Professor criticized for course denying climate change

Tom Harris dismisses 142 “corrections”

Photo by stuartpilbrow on Flickr

A group of scientists has released a report condemning a Carleton University professor who taught a course centred on the idea that climate change is not caused by human emissions.

Tom Harris taught Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective to mostly second-year non-science students between 2009 and 2011.

The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism says in its report entitled Climate Change Denial in the Classroom that Harris hosted speakers who argued that climate change is not caused by humans but hosted “no scientist speaking to the generally accepted consensus.”

The authors note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fingered green-house gas emissions as the “unequivocal” cause of global warming observed since the 1950s.

The new report, prepared in part by fellow Carleton biologist Christopher Hassall, offers 142 “corrections” to claims Harris made in his lectures and course materials over 12 lectures.

Harris told CBC News that he sees nothing in the 98-page report that warrants correction.

Some statements that Harris made include that “we would be arrogant to think that we understand and we control the climate of the earth,” and “the only constant about climate is change.”

The authors argue that “while the principle of academic freedom remains paramount, it is nonetheless imperative that university students be presented with accurate scientific information.”

The authors also point out that Harris is the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, which opposes replacement of traditional energy sources with renewables like wind and solar.

Carleton said the following regarding the course: “We review our courses to balance content with academic freedom and the rights of our instructors as outlined in their collective agreements.”

Meanwhile, a report out this week shows that the number of Americans who believe in human-caused climate change rose to 62 per cent in Dec. 2011—up from 58 per cent in Dec. 2010.




Browse

Professor criticized for course denying climate change

  1. Perhaps Tom Harris has aspirations to be a senator and thinks he needs to sing the “Harper Thugs Line”

  2. This is merely a modern day charge of heresy.

    • Really? Is there a trial? Life-changing consequences? No? Sounds more like a group of professionals registering a public opinion condemning what they see as a biased and politically motivated course that actively seeks to exclude debate.

  3. Good for him. The edifice is crumbling you Malthusian nut-jobs!

    Growing up my generation was subjected to anti-human propaganda like the Captain Planet episode that came mere inches away from openly praising Red China’s hideous one child policy. This show was itself sponsored by Ted Turner a billionaire with 5 kids who ranks amongst the world’s biggest land owners.

    The shills of global warming are some of the exact same frauds who pushed the phoney idea of global cooling in the early 70s. Though the chicken little scenario was at the exact opposite end of the thermal spectrum, the prescriptions were the same: reduce human population (especially in the third world), prevent industrial development (ie: let third world nations die), impose this through the establishment of super-national entities that can undermine private property rights, individual rights and national sovereignty.

    No surprise, many of the billionaire elitists who sponsored this were some of the same people (or descendants thereof) who pushed the monstrous and racist pseudo-science of eugenics in the earlier part of the 20th century, before that revelation of the Nazi holocaust made such things publicly unfashionable.

    Congratulations to this Prof, he’s a hero in my books!

    • i can’t tell from your comment: what are the specific problems with the analyses supporting human-driven climate change?

    • Well put. You hit on many of the important points of the topic. Don’t forget one of the most successful of the eugenicists, Rachael Carson who wrote the “bible of environmentalism”, the book Silent Spring that set the theme for false science presentation that could be used to accomplish a political agenda. It was single handedly able to kill many tens of millions of brown skinned people by denying them the chance to protect themselves from malaria, dengue fever and other mosquito born illnesses that killed the children by the millions each year. This was her objective and she accomplished it.

  4. The concept that humans are arogant enough to think that they control climate change is plausable. Mother Earth has had numerous changes throughout its life cycle, and to think that human activity is the key factor in climate change is challenging. Parts of northern Canada (Yukon)use to be tropical, but it no longer is. I once read that at one time in history there were so many volcanos errupting that the emmissions at the time supercede any damage than what our current society is providing. My point is, that we may be adding to the situation, but I also believe that it is also inevitiable that climate change was going to occur, with or without us.

  5. Although I definitely agree that this sort of abuse of academic freedom is comparable to teaching astrology, alchemy, or Creationism in our classrooms, I too oppose expecting to successfully replace most fossil-fuel fired power plants by wind and solar power. To ensure that energy is plentiful and reliable, the carbon-free option that works is nuclear power.

