Thursday, February 15, 2007

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 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?


Anonymous said...

Mike said...


You spelled that wrong, the real link is:

Hope that helps.

Ti-Guy said...

Frankly, if Mr. Harris is only interacting substantially at Free Dominion, then he's pretty much at the bottom of the barrel.

I look foward to a future post from you, BCL, entitled "Whither Tom Harris?" or "Tom Harris, We Hardly Knew Ye."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Well, Anon 2:13, you've proven that Harper's comment on the money sucking socialist scheme was correct.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The
inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

Under socialism, nobody wins. Except the elite leadership, as has been proven time and time again. The Liberal Party of Canada is where all those frustrated communists went, the neo-comms of today. Still trying to breathe life into a decayed corpse. 'Saving the planet' is just the latest excuse to redistribute wealth away from the competent, risktaking, productive segment of society and give it to the parasites.

Anonymous said...

mike, you're funny. Sitting on that big, luxury gas-pig motorcycle and you're slagging the company that provides the planet-killing fuel you put into it? Whoa, man, what hypocrisy! And having that motorcycle tells us all that you unfairly make more money than you NEED to have, so we should redistribute it, you know, in the name of social justice. Greedy capitalist b@stard!!

Anonymous said...

No, it is Girly-Man of Shmience.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you guys write a fascist view of global warming? Or is that already explicated at Free Dominion?

Anonymous said...

So, not 'everyone' has been to the Kyoto Kool-Aid punchbowl yet. FORCE them to drink it!!

Anonymous said...

You are talking about the Oregon petition, a piece of crap first produced in 1998 by notorious deniers. "Oooh, somebody typed up 19,000 names and put them on the internet; it must be troo."

Information on your fake petition:

Anonymous said...

waht the hell are you so wound up about holly, evolution, we will evolve and adapt to heat change what is the problem i'm all for palm trees and swimming all year round.

Anonymous said...

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified.

Anonymous said...

anon, aren't you just a dishonest little denier. Your quote "Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified..." ignored the context that this is the claim made on the petition website; wiki does not endorse that claim. It's probably a big fat lie.

Didn't you read the rest of the wiki article? Like the comment by a reporter:

"...These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?"

Tell you what; you find out who independently verified the names; prove that they were independent and that the method of verification was adequate.

Anonymous said...

prove it holly or shut up