Denialists In The Canadian Classroom

In the last couple of weeks, stories in the American media have appeared  outlining how the Heartland Institute has been plotting to sneak climate change denialism onto the U.S. K12 curriculum.  Unfortunately, we in Canada are way ahead of them. As I have noted previously, Tom Harris (once of the discredited Friends of Science,  later with the discredited Natural Resources Stewardship Project, now with a discredited international group whose name I forget) has been allowed to teach a 2nd year course on Climate Science to non-science majors at Carleton University.  Naturally, Canadian journos are too science-ignorant to have made a fuss, but the UK Guardian arrives this morning with a story on the topic:

An associate of the Heartland Institute, the thinktank devoted to discrediting climate change, taught a course at a top Canadian university that contained more than 140 false, biased and misleading claims about climate science, an expert audit has found.

The course at Ottawa's Carleton University, which is being accused of bias, was taught for four terms from 2009-2011 by Tom Harris, a featured expert at the Heartland Institute.

Others can go into the details of the Audit, which can be found here (direct link here).  In any case, I've written plenty on Tom Harris.  But to understand quickly why his course is crap, here's a sample of the student feedback to it:

Great prof, awesome course with alternative views on global warming. I managed an A+ and I am doing an arts degree, not science. I find it hard to believe any science students had a hard time with it.
Yeah, kid, if you're doing arts and had no trouble with a science course, you've been pandered too AND been conned out of a portion of your tuition fees.  And I know whereof I speak; I attended (If you can hold a fork, you can go to) York U, which is barely a half step up from (If you can walk and talk, you can go to) Brock.  In other words I know all about academic mediocrity.  This is mediocre stuff even by Carleton's standards.

In any case, Tom Harris and Carleton can blather on about academic freedom all they want (I hear Tom is due on Sun TV in the near future), but if you want to know what the guy is really on about, here's a quote of his from Free Dominion:

 I completely agree with fourhorses that the ultimate aim is to create a situation where the CPC can say assertively, "The science no longer supports the assumptions of the Kyoto Accord."

However, politically this cannot be done overnight without the Conservatives taking what they consider to be an unacceptable hit (do people think they would really lose votes with this statement (from Canadians who would otherwise vote for them, that is?).

So, the solution put on this site a little while ago by Tina is one I would support as well - namely, they don't take sides at all and admit they don't know and so are holding unbiased, public hearings in which scientists from both sides are invited to testify. The resulting chaos, with claims all over the map, will do enough to thoroughly confuse everyone (which is appropriate, actually, since the science is so immature and, frankly, confusing) and take the wind out of the sails of the "we are causing a climate disaster and must stop it" camp entirely, and the CPC can quietly turn to important issues without really having had to say much at all.

Nuff said.

NY Times Fluffs "Goreathon" Climate Change Piece

Their mistake is to treat Canada's own Tom Harris as a credible representative of the "sceptical" side of the AGW argument.   Mediamatters gets some of it right: such technical training as he has is in mechanical engineering, but Tom is mostly a lobbyist/PR guy, not a scientist. 

But there's way more to it than that.  For example, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) is pure astroturf, and  probably gets funding from Aussie humvee maker Alan Gibbs.  I don't know what Tom's making, but a couple of years ago they were offering $70,000 to $90,000 per year to the administrative head of their American affiliate (a job that eventually went to Steve Goreham). 

So these guys are well paid to spread the FUD.

But perhaps most relevant for the people at the NY Times is (or should have been) Mr. Harris's association with  The Friends of Science, a precursor to both the ICSC and  NRSP (Natural Resources Stewardship Project).  The Friends and Tom have recently made news in Canada.  Basically, they were the recipients of about $500,000 in funds from various oil industry sources channelled improperly through research accounts at the University of Calgary.  Part of this money was used to fly sceptics to various conferences and throw fancy parties for them (Tom Harris included).  Another $175,000 wound up going to the PR firm APCO Worldwide, Mr. Harris's employer at the time, where it helped finance the video Climate Catastrophe Cancelled , script courtesy of...you guessed it...Tom Harris.

This unfolding scandal has given U-of-C a real black eye, and the leader of Alberta's official opposition has requested an investigation to determine whether the university has been subject to "inappropriate corporate influence".  So you may hear Tom's name again in the near future.

And one final question I'd like answered: how is Tom Harris qualified to teach a 2nd year course in climate science anywhere, let alone Carleton University?   I thought the kooks all taught at the University of Ottawa.

