OMG! Did the fraud Tim Ball really say that?

Possibly the biggest tandem of frauds in the entire anti-science domain of climate change deniers consists of the paid shills of Tim Ball and Tom Harris. It is well documented that they repeatedly make false claims, use false logic, use fake evidence while making their deceptive claims. A court in British Columbia dismissed a libel suit against Ball because it found his credibility was so low no rational person would believe anything he said.

And yet, these two continue.

One of Ball's fraudulent claims is the he is a climatologist, taught in the climatology department at the University of Winnipeg, and was the first climatologist in Canada (and one of the first in the world). In fact, he's a geographer, there was no such department at Winnipeg when he was there and he has no background related to climate science.

In other words, he just made it up to make himself look credible. It is truly ironic that these kinds of actions actually lower his credibility. Now, he's made this amazing statement on Watt's Up With That? (itself a zero-credibility website):

The latest well-known person exploited in this way is documentary producer Sir David Attenborough, who was taken in by the false story of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It appears he let his socialist views over-ride any sense of science he might have. The trouble is he doesn’t appear to have any science training. He is an English Grammar School graduate who identifies himself as a naturalist. This is like the practice of people identifying themselves as environmentalists. 

Unbelievably ... oh, wait! We're talking about Tim Ball, so it is believable ... he is criticizing Attenborough for claiming to be a naturalist when he has only a grammar school education and "doesn't appear to have any science training." Yes, the guy who makes false claims about his own background is criticizing someone else on this basis.

But, wait! It gets better. This from Wikipedia, which states that Attenborough:

won a scholarship to Clare College, Cambridge in 1945, where he studied geology and zoology and obtained a degree in natural sciences.

And, from Attenborough's biography:

after graduating from high school he was awarded a scholarship to study the natural sciences at the University of Cambridge.

In fact, unlike Ball, Attenborough really does have the degree he claims.

We can at least credit Ball with being entertaining. Stupid, but entertaining.

Tim Ball Exemplifies Stupidity

Tim Ball, the fraud who claims to have been a climatology professor (he never was), wrote an article recently with a laughably appropriate title: Extreme Wildfires Caused By Extreme Stupidity, not Global Warming. Tim Ball is the shining example of stupidity in the anti-science, flat-earther society. This is a guy who the courts decided can't be sued for libel.  The court's reasoning was that Ball is so lacking in credibility no reasonable person would believe him. Really! You can't make this stuff up.  And yet, Ball insists on putting his stupidity on public display.

Ball, amazingly, states,

Rising temperatures and increasing CO₂ both act to increase soil moisture and so reduce the potential of fires. When temperatures rise, evaporation increases, causing more precipitation which increases soil moisture and so lessens fire risk.  

I have to wonder if he ever reads the nonsense he writes. This guy just said increased evaporation increases soil moisture. Like I said, you can't make this stuff up. He's right about the stupidity part - and it sits squarely on his shoulders.

Let's put the record straight. When evaporation occurs liquid moisture escapes as a vapor and rises into the atmosphere. Once there, it is subject to the currents and other dynamics of the atmosphere. Moisture rarely falls back to the same area it evaporated from - it gets blown downwind. Even if it does fall back, the best it can do is to break even. That's right. In the extremely improbable scenario proposed by Ball where moisture evaporates and then falls back as rain, there is no net gain in moisture!

In other words, Ball's claims are physically impossible!

According to Ball, the next time you hang the laundry on a clothesline to dry, it will actually get wetter!

Once again, the deniers show just how much the hate - and fail to understand - simple science.

Oh, by the way, Tom Harris, the paid shill of the fossil fuel industry who has also lost all credibility, was a coauthor on this piece. Turns out, Harris can't find anyone with more credibility than Ball to work with. What a low point.


In the first

Tom Harris' Deceits Could Be Deadly

Tom Harris is well-known for being a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry. He is also well know for making incredibly stupid statements. He is even well known for supporting policies that kill thousands of people. But, never have I seen him openly trying to kill people. At least, not before his recent article.

The headline on Harris’ article is “Carbon Dioxide is mostly oxygen,” and he then goes on to make statements about how benign and beneficial it is to the environment. Carbon monoxide is 50% oxygen, but no one wants it around. Water is one-third oxygen by the number of atoms and over 88% oxygen by mass. Please don’t try breathing either one. It will kill you. Compounds act very differently than elements. CO₂ acts very differently than pure oxygen. (By the way, breathing pure oxygen will also kill you.) If you follow Harris' line of reasoning, you would conclude breathing carbon dioxide is harmless. While breathing it at low levels is not only harmless, but essential, breathing it at high concentrations is dangerous.

Carbon compounds cannot be compared to elemental carbon. They are not the same thing. Naturally occurring carbon dioxide is part of the environment. Carbon dioxide produced by power plants, industry, and automobiles is not part of the natural environment and is pollution. As such, it is causing the natural environment to change. Because of this, it needs to be regulated, just like any other man made pollutant.

Harris made an incorrect science statement right from the start when he stated carbon “forms thousands of compounds, much more than any other element.” Hydrogen forms the most number of compounds, many more than carbon. Carbon and oxygen are about the same. Harris statement is false and it was made to mislead the reader.

Amazingly, Harris goes on about the hazards of CO₂ levels, even discussing the levels in submarines. No one is saying CO₂ levels are becoming hazardous, so why is Harris discussing this? This has nothing to do with the science and is what is known as a ‘straw man’ argument. Harris, and other science-haters like him, cannot provide any science to support their claims concerning climate change, so they’re trying to change the subject. To be clear, to best of my knowledge, no climate scientist is claiming CO₂ levels in the atmosphere are dangerous to breath or will become so. So, why is Harris discussing this, if not to deceive?

But, Harris’ record shows deception is his forte. For starters, take a look at Harris’ background. He has a long association with the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. He continuously denies this to the point of claiming there is a second Tom Harris. If so, he’s also a twin-brother because the resumes come withpictures.

He is closely associated with the Heartland Institute, a far-right anti-science organization heavily funded by tobacco and fossil fuel industries. Heartland is famous for claiming second-hand smoke is harmless and recently nominated to the EPA a man who was arrested for raping his own children. Heartland also paid for the development of the NIPCC (Not-Science International Panel on Climate Change). This is a pseudoscienceorganization whose claims have been completely, and repeatedly, debunked. NIPCC will make a simple statement (such as, there were ice ages in the past), then find scientific papers that support that simple statement and cite them as a reference in order to inflate their number of citations. The reality is, NIPCC presents no science to support their claims. In fact, the only people who cite their report are climate change deniers like Harris.