  6. Science truly is a religion eh? That this heresy could be allowed to stand for even a second is unthinkable. “The authors note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has fingered green-house gas emissions as the “unequivocal” cause of global warming observed since the 1950s.” a belief, one from which the scientific majority rules, one they want to shove down your throat and silence anyone who disagrees, sounds a lot like the dark ages. Where is the freedom of thought, the allowance that is at the centre of science that theory is not fact. Way to take an example from the Vatican.

  7. Tom Harris is right! Scientists who posit a theory and claim it to be fact are junk scientists. Who cares if 62% of Americans think climate change is a result of human activity, it is true that 62% can be wrong.

    What caused the thawing of the ice age? There is NOTHING WRONG with the environment! We are living longer and healthier lives – no animal or plant life is dying off inexplicably, which proves we do have a better grasp of the universe.

  8. The majority of humans thought the world was flat at one time too! Big deal 62% believe in the myth of man-made climate change. Biggest duping of humans ever. History will reflect this fact.

  9. “that university students be presented with accurate scientific information” is not the issue at stake here. The issue is that a professor taught a course which goes against the generally accepted consensus pushed by green and left-wing movements in universities which is that global warming is caused by human activity.
    Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to this specific matter and is something to be settled through scientific research. What is relevant is freedom of speech: teachers ought to be able to express their ideas and teach what they think is best without being harassed. Their ideas should then be countered with logic and proof and, if they are wrong they will lose credibility by their own doing, without any outside intervention.

    • No, the issue is that someone taught a course which specifically excluded the consensus opinion of the scientific community, and hijacked the legitimacy of the University system itself to put forward his fringe position.

      If he had been running a “UFOlogy” course nobody would blink at him being roundly condemned by the larger community for presenting his beliefs as scientific fact.

      Denial of anthropogenic climate change is primarily pushed by the oil industry and folks like the Koch brothers in the USA.

  10. Tom Harris is wrong. He was teaching blatantly falsehoods maybe because he believes, maybe because he’s paid by the American Heartland Institute to lie about climate change. We may never know the answers to that question.

    Milankovich cycles caused the thawing of the ice age. It’s a series of long term cycles (21,000 years – 41,000 years) that affect the Earth’s climate.

    Global warming is, at it’s heart, a simple scientific theory. We are releasing 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Carbon dioxide allows light to pass through it, but traps energy in the thermal infrared range. It’s simple, put more heat trapping gases in the atmosphere and we will trap more heat. The reason no one can prove it wrong is because it’s simple and obviously true.

    • There is nothing simple about our climate. And by saying that it’s simple and obviously true, you’re using the same closed mindedness that Religions have been trying to impose on people. Fact of the matter is, we’ll never truly know if the planetary warming we are currently going through is man made. Why you ask? Because it’s strictly speculation.

  11. Shame on Mclean’s………. misrepresentation is the shabbiest form of yellow jounalism. The man is questioning human influence on climate change, and is not “denying climate change”.

    Got it now……….. idiots?

    And, just in case you should really be interested in ‘facts’, ‘truths’, and the like, realize that climate change is the ‘norm’ and that this has been the case since long before humans ever made the scene!. Lo though this will be difficult for your blinkered ‘Arts 1′ mindsets to fathom, “…..it’s all about the Sun………… Stupid”.

    A very cursory review of historical variations in planet-wide temperatures and weather patterns shows an absolute lock-in correlation with solar activity.

    So, grow-up little boys, science is defined as ‘knowledge’, and you evidently don’t have very much.

  12. I don’t believe we have even begun to tally the true consequences of human interactions with our planet’s biosphere. A combination of life experience since I became aware of the environment cirque 1960, some education in the environmental field (a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing), 27 years as a soaring pilot, has put me on the side of Micheal Crichton but with the opposite resultant conclusion. I know humans always have a tendency to think in linear ways, therefore we haven’t, imo with respect, come close to understanding the subtle nuances involved in our ecosystem’s homeostasis across the spectrum (we don’t even understand the full spectrum yet). The results of our observations about our impact on the environment in general scare me. Global dimming, acidification of the oceans, Global warming, species loss rates, methane increases and much more of which I am personally unaware, force me to conclude that complacency and denial are contra indicated at this point in our development. I disagree with the university’s censure of the alternative perspective to some extent but also wonder why the prof is unwilling to present a more balance view of these concepts.

