpoints. It's not so much a desire for balance as for allowing the expression of a diversity of views, reflecting the entirety of our community. I know there are those who feel anything critical of or even in question of global warming should be suppressed, rejected --- and not published. I know you won't agree with me, but I don't feel we're at that point yet in this debate. I think the need for conversation remains relevant.

Thanks,

Chuck

Chuck,

The articles you and other Newspapers usually run provided by deniers of global warming, usually contain grossly inaccurate information or misinformation which comes from faulty scientific analysis or deliberate use of cherry picking or other ways to distort information. But no matter how technicality sophisticated some of it may sound, the issues they raise have virtually all been examined and eliminated by truly educated and by truly informed scientists. The distorted claims and inaccurate data provided by the deniers you publish are like similar distortions made by "experts" employed by tobacco companies who swore in front of congressional committees that tobacco smoke posed no risks at all for causing cancer---along with numerous other false bits of information. Just like those lies, the falsehoods being currently circulated by AGW deniers will eventually be exposed and rejected politically, but in this case we have a very limited period of time in which to enact effective measures to lower CO2 emissions. That's why it is so unfortunate that most members of the press do not grasp the true importance of real scientific evidence and usually do not even believe writers like me.

One would think that even as you allow such misinformation and distortions of facts to be printed that at least you would not place the knowledge of valid and qualified scientists directly beneath cartoons portraying the information they provide as nothing but hysteria offered by supposedly "mistaken" PhDs who have spent decades studying this problem. Outside of the few scientists employed by CO2 producing companies who deliberately distort the message of real scientists and studies done by supposed experts who have no real qualifications to know what they are talking about, or by those whose work has been solidly rejected by their peers, there is virtually no evidence at all confirming the falsehoods they circulate. This is really not a case of one opinion verses another---it's a matter of purposefully false information being distributed by special interest groups who know they will benefit financially from distorting the massive evidence about the real effects of man-made CO2. Eventually you and other news outlets will realize that. But the frustrating thing about all this is that because of the false balance, (or diversity of views) you think you must provide, that realization may come to you only after it is entirely too late to do anything about it.

Sincerely,

Peter W. Johnson

Another Indication Deniers Are Losing the PR Battle

The purpose of climate change denial lobbyists is to convince the public that lawmakers shouldn't take any action to address climate change. This is to protect the profits of certain groups, especially the fossil fuel industry which supplies most of the funding for these lobbyists. They have been very successful at this in the past, but there have been signs lately that indicate they are now losing the battle for the public's mind. Take a look at how irrelevant one of these lobbyists, Tom Harris, has become. Now, the lobbyists themselves have been gracious enough to show us they no longer matter.

The Climate Depot has long been one of the most notorious of these denier lobbyists. Marc Morano of that organization has a long track record of  making false statements and false arguments. He is also the communications director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), yet another fossil fuel supported organization. He has even gone as far as providing the personal contact information for climate scientists and encouraging people to send them threatening and harassing communications. In the movie Merchants of Doubt he not only admits this but calls it one of his proudest accomplishments and laughs. Now this shining example of humanity has made his own film - Climate Hustle. The purpose of this film is to supposedly show how climate change is all a big hoax and nothing to worry about.

The plan was to premier their new film in Paris during the COP21 conference with the hope they would make a big splash. Oops! They succeeded in making some news, but not the way they were hoping. The premier was a massive dud and they couldn't fill the theater, even with free tickets.

So, what we have is the deniers are spending a huge amount of fossil fuel money on a project that even the deniers won't watch for free. Well, they are right about one thing. Fossil fuel money does create jobs. If nothing else, I'm sure the people who worked on this project appreciate the money they were paid.

But, you have to wonder how much longer this boondoggle will continue when no one is listening to them anymore.

The Irrelevent Tom Harris: The Future of Denialism

Tom Harris is a well-known paid shill for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries.  He denies this, but he has a long track record that is hard to hide. He was the Executive Director of the now defunct Natural Resources StewardshipProject (NRSP), which was controlled by energy business lobbyists. He was the Director of Operations for High Park Group (HPG), a fossil fuel PR agency, and worked for APCO Worldwide which promoted tobacco interests. He is also affiliated with the anti-science Heartland Institute which promotes tobacco interests and is funded by the fossil fuel industry (FFI) to spread climate change denial misinformation. Possibly his worst reference is his association with the so-called ‘Friends of Science’, even though they are the furthest thing from being friends of science, or society for that matter. This group has been shown to receive its funding from the fossil fuel industry, something they went to great lengths to hide (why is that?).

According to ExxonSecrets.org, ICSC is linked to the following fossil fuel supported organizations (organizations with an * after their names are known to receive funding from ExxonMobil):

The Heartland Institute*;
CFACT;
Science and Public Policy Institute;
American Council on Science and Health*;
International Policy Network - North America*;
Cooler Heads Coalition;
Tech Central Science Foundation*;
Australian Science Coalition;
Institute for Public Affairs;
Competitive Enterprise Institute*;
George C. Marshall Institute*;
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition;
and the Fraser Institute*

All of these organizations are known to receive funding from the fossil fuel industry, many times via Donors Trust or the Heartland Institute. In other words, the organizations paying ICSC are all paid by the fossil fuel industry.