He frequently co-authors editorials with Tim Ball, a geographer falsely claiming to be a climate scientist. Ball filed a libel lawsuit, which he later dropped. The court documents from that lawsuit stated "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist." A court in British Columbiarecently found in his favor when he was sued for libel by a (real) climate scientist. The court reasoned that Ball had such poor credibility that his statements couldn’t be construed as libel because no “reasonably thoughtful or informed person” would believe his statements. And, this is Harris’ go-to source for information on climate science.

He has stated that science is merely an opinion. According to Harris, gravity is only an opinion, it’s only an opinion that a plane can fly, and it’s only an opinion that your car will slow down when you step on the brakes. Harris has stated that we are at risk of famine unless we INCREASE the levels of CO₂ in the atmosphere.

He has cited Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte as a role model. This is the same person who compares himself to Hitler, regrets he didn’t participate in the rape and murder of a lay minister, claims to have thrown a man out of a helicopter, and has orchestrated a mass murder in his country. Likewise, Harris’ viewpoints have been endorsed by the governments of North Korea and Uzbekistan, two of most repressive regimes on the planet.

Harris claims CO₂ is good for us because it’s a naturally occurring plant food (even for weeds). So is raw sewage, which has been used in some cultures for millennia to fertilize crops. Even Harris isn’t advocating dumping of raw sewage in the environment. At least, not yet. Why not? After all, by his line of logic, it’s nothing more than naturally occurring plant food. 

The reality is that fertilizer runoff is a serious problem. And, like the fertilizer we put on our farms and yards, CO₂ coming from factories, power plants, and automobiles is not natural. It is manmade, it’s pollution, and it needs to be regulated.

Court: Tim Ball Has No Credibility. How Embarrassing!

In 2011, Canadian climate scientist Andrew Weaver filed a libel lawsuit against the anti-science climate change denier Tim Ball. The court in British Columbia recently dismissed the lawsuit, not because it didn't think Ball hadn't committed libel, but because it said his lack of credibility was so severe that no one would believe him and he couldn't inflict any damage, stating (among other things),

“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”

Wow! How embarrassing is that? The court tells you to your face that you have no credibility and everyone knows it! To no surprise, Ball's supporters are calling this a victory. How bad is it when your supporters view a total slam by the court as a victory? This could only happen in the denier-sphere. Keep in mind that one of Ball's frequent co-authors is one of the few people with as little credibility as him - the fossil fuel shill Tom Harris. As they say, you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep. In this case, you can tell a lot about both of these men.

Of course, Ball should be use to getting spanked by the courts. After all, court records have already stated that Ball,

"never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," 

and 

"The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media."

and,

"The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

You would think Ball would learn to stay away from any place he is required to tell the truth. 

History of Ball and Harris is not an ad hominem attack

I recently submitted an editorial to the Moultrie News in response to a deceptive piece written by Tom Harris and Tim Ball. In my response, I attacked the credibility of the two individuals and showed they have a history of deception. Harris then went on his Facebook page and asked supporters to go and comment on my submission. You can read my submission, with comments, here. You can read the piece by Ball and Harris here.

As you can see, the defenders of Ball and Harris had no science to support their objections, never countered any of my claims, and consistently claimed I was only making an ad hominem attack to make my case. This, of course, is a false statement and completely in line with the science haters who deny the reality of manmade climate change. What is particularly amusing is the way several of them made ad hominem attacks by claiming I have no published refereed papers. My publication list is not extensive (I concentrate on teaching more than research), but it is certainly there and the reality of the science is not changed by how many papers I have, or have not, published. So, according to these individuals, my statements concerning Harris and Ball are invalid because they can’t operate something as simple as Google Scholar (search “CF Keating physics”).

But, the question is still there: Did I make a personal attack on Ball and Harris? Let’s take a look, beginning with the definition of ad hominem:

ad ho·mi·nem

adverb and adjective

(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

A strict interpretation of this definition would mean any claim concerning any mention of anything about a person is an ad hominem attack and is, therefore, a logical fallacy. But, that is not correct. There are times when attacks on the individual are warranted. For example, it is perfectly acceptable in a court of law to examine the character and credibility of a witness. As a rule, it is admissible to attack the character of a witness when that character has been introduced as evidence. In other words, once someone makes a claim concerning the nature of their character, it is fair game to examine that character but not before. If a drug dealer takes the stand and testifies, you can’t attack him for being a drug dealer unless he claims to be an upright citizen (although there may be other ways the fact can be introduced).

What about credibility, though? Let me quote a law source:

The rules of impeachment allow an attorney to attack the credibility of any witness even a witness called in support of that attorney’s position. An attorney may use any evidence to impeach the credibility of a witness but that rule is not automatic. In most cases courts will only allow an attorney to attack a witness’s credibility using evidence of prior convictions involving dishonesty or untruthfulness. While a court may allow an attorney to question a witness about other incidents in their past, a judge will not allow this line of questioning if he/she determines that it is not probative (tending to prove) in establishing whether a witness is telling the truth or not.

That is all well and good, but the important point is that we are not in a court of law, we are in a public discourse and attacking someone’s character is not logically valid. But, I did not attack the character of either Ball or Harris. Attacking their character would be to make a claim about their private lives. What they do in their private lives has no bearing on the reality of climate change, one way or the other. And, I’m not aware that either Ball or Harris has made claims that they are wonderful people, so it wouldn’t fall under the category of examining their statements. They have both committed fraud concerning their credentials (Harris allows himself to be introduced as ‘Dr. Harris,’ ‘Professor Harris,’ and even as a ‘scientist.’ He is none of these. Ball claims to be a climatology expert and a professor of climatology. He is not.), but that falls under attacking their credibility and not their character.

What is important to understand at this time is that a character attack is usually a logical fallacy but credibility attacks are ALWAYS valid. Quoting from Wikipedia on the subject:

However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.

Wow! Pointing out that the person has previously lied is NOT a fallacious argument! Unfortunately for Ball and Harris, that is an important point.