CRU Emails Prove Darwin Wrong!

I've been waiting for this. Science hijacked by the left and etc., authored by the dude from The Discovery Institute.

Mr. Meyer isn't the first to make a connection between the ID vs. Darwin and Climate Scientists vs. Deniers debate. Tim Ball and Tom Harris have already appealed to the Intelligent Design crowd in the name of AGW denial.

Some Days You Can't Even Pay Them To Deny

Back in June, I wrote about how Tom Harris of the ICSC (International Climate Science Coalition), an AGW denial group built and, most likely, funded by Australian business man Alan Gibbs (who also makes Humvees), was looking for an Executive Director for the CSCA (Climate Science Coalition of America ), its U.S. affiliate. Among other things, this position required

Exceptional English language oral (including public speaking), writing and editing skills, with a special focus on communicating with laypeople.

...and had a starting salary of $70,000 to $90,000 USD per annum.

Well, its late August now and the CSCA is up and running. But as an interesting side-note, its contact person is...Tom Harris! So they still haven't found a body to stuff in a suit and lie for them for nearly six figures a year.

That's a sign of something, but I'm not sure what.

About Those 60 German Scientists

...who wrote that open letter denouncing the science behind AGW to Chancellor Angela Merkel who has, incidentally, been showing alot of cleavage lately.

Well,

In fact, if i do a quick search on the list on the word "klima", only one name can be found, being Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg Universitätsprofessor (A.D.) für Meteorologie und Klimatologie. One. That's all.

And of course another name on the list is the infamous Ernst Beck (a high-school teacher),
whose methodology can be used to demonstrate both that C02 levels have fluctuated wildly over the course of the last century and a half, and that the value of π (Pi) has fluctuated wildly over the course of the last two millennium.

Jules Jules' klimaatblog further notes that the outfit behind this open letter, EIKE (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie) appears to be the German franchise of the International Climate Science Coalition, a denialist group headed up by Canada's own Tom Harris. If you look at their (EIKE's) "scientific council", you see all the usual suspects: Carter, Courtney, and rounded out with one dead guy--Marcel Leroux.

More Shuffling The Deck Chairs On The Good Ship Denial

International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) Executive Director Tom Harris is looking for an Executive Director for their American afficliate, to be known as the Climate Science Coalition of America (CSCA).

With Dr. Roy Spencer’s acceptance of the Chair position for the new Climate Science Coalition of America, we are now seeking candidates for the Executive Director position, the person who will actually lead the organization from an administrative perspective. Please see the following link which describes the sort of person we are seeking and forward this on anywhere you think would help us in our search for the ideal candidate:

[Here] is the job ad.

Thanks very much!
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada

The ad is self is quite revealing. PR/Advocacy/looking good on the Rush Limbaugh show are all desirable requirements. So are skills at designing "communications packages for the general public, especially young people."

Dances With Wingnuts

The strange courtship between AGW Deniers and Canada's Far Right continues, with Tom Harris, leader of the ICSC, seeking validation from the denizens of FreeD. Not the way to enhance your organization's credibility, Tom, but at least this time your not asking them to FREEP your own poll.

Fun With The Manhattan Declaration, or: Who The Heck is Robert Murray?

Tom Harris, once of the Friends of Science, then of the NRSP, now of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), has published a list of

... individuals, all well-trained in science and technology or climate change-related economics and policy...endorsing the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change.

The Manhattan Declaration itself declares that:

...there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

Others will, no doubt, take a more thorough look at the list entries. For the most part they seem the same old gang of cranks, old farts, and fakes that typically turn up on this kind of thing. However, while skimming it, I found a couple of interesting and, as far as I can tell, new names. For example:

Robert E. Murray, PE, B. Eng. (mining engineering, West Virginia University), AMP (Harvard University); Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Murray Energy Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, Pepper Pike, Ohio, U.S.A.

Robert E. Murray is a mining mogul, Republican backer, and outspoken critic of AGW theory. Among his mines is the Crandall canyon mine, which collapsed last summer, trapping and killing six miners. While waiting for news of the six, he engaged in a long, meandering defence of his mining operation which included a tirade against the global warming "crusade" that threatened his business.

