Tribe Technologies
Trending >

No, climate change believers aren’t using "duckspeak"

duckspeak

duckspeakCan a newspaper chain jump the shark?

This past Friday, Canada’s Postmedia published a column in its Toronto Sun by climate change denier Tom Harris.

Not a surprise in itself, since Harris, the voice for International Climate Science Coalition, gets featured in the Sun dailies from time to time, but notable all the same for its extra-sad and slightly ridiculous attempt to keep flagging interest in a debate that lost all remnants of reasonable traction years ago.

Harris writes of “duckspeak,” that phrase from George Orwell’s 1984 used to represent a person’s mindless repeating back of the terms and logic of a given ideology. Here is Winston Smith in observation of a man chatting at the table next to him, unquestioningly caught up in Big Brother’s totalitarian dogma: “The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was a noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck…”

Harris accuses Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of duckspeak when the latter states that “climate change is real” and United States President Barack Obama of the same for calling greenhouse gases “carbon pollution.”

In their attempts at scraping together a few lifeless and ill-fitting ideas to support a long-ago rejected conclusion these writers -and by extension the media platforms they’re contributing to- are becoming weirder and sadder by the day.

Why, you may ask, should it be deemed the parroting of propaganda to state these things? Harris says, “What they are almost always discussing is carbon dioxide (CO 2). But were they to call it that, most people would be unconcerned, remembering from grade school that CO 2  is a trace gas essential for plant photosynthesis.

This is silly.

Who in this day and age doesn’t understand that carbon pollution refers to carbon dioxide?

Harris then says that the phrase “97 per cent of experts agree” effectively kills debate through its definitiveness and furthermore commits the logical fallacy of appealing to authority and consensus.
More silliness. An appeal to authority is only faulty if the experts in question are not to be trusted. “I don’t need bypass surgery because my mechanic told me so,” is an improper appeal to authority, but who doesn’t listen when almost every scientist on the planet says that climate change is real and human-caused?

Some will say that giving column space to the nonsensically combative is what the Sun dailies are all about, while others will want to condemn as irresponsible the very idea of providing a platform for Harris’ type of agenda.

The problem is not limited to Canada’s Sun papers, as media outlets around the world still like to trot out climate change deniers on a regular basis. But in their attempts at scraping together a few lifeless and ill-fitting ideas to support a long-ago rejected conclusion these writers -and by extension the media platforms they’re contributing to- are becoming weirder and sadder by the day, their performances coming across as surreal, almost hard to watch without flinching in embarrassment.

Which is opposite to their intended effect, of course.

Like everyone else, publishers want to look cool. And so they give space to contrarian viewpoints not just to show two sides of a story but to align themselves with the outsider, with the one who can tell us the real truth hidden by the mainstream viewpoint -the one with the straight goods instead of the duckspeak.

And we get it. Being a rebel is cool. Fonzie’s leather jacket was cool. But paired up with a set of waterskis and towed behind a boat? Well, we almost want to look the other way.

More from Cantech Letter

About The Author /

Jayson is a writer, researcher and educator with a PhD in political philosophy from the University of Ottawa. His interests range from bioethics and innovations in the health sciences to governance, social justice and the history of ideas.
insta twitter facebook

Comment

  1. What an embarrassment for the U of Ottawa to have one of their PhD graduate write such a ridiculous piece. Would you call U of O Earth Sciences professor Ian Clark (one of our top advisers) a “climate change denier” too since he dares disagree with you, a PhD in political philosophy, on the primary causes of climate change? Geez.

  2. Hey, Jayson! What is a climate-change denier, exactly? Someone who denies that climate changes? Give us an answer and show your work. I think you’re confusing the issue by pretending that climate change is something that normally doesn’t occur.

  3. I’m guessing this writer thinks the Toronto Star is credible lol. It’s silly to say the science is settled and try to shut down dissention by calling people ‘deniers’.

