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.

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.

Tom Harris Walks Abroad

The NRSP (Natural Resource Stewardship Project) is a Canadian astroturf group given over to denying the science behind Global Warming. They came into existence several months ago, in the wake of the media take-down of Friends of Science, and in fact share several "prominent" members with this older group, including the ubiquitous Tim Ball who is, according to DeSmogBlog, "Canada's most notorious climate change denier". In any case, NRSP's biggest claim to infamy at the moment is that their executive director, Tom Harris, has signed a "confidentiality agreement [which] doesn't allow him to say whether energy companies are funding his group."

If you've been blogging about the CBC's Fifth Estate documentary The Denial Machine, you've probably met Tom Harris. He has appeared in the blogosphere here, here, and here, pointing out a couple of very minor errors in the CBC program as though they were earth shattering revelations. These errors are owned up to by one of the documentary participants (Jim Hoggan), corrected, and explained, here.

I imagine Tom Harris will be out and about the blogs over the next little while, duking it out over the issues surrounding GW. If he appears on yours, ask him whose paying the bills for the NRSP. He hates that.

H/T, as always, to DeSmogBlog.

Climate Change Deniers Get Political

After The Friends of Science were discredited this summer, the Alberta Petroleum Industry whomped up another front group to pose as climatologists concerned with fighting the "alleged" consensus around Global Warming. They called it the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).

The main PR guy for the NRSP is a fellow named Tom Harris, who I have written about on several occasions, and who has even been kind enough to leave a few comments on this blog and elsewhere.

Well, Tom has been a busy guy, leaving messages on the Free Dominion site begging for donations and exhorting "principled Conservatives" to grill Dion on climate change issues when he visits Calgary and Edmonton next week.

And Tom's behavior raises a couple of interesting issues. The first is that the FOS and NRSP have until now attempted to pass themselves off as apolitical organizations. This is the first instance I know of where their representatives have "let the mask slip", as it were, and placed themselves on the political landscape.

The second, and I think really interesting point, can be found in Mr. Harris's response to this comment left on the Free Dominion message board:

I want to see [Dion] try to answer the fact that under his watch, there was a 35% increase in GHG emissions above target set by the Kyoto Protocol signed by the Liberals.

That would be a good question, as I think we can all admit. However, it's not a question Mr. Harris wants asked. His response is fascinating:

While I admit that it may be attractive politically for those who oppose Dion to ask why he did so poorly on reducing CO2 when he had the chance, I suggest this question just digs us further into the hole of climate change dogma and so it is a question that will benefit only the NDP and those on the left of the political spectrum on this issue inside the CPC.

In other words, its a slippery slope. Frame the argument this way--why didn't Dion do more about GHG emissions when he had the chance?--and you admit GHG emissions are an issue. You admit Global Warming is REAL, and that something should be done about it.

Instead, Mr. Harris wants people to keep denying (there follows a reprinted article of his from 2002 that questions the science behind the "consensus").

But note also the phrase "those on the left...on this issue inside the CPC". Harris indentifies a split within Conservative Party ranks, and at the same time locates the NRSP in relation to that split; Harris and company serve those on the Right of the Right.

So, a couple of conclusions:

1) The recent admission by Harper, Baird et al that climate change is real is in itself a victory for progressive forces. It can't be taken back once made, and changes the terms of the argument. Now its about what to do, not whether anything should be done.

2) There are elements within the Conservative Party that take the issue seriously. Hopefully, they include the PM and the man in charge of his enviro portfolio.

3) The NRSP has chosen to marginalize itself, allying with a sliver of a sliver on the ideological spectrum.

Good news, for the most part.

(As usual, h/t to Desmogblog.)

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?

Canuck Climate Change Denier Tom Harris Up To More No Good

Tom Harris is one of Canada's better known climate change deniers.  I've written about him plenty  Now one of his emails to fellow deniers has got loose.  I've reproduced it below.  Basically, he's scouring the anti-AGW Internet forums looking for signatures to stick on another open letter addressed to the U.N., this time contesting the AGW=Freak Weather connection.   The most interesting bit:

Because we have an agreement with a major media outlet to publish the open letter on Thursday, I will need to know of your support in the next day if possible, please.  Endorsers may be added later for Web versions of the letter but only those who have notified me of their support by then are guaranteed to be included in the list of endorsers published by the major newspaper in question.

Harris has been on Sun News TV a number of times this year, so I'd bet the T.O Sun is his "major newspaper".  It might also be the National Post, perhaps via Terence Corcoran.  Anyone has other ideas, please share them in the comments.
---

Dear friends,

I apologize for addressing you so impersonally but time is short if we are to mount a significant counterpoint to the scientifically invalid assertions already being broadcast by the 1,500 journalists and 7,000 environmentalists attending the UN climate conference now underway in Qatar. 

Please find below our "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations" to which we are inviting your endorsement. 

Because we have an agreement with a major media outlet to publish the open letter on Thursday, I will need to know of your support in the next day if possible, please.  Endorsers may be added later for Web versions of the letter but only those who have notified me of their support by then are guaranteed to be included in the list of endorsers published by the major newspaper in question.