To make an example, let’s say Joe Smith (a fictional person) likes to kick dogs. This is a reprehensible act and reflects poorly on the character of Joe Smith. Then, Joe Smith takes the position that everyone should eat an apple a day to keep the doctor away. The correctness, or incorrectness, of his position on this matter is not affected by his actions in private. Incidentally, this would also be true if we were talking about Joe Smith spending his spare money and time to help the disadvantaged. It works both ways. Being a saint does not change the reality of the issue any more than being a villain.

But, let’s say Joe Smith has been taking money from the Apple Farmers Association to promote apple sales. Bringing this fact to light is an attack on his credibility – he has a financial interests in telling everyone to eat an apple a day. It is not a character attack, even though the argument can be made his financial matters are private. I think most people would agree with that this is, in fact, relevant information.

But, take it one step further. Let’s say Joe Smith, while in the course of his professional duties, states that he is a medical researcher and that he has conducted medical tests on the benefits of eating apples. It is then perfectly valid to investigate this claim. If it turns out that Joe Smith never did any of that, bringing this point to light is not a character attack, it is attacking his credibility.

And, let’s take it to the next step. Suppose Joe Smith is also found to associate with people and organizations that engage in activities that are valid credibility failures (for instance, someone who has been shown to falsify medical records concerning the benefits of apples). It is a valid credibility attack to show that Joe Smith not only has associations with these individuals, but has failed to distance himself from them in any way. In other words, if Joe Smith is keeping company with and supporting individuals with questionable credibility, then it is a valid credibility attack on Joe Smith to bring this association to light.

So, let’s see what I said about Harris and Ball:

These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/11/heartland-institute-reveals-its-true.html) These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at http://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming." Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."
https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

As you can see, I never said anything about the private lives of Harris or Ball. I spoke to their professional actions and attacked their credibility. In fact, both of these individuals have had their credibility examined and they are both found to have none. Click on the links I provided above to get started, if you need some help.

To summarize:

• Ball and Harris both have extensive associations with the fossil fuel industry and are paid to promote the interests of that industry;
• Ball and Harris have both lied about this association on numerous occasions;
• Ball and Harris have both lied about their credentials or permitted others to lie about them without correcting them;
• Ball and Harris are both listed as associates of the Heartland Institute and neither has criticized that organization for it’s actions or done anything to distance themselves from it;
• Ball and Harris have both, on numerous occasions provided false, misleading, or deceptive clams concerning climate change.

These are all actions taken in the PROFESSIONAL capacity. Addressing these issues is an attack on their credibility and is logically correct. To put it bluntly, they are both liars when it comes to making statements concerning the science of climate change. Pure and simple. And, that is NOT an ad hominem.

So, when you read anything written by either of these two, all I can say is, “Buyer beware!”

Avalanche of Disinformation from Harris and Ball

Two of biggest frauds in the anti-science industry are Tom Harris and Tim Ball. They recently ran an editorial that had numerous faults, fallacies, and false arguments that I had to respond. Essentially, they claim global warming isn't real because they want to question one data base. Of course, they conveniently forget to mention how there are numerous data bases and they all show the same thing. Also, they especially fail to mention Berkeley Earth. That's because it's the grand embarrassment for the anti-science crowd. This is an organization which was initially funded by the Heartland Institute for the purpose of showing AGW isn't real. It developed a data base completely separate from the ones used by the four governmental organizations. What did they find? Almost exactly the same thing. Hmmm. No wonder Ball and Harris fail to mention it.

You can read the original piece by Ball and Harris here. You can read my response here. I'm also reproducing it below.

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

Climate Change Deniers Attempt to Bury Public with an Avalanche of Propaganda

By Dr. Christopher Keating

In their editorial, (http://www.moultrienews.com/opinion/avalanche-of-global-warming-propaganda-about-to-hit/article_0e199fba-bf17-11e7-bdfb-d712a113cdc3.html)

Tim Ball and Tom Harris inform the reader with their title that they are not serious when they use the term “propaganda” to describe climate science.

prop·a·gan·da

noun

derogatory

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/11/heartland-institute-reveals-its-true.html) These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at http://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming."  Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

https://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball

Now that we know the nature of these two individuals, we shouldn’t be surprised to find their article is full of deceptions and they do not disappoint. It’s important to note they produce not even a single scientific reference to support any of their claims. They simply want you to accept their word for it.
In the opening paragraph, Ball and Harris state, “We’ll be told that extreme weather, sea level rise, and shrinking sea ice are all about to get much worse if we do not quickly phase out our use of fossil fuels.” Strangely enough, we were told exactly that, but not by the UN Conference. The Trump administration this week released the Fourth National Climate Assessment (http://www.globalchange.gov/nca4). Among other things, the report states, “It is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” And, “In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities.  Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.” There is more. Read the NOAA summary at: http://www.noaa.gov/news/federal-climate-science-report-for-us-released. And, let’s be clear that this assessment comes from an administration that has repeatedly stated that manmade climate change is not real and has done everything in its power to undermine climate science.

Ball and Harris make several dubious comments that have no basis in reality. For instance, they claim that without a good understanding of past weather, forecasts of future climate change are “impossible.” This is a false statement in multiple ways. First, contrary to their claim, we have a good understanding of past weather conditions. And, not only is it possible to make meaningful forecasts, but we are already doing a good job of it. Again, contrary to what the science-haters will tell you, climate models are good and getting better. Read more about models here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/09/climate-change-is-not-about-models.html; and here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2014/08/lets-talk-about-climate-models.html. There are many other places, but these, and the links therein, will get you started.

The science-hating tandem then attacks the data, which is a losing proposition. What Ball and Harris attempt to do is attack one data set with deceptive claims, with the hope that it will taint all data. They do this all the while failing to mention that the data are all confirmed with multiple data sources. People like Ball and Harris like to cherry-pick one datum point to support their claims (citing how a given town is experiencing the coldest temperature in some long period of time, for instance), but scientists don’t. Data is collected from multiple sources, such as tree rings or cores from sea floor and ice shelves, plus others. What we find is that the multiple sources are all consistent, each confirming the findings of the others.

They state, “Most of the rest of the planet had very few temperature sensing stations. And none of the Earth’s oceans, which cover 70% of the planet, had more than the occasional station separated from its neighbor by thousands of kilometers.” So? What is the significance of this statement? They give none, which is good because there is none. But they continue, stating, “Averaging such poor data in an attempt to determine global conditions cannot yield anything meaningful.” Of course, this is a false statement. What is true is that the resolution and fidelity is not ideal, but the data is most definitely meaningful, especially when confirmed by those many other data sets. And, the data is only improving with time and this improving resolution is showing the same trend as before.