  4. Jayson MacLean, thank you for giving us a perfect example of duckspeak. Your point is that “climate scientists” are to be absolutely believed and that anyone who takes issue with the theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming is to be silenced or eliminated as they used to do to witches. The supreme arrogance of it all!
    The study of global climate over geological timeframes sacrifices almost all of its accuracy to creatively extrapolate planet-changing events from rock and ice footprints. It can estimate things like ice ages, meteor strikes, and other planet-changing events. It has low accuracy, but spans a long period of time.
    We now have 46 years of pretty accurate satellite data and are looking for trends like easter eggs. Our 46 years of video begins to make a very small assumption (standard deviation) on each piece of boatloads of data. They’ve also included analysis of sea levels, CO2, ice cap depth, and millions of other earth observations, trying to establish trends. The elimination of variables is a nightmare, and their chance of error compounds exponentially with each tiny assumption. It’s this amplification of tiny variables, over and over, which makes a weather model deteriorate after 3 days. But we are trying to forecast 100 years hence!
    After ALL of this effort and analysis, scientists have generally agreed that the average earth temperature has in all likelihood increased just a little bit in the blink of an eye that is human history. They have also agreed that C02 levels have increased somewhat within the same period. It has taken a generation’s worth of measurement and effort, in an age where humans have been EXISTING to notice these two trends, with chances of error about +or- 50%. This is a very important point. In a time where we have a 46 year videotape from space, every minute of every moving cloud since the cold war, we have a huge standard deviation on both trends, because of the assumptions.. It’s global variables.
    This is where the science stops and the bullshit starts. We are expected to believe that the designers of climate models have so brilliantly captured the data and magnificently developed the assumptions and the computer equations that they can determine not just correlation but also causation and make accurate predictions out a century. The only problem being that not a single one of the predictions made on the basis of the climate models has turned out to be accurate. Every single alarmist prediction – ocean levels, disappearance of ice, extreme weather, average global temperatures, etc. – has proven wrong.
    Then we layer onto the modelling claims the parade of politicians (and scientists wanting billions in more research money) that, in order to deal with the forthcoming catastrophe, we must all throw aside our entire planetary energy system and instead invest in new technologies that either have not been proven yet or are extraordinarily expensive. The Water, Wind and Sunshine (WWS) analysis that is the basis for the NDP Leap Manifesto and other alarmist programs estimates that the world will have to spend $100 trillion by 2050 on “green” energy. If one analyzes the measures they are recommending, one quickly sees that $100 trillion is a significant under-estimate of the cost. Oh, and by the way, we are to shut down all the energy intensive industries like oil and gas, refining, mining, auto manufacturing, cement, etc. The 1.6 billion people on the planet who now live without electricity and must use wood or dried animal dung for daily energy needs will just have to suck it up, because the cheap and available fossil fuels will just not be allowed. We must all just believe and do what the “climate scientists” tell us.
    There is a large, growing, and well-informed opposition to this nonsense. Tom Harris and others will speak and be heard.

  5. If that is Dr. Clark’s stance, then yes. He is a denier. Sorry if that hurts. The only ridiculous article is yours in The Sun. As some one who knows the science (I know you do) the fact you can even sleep at night is amazing.

  6. I think you’re being a silly troll, who has nothing of substance to post.

  7. That’s a long screed to admit you know nothing about climate science. Why not read some actual science articles?

  8. I was rather expecting the opinion piece to actual offer a rebuttal of Harris’ piece. Instead, McClean offers just two measly examples, can barely rebut them, and then uses typical slurs.
    BTW, if one is relying on the made up 97% consensus, one is engaged in politics, not science, hence, duckspeak.

  9. DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since its creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dare oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia ,Sourcewatch or Skeptical science ,run by John Cook a cartoonist, since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they attack in respected news sources. So who is James Hoggan? He’s a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the “right” public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation. They include the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change fake science and billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds.

  10. Tell me, Guest2000, by which empirical methods you determined that I know nothing about science. Explain to me, further, to which “science” you are referring.

  11. *Even Occupy no longer mentions CO2 in it’s list of demands because they know 35 more years of denial is certain and unstoppable now.
    Will science ever finally agree their CO2 hell is as real as they agree smoking causes cancer before it’s too late to say it?
    Are they also only 99% sure the planet isn’t flat?
    What is stopping another 35 years of climate action delay and debate?

  12. This is all completely irrelevant to the conversation at hand unless you can show me one thing the article said about Ian Clark that isn’t true.

  13. Ian Clark, one of Tom’s Hearland Institute buddies. In fact, that’s the very same Institute that the Tobacco companies used to cast doubt on the science so they could prolong their profits and kill people with their cancer causing tobacco.
    They have been lying about science for the right wing ever since epidemiology blew the whistle on tobacco.

  14. Getting irrelevant Information/ smears from crooks is
    relevant to ANY conversation. And trying to smear scientists while extoling the virtues of fraudsters likes of Al Gore and David S. and the entire Green Alarmists movement is proof of a corrupt mind.