The open letter and the list of endorsers will also be submitted to the Secretary General with a brief cover letter from myself by e-mail and by courier. Your endorsement of the open letter would be clearly indicated as only applying to the “Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations” below, not to the cover letter or any supporting material we may provide.

Here is the text of the open letter (underlined phrases are active Web links) that we request that you allow us to list you as endorsing (for those of you who signed any past open letters organized by ICSC, I already have your complete credentials and affiliations. For others, I request that you let me know how you would like to be identified in the endorser list):
____________________________________________________

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General, United Nations

First Avenue and East 44^th Street, New York, New York, U.S.A.

 

November 29, 2012

Mr Secretary-General:

On November 9 this year you told the General Assembly: “Extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal ... Our challenge remains, clear and urgent: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to strengthen adaptation to … even larger climate shocks … and to reach a legally binding climate agreement by 2015 … This should be one of the main lessons of Hurricane Sandy.”

 

On November 13 you said at Yale: “The science is clear; we should waste no more time on that debate.”

 The following day, in Al Gore’s “Dirty Weather" Webcast, you spoke of “more severe storms, harsher droughts, greater floods”, concluding: “Two weeks ago, Hurricane Sandy struck the eastern seaboard of the United States. A nation saw the reality of climate change. The recovery will cost tens of billions of dollars. The cost of inaction will be even higher. We must reduce our dependence on carbon emissions.”

We the undersigned, qualified in climate-related matters, wish to state that current scientific knowledge does not substantiate your assertions.

The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations rose by nearly 9% to now constitute 0.039% of the atmosphere. Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years. Whether, when and how warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear. Some scientists point out that near-term natural cooling, linked to variations in solar output, is also a distinct possibility.

The “even larger climate shocks” you have mentioned would be worse if the world cooled than if it warmed. Climate changes naturally all the time, sometimes dramatically. The hypothesis that our emissions of CO₂ have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.

The incidence and severity of extreme weather has not increased. There is little evidence that dangerous weather-related events will occur more often in the future. The U.N.’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says in its Special Report on Extreme Weather (2012) that there is “an absence of an attributable climate change signal” in trends in extreme weather losses to date. The funds currently dedicated to trying to stop extreme weather should therefore be diverted to strengthening our infrastructure so as to be able to withstand these inevitable, natural events, and to helping communities rebuild after natural catastrophes such as tropical storm Sandy.

There is no sound reason for the costly, restrictive public policy decisions proposed at the U.N. climate conference in Qatar. Rigorous analysis of unbiased observational data does not support the projections of future global warming predicted by computer models now proven to exaggerate warming and its effects.

The NOAA “State of the Climate in 2008” report asserted that 15 years or more without any statistically-significant warming would indicate a discrepancy between observation and prediction. Sixteen years without warming have therefore now proven that the models are wrong by their creators’ own criterion.

Based upon these considerations, we ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not. We also ask that you acknowledge that policy actions by the U.N., or by the signatory nations to the UNFCCC, that aim to reduce CO₂ emissions are unlikely to exercise any significant influence on future climate. Climate policies therefore need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events however caused.

Signed by:

____________________________________________________________________

Please feel free to forward this e-mail to others who you think may also sign the open letter with the request that they keep it as confidential as possible until published by media (I’ll let you all know as soon as that happens).

I hope to hear from you very soon!

Sincerely,

Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

P.O. Box 23013

Ottawa, Ontario

K2A 4E2

Canada

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

613-728-9200

Natural Resources Stewardship Project Is The Friends Of Science Resurrected

Yesterday, I wrote about the Natural Resources Stewardship Project as follows:

After The Friends of Science were discredited this summer, the Alberta Petroleum Industry whomped up another front group to pose as climatologists concerned with fighting the "alleged" consensus around Global Warming. They called it the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).

The main PR guy for the NRSP is a fellow named Tom Harris, who I have written about on several occasions, and who has even been kind enough to leave a few comments on this blog and elsewhere.

In response to yesterday's post, Tom Harris appeared and argued his case both vigorously and politely. More power to him for that. However, there is one statement he made that especially cries out for refutation:

It is good (and indeed quite normal) science to question other science. That is what we are doing and will continue to do. We have no connection with Friends of Science, although I admire their video....

Let's compare the people behind the Friends and the NRSP.

Tim Ball is a consultant for the Friends, and on the Executive of the NRSP.

Tim Patterson is on the scientific advisory board of the Friends and on the scientific advisory committee of the NRSP.

...as is Dr. Sallie Baliunas (who was once an ozone depletion skeptic, and more recently argued that Ozone depletion was behind Global Warming).

Madhav Khandekar is on the Friends advisory board, and an Allied Expert of the NRSP.

Mr. Harris, I submit that not only does the NRSP have "connections" to the Friends of Science, you're basically the SAME BUNCH OF PEOPLE.

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.

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

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.

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."

How Canada's Global Warming Deniers Plan To Help The Stephen Harper Tories

The NRSP's Tom Harris continues his attempt to scare up donations and recruits on The Free Dominion website. In this episode, he attempts a bit of political strategizing:

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.