They continue, claiming satellite data does not show global warming. This claim is based on papers by Roy Spencer and John Christy, two well-known climate change deniers. Review of their papers found them to be so flawed they were withdrawn. And yet, Ball and Harris want you to believe the false claims. Read about these papers here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm.

They then make the preposterous claim, “So, bureaucrats closed most of the colder rural surface temperature sensing stations, thereby yielding the warming desired for political purposes.” As you might expect by now, the reality is vastly different. Read a detailed report on this here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-are-there-less-weather-stations-and-whats-the-effect.html.

Their conclusion from this deception? They claim the data is meaningless. Take a moment to think about this statement. They themselves claim the data has become more accurate over time, therefore, according to them, this makes it ‘meaningless.’

And, they want you to believe this.

The reality is, our understanding of the historical climate is quite good and our understanding of the present day climate is excellent and getting better. What they don’t want you to know is that the science is overwhelming conclusive and nearly all climate scientists around the world agree – manmade emissions are causing the world’s climate to change.

As it turns out, there really was an avalanche of propaganda, but it came from Ball and Harris, not the climate scientists.

Dr. Christopher Keating is a physicist and conducts research in planetary geophysics, including climate change.

Russell Cook Demonstrates Lack of Credibility

A tip of the hat to Dave James for alerting me to the following comment by Russell Cook.

Debunking the Heartland Institute's hatchet man, Russell Cook, is both fun and easy. But, it does take time and I have a very full plate. That means spending time on his inane drivel is time away from something more productive. I need a reason to do that and, sometimes, I find it useful. Cook is a little man who wouldn’t amount to anything important if not for the Internet. But, that’s the world we live in and little people who are given a large forum find it possible to have an impact. The fact is climate change is already the most serious issue of our day and is only becoming more so. Russell Cook is not a serious person, but he, and others like him, have an effect that we need to pay attention to.

[UPDATE: In the comments Cook made in his posting about my 25 so-called errors, Cook states (referring to Heartland:

They do know of my history of challenging letter writers and article commenters to show readers where the proof exists indicting skeptics of corporate corruption, and they sometimes suggest places where I can pose those challenges, but I receive no instructions on what to write.

Here Cook is admitting to doing the dirty work for Heartland.]

So, let’s look at his comment below and review it for credibility and accuracy. Below is a comment Cook made in a recent article by the anti-science team of Tim Ball and Tom Harris. As soon as people showed up to point out the factual errors in it, Cook showed up.

Russell Cook ·

Institut européen d’administration des affaires

Here's a bit of an aside on this Tom Harris-commenter Dave James situation: Over at a blog which James is seen frequenting in its comment sections, the blogger accused me ( http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/.../russell... ) of among other things, fitting a pattern where I supposedly was at Harris' beck-and-call to defend him. I count 25 errors in that blog post here http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=5509 , but that is another story. What I would suggest to readers is a simple test of that particular accusation, in relative comparison to what the actual situation is: Place the name Tom Harris and mine within quote marks in a single Google search window, and see how many times I supposedly 'come to Tom's defense.' Then do a similar search, but substitute the name Dave James for my name. Again, put his within quote marks which narrows the search to only his name and Tom's. The results are most fascinating.

The larger lesson is more critical - how often do we see pushers of the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming resort to various forms of character assassination ('he's not a climate scientist / 'he's a paid industry shill' / 'his religious/political leanings/education level taints his viewpoints' etc) as a means of marginalizing opposition, instead of conclusively demonstrating how skeptics' science assessments are refuted? How often do we also see false premise attempts to deem the issue a 'settled science' via worthless references to a so-called consensus (scientific conclusions have NEVER been validated by a 'show of hands') or via worthless appeals to authority (science societies' proclamations are pointless if influential members having control over public relations statements have been misled or have political agendas to promote, and if the proclamations do not reflect many of their own members' viewpoints).

What Tom Harris attempts to do is make up for the lack of reporting by the mainstream media about the skeptic side of the issue. While the skeptic side doesn't call for the censorship of comments such as those coming from folks like Dave James, his side does not benefit from having the appearance of having dedicated stalkers who follow Tom Harris around the internet with comments ranging from unsupportable assertions about Harris' positions to outright accusations about taking industry money to lie. But don't ask James about the latter problem; ask Al Gore to provide us ALL with the evidence he has against ANY skeptic climate scientist over that specific accusation. Deer-in-the-headlights ambush opportunity for intrepid reporters, anyone?

In his first line, Cook states, “fitting a pattern where I supposedly was at Harris' beck-and-call to defend him.” Please notice this comment was made on an article by Tom Harris and Tim Ball that was receiving comments by people showing where Harris is factually incorrect. In other words, Cook is denying he runs to defend Harris by running and defending him. Really!

[UPDATE: I am currently working on reviewing the so-called 25 errors I made in my posting concerning Cook. One of his comments was:

Tom Harris writes op-eds and letters-to-the-editor that I am totally unaware of, but he has alerted me via email to a few where he knows I would have some fun challenging his critics to prove he or others are paid by 'Big Coal & Oil' to lie.

While stating he is not at Harris' beck and call, he simultaneously states he is at Harris' beck and call. Great logic.]

The bigger issue is that Cook is well known for showing up when the comments get too difficult for Harris to deal with. Cook comes in and uses his favorite approach – “it’s not real until I say it is” in an attempt to counter the science. I can’t recall even one instance where Cook actually produced any science or data to support his arguments. I would be interested in anyone pointing out to me any instance where he did.

He next states I made 25 errors in a blog post about him. I’ll review that one in detail in a post.

Then, he makes one seriously flawed statement that really demonstrates his lack of credibility:

The larger lesson is more critical - how often do we see pushers of the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming resort to various forms of character assassination ('he's not a climate scientist / 'he's a paid industry shill' / 'his religious/political leanings/education level taints his viewpoints' etc) as a means of marginalizing opposition, instead of conclusively demonstrating how skeptics' science assessments are refuted?