  15. . What is a climate denier? Most climate skeptics just as Mr. Harris don’t deny climate change is occurring, the only question is what is causing climate change now and what caused it in the past? If anything climate realists and skeptics are more likely to acknowledge the past changes over the past two thousands years whereas there are alarmists who will deny the reality of past changes over a similar period. So who are the science denier? Considering that most alarmists can’t fully explain climate change in the past, including the past 10,000 years when CO2 levels were less than today, their own science has holes in it. One can find thousands of articles over the past two decades showing the role of natural variability role in climate change now and in the past leaves one to answer question if there are thousands of studies that contradict or challenges the main thesis that humans are the main reason for the present climate change, then how can one even say the science is settle? How many thousands of studies does it take to say at least we still have a debate? The use of world denier shows the author is purposefully in his response lying about Mr. Harris and others position since no one denies climate change.

  16. Jayson McLean’s screed is a perfect example of how the AGW clan is completely incapable of critiquing science. Clearly he has no concept of the incredible complexity involved in understanding climate, let alone its changing.
    But since he mentions the famous “97% consensus”, perhaps he would be so kind as to give us the actual list, as well as the 3% who disagreed?
    Crickets

  17. Tom Harris should tell us about his own experience in academia, at Carleton University. It’s been a while since we last heard of that minor scandal but I’m sure Tom recalls every detail of how and when he got exposed.

  18. We’ve had thirty years to see if the predictions of the climate alarmists were real. Guess what? every one has proven false. Temperatures all but stopped rising almost two decades ago, when man’s CO2 emissions were higher than ever, ocean acidity is within historical limits, seal level rise is continuing at the same rate as it has since we’ve been measuring it, major storms are getting less frequent less severe, and precipitation has n0ot changed for 150 years.
    Yet the alarmists think they can predict temperature rise in a century to point of a degree.
    How long before folks wise up to the fact that they are being lied to? Do your own research, people – once you find one definite lie, start to wonder if anything else they say is truth.

  19. Right you are, but I see you have a silly troll who has nothing of substance to post, following you.
    But don’e worry, he’s just a climate change denier.
    He denies that climate change is normal!
    CO2 is the greatest blessing we could possibly receive. We need as much as we can produce, without polluting in the process.
    Gallilao 6 days ago
    If one compares CO2 levels, with the lives and extinction of the Dinosaurs, one will notice that the Dinosaurs died out at the same time that CO2 hit bottom, at about where it is today, after starting out at about 2500 ppm, about 6 or 7 times higher. There is no question that CO2 levels were many times higher back then, than they are today and that not only were the Dinosaurs big, everything was big! The whole ecosystem was more robust, which makes survival a lot easier, for all living things.
    But that is the way the natural system works. The pendulum swings from one extreme to another. When the CO2 was high, the plants grew to be huge. The ancestor of the garden variety fern were 30 meters tall but the ecosystem over responded and started taking out too much CO2, at which point the plants were causing their own demise and in the process, the whole of the higher orders of life, including the Dinosaurs. The levels of atmospheric CO2 are global, ergo, the effects are global, not regional or centralized as would have been the case with other scenarios. Since then we have been restricted by the lack of atmospheric CO2 but with a little luck, we may be able to restore some of that robustness. If we don’t do something stupid and miss our chance!
    Human development has been hampered up until now but we have reached a point where we can change, not the climate but the ecosystem.
    Once one understands the true mechanism of climate and what climate change really means, one realizes that there is absolutely nothing humans or solar radiation can do, to affect climate. There is absolutely nothing to fear in terms of climate, however, we are perfectly capable of fouling up the environment and as always it will be human ignorance and stupidity that does it again!

  20. All you have to do is look at desmogblog’s internet traffic numbers. Abysmal, for such a shining beacon of truth.

  21. I agree with you. There is no need to post anything substantial, because it will be a wasted effort. Funny, you don’t even post your name…for fear of embarrassment.

  22. Nice Smear, Mr. Anonymous! You’re not sorry if it hurts….when in actual fact, it doesn’t. It’s an attempt at the usual troll insult. Yawn!

  23. It’s immaterial whether it’s true or not. DeSmog loves to use factoids in an attempt to illustrate the moral decrepitude of said facts…when really they are nothing remarkable.

  24. Not so .. It is a smear! Pure and simple . This is what’s
    accurate. “I am compelled to disagree that there is a consensus of scientists who agree that this [climate change] is the consequence of human activities.While the melting of permafrost, retreat of glaciers and waning of the permanent ice pack may be alarming, it is only alarming to those unfamiliar with past changes in climate in the North. Paleoclimatologists recognize such events as part of natural changes wholly unrelated to CO2 concentrations in the
    atmosphere. In fact, the waxing and waning of ice shelves, along with glaciers,ice caps and pack ice are largely related to changes in solar inputs.”