In his role as executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), Mr. Harris is paid to put editorials in as many media sources as he can with the goal of providing false information with the express purpose of deceiving the public into not supporting any actions that may impact the profits of his employers in the fossil fuel industry. At first glance, it would seem the FFI is getting their money's worth. By my count, Tom Harris has written or co-written articles that have appeared in over 20 news outlets since the beginning of October. They even hosted an alternative meeting in Paris during the COP21 conference.

But, let's take a closer look. These articles have appeared in important news outlets such as the North Korean Times (yes, THAT North Korea), the Uzbekistan Newsnet, Pagosa Daily Post, Your Houston News, the Malay Mail, the Lethbridge Herald, Daily Inter Lake, and Mothers Against Wind Turbines. I don't view any of these as being relevant sources of outreach.

And, when we actually read his articles (a really unpleasant exercise of wading through lies, false arguments, and deception), we find increasingly shrill claims and statements. Along the way, he made gems of statements such as "I have never worked as a PR rep for any company or sector (see his resume above) (Munroe News Star),  "...the idea that we control tropical cyclones is nonsense." (Yes, it is and no one is making any such claim. So, why is Mr. Harris claiming someone is?) (Westmoreland County Times), and "Coal sector workers ... must demand that their leaders defend them properly."  (The coal industry probably has the worst record of any industry since the slave days of abusing its employees. Why would coal workers turn to the industry leaders?" (Daily Inter Lake).  

And, how about that Paris meeting? I saw only one report in the news media (yes, only one). That article stated there was  an audience of "about 35 mostly greying, white, middle-aged men, and a handful of women." Seriously? COP21 had representatives from 195 different countries, and the deniers can get only 35 individuals? I'm going to guess that most of them were the people hosting the conference.

Now, he may be facing criminal charges in Canada as a result of his actions.

Mr. Harris is taking on the appearance of someone who has fallen to the wayside and knows it. But, he shouldn't feel lonely. All of the other FFI lobbyists are right there with him.

The message is clear. No one is interested and no one is listening.

Maybe ExxonMobile should ask for it's money back.

the idea that we control tropical cyclones is nonsense. - See more at: http://westmorelandtimes.com/news/17304/30/opinion-hurricane-patricia-records-not-real/#sthash.sZOEdllD.dpuf

the idea that we control tropical cyclones is nonsense. - See more at: http://westmorelandtimes.com/news/17304/30/opinion-hurricane-patricia-records-not-real/#sthash.sZOEdllD.dpuf

the idea that we control tropical cyclones is nonsense. - See more at: http://westmorelandtimes.com/news/17304/30/opinion-hurricane-patricia-records-not-real/#sthash.sZOEdllD.dpuf

Climate Change Deniers May Face Criminal Charges in Canada

The link below is to an article detailing a complaint filed in Canada against climate change denier groups, including The Friends of Science, The International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute. The complaint details how these groups have posted false and misleading billboards in an effort to confuse the public on climate change in order to benefit the fossil fuel industry. What I find interesting is how the denier groups had been found in violation of the law before, a finding which was upheld on appeal, and then they went ahead and put up new antiscience billboards. It would seem to me it should be an easy decision on the part of the Canadian government to charge them. If they were told once to stop doing it, then went ahead and did it again, the next thing to do would be to charge them with a crime. I also liked how they will have the grounds to demand a list of their donors if they pursue an investigation. That would be great to see.

We'll need to watch how this one turns out. Hopefully, these groups will have to explain themselves in court.

Update: Here is a link to the entire filing (Thanks to cunuduin).

Ecojustice files complaint with Competition Bureau against climate denial groups

Exxon Investigation - What Does It Mean?

If you haven't hear by now, the New York attorney general has begun an investigation of ExxonMobil concerning the corporate claims on climate change. The basis for the investigation is to determine if the company lied to the public and its shareholders about climate change and the effect it might have on shareholder value. So, what does all of this mean, if anything?

The call has gone out recently for a RICO investigation of the fossil fuel industry, ala the tobacco RICO investigation. Some deniers have been stating it couldn't happen because there is no proof of wrong-doing. There are two problems with that statement. The first being the deniers don't get to define what is, and isn't, evidence. Their definition of 'evidence' is a signed confession and tape recordings of secret meetings where corporate executives use a movie-script to lay out their nefarious conspiracy to deceive the world for their own benefit. Anything less than that and it isn't evidence. Russell Cook is a notable proponent of this line of thinking. But, like I said, they don't get to define what constitutes evidence - the legal system does. The other problem the deniers are going to have is there doesn't have to be proof of wrong-doing in order to conduct an investigation. There only has to be enough evidence to issue subpoenas and begin deposing people. It's funny the way evidence and testimony starts appearing when that happens.

So, denier claims that there is no basis for an investigation clearly are obviously not valid (is anything the deniers say valid?) because the New York attorney general is conducting one.