WAIT A MINUTE! What he’s doing is describing the actions of the denier community and doing it at the same time! He actually starts by stating “pushers of the notion of catastrophic man-caused global warming” before accusing people of character assassination. For those of you not familiar with this, the common form of this statement is to call people who accept the science ‘alarmists.’ This is an effort on the part of the denier community to marginalize the science and anyone who accepts it. He then follows up by claiming that pointing out someone, who professes to be an expert on climate science, is not, in fact, a climate scientist is somehow character assassination. Wow! And, I bet Cook actually believes that line of reasoning.

And, pointing out someone is a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry is not character assassination. If someone is going to make statements to the public and claim they are an unbiased source of information, then the public has a right to know that the person in question is, in fact, not unbiased at all. When a person is paid to promote an agenda, that person is a paid shill. Tom Harris, Tim Ball, Russell Cook are just three examples of a plethora of people who fit this description and fail to advise readers of their affiliations to the very industry they are promoting.  

And, I find it very interesting to see him make comments about political and religious viewpoints. This is very much the tactic taken by the deniers, not the science community. I cannot even begin to estimate how many times I’ve been accused of being a liberal Democrat or a Hillary-lover. And, you should see the spectrum of claims about my religious beliefs. All from people who have no knowledge whatsoever of either. And, I’m not the only one. I routinely see this tactic taken by deniers when they attack pro-science people with claims anyone who supports the science of being “extreme leftists” or “Hollywood elites.” This doesn't even include the amount of vulgarities hurled by the deniers at pro-science people. No, character assassination is something the deniers do. Cook can’t put this one on the pro-science people.

As for demonstrating how “skeptics’” science is being refuted, the fact is that deniers very seldom even attempt to produce any science. They typically merely attack the IPCC or Al Gore or Michael Mann or make political/religious attacks, such as the ones mention above. But, when they do, it is routinely and easily shown to be false. The very fact of the matter is that there is no science to support the claims of the denier crowd. None! Yes, the science really is settled and anyone who tells you differently is not telling you the truth. I even went so far as to offer to pay anyone $10,000 of my own money to anyone who could produce any such science and no one could, out of hundreds of submissions (many duplicates) could do so. And, unlike similar denier challenges (which inspired me to make my challenge), I posted all original submissions and showed why each was invalid. Many denies claim that it was rigged because I was the judge. Well, I’ve offered to pay if anyone can show how any of my decisions were invalid. They are right there for everyone to see. If it was rigged, it would be easy to show it, so why hasn't anyone done so? The offer still stands. You can see all submissions and my responses here.

Once again, we see Russell Cook has zero credibility.

Let’s continue. He next attacks the consensus. This is an area that is great concern to the denier community and that level of concern can be traced back to the Luntz memo from the George W. Bush administration entitled “The Environment: A Cleaner, Safer, Healthier America.” See the a copy of the entire memo here. http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf. Luntz stated (page 137, 7^th page down) (emphasis original),

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.

You can see, Cook is sticking to the blueprint by claiming there is no consensus. But, it is real and you can read about it here, here and here, for starters. Notice how Cook uses his favorite tactic here – “It isn’t true until I say it’s true and I didn’t say it’s true, therefore it isn’t true.” You can tell by his language it infuriates him that there really is a consensus. This consensus has not only been confirmed with multiple studies, but has even been confirmed by deniers themselves. Read about it here. 

 

And, Cook continue with his zero credibility in the last paragraph, stating,

“What Tom Harris attempts to do is make up for the lack of reporting by the mainstream media about the skeptic side of the issue. While the skeptic side doesn't call for the censorship of comments such as those coming from folks like Dave James.”

Oh, beautiful. One of the things I keep documenting is how often comments providing refuting documentation get flagged and deleted by the deniers. They censor so much you could describe it as a plague. If fact, you can’t voice any dissenting opinion at all on many of denier sites without it being deleted. So, Cook is being less than honest on that issue. 

[UPDATE: In Cook's posting about my 25 so-called errors, Cook stated in a comment:

Since I periodically look at Keating's blog as a matter of curiosity, I found his then-proposed 6/28/17 letter-to-the-editor (archived in original form here http://archive.is/Iid5o ), and I alerted a DNT editor to it as yet another potential opportunity to challenge people like Keating to prove their assertions. The editor replied to say Keating's publication of it at his blog violated the newspaper's requirement about having first-publication exclusivity to such pieces, and he asked Keating to delete his blog post, which Keating did.

In other words, Cook is admitting to trying to censor my letter. Fortunately, it didn't work. The Duluth News Tribune published my letter.]

Concerning Tom Harris, if Harris actually produced any valid science there wouldn’t be any comments showing his errors. I have documented Harris’ efforts to deceive and mislead the public with false logic, deception and outright lies. You can read all about Tom Harris here and see for yourself. Don’t take my word for it, let Harris speak for himself.

What we have seen in this comment is that Russell Cook has less than zero credibility. In fact, like his buddy Harris, he is a paid shill, taking money from the Heartland Institute to promote their anti-science agenda. One of the things Cook is obsessed about is Ross Gelbspan. Gelbspan was an accomplished reporter and won the Pulitzer prize while with the Boston Globe, but he has since retired. Today, he writes an occasional blog post. So, Cook is either obsessed with a retired guy or a blogger. Take your pick.

I’ve spent a lot of time on this guy, but it’s for a purpose. Russell Cook is representative of so many of the anti-science trolls that it’s useful to examine his nonsense so we can combat it wherever we see it.

In a future post, I’ll review Cook’s claim about my 25 errors. It’ll be fun.

Tim Ball and Tom Harris Are Deceptive About the IPCC

Tim Ball and Tom Harris recently wrote an article claiming the IPCC can’t be trusted. Their line of reasoning is that the IPCC’s mandate has changed over time. Originally, the mandate was to review the science on climate change and has now become to review the science related to manmade climate change. This, they claim, makes it untrustworthy. By changing the mandate he claims the IPCC has now become biased, since it is therefore somehow beholden to find manmade climate change in order to ensure its own continued existence. If there’s no manmade climate change, they reason, the IPCC won’t be needed. So, they’ll ignore anything that doesn’t support what they want to find.