  25. Smear? He was very flattering to Tom Harris. Even suggested Harris knows something about science. That’s a laugh.

  26. Jeeze Jayson, all you did was sling ad hominems. Can’t you come up with anything better than that?
    And as for an appeal to authority, that is only employed by those who don’t know the facts. Trusting “experts” without knowledge of the facts yourself is blind trust and admission of ignorance. If 100% of the experts in the world said the world is flat, would that mean the world actually is flat?
    I have seen the science, Jayson, have you? The so called “denier” scientists are eager to explain the science and invite the alarmists to show where they are wrong. Alarmists respond by doing as you did, sling ad hominems and falsehoods and demand that the skeptics be silenced, tantamount to an admission that the “deniers” are right and they are wrong.

  27. Guest2000’s anonymity is classic. Plus he implies that he knows a lot about climate science, while never revealing what that is. That is, aside from flailing around with the “denier” moniker at every opportunity. My estimate is that he is an admin at CanTech Letter who can post anonymously. Brave sort, indeed. The admonishment to “read some actual science articles” is a marvellous admission that he has not done much of it himself. Spends too much time trolling, and reading DeSmog & SkS, I’ll wager. Oh, and maybe some ThinkProgress.

  28. The information was accurate, but you keep changing the subject. What did DeSmog say about Ian Clark that isn’t true? You’ve had two chances to name something, but you can’t. You post nothing but malicious smears yourself.

  29. Thank you Tom, for showing this AGW farce for what it is, a lie, a fraud and a Tax Grab scam.
    The IPCC and their ilk, are fond of using a particular piece of trickery, to deceive, misdirect and coerce the public perception, in order to perpetrate a hoax and a fraud.
    Here is proof, from Oxford professor, Dr. Tim Palmer, lecturing at the Perimeter Institute (the premier Physics think tank in Canada), that CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas:
    http://streamer2.perimeterinst
    Take note of the segment just after 19 minutes in.
    This is the sleaziest example, of one of the most common and insidious tricks used by the AGW conspirators, to misdirect and disinform the general public and it is used over and over and over again. Because it works!
    Dr. Palmer explains that CO2 is transparent to both Visible Light and Ultraviolet Light. But that is just misdirection because neither Visible Light nor Ultraviolet have anything to do with the issue of heating atmospheric CO2 but this diversion has made everyone think that what he said is, “that CO2 was “transparent” to solar radiation.” That is NOT true! The only issue that matters is, whether or not CO2 is transparent to solar “Infrared” radiation, which Dr. Palmer neglects to say, except by exclusion from the list of spectra CO2 is transparent to.
    This is a very important deception!
    CO2 is not transparent to incident solar radiation which eliminates it and disqualifies it, as a Greenhouse Gas, so there is no Greenhouse Effect. Which means…… climate has nothing what so ever to do with solar energy or the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not store heat, it transmits heat. That is what it does. As soon as the temperature of the atmosphere drops, all its heat is lost and it has to start all over the next day. There is no long term heat storage mechanism. That is why John Tyndall came up with the greenhouse theory in the first place; to try to show a mechanism by which, Solar energy could conceivably affect climate. The problem is, the theory is wrong. It doesn’t work, so there is no Greenhouse Effect and solar energy has nothing to do with climate. That is what the “science” tells us!

  30. Maybe the problem is Mind Blindness.. To blind to understand
    what a smear is and to mind blind to understand a meaningless accusation toward a scientists. … The Farce is strong with this one!

  31. If you don’t have anything to say about Ian Clark, why don’t you please stfu.

  32. Sorry Tom, I was trying to give an active link in edit mode but I guess the original post was still on display. I didn’t know that, but if you try the new one I think it will work.

  33. LOL… so typical.. I have lots to say.
    For example ..what do you think “Desmutblog” is trying to
    insinuate by naming Clark and other scientists or institutions ? I read the Smut piece and can only come up with….. SO WHAT?

  34. So did DeSmogBlog present facts about Clark or not? The only assertion I ever made is that they did. You still have not refuted this, and the resaon you can’t is that despite whatever slime you choose to spew about them, DeSmogBlog is very careful to document everything they say. They have a commitment to truth, unlike many posters here.