  13. This reply is too all you no good idiots out there…… seriously what are you in 3 grade??? this is what they teach the special students … the fact is pple the evidence is there to show that there is now 300% times more CO2 in the atmos than there was 500 yrs ago, and if your so ignorant to think that that big F450 your driving is not affecting your environemt, The fact is most americans are so uneducated the do not know their butts from their elbow unless someone else tells them… and by the way the reason why yukon USED to be tropical cause the world was sitting on a different axis…. it’s very evident you have no education… i suppose your probly one of the pple who think we have to put the economy before the planet… so sad how people know so little and act like experts!

    • Jeff, reading your diatribe reminded me of the old saying, “it’s better to keep your mouth shut and have others think you might be a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt”.

      “300% times more”??? I assume you meant to say “300% as much” or “3 times more”, both of which would have been totally wrong. If such had been true then there would be no life on Earth since no plant life could have survived such low levels of CO2.

    • Ooouche Man!
      Did you know that Constantine embraced Christianity when nearly half the Roman army succumbed to Malaria? It was global warm by gumm! Damned all those campfires………….. Or was it Vesuvius, horse-gas or fumes from an over-heated senate. “Believe” what you will! Blessed are those who have ‘faith’ and ‘believe’.

      Amen

  14. Hmmm, of course there is no “consensus” about humans being responsible for changes in global climate, it is not “generally accepted”, and folks peddling it are mostly politicians and “activists”, not bona fide scientists.
    Bravo professor Harris.

  15. There has been no global warming since 1998. Therefore the “climate change” zealots are out to lunch. Harris has the integrity to speak the truth in the face of these Deep Green extremist bigots. Let us try not to over-pollute our world, of course, but the facts are that we humans are not nearly as influential in controlling the climate as we would like to think we are. Usually the Deep Green and climate-change fanatics, including Global Warm-mongers, have a hidden agenda of hating the United States and Canada, for-profit-business, The West generally, the Family (which they see as a master-slave construct) and tend to be pro-Iran, pro-Saudi Arabia, pro-abortion, and generally, in my opinion, quite out to lunch. Speak truth to power! Kudos to Harris! Fight the fanatics!

  16. It is about time that someone stands up and tells the truth instead of following the Global propoganda which is designed to make some companies very rich. The cry of “The sky is falling” has been going on since the 50′s and has always proven false. If anyone were to take a minute and realize the size of the earth compared to the little human population that exists, you would see that the theory (conspiracy) of humans causing Global Warming is crap. In Canada, we have problem with bias media reporting, except the Sun network which is not afraid of talking about subjects that are taboo to the leftist media in this country.

  17. Regardless of the constant state of change in climate change, as a race we are obligated to minimize our effect on this planet which sustains us. There is absolutely no doubt that we are adversely affecting our environment and climate. You cannot throw a rock into a pond and not make waves. Period. People buy RRSP’s to plan for their financial future yet fail to comprehend the absolute need to invest in our future survival as we continue to deplete and poison our world. That is simply undeniably naive and irresponsible planning for our generation and those to come.

  18. I hear from the good folks at Carleton, that next year Prof Harris will be teaching a course on the flatness of earth.

  19. I can’t believe it… some people believe that an anonymous, peer-reviewed international group of reknowned University researchers studying Climate Change haven’t thought of things like “climate always changes” and the Ice Age when looking at and examining their results?

    It’s even funnier that these same people who can’t imagine anonymous/peer-reviewed science as being unbiased will blindly believe text from a book of stories, translated from several languages, collected from various uncorroborated and unreliable sources, put together by a publishing company, and sold for money is somehow taken as “gospel”.