So, back to the original question - what does this mean? I think it means the forces are building. When we look at the situation with the tobacco industry we see it took a long while for the lawsuits to begin and once they did, tobacco consistently won. And, yet, they continued and we all know how tobacco was eventually brought down and its deceitful practices fully exposed. Today, I believe we are witnessing the same kind of evolution. Things are building against the deniers and the fossil fuel industry. More and more, they sound shrill and panicky. Their claims are becoming increasingly bizarre and less rationale. Even people who support them are realizing how silly their statements are becoming.

Will ExxonMobil be charged? I don't know the answer to that. I believe, from what I've seen, there is a good case for it. But, that will be for the AG to determine. A bigger question is if the US AG will initiate a RICO investigation. That would be the coup de grace for the deniers. Once the evidence from that came to light, the denier lobby would dry up quickly. The FF people would be radioactive.

And, here's the thing. The evidence obtained by the New York AG could be what finally motivates such an investigation.

Hopefully, we're seeing the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel industry anti-science campaign and their dark money support of the denier lobby.  Of course, the next question is, will it be in time?

Surprise! Anti-Science Attorney Horner Funded By Coal Industry

Christopher Horner is an attorney famous for his harassment campaign against climate scientists. He is the one who coined the term 'Climategate' when the hacked East Anglia emails were released. He has pursued FOIA campaigns against universities and scientists with demands for their data that apparently have been designed to interfere with their work. He has demanded access to emails and, when denied that access, filed litigation to force compliance. He has also been a promoter of the tin-hat conspiracy theory that climate science is a plot to enact a world government and has called climate scientists 'communists.'

Now, we find out he is funded, at least in part, by the coal industry. Alpha Natural Resources, a coal company, recently went bankrupt. In it's filings it listed Horner as a recipient of funds at both his home address and work address.

We now have proof the coal industry is funding an attack campaign on science. And note, this is not just about working to win the public's mind, this was a coordinated effort to sabotage the scientific process. This was pure anti-science and it was funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Truthfully, is anyone surprised?

Christopher Monckton: Lord Denier

Christopher Monckton is one of the most flagrant of liars and deceivers in the denialist lobby. It is with great interest that I see I have become one of his targets. He has posted several editorials attacking me personally and it appears he has been trolling this blog as FallacySwat (since blacklisted). As is common with him, he employs outright lies, deceptions and false arguments. This is the common thread in nearly everything he does.

As an example, Monckton begins his editorial by calling me "the lavishly taxpayer-funded Christopher Keating" while referring to the paid shills Tom Harris and Tim Ball as "my scarcely-funded friends." Unless Monckton is referring to my military retirement benefits, I don't receive any funds from the taxpayers at all. But, how would Monckton know that? And, that is precisely the point - he doesn't. And, more to the point, he doesn't care. Monckton doesn't just cherry pick his facts, he makes up what he can't find. 

For instance, he claims he was an "expert reviewer" for the latest IPCC report. The truth is, Monckton registered on a webpage open to everyone. There was no appointment and he was not an 'expert' anymore than the next person walking down the street. So, why did he say that? To mislead the reader into believing he is something he isn't - credible. And that is the key part of his strategy because his deceptions only work if you think he's credible. But, he isn't.

I could go on all day long about how deceptive this man is. But, I don't need to because it has already been done. Check out these links on our good Lord Denier:

Monckton Bunkum Part 1 - Global cooling and melting ice 

Monckton Bunkum Part 2 - Sensitivity 

Monckton Bunkum Part 3 - Correlations and Himalayan glaciers 

Monckton Bunkum Part 4 -- Quotes and misquotes

Monckton bunkum Part 5 -- What, MORE errors, my lord? 

Here is another one: Lord Monckton's Rap Sheet.

And, what do real climate scientists say about Monckton's claims? See what the scientists at RealClimate say here and here.

And, see what DeSmogBlog has to say here and here.

 

Monckton is also the originator of the claim there has been no warming for xxx (pick the number of your choice) years. I have covered this claim and the interesting thing is, when you examine his claim closely, it actually proves warming has been continuing. Monckton is lying every time he claims there has been no warming. You can see the details here and here.

The gist of all of this is Christopher Monckton is a liar of the highest order.

As for the 'scarcely funded' Tom Harris and Tim Ball, they are hardly even close to that.

I've discussed Tom Harris several times. Take a look at these postings for more information on him:

1100 Dead Proves Tom Harris is Wrong 

Tom Harris - Paid Shill

Tom Harris Lies About the Temperature Record

More Scientists Comment on Tom Harris' Deception

The basic line is that Tom Harris is a long-time paid lobbyist of the fossil fuel industry with strong links to the tobacco industry. 

And, what about his buddy, Tim Ball? He has declared he has worked as aclimate scientist for 35 years. But, he hasn't. The truth is, Tim Ball is a geographer and spent 8 years in the geography department at  the University of Winnipeg. Take a look at this video to see more about Tim Ball. The comedy starts about the 7:50 mark. You can read about his long history of links to the fossil fuel industry here, including the Friends of Science.

So, what we have is a well known liar defending two well know paid shills. And, somehow, this is supposed to be evidence that climate change isn't real.