During an earlier career as a coal-mining executive for the North American Coal Corporation, Murray was allegedly visited by a "tiny, talking squirrel", which instructed him to go into business for himself. (To be fair, wiki notes that this story is "dubious")

Another name on the list is:

Robert Edward Murray, B Eng. (mining engineering, West Virginia University), MBA (Ohio State University), Vice President, Business Development and External Affairs, Murray Energy Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, Pepper Pike, Ohio, U.S.A.

This is either one of Robert E. Murray's three adult children, or he replaced his middle initial with his full name and signed the decalaration a second time, which would be cheating.

And then there's:

Ryan M. Murray, B Eng. (mining engineering, West Virginia University), MBA (Ohio State University); Vice President, Operations, Murray Energy Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, Alledonia, Ohio, U.S.A."

As far as I can tell, Ryan Murray is pretty clearly one of the adult children of Robert E.

Furthermore, in a supplementary list of "Citizen Endorsers" of the declaration ("non-qualified", one would presume), you find someone who is either Robert E.s wife (given as Brenda Lou Moore in wiki) or an adult daughter:

Brenda L. Murray, Consultant, Murray Energy Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, Pepper Pike, Ohio, U.S.A.

Nice to see that the whole family is involved, but this smacks of Sexism. What makes a lady mining consultant less qualified to have an opinion on the science of climate change than a couple of male Vice-Presidents of the same mining company?

Especially when one of the other "qualified signatories" on Harris' list is a water witch?

Tom Harris Settles Into His New Job

Once of the Canadian denialist astroturf group the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, now Executive Director of the ICSC, an international denialist astroturf group, Tom Harris kicks off his new career by asking the members of the far-right political forum Free Dominion to FREEP an ICSC Poll.

I think the results may surprise many media and politicians. I find the public are far less accepting of the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are causing a ‘crisis’ than what we are so often assured.

Frankly, I think the results will surprise no-one, but if anybody wants to do some counter-FREEPING, the link is here.

And here is an old article back from when Tom was an expert on space exploration. Holy crap, the guy's like Leonardo.

Rearranging The Deck Chairs On The Good Ship Denial

There's a new skeptic's group out there, the International Climate Science Coalition. There's not much to see. Led by a Terry Dunleavy, who writes for New Zealand Wine Grower Magazine, its the same old gang peddling the same old tripe. Only interesting perhaps in that it provides insight into the staffing of these kinds of groups. As Tim Ball writes at the Climate Skeptics Cafe:

Tom Harris has been hired as Executive Director, myself and Bob Carter and I believe Lord Monckton are in a core group. I am taking over Tom's position at nrsp until a replacement is found. I look forward to working with them and other groups such as the Friends of Science. The more groups and representation we have the better and wider the message is disseminated.

Hundreds of groups, composed in total of dozens of people. Money to pay them all.

Deniers For Romney

Tim Ball and Tom Harris make their choice.

Tim Ball Denies Darwin!

You know I've been waiting months for this to finally happen.

Tim Ball has been making noises now and then at the Climate Skeptic Cafe, but now, in this Canada Free Press article co-authored with Tom Harris, the cork finally pops!

Like all philosophies that come to dominate society, climate hysteria is part of an evolution of ideas and needs an historical context. The current western view of the World essentially evolved from the Darwinian view. Even though it is still just a theory and not a law 148 years after it was first proposed, Darwinian evolution is the only view allowed in schools. Why? Such censorship suggests fear of other ideas, a measure of indefensibility.

All the old Creationist tropes are here. 1) Its only a theory. 2) The "controversy" should be taught in public schools, and if it isn't 3) that's censorship.

Weirdly enough, Tim and Tom are willing to go even further, tracing the roots of "environmental extremism" to, of all places, Sir Charles Lyell:

A proper appreciation of time is essential to this discussion and the larger theme of climate change. Before Darwin, the English church accepted Bishop Ussher’s biblically-based calculation that the world was formed on October 23, 4004 BC. But Darwin needed a much older world to allow the sort of evolution he envisioned as driving natural change to occur. Religion said God created the world in 7 days; Darwin needed millions.

Sir Charles Lyell provided the answer in a book titled Principles of Geology, which Darwin took on his famous voyage to the Galapagos Islands. The combination of long time frames and slow development resulted in a philosophical view known as uniformitarianism.

If such a term sounds more appropriate to religion than science, that is because it is, in essence, another form of belief system. Uniformitarianism is the idea now underpinning western society’s view of the World. A basic tenet assumes change is gradual over long periods of time and any sudden or dramatic change is not natural. Employing a version of uniformitarianism adapted to their needs, environmental extremists can point to practically any change and say it is unnatural, which implies it is man-made.