  20. The IPPC does not say the it is “unequivocal” that humans are the main cause of climate change. They say it is “very likely” which is not a scientific term but a clever way to disguise the fact that they are making a judgement rather than stating a proven scientific fact.
    Even if the was an overwhelming consensus, which there is not, it would be perfectly proper for a scientist to take the opposing view on such a complex and controversial subject.
    There are many reasons to question human caused climate change, they are presented in my book “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout”, available on Amazon.ca and as an electronic version on Amazon.com.

  21. Climate change has been perceived by many as a large fundamental societal problem. It might as well be. However, we do not know for certain. The research on climate change is not complete as of yet, so it is irresponsible to outright deny it as a social problem and also it is irresponsible to accept it as a social problem. It is fundamental to the advancement of knowledge(correct)to let both sides exist. The situation is broken down way too extreme of climate change activist or climate change denier.

    Harris should not be condemned for his actions. Harris is correct to challenge the common view of CO2 climate change (not saying he what he teaches is the truth). Whether he is wrong or right does not matter. He is getting his students to question the theories presented. If the argument he presents is a strong one it should be let in to the selection of courses. Education is not just about absorbing information as truth, it is about questioning information. Questioning drives innovation. Students should therefore be given the choice to take course taught by Harris in order to bring discourse and debate to an unsettled matter.

  22. acceptance of so called scientific “fact” is reasonable only when any and all contrary view points and interpretations are allowed. people can then make their own minds up. Climate change is sufficiently complex to allow for a myriad of differing cause and effect models. Although i accept human influence is an appreciable factor in the equation of climate change the truth has nothing to fear from alternative or contrary views. I would rather suffer a flat earth society then have information pre-digested and filtered by a majority that is so convinced of their validity that they silence a thorn in their climate models side, Whatever doesnt convince me still leads me closer to a reasonably arrived at “truth”

  23. I must have stumbled upon the propaganda network. I thought they proved already that Al Gore was pretty much an Idiot and all those who followed his lame hypothesis.

  24. What’s the harm in theorizing anyway? Science isn’t exact, and never was. Science is theory until proved, and that’s where science has always begun and will continue to do so. Also, a lot of scientific ‘facts’ have been disproved through the centuries.

    A little Learning is a dang’rous Thing;
    Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring:
    There shallow Draughts intoxicate the Brain,
    And drinking largely sobers us again.

    Alexander Pope, “Essay on Criticism”. 1711

  25. It used to be taught that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. And that the Earth was flat. If you tried to say otherwise you’d be placing your life at risk.

  26. I took this course last year with Prof. Harris. The headline provided here is completely false. He does NOT deny Climate Change, nor does he outright believe that humans have no influence on the planet. However, he emphasizes that Climate Science, is not as simple as most people reduce it to these days. Physics, Chemistry, and Biology are extremely complex sciences, and since Climate science involves aspects of all three, how can everything point to CO2 alone? He indicated other sources that affect the Earth’s temperature, for example: that big menacing yellow thing in the sky.

    I have saved EVERY ONE of his lectures in PDF form, so I can reference them as often as I’d like. When I discovered this article, I reviewed the material to see if there was any merit to what Josh Dehaas was saying. As I predicted, Tom Harris’ words and beliefs were taken out of context, or no effort was put forth by Dehaas to actually contact Harris directly to fully understand his teachings.

    Oh, and as a side note, Tom Harris was NOT the one who formed the course; he took over teaching it from Professor Tim Patterson, who, incidentally, was appointed chairman of the International Climate Science Coalition in 2008. He was even invited to speak to the Harper government a few years back to present his research which was taken with respect and interest. (Lecture can be found online).

    I realize that it might be difficult to see a different point of view on the topic of Climate Change (including its causes) at this point. But if an expert in their field has presented a counter argument, it should at least be examined with an open mind to see if there is any merit to it and not just thrown aside, criticized, or ignored. Do your research. Contact Tom Harris! He is quite willing to have a civilized debate. But don’t just throw him under the bus and jeopardize his career without giving him a chance to clarify or defend himself.

  27. I’m a senior, have read abit on this topic. Ice core records dating back 20,000 years is a record of CO2 for a brief period of time. This record from various global locations proves change has happened before.
    The fossil record claims mankind has been here for 2 million+ years. So its not extinction, possibly an adjustment when CO2 hits the human critical level.
    Now factor in the methane release potential predicted because of a warming earth from sun/man.
    Most of us diploma free folks can still count.

