Wednesday, February 14, 2007

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),



Anonymous said...

Speak out and lose your government/university grant, job, membership at the faculty club, invites to seminars, trips, parties, dates with those hot lefties. Its called 'group think' and it has powerful influence. If I can find the story I'll post it about a senior scientist with the Oregon state gov't who was recently fired for being a 'denier'.

Anonymous said...

I still don't get why it's not a good idea to limit emmissions...

Anonymous said...

Everyone wants to limit emissions. No one wants to emit more than absolutely necessary to get the job done. Ask BCL, after one of his beer binges if he emits more than needed?

bigcitylib said...

So Tom Harris is speaking for all of these IPCC scientists who have presumably told him that they disagree with the consensus but are too afraid to speak out? Is that it?

(Also, blogger doesn't seem to spell-check the title line, and once a post has hit the aggregators, if you change the title, the link goes nowhere. Hence "concensus".

Dan said...


I'm sure that ExxonMobil could find you a nice new job, as much money as you need and lots of new friends. Universities have money, but not Exxon amounts of money.

Anonymous said...

Perfect example of 'group think' at work, you don't agree with us go work some place else. Exxon BTW can't call on the limitless resources of the public treasury or the bully pulpit of politicians.

Anonymous said...

You forgot to call him a denier, lunatic fringe 'scientist'. Oh, and neo-con puppet.

I agree it's a good idea to reduce emissions - emissions of mindless drivel from people who have no fundamental understanding of science who still 'feel' that we 'must do something' about climate change, as we're causing it.

Tell you what; water vapour and CO2 are the main emissions from people, which are both GHGs. Try to cut down on YOUR emissions by 30%.

Anonymous said...

Hey, ti-guy, what can I say?

"When in Rome . . . "

Anonymous said...

See, that's the thing-climate change haters don't have anything to say except that climate change is natural. I've never never heard anyone including St. Stephen come up with a plan to reduce any kind of emissions. The argument-which the deniers have now lost anyways-always runs around in circles with even less proof than the pro climate change camp and absolutely no plan for anything!

Anonymous said...

Paul, would mind trying to write a sentence that makes sense? All I got out of that was 'climate change haters', whatever the hell that is. Plus YOU'VE lost the argument! Because I said so!!

Saskboy said...

Doing my part to feed the anonymous troll:

"Tell you what; water vapour and CO2 are the main emissions from people, which are both GHGs. Try to cut down on YOUR emissions by 30%."

Driving an SUV isn't a natural part of anyone's day. And neither are a lot of other things many Canadians take for granted. They could reduce their net personal emissions by 30%, just not in the way the troll suggests by breathing/sweating less. The breathing less thing is funny when Rick Mercer does it for a sketch, but when the denial crowd tries to do humour to make a "point" it's pretty worn out and flat.

Anonymous said...


OK, this is the usual argument against climate change:

A)It's natural and happens in cycles; we're entering a warming trend
B)It has nothing to do with what man does and
C)'Didn't, like, David Suzuki say we were entering an ice age in the '70s? He was wrong therefore climate change is a lie'

When a meathead like G.Bush starts talking about the reality of climate change, that means the battle is lost for the anti-climate change camp.

Thanks for your time,

Anonymous said...

That is to say, people who deny climate change.

Anonymous said...

Nice challenge; too bad all you got was waffling from Harris. By the way, your link now leads to the index at FD; here is the thread:

Now that we are leaving the last few AGW deniers behind, we need to keep after the people crying that we're gonna roon the economy. Funny, I would have thought cutting wastefulness and increasing efficiency would be good for the economy. If it's not, then maybe it's the economy that needs to change.

Anonymous said...

Name even one.

"Speak out and lose your government/university grant, job, membership at the faculty club, invites to seminars, trips, parties, dates with those hot lefties."

Ti-Guy said...

Hey, ti-guy, what can I say?

"When in Rome . . . "

Yes, exactly. So, when you're in a cosmopolitan, sophisticated community such as Rome was at the time, it is best to try and refrain from sounding like a rustic, ignorant rube.

My God...I think I enlightened a troll. Yay me!

Anonymous said...

" . . . act like a Roman!"

I saw that half-truths, made-up stats, name-calling, and ridiculous ideas were the norm here, so I figured I'd play along.

Cosmopolitan, enlightened, sophisticated, yeah right. Self-centered, closed-minded, bigoted; I'd say.

And when in doubt, invoke Georgie Bush's name. SELF-EVIDENT proof that 'your' side is correct.

So, put your money where your mouth is - who here has reduced their 'carbon footprint' (I always giggle when I hear that term) by 30%? Come on, you've had at least a couple of years to do it. And be specific, give me numbers and dollars spent.

Oops geez, I forgot I've got a barrel of diesel fuel burning in the backyard - time to top it up!