What's wrong with this approach?

Well, this approach did prove effective for a long time--for the tobacco industry, as they tried to hold off anti-smoking legislation. From the Union of Concerned Scientists report, "Smoke, Mirrors, and Hot Air":

In reviewing the tobacco industryÂ’s disinformation campaign, the first thing to note is that
the tobacco companies quickly realized they did not need to prove their products were safe. Rather, as internal documents have long since revealed, they had only to “maintain doubt” on the scientific front as a calculated strategy.

As one famous internal memo from the Brown & Williamson tobacco company put it: “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

Maintain doubt and call for "sound science" was the tobacco lobby's clarion call for years. However, they were eventually found out. The oil companies and their astroturf groups (like Tom's) have been running the same set of plays vis-a-vis global warming, but as the above noted report demonstrates, they've already been caught.

And, interestingly enough, it appears today that Exxon has thrown in the towel. It has admitted the reality of anthropogenic global warming and is now engaged in talks with the U.S. government as to how carbon emission regulations might look. It has also stopped funding the Competitive Enterprise Institute, as well as "five or six other" of its astroturf groups. Since one of these, The Fraser Institute, funded the earlier research of Tim Ball, one of Mr. Harris' compatriot's at the NRSP, we should know fairly soon whether these two fellows are still in business or flipping burgers for a living.

(Maybe that's why Tom's scrounging for fins at the Free Dominion)

h/t to one of my anonymice.

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?

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?

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.

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!

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.

More Fun With Manhattan Declaration "Qualified Endorsers", or: Joe Bastardi Makes His Brudder Deny

UPDATE: Tom Harris himself offers the following correction:

...the two Bastardis are father and son, both meteorologists.

Apologies to all involved. Of course this still doesn't explain why Brenda Murray, a coal industry consultant, is stuck on the "Citizen Endorsers" list while the rest of her family, also in the coal industry, are somehow judged to be "qualified".

This

Joe Bastardi, BSc, (Meteorology, Pennsylvania State), meteorologist, State College, Pennsylvania, U.S.A."

...is not a surprise. Accuweather's expert senior forecaster has always been skeptical of the science behind AGW, and you would suspect that he would endorse the Manhattan Declaration against climate change alarmism.

But who is this fellow?

Matthew Bastardi, BSc (Meteorology, Texas A and M University), Florida, U.S.A.

Thanks to some lunch-hour sleuthing by John Cross, we find that he is almost certainly Joe's brother:

Coach, Great column as usual but your last piece on the abuse that men inflict upon women on Super Bowl Sunday was a bullseye with me! In my full time job I verify that the numbers are correct for over 3.5 million tax returns. It is equivalent to interpreting votes on a punched paper ballot without the politicalization!

Also, my brother is a prominent meteorologist specializing in long range forecasting- he goes nuts on the global warming- ista's and the data they cite to back up their half cocked notions. The point is, figures can lie and liars can figure!

The stories you presented today are a classic example of how, with all the data collection we have today in our lives, we have less and less truth because of the ability of people to manipulate it for their own intent. With 800 news outlets, it gets put out to the public, becomes "truth" and then never gets straightened out when someone digs and proves that it was bent to serve the purpose of some ideologue! Matt Bastardi, Skillman, New Jersey

Note that a "tax guy" is considered a "qualified" endorser, but Charles E. Murray's wife/daughter, Brenda L. Murrary, a mining consultant, only makes the cut as a "citizen endorser" of the Manhattan Declaration. Note too that

Juliet, Viscountess Monckton of Brenchley, U.K.

...is also relegated to "citizen endorser". How she could possibly be more unqualified to express an opinion on climate change issues than our tax man, or her astoundingly clueless husband, for that matter, is beyond me.

So, are the folks behind the Manhattan Declaration both shady and sexist?

Update: When I wrangled my way onto the Oregon Petition (by lying about my qualifications), they were willing to send a fistful of extra petition cards to pass around to all my scientist buddies. Signing the The Manhattan Declaration is even easier, as it is all on-line. Just make up some shit about your scientific credentials (something about "de-glaciation rates" usually works) and join the team of experts against the AGW consensus.

DeSmog has more on this story here.

Deniers For Romney

Tim Ball and Tom Harris make their choice.

A Minor Etymological Point

While climate change realists have a nick-name for climate change skeptics--"Deniers"-- which neatly links their cause to those people who claim the Holocaust didn't happen, they did not until recently have a corresponding word for us, the vast majority of Humanity that understands the science and the need for action. But Lo!, a term has emerged: Global Warmers, or "Warmers" for short, as in:

The BBC reporter you cite is actually a devote warmer out to discredit our side...
(Tom Harris, January 12th)

...which is pretty damn lame, if you ask me. I feel like I'm being compared to a pair of mittens. Not insulting at all.

PS. If anyone is wondering where my earlier post went to, it was based on some unverified rumors re. climate change denier Timothy Ball that I decided eventually didn't warrent a full write-up. So naturally I hit the publish button by accident. The origonal quotation comes from here, though, about seven or eight comments down.