  28. Center for Inquire Canada / Commitment for Advancement of Scientific Skepticism?

    I just wonder who financed that fancy 98 page report. Apparently the radical AGW-religion has many apostles in high places to stop scientific skepticism. This report is a cheap shot accusing someone of the identical tactics they use themselves. Could we get some more peer reviews on this pseudo-science, frivolous rant?

    Thesis and Antithesis is the scientific approach to get to the truth, not some infantile climate models that are being driven by the need to advance social engineering and perceived global policy needs. Fear-mongering and brain-washing no longer cut it. Dooms day predictions made for year 2112 by AGW-charlatans are easy to make. Who will be around in 100 years to proof them wrong?

    AWG is just the perfect hoax! Follow the money and the power to find the truth. Cut all public funding for those who think they can get fat by claiming that they will control the climate for our good. They are not scientists, they are not dreamers but they are ruthless tyrants.

  29. wow

    I seldom look at the comments of news articles, but WOW.
    There really are a lot of nutters out there.

    Try to grasp this
    You are using your computer
    You are using the internet
    You are using electrical power
    and you use it to rant and deny science.
    Can you say “physics”, “mathematics” ?
    unbelievable.
    I guess you should just grab your bibles and bury your heads in the tar sands, apparently the environment is perfect and anyone who suggest otherwise is an “activist”. Whatever that means.
    A few of you conservatives might want to actually check your facts, but then that would take you away from denying climate change.

  30. @Jeff, before you start taking shots at how educated people are you might want to do some editing of your comment. “and if your so ignorant”, how about “if you’re so ignorant”. You see Jeff, you’re is a contraction of you are. It’s not possessive like “your”. “the do not know”, how about “they do not know”. Yukon is a place and should have an uppercase Y. Cause is not the same as “because”. ” i suppose your probly”, again, that’s “you’re” not “your”. Actually Jeff, why don’t you re-write the entire thing. You’re (note that’s you’re not your) the last person who should be criticizing the intelligence of others.

  31. Climate change is real alright. It always is changing. I believe it is completely caused by earths relationship with the sun and solar activity. Jeff, you seem to be quite a knowledgeable expert about the subject. It’s too bad you come across as a loud mouth ass. You have no credibilty in my books. Bravo for to good professor. We need more people like him to stand up to the left wing nut job bullies that are always trying to force there beliefs on everyone else.

  32. I’d be nice if the article pointed out the expertise of these scientists but why let facts get in the way when you can smear the reputation of a real scientist whom you don’t like what he’s saying (but its OK because you’re on the side of saving the planet, right?). I am sure that these activist biologists know nothing of climate and are misrepresenting Professor Harris’s views. This should be obvious to any real journalist if they researched both sides. Harris doesn’t deny climate change, he simply points out that the so called indisputable evidence that it is solely due to humans is not so settled and that the arguments made by the proponents of man-made climate change are full of holes. The real message of these clown “scientists” is that you can teach anything you want as long as “we agree with it”, otherwise you are a heretic and must desist. The fact that they would go after this professor for teaching something they don’t like makes them activists not scientists. Sounds like an inquisition rather than a defense of science “facts”. I’m glad that these guys weren’t around when people thought the world was flat. Read about what the church did to Galileo and one would see some similarities.

    @Jeff: You’re the idiot here. The level around 500 years ago was about 280 ppm. Its now close to 400 ppm. Maybe my university math courses were old school but even the new school math wouldn’t put the rise at 300%. The warming from the midst of the little ice age at that time would have contributed to some of the rise simply from the CO2 coming out the oceans (colder water stores more C02, when it warms some comes out of solution). The rest is very probably from the F450 that you love so much. Human beings cause a lot of destruction to this planet but the plant food coming out of that F450′s exhaust is certainly one of the least of our worries. And this isn’t a battle between the economy and the planet. If your intellect matched your own opinion of it you’d realize that there’s a direct correlation between standard of living (wealth) and the quality of the environment. Look around the world, the focus of the poor is survival, not keeping mother nature healthy.