Take THAT, Rachal Carson!

Tom Harris Sticks His Nose Down Dirty Hole

One can disagree with Canadian uber-Denier Tom Harris, despise his astroturf group the NRSP and their rabid commitment to climate change Denial in the face of overwhelming evidence, yet still lament the fact that Mr. Harris has been forced to troll the Free Dominion bulletin board in order to scare up support for his agenda. Free-D is a snake-pit of racism and homophobia, and as a result has recently attracted both a CHRA complaint and a number of libel suits. Furthermore, in fighting the various libel charges, Free Dominion's owners have relied on both the support and research skills of Canada's Neo Nazi Community.

Has Tom stooped to recruiting Nazis in his efforts to challenge the scientific consensus and stop Federal government's initiatives on the AGW file? What about the High Park Group, which was instrumental in founding the NRSP and in fact employed Mr. Harris at one point? Do they want to see their boy, and their creation, consorting with White Nationalists? And what about High Park clients like Areva and the Canadian Gas Association? Do they want their names associated with Canada's right wing fringe?

How Many Deniers Does It Take

...to search Google? Apparently more than two. Tom Harris runs an industry financed Canadian astro-turf group called the NRSP (National Resources Stewardship Program); Bob Carter has been denying stuff since forever. Together they have teamed up at Canada Free Press to write an op-ed that makes an egregious factual error in its very first sentence:

Virtually overnight, Portland (Oregon) High School student Kristen Byrnes has become a climate change sensation and a role model for freethinking young people everywhere.

Actually, and as the front page of her home page quite clearly states, Kristen Byrnes (the tiniest denier) hails from Portland Maine.

Nitpicking? Sure! But if you can't write six words without getting the two coasts of America mixed up, how can anyone take your claims of a "giant conspiracy" seriously?

(Yo Rush Limbaugh, you want to explore this scandal further? I'm available! If Hansen had done something like this you'd be demanding his resignation. )

The Battleground Shifts...

These days, yet another screed from the NRSP's Tom Harris wouldn't normally be worth the effort of a post. He is merely a faux scientist, a low grade Denier, and his Natural Resources Stewardship Group a discredited front for the Canadian wing of Big Oil. (Unfortunately, I think that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May's decision to take him on in this set of battling Op Eds is likely to do more to maintain his profile than her own). However, in amongst the same-old same-old there are signals as to where the Denialist industry will next attempt to take the debate:

Activists maintain that “the consensus of world scientists agree” that our CO2 emissions are causing a climate crisis. Nothing could be further from the truth. Climate science is an immature discipline in which intense debate rages among experts about the causes of climate change. Variations in the brightness of the sun and “land use change” are the leading contenders believed to be responsible for most of the past century’s modest warming

Note the two "leading contenders": solar cycles...and a new one..."land use change" (or at least a quick search of the NRSP website and a buzz through Google shows that this term begins turning up more often in June of this year). Since the "Blame the Sun" crowd has suffered a major set-back in recent days, expect to start hearing more about "land use changes": about Urban Heat Islands, and how the instruments cannot be trusted to give accurate readings due to (incompetence, cover-ups, and) the ever increasing amount of paved space around our cities. In other words, "Land Use Change" will become what "Solar Cycles" has been: a vague theory to invoke as an alternative to the conventional science so it doesn't look like the Denialists are merely engaged in "negative campaigning".

And expect to hear the names Roger Pielke Sr. and Anthony Watts come up more frequently. Pielke Sr. is a real, honest-to-God meteorologist from Colorado State University, and I would probably call him the Alan Feduccia of climate science. His website is a mix of legitimate cautionary tales re climate change research (some glaciers aren't retreating!), and the center of a kind of personality cult where Deniers with some facility in math come to pray to his courage in the face of the "great swindle". As for Anthony Watts, he leads a gang of rogue "citizen scientists" who have currently fanned out across the lower 48 with their digital cameras in an effort to embarrass the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) with pictures of Al Gore BBQing in close proximity to temperature sensors, thus single-handedly creating an upward bias in instrument readings of the climate record. These pictures as they emerge are then posted on far-right websites where people who haven't a clue as to what they mean nevertheless comment knowingly on the failures of mainstream Climatology.

