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.

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?

OHMYGAWD! Deniers Make Sense!

When the NRSP (The Natural Resources Stewardship Project), a front group for the oil-patch designed to spread confusion over the issue of Global warming, launched its "Science AuditCentre" in April, I have to admit I rolled my eyes until they hurt. And reading Uber denier Tim Ball claim that

Tax dollars must not be squandered on feel-good 'green' plans that have little basis in real science. This approach only hurts the economy by diverting tax dollars away from important environmental issues where attention is needed.

...was almost enough to induce vomiting.

However, like a stopped clock that is nevertheless right twice a day, I find that their recent letter to John Baird, questioning his decision to ban incandescent bulbs (link to it from here), makes a certain amount of sense:

Earlier today, I sent you an e-mail, a copy of which is attached to this cover letter. I am forwarding that communication to you today via courier to ensure that it is not lost in the large volume of e-mail submissions you undoubtedly receive.

As part of our newly launched "Science Audit Centre" campaign, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project certainly look forward to hearing back from you concerning the process that was employed to come to the decision to ban incandescent light bulbs. As explained in my e-mail, NRSP believes that a major government intervention into the lives of Canadians such as that represented by the incandescent light bulb ban should have a clear and demonstrable environmental benefit; otherwise it is not worth the financial cost and inconvenience. That is why we would like to learn about the full life cycle assessment process that was employed in this case.

In principle I favour such a ban, and in practice have replaced about half my home lighting with compact fluorescents. However, the swiftness with which so many governments have embraced the move away from incandescent bulbs reminds me too much of the move to replace gasoline with Ethanol, which for example the Bush administration has embraced as part of its own green thinking, even though the net savings in emissions is minimal to non-existant once life-cycle costs have been taken into consideration. So I too would like to see an analysis of the GHG emissions involved in producing CFs. And I would be surprised, no shocked, if anything like this was done when Mr. Baird was formulating his plan.

Furthermore, since compacts do contain a (tiny) amount of mercury, there are disposal issues to look at which are nowhere considered in the government's plan. And while some of the outlets selling compacts apparently have functioning take-back plans, my local hardware store is telling people to pitch the dead ones into the trash.