  33. ya, I love “science” that tells me what the temp of the earth was 300 million years ago and how that compares to today.

    look, we know the temp today, and we know it back, what, 150 years? and the earth is billions of years old (according to science) so how much do they know?

    comparatively – nothing

    oh and 50 years ago they were saying we should dump CO2 into the atmosphere in order to stimulate warming because it was getting colder and we were going into an ice age…. sheesh…

  34. IF you are Dumb enough to believe that Humans are responsible for climate change, I just have one suggestion for you:

    Go Ask your local Dinosaur!!!

  35. We are releasing 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. No we aren’t. Canadians release less than 2% of that number. CO2 does not remain in the atmosphere. It is absorbed by plants and animals. It is absorbed by the oceans and lakes.

    The Sun has hot and cold cycles that can be mapped and used in the warming models. Why isn’t the Sun’s influence used in the models?

    The real problem is no one has proven it’s right.

  36. DO NOT QUESTION! DO AS YOU ARE TOLD. BELIEVE!
    To prove or disprove the impossible was a lab coat consultant’s wet dream come true.
    Climate change believers were obligated to at least ACT like it was going to be a real climate crisis because your saintly scientists sure didn’t act like it was.
    Scientific exaggeration trumped scientific consensus leaving us with no crisis what so ever because if it truly were a crisis, the hundreds of thousands of scientists would have acted like it was a crisis in order to save their families as well. We had dozens of climate change protesters in the streets while countless thousands of people in the global scientific community casually dished out warning of catastrophic climate crisis.
    Yes pollution is real, but the threats of a coming CO2 climate crisis were death threats to billions of children and thankfully, a tragic exaggeration. NOTHING besides a comet hit could have been worse than the climate crisis that was promised. Avoiding a climate crisis for any reason was good news for real planet lovers and the former believer majority we see now.

  37. Show me a solution that scolds the oil companies for witholding the rights to renewable energy and ill belive it. Blame it on the people and tax us as a solution and im gona call BULLSHIT.

    good for this profesor. Its scary when people can be rallied together and used to fuck their own well being. Thank god i live in canada. We wont have to worry about this kinda bs for awhile.

    Man made global warming = religion of the 21st century… in both cases if you dont “believe” you burn!!! LOL give me a break.

  38. Harris is really lucky as the mobs used to burn heretics at the stake. These days, pointing out that the science doesn’t support the theory that mankind’s emissions cause changes in the climate is challenging the dogma of the high priests of environmentalism.

    Ironic isn’t it that it’s the presence of sufficient CO2 in the atmosphere that allows the greening of the planet, and a lack of sufficient CO2 will result in the desertification of the globe.

    Clearly to understand environmentalists one has to realize that the root word is “mental”.

  39. There seems to be an inordinate amout of idiots posting their support of the moronic ‘professor’ from Carleton. I wonder how easy it is to create a fake post on Mcleans…

  40. Hmmm, there’s no consensus. And even if there is, it’s just a bunch of scientists acting like the Vatican. Billionaire elitists are conspiring with universities to teach lies that are comparable to saying the earth is flat. Contrarian views that lack scientific support should still be taught in a science department in the name of “academic freedom.”

    I am really very impressed with the well-conceived arguments of many of the commenters here. It’s clear that you are confident enough in your beliefs to skip doing any independent research on the topic. For everyone else, here is an informative entry on the instructor, Mr. Tom Harris, who has had a long career as a lobbyist for the energy sector while hiding behind various astroturf wingnut welfare organizations such as ICSC and NRSP:
    http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_(Canadian_engineer/PR_specialist).

    Kudos to the Carelton Earth Science department for selecting such a well qualified sessional instructor!