The principle problem with this claim is that it is deceptive. While the original mandate stated that the IPCC was to study all causes of climate change, it also made it perfectly clear the emphasis was manmade climate change. No specific item mentions any other cause. Apparently, the authors of this article didn’t think anyone would actually go back and read the original mandate to check on the accuracy of their statement. Go read the original mandate for yourself at http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/43/a43r053.htm. Meanwhile, let me quote for you:

“Concerned that certain human activities could change global climate patterns, threatening present and future generations with potentially severe economic and social consequences,

Noting with concern that the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse" gases could produce global warming with an eventual rise in sea levels, the effects of which could be disastrous for mankind if timely steps are not taken at all levels,

Recognizing the need for additional research and scientific studies into all sources and causes of climate change,

.

.

.

6.   Urges Governments, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and scientific institutions to treat climate change as a priority issue, to undertake and promote specific, co-operative action-oriented programmes and research so as to increase understanding on all sources and causes of climate change, including its regional aspects and specific time-frames as well as the cause and effect relationship of human activities and climate, and to contribute, as appropriate, with human and financial resources to efforts to protect the global climate;”

This is an example of what is known as ‘cherry picking,’ taking only what supports your predetermined conclusion and ignoring the rest. The article left out a considerable amount that clearly states the purpose of the IPCC was to study manmade climate change. In other words, the mandate did not change. So, we must ask, why did Ball and Harris say it did? The answer lies in examining their records.

Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as is often claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming."  Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

But, that isn’t all. The co-author of this article is TomHarris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). This organization serves to promote the fossil fuel industry and is closely aligned with numerous organizations devoted to denying climate science. Harris himself has a long, and well documented, record of affiliations with the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. 

So, we can see the reason for this article. It is part of the effort to undermine climate science and prevent any actions from being taken to address the problem. The IPCC is their principle target because it’s the leading international organization leading the way in this effort. Of course Ball and Harris don’t want anyone to trust the IPCC.

If they started the article this poorly, it stands to reason there will be many other false or misleading statements and they did not disappoint in this regard. For instance, speaking of the IPCC, they state, “this means that policymakers, not scientists, lead the process” (emphasis original). This is a very misleading statement because the IPCC is NOT a scientific body and has never been one. The scientists are the people doing the research and publishing papers. The IPCC reviews these papers and produces a report reflecting that science. Again, the people on the IPCC may, or may not, be scientists because it is not a scientific body. In other words, it has ALWAYS been the case that policymakers lead the process of putting together the report. The scientists are responsible for doing the science.

Their next statement is even more misleading because they purposefully call the IPCC report “research” when they stated, “the supposed scientific consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” (Emphasis original.) The report is a review of the science and is not. What is really interesting about this statement is that it is attribute to RichardLindzen, another person with strong ties to the fossil fuel industry. Lindzen famously declared for years that he did not receive any funding for his research from the fossil fuel industry. But, what he failed to state was that he was receiving large payments from ExxonMobil for ‘consulting.’ The exact amount he received over the years is not clear, but some estimates have it going over a million dollars and he has admitted to receiving as much as $2500 for a day’s worth of work.

The pattern is definitely developing.

They continue, stating, “The fact is that in 1992 -- and still today -- we have no idea what GHG concentrations would lead to “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”” (Emphasis original.) Once again, this statement is, at the least, misleading. Even ExxonMobil admits it has known for decades manmade emissions were causing climate change. Esso (the ExxonMobil predecessor) scientist James Black published a paper, along with the Union of Concerned Scientists, that stated manmade emissions were causing climate change. In 1977, Dr. Black warned company executives of the danger of atmospheric carbon dioxide increases from the burning of fossil fuels and that these emissions were most likely changing the climate. So, Ball and Harris are misleading with their statement. We did, in fact, know in 1992 (and much earlier) that greenhouse gas emission would lead to dangerous climate change. I suppose they could quibble over the meaning of ‘dangerous’ and argue they weren’t being deceptive. Of course, any such argument would be deceptive by itself.

Let’s look at another statement. Referring to the IPCC statement that the report examines both natural and manmade causes of climate change, the pair state, “Following the UNFCCC lead, the IPCC reports exclude most natural variables and mechanisms. This is politically necessary so as to support the predetermined conclusion that human sources of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous climate change. This occurred even though carbon dioxide, from natural and anthropogenic sources combined, constitutes only 4% of atmospheric greenhouse gases.”

No, they are not telling the truth. Natural causes are examined in all scientific research. The problem is that, outside of a tremendous event (such as a meteorite impact or massive volcanic eruption) there are no natural causes that can change the climate as much and as quickly has been observed. All causes have been examined; it’s just that natural causes are not capable of producing what has been observed. Once again, they are misleading the reader.

Ultimately, it is highly appropriate they closed with the quote from Voltaire about defining your terms because that is how they take advantage of the reading public – they change the meaning of the terms and hope you won’t bother to check on them.

Tom Harris the Fraudulent Scientist

fraud·u·lent

/ˈfrôjələnt/

adjective

unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.

Synonyms: dishonest, cheating, swindling, corrupt, criminal, illegal, unlawful, illicit

Now we can say for absolute certainty - Tom Harris is a fraud. The subtitle on this posting should be "How many lies can one man tell in 30 minutes?"

Take a look at this remarkable Skype interview he did on May 19, 2017. It's remarkable in the number of false statements he makes. It is also remarkable in that he allows himself to be called a scientist and a climate expert. He is neither. Harris is a mechanical engineer and a lobbyist. He does not have credentials as a scientist, has never performed as a scientist, and is not currently working as a scientist. In short, Harris is allowing himself to be unjustifiably credited with qualities he does not possess. That is the definition of fraud and it is not the first time he has done this. He is a repeat offender, so we have a pattern of behavior.

If you are not fully aware of Harris' resume, you can read a lot more about him at the clearing house web page: Tom Harris Paid Shill

There are so many false and misleading statements in this video that it's hard to list them all, but I'll comment on some. I apologize for the length of this post, but there are just too many lies in this interview to let them go unmentioned.

At the 2:00 mark, Harris states, "Even if you believe we are causing an enormous problem, which I don't, ..." 

Response: This is from a man who has stated he has never denied climate change. 

At the 2:50 mark, "We don't actually know we are causing significant climate change anyway. We have not seen a significant increase, or decrease for that matter, in the global average temperature, which they calculate, it's not a real thing, it's just a statistic. We don't actually see any change since about 2000."

Response: Once again, Harris is denying the existence of global warming and climate change. But, why doesn't Harris tell you that 16 of the 17 hottest years ever recorded have happened since 2000? And, why is Harris trying to cherry-pick the data and not discuss the whole temperature record? You can make any point you want, if you limit the discussion to only the data you want to discuss and eliminate the rest.  