Unfortunately, this end of the science tends to be the "mathiest", and meeting or even understanding the arguments likely to come up will likely require boning up on some of the crap you slept through during college. But this is where I see the focus shifting over the course of the next six months. Get out your spreadsheets and your old stats textbooks, people!

Tim Ball Jumps The Shark

Canadian Uber Denier Tim Ball (and his consort in Denial, Tom Harris) have truly hit rock bottom. Not even the Natty Post is printing their crap anymore, and they're stuck publishing in on-line, way past fringy publications like The Canadian Free Press.

And no wonder! They've joined the "climate audit" bandwagon. Inspired by Uber auditor, Steve McIntyre (the man who boasts that he "broke" the hockey stick), their goal is to demand reams of information on the "life cycle analysis" behind any attempt at environmental legislation, and on various other topics they only half understand, and then sit around making silly remarks about this information on a blog somewhere.

But Jesus you think they'd pick a better target than the Ontario Government's decision to ban burning used motor oil in space heaters!

So used oil heating is being sacrificed to the god of climate change. Does it really matter?

It certainly does to hundreds of small businesses in Ontario - car dealerships, bus fleets, farm equipment dealers, etc. -- who for many years now have successfully burned used oil from various sources to reduce space heating costs. Strict emission regulations apply to these heaters and we know of no evidence that these regulations are not being adhered to. Yet Broten decided to ban the heaters in favour of the complex process of collecting and re-refining the used oil so that a portion of it may be re-used.

Holy Fucking Shit! What a disastrous abridgment of Natural Human Freedoms! Literally dozens Ontarians might be mildly inconvenienced by this legisation, might have to buy a extra pair of cheap socks so as to keep their toes warm in winter while they sit around the used car lot eating stale donuts and waiting on the next sucker! To the battlements, my brothers! Commie-nism is once again on the march!

Still Waiting, Tom

Dear Tom Harris,

I see you have had time to fire off a letter asking that the Senate block Bill C-288 (the Kyoto Implementation Act), but you still haven't answered my challenge.

Specifically, you claimed that:

The vast majority of the [600 scientists involved in the IPCC report]...would not have...endorsed, the executive summary.

And I have asked you to produce at least names, or even better, statements from this "vast majority" of doubters. You have not thus far replied.

Now, some of the folks at FreeDominion.ca have suggested Chris Landsea and Roger Pielke on your behalf, and it is true these two men have in the past had difficulties with the process of writing the IPCC report. However, neither questions the IPCC consensus and, more importantly, neither has been involved with the organization for over a year.

So they don't count and we are still stuck at zero.

I truly hope that you are using all this time to marshal your evidence, for it seems to me that neither the Canadian Senate nor the 1,300 media figures you claim to have sent your release to will be impressed if all your doubting scientists turn out to be invisible scientists who will speak only with you.

So come on, Tom, present your case or retract your statement! Are you a Man of Science, or a Girly-Man of Science?

Tom Harris Questions The Concensus

The NRSP is an Alberta-based anti-global warming astroturf group. Their leader, Tom Harris, hangs out occasionally at Free Dominion, where he fundraises and throws raw meat to the Trogs. Yesterday, he wrote:

Only 600 scientists (of the tens of thousands of climate and climate related scientists who COULD have been involved) were involved in writing parts of the technical report (namely the 1500 page main science document), a document we will not see until May. Among those 600, only 30 were involved in writing the draft of the executive summary, the final version of which (i.e. the SPM released on Feb 2) being assembled by government bureaucrats and representatives of industry and environmental organizations. The vast majority of those 600, many of whom disagree with each other on various significant science elements of the issue (as we will see for sure in May but as we have seen in all past technical reports), would not have seen, let alone endorsed, the executive summary. Among the thousands of scientists who reviewed the IPCC documents, many disagree with them entirely (let alone the summary which would be even more flawed in their opinion, I am sure).

From all I can tell, there is no consensus about the causes of the past century’s modest warming or future climate change, cooling and warming, either within the small fraction of world climate-related scientists who actually take part in the IPCC’s work, or in the general body of scientists who work in the field. The IPCC is an exclusive club that pre-selects its participants and then screens the input these participants give. The notion of consensus in this field is a myth.

So lets end the speculation, shall we Tom? I challenge you to produce names and/or, even better, statements by any among the group of 600 scientists involved in writing the technical report, or the 30 involved in writing its executive summary, who would be willing to challenge the overall conclusions in either.

Yours (anxiously waiting),

BigCityLib