  41. Scientific exaggeration trumped scientific consensus.
    As Liberals we must fulfill our duty in society to rebel, doubt, and question and challenge all authority, especially authorities that condemn billions of helpless children to CO2 demise. Our chanting and grunting of; “The scientists do not lie.” made goose-stepping, bible thumping neocons out of all of us. Meanwhile, the entire WORLD of SCIENCE and the UN had allowed bank funded and corporate run CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of INSANE attempts at climate CONTROL. This was progressive, to condemn our children to the greenhouse gas ovens so flippantly, mealy on “THEY SAY” headlines? Climate change crisis wasn’t little kid planting trees. It was the promise of a coming hell of a climate crisis from Human CO2 and thankfully a tragic exaggeration for if it were true; it would have been the world of science marching in the streets. Name something worse than a climate crisis besides nuclear war and comet hits. Preserve, protect and respect the planet with love, not with the spear of CO2 fear stuck in my kid’s back by climate cowards. If you still think my kid is doomed, remember you wouldn’t be saying it if there were real legal consequences for these threats. Climate change crisis was a consultant’s wet dream and real planet lovers are happy any crisis was avoided for whatever reason. The rest of you car accident rubber neckers wanted this misery to have been true.

  42. Name something worse than a climate crisis besides nuclear war or a comet hit. Then consider this; if there were legal consequences for you climate change believers condemning my kids, you wouldn’t be shooting your mouths off like this still. And at least ACT like it’s a crisis will ya, and march with your THE END IS NEAR signs. Climate change made goose stepping, fear mongering, bible thumping neocons out of all of us.

  43. Please see the ICSC home page to learn what this story did NOT tell you about this situation.

    Sincerely,

    Tom Harris
    Executive Director
    International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
    Ottawa, Canada

  44. This CASS group and their sycophant left wing journalists attacking Tom Harris are acting like a group dredged out of the Inquisition era, even though to belong to the group you currently must be a practicing atheist and support secularism. I have given a course as a guest prof in the past to 4th year engineering students. My course material and presentations were evaluated by the students and an accreditation committee, which I welcomed. I certainly did not have to cope with a group in turmoil-visit their web site and blogs – and self-appointed evaluators with very dubious credentials.

    Don Farley, Gatineau, Quebec

  45. Climate science is the only science that insists the science is settled and all other theories are to be demonized. Maybe anthropogenic contribution is significant but there certainly is no evidence for it despite some people’s gut feeling that driving big trucks must somehow be evil. Al Gore is a politician, David Suzuki is a geneticist, and the UN is a corrupt political organization. You don’t have to be an environmental scientist (I am) to recognize junk science.

  46. I fully support the need for healthy debate in universities and would even agree that “we would be arrogant to think that we understand and we control the climate of the earth”.

    However, I am shocked to learn that there is actually a coalition that “opposes replacement of traditional energy sources with renewables like wind and solar.” How short-sighted is that? Maybe they believe in the Mayan prophecy that we will all die at the end of this year. That’s the only reason I can come up with to oppose something that will be needed by future generations: even if we were to mine the last drop of oil/lump of coal/cubic foot of natural gas from the planet, fossil fuels are a finite resource and they will eventually run out.

  47. Good for Harris if he can back up his ideas.

    Science is not decided by consensus, democratic vote, or authorities (at least since the Middle Ages).

  48. I suggest that everyone who is interested in this read the list of 142 claims and supposed “corrections” in the report. While I certainly don’t agree with every claim that Harris makes in his class, a lot of the alleged “responses” to the claims listed in the report don’t respond to the claims at all and they certainly don’t show all of them to be clearly false. The first four claims and responses are good examples of this. There are so many non sequiturs in there that it is hard to believe.

    Just to give an example of what I mean, In claim 1, Harris essentially states that many scientists are unsure of how dramatically the climate will change and suggests that most think the reality lies somewhere between “the climate isn’t changing at all” and “we’re in extremely serious trouble”. The response then talks about how the overwhelming majority of scientists believe there is an anthropogenic influence on climate and how there is a consensus that climate is warming. Fine and good, but what does this have to do with the claim that this is supposed to be a response to? Harris himself agrees that the climate is warming and that this is partially due to anthropogenic causes. Do the writers of this report seriously think they have said anything to show that they claim they are responding to is false?

    I won’t go into a more detailed critique of the report here because anyone who has a passing familiarity with logic will be able to see the problems. But before anyone paints the writers of this report as saviours of science and logic, you should really take a look at the level of reasoning that is present there.

  49. What a shame to have a mediocre teacher at best on the payroll of a reputable university and teaching these young people who do not know what is a fact and what is garbage. What goes in as garbage, goes out as garbage.

Sign in to comment.