And, don't forget, Harris just stated that temperature is not a real thing. Maybe he needs to tell the oceans, the ice, the birds, the fish, plants, the... well, you get the picture. Everything in nature thinks temperature is a real thing and that it's changing.

At 3:15 "The models are not working."

Response: Really? This is one of the most often quoted lies in the denier-sphere, and one of the most easily debunked. Read about climate models here. You can read my posting on this topic at: Let's discuss climate models. Meanwhile, take a look at this graphic:

Source: Benestad and Schmidt

This is figure 2 from the paper Solar Trends and Global Warming, by Benestad and Schmidt. The blue line is the model output and the red line is the observed global average temperature (<T>). As you can see, the model and measured values are in very good agreement.

At 3:25. Harris goes off a diatribe that addressing climate change is costing $1 billion per day. He says this doesn't make sense when there are many problems that could use a $1 billion per day. 

Response: Take note, he doesn't say anything about where this $1 billion figure comes from and where any the money is going. Not to mention that this is an irrelevant discussion. How does the cost of addressing climate change affect the science? It doesn't. So, why is Harris raising this issue if not to create an emotional response in the listener?

The $1 billion per day figure is actually outdated and probably comes from a 2013 report you can read about here. Interestingly, this same report discusses how in that same year, the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry amounted to $523 billion - more than $1.4 billion per day. Wow! We could address a lot of problems simply by cutting subsidies for the fossil fuel industry! (In case you were wondering, the total amount of subsidies for the renewable energy industry was only $88 billion - about one-sixth as much.)

According to the GAO, the US federal government spent $24 billion on climate change in 2014 - much less than what Harris wants you to believe. When he talks about this $1 billion dollars, that includes things like crop damage (which we can't do anything about), damage due to rising sea level and storms (which we are stuck with), spreading disease (which we are stuck with), etc. In other words, there is no decision to be made regarding spending money on climate change. When a storm wipes out your house or business or crops, you don't get to decide if you're going to spend that money. It already disappeared. So, why doesn't Harris talk about this, unless he wants to deceive?

And, he fails to ever address the coming cost of climate change that we will be stuck with if we don't do something now. After all, the reason we have to address climate change today is because people like Tom Harris worked so hard to prevent us from addressing it in the past.

At 3:50 the host asks Harris about the risk that the US will lose as much as 25% of its sovereignty due to the Paris Agreement. Harris never actually confirms, or denies, this figure. But, after stating the Paris Agreement is not a legally enforced treaty, he goes on about how environmentalists can use agreements like this to engage in legal actions in an attempt to force the government to conform to environmental laws. 

Response: Well, the reason we have to go to court is because people like Harris work so hard to help people break the law. If Harris, and people like him, wouldn't work so hard to block actions to address the problem there wouldn't be a need for legal actions. Having our own courts is not a threat to our sovereignty. This is a false, strawman argument.

At 8:10, Harris goes on about how helping people in the future is "immoral". 

Response: This is a simply mind-boggling statement. If nothing else, remember those people in the future are us. We're not only talking about people 100 years from now, we're talking about helping people tomorrow. Tomorrow is the also in the future. Let's not even get started on the issue of taking care of our own children. According to Harris, helping anyone beyond today is immoral. That's because the only thing that matters to Harris are the profits of his employers - the fossil fuel industry, especially the coal industry.

At 13:20, the host goes on about how 'global warming, or is it climate change this week...It seems like it changes every single week.' 

Response: That's because this guy is more interested in denying science than trying to understand it. Climate change is not another name for global warming - it's a different issue. They are both what they sound like - global warming is about the rising temperature while climate change addresses all of the changes in the climate, including, but not limited to, global warming. For instance, acidification of the oceans is not global warming, but it is climate change. This was shortly after this same host said Trump has 'been excellent' in regards to environmental laws. How is allowing coal companies to dump their poisonous waste in our drinking water 'excellent'? When you meet people who say things like what this guy said it merely shows they are truly anti-science and not the least bit interested in the facts or the science. They've made their minds up and no amount of logic or scientific evidence will ever change it. It is a mental illness.

At 15:20, the host, after making all sorts of bizarre statements, says to Harris, "I'm not the scientist here, you are." Harris does nothing to correct him. 

Response: As I said earlier, Harris is not a scientist and never has been. By allowing himself to be addressed as a scientist, he is committing fraud by allowing himself to be credited with accomplishments and qualities he doesn't possess.

At 15:40, Harris makes a mind-numbing statement, "Actually, warming is beneficial." 

Response: I'm not going to go into all of the damage that is resulting from global warming and climate change. I'm merely going to point you to Harris' comment about how we're spending $1 billion per day on climate change and there are other problems that could benefit from that money. Amazingly hypocritical!

Immediately after this statement, Harris produces the report from the Nonscientific Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The NIPCC is a completely debunked pseudoscience organization. I like to compare them to the horoscope in the daily paper - they are both equally scientifically valid. If you are using the NIPCC as your reference, you might as well use your daily horoscope as one. Notice how Harris always refers to this organization and it's publication, but he never produces any science. That's because there is no valid science to support the NIPCC, or Harris, either.

18:40 - 'The fear of warming is a bit silly."

Response: Harris' logic is that if one guy doesn't have to shovel snow from his driveway, global warming must be good. He's wrong. Take a look:

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/global-warming-effects/

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad

http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts#.WSAIOcYlFpk

17:10 "Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, our science advisor..." 

and

17: 15 "Dr. Tim Ball, he's a well renowned climatologist..."

Response: Tim Ball is not a climatologist, he's a geographer. Harris is committing fraud again by giving unearned attributes to someone else. Ball has never worked in climate science, was never a member of a climate science department and has never earned any credentials as a climatologist.

According to the courts, where Ball was able to present all of his evidence, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming." 

And, referring to Ball as 'The Plaintiff", the court said: 

"The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the
issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media;

and

"The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

17:30 Harris states the entire Arctic archipelago is covered by only one weather station.

Response: This is an outright lie.  This web page listed below lists FIVE stations in CANADA ALONE that are either permanently manned or remotely operated. 

High Arctic Weather Stations

And, Harris makes no mention whatsoever of the satellites that orbit and take measurements on a continuous basis. This statement, and his claim about rising Arctic temperature is a grotesque lie on his part.

I could stop there because I have made my point - Harris is a fraud and an anti-science propagandist. But, this is too much fun, so let's keep going.

Starting at about 18:00 he goes on about historical climate change and tries to make the analogy with today's climate change. The climate has always changed, therefore any change we might be experiencing is merely natural.

Response: 

Observe the false logic. What Harris says is like saying "Pneumonia kills people. Bullets kill people. Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease. Therefore, bullets are a naturally occurring disease." 

See that the real experts have to say about the natural versus manmade climate change.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdf

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/is-the-current-climate-change-unusual-compared-to-earlier-changes-in-earth2019s-history

1830: The temperature record is "only a few decades."

Response: This is another one of his self-defeating statements because he was just talking about the temperature over the centuries. How can he discuss temperature and climate change over centuries, millennia, and even millions of years, if the temperature record is only 'a few decades'? 

Actually, our current instrument record goes back to around 1850. But, the scientific record (using temperature proxies), goes back even further. Using ice cores, we have a good record going back about 800,000 years. Geologic records give us data going back millions of years.

18:50 Harris discusses the standard deviation of the temperature record and states that it could have gotten colder in 2016 instead of setting a record high.

Response: This is one of those truly deceptive statements Harris loves to make because he thinks everyone is too stupid to check his claims. The only possible way for Harris' claims about the temperature record could occur is if you accept that the actual temperature is at the lower two standard deviations (or more) point. Two standard deviations is about 95%. In other words, there is a 95% chance, in this case, that the temperature is higher than the two standard deviation mark. Harris would require every year to hit the two standard deviation mark. Over a mere 16 years (since 2000), the chances of hitting the lower bound is about 1 in 4.4 x 10³¹. The odds are impossible.

Oh, even if you're interested in only one year, the odds of the higher standard deviations is equally valid. In other words, Harris is making a point that the amount of error in the measurements could be negative without including that the error might be positive. It is equally possible that the temperature was actually higher. Strange how he left that bit out.

19:10 The host states that global warming is merely hot air coming from liberal's mouths. Then he goes into a diatribe that global warming is a grand conspiracy for people to have control over others.

Response: I always find statements like this to be almost hilarious in their stupidity. This guy just made a blanket statement about billions of people and every climate scientist on the planet without knowing a single thing about them. In case you didn't know, that is called bigotry. If you ever had any doubt at all that people like this have no interest in the evidence, this should clear it up for you. According to this guy's reasoning, science changes depending on your political views. And, for the record, I am FAR from being a liberal. 

19:40 Harris states carbon emissions from fossil fuel are not pollution.

Response: Lots has been said on this topic. Here's my comments:

Harris is Wrong. Manmade CO2 is Pollution

Of course, Harris refers to the pseudoscience NIPCC at this point. See my comments above about that. In short, the only reason Harris would refer to them is because he has no valid science to support his claims. But, that has never even slowed him down. Don't let the science or the facts get in the way. He also refers to the Idsos, another debunked group of fraudulent pseudoscientists who are on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. The reality is, global warming is leading to reduced crop yields and even the crops that we are getting have less nutritional value. Oh, don't forget that CO2 is not selective. If it is food for plants we like, it is also food for plants we don't like, such as weeds in the farm fields and invasive species. Again, Harris never mentions any of that.

21:40 Most of that billion dollars a day goes to alternative energy to try and stop climate change. This is all part of the claim that climate change is just a great conspiracy to control the world because if you control energy, you control the world.

Response: As we've already seen, alternative energy got about $88 billion in 2014 while the FFI got $523 billion  And, Harris doesn't address the fact that energy is already controlled and that list of people includes his employers (Hmmm. Maybe that's why he didn't want to mention it.) Energy is controlled by a few corporations and organizations - such as OPEC, ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. And, who is funding all of the denier activities, such as Harris? The fossil fuel industry. The same ones who already control the world's energy supplies. 

21:50 Harris once again denies the existence of climate change.

22: 10 Harris goes on a lecture about coal.

Response: Harris never mentions all of the damage from burning coal. He never discusses acid rain, arsenic in the water supplies, mercury emissions, particulate air pollution, health hazards, poisonous ash from the power plants, or any of the other issues associated with mining and burning coal. He never mentions something like the study discussed here:

When coal replaces a cleaner energy source, health is on the line

Harris wants you to believe Obama is the only reason coal is struggling. The reality is that coal is struggling for economic reasons. It's simply too expensive.

22:45 The host states, "It is very refreshing I guess is the word I'm looking for, to talk to someone that is a scientist, that is a professional, that knows a lot about you know global, uh, global climate and climate change and things like that..." Harris only smiles.

Response: Just like when the host called Harris a scientist at the  15:20 mark, this statement is not true and Harris did nothing to correct him. Again, Harris has engaged in fraud.

This host the goes on a mindless diatribe about how he wants clean air, but he doesn't want to do it at the "barrel of a gun." His prior statements show this claim is false. Remember, he already said Trump's action on the environment were 'excellent.' He is not interested in clean air, he only wants his own clean air and the rest of the world is expendable. And, by making statement about having to do it at gun point is nothing more than the rantings of a lunatic. Where, and when, has anyone pushed environmental laws on the public at gunpoint? No instances of this actually happening are provided. 

And, while he states he doesn't want any of this done with the government's 'heavy hand', he never mentions how it is market forces, not the government, that is changing the energy industry. No government 'heavy hand,' just the heavy hand of the market.

24:00 Harris goes into a discussion of a great conspiracy to make developed nations, "especially the United States," pay for damages in the developing countries caused by extreme weather, citing an example of the Philippines suing for damage caused by a tsunami.

Response. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not climate change. Once again, Harris doesn't let the science get in the way of lies and deception.

Instead of making conspiracy claims, maybe Harris should simply discuss how this mechanism allows for a civilized and orderly way for grievances to be addressed. According to Harris, that's a bad thing.

25:20 Harris discusses Micronesia suing a coal company and states, "because they're having dangerous sea level rise."

Response: The longer you let this guy talk, the more he hangs himself. He has already stated there is no climate change and its 'silly' to be concerned about rising temperatures. How can there be 'dangerous sea level rise' if there's nothing to worry about and a little warming is "good for us?"

So, there you have it. This was a lot of fun and I hope you've learned something about Harris in particular and climate change deniers in general.