  35. The term “carbon pollution” is not a new or misleading term. Like nitrogen pollution or phosphorus pollution, carbon pollution is the pollution cause by compounds of the element not the element itself. The term “carbon pollution” like the terms “carbon emissions,” “carbon sinks,” “carbon sequestration” and “carbon footprint” refer to carbon dioxide.
    Tom Harris’s premise that the phrase “carbon pollution” is new language created by the government to control the thinking patterns of the populace is pure nonsense.
    Mr. Harris’s paranoia extends beyond common phrases. Mr. Harris claims that, “speaking out on the other side of the climate debate could soon result in civil or criminal charges.”
    In fact, the “AGs United for Clean Power” seek to cooperate with ongoing and potential investigations into whether fossil fuel companies misled investors and the public on the impact of climate change on their businesses. Just as New York AG did when he reached a historic settlement with Peabody Energy – the world’s largest publicly traded coal company – concerning the company’s misleading financial statements and disclosures.

  36. And I will gladly take the IPCC to court and prosecute them for fraud and crimes against humanity.
    This war on CO2 is a sham and a fraud. CO2 is the most beneficial and benign of trace gases and those frauds at the IPCC are trying to starve future generations. They are liars add should be shown up for what they are, just more greedy power mongers, trying to steal from the public purse!

  37. Gallilao you cannot prosecute the IPCC because you believe they are starving future generation as part of a conspiracy against humanity to steal from the public purse.
    You can prosecute companies who misled their investors.

  38. Tom, you are a journalist, so would you please tell me, am I making myself crystal clear? Do you understand the illusion being generated by this deception?

  39. But “so what” was not your answer. Your answer was a lot of vitriol about DeSmogBlog and a time-wasting gish-gallop. Until I pointed out that all that was irrelevant.

  40. And please enlighten my here because I just can’t quite see what the connection is, between climate change and shady business practices. Are you suggesting that misleading financial statements and disclosures are causing climate change? This sounds an awful lot like when they convicted racketeers for Tax Evasion instead of racketeering. If you have no evidence and no science and no leg to stand on, just accuse them of something completely unrelated and you’ve proved your point???

  41. Ad hominem,……….. how feeble….. and lame.
    Nothing of any value to add?

  42. It is reassuring to see that you and Tom are a growing trend! I have been fighting this battle for 40 years and things are definitely changing for the better. The sooner people realize that AGW is a farce and a lie, the sooner we can all get down to reaping the benefits of increasing atmospheric CO2. All you have to do is look outside. There are fruit trees everywhere around here and you should just see my neighbours cherry tree right now. It is so full of ripe cherries, that the branches are all doubled over and look like they going to break under the load. The poor tree looks like it is just Begging someone to accept its bounty.
    CO2, is Good for You!!! 😉

  43. What’s it like not being able to perceive of life in any deeper terms than as a zero-sum game?

  44. You know Tom, it is all well and fine to ask the experts to see what they think but you should never trust them. Remember, it is the opinion of experts that got us in this sh*thole in the first place. If you have any questions or you’re not sure about something, ask me. I have been getting straight “A’s” in anything to do with Math, Physics and Chemistry, since Grade 11 and that was a long time ago. I was curious recently, about a Pew Centre study about the American public’s lack of scientific understanding so I took their test, which so many Americans failed and naturally got 100%. That’s 100% right! But it is nothing I would ever brag about. I would be embarrassed to give that test to a twelve year old here. But you don’t have to take my word for anything and I would doubt your sincerity if you did, but I can point you to reliable, academic sources. If you’re not sure and you want to understand for yourself, not have to rely on other peoples “opinion”, ask me. I will show you where to look.

  45. You didn’t answer the question. So typical of you progressives — if you don’t want to answer the question, indignantly blather on about something else.
    But in fact, you DID answer the question, didn’t you? You don’t have ANY scientific credentials on this subject.
    LOL

  46. Why don’t you follow your own advice? You have not made ONE scientific comment on this subject, and you refuse to post your credentials.
    Oh, and only a scientific dolt would use desmogblog. Pathetic.

  47. Jayson, nobody is denying that climate changes. You are using duckspeak yourself. Not going to get any converts that way.

  48. Afraid to give your own opinion of Gallileo’s idiocy, Tom, lest you alienate one of your moron minions? I’m waiting on the edge of my seat with bated breath for your experts’ report on Gallilao’s wizardry. Will they deem it Nobel-worthy? My knuckles are white,

  49. I clearly answered the question by proving that my scientific credentials are sufficient to see through Tom Harris’ phonybaloneyness.

  50. “It’s immaterial whether it’s true or not.” That kind of sums up your and many others’ here whole world view, doesn’t it?

  51. Interesting and more than a little sad that Dr. Helen Warn (a former meteorologist who left the field several decades ago), has here voted up comments that include the following easily disproved claims:
    ◦ CO2 is not a greenhouse gas
    ◦ There is absolutely nothing humans can do to affect climate
    ◦ AGW is a farce and a lie
    ◦ Thousands of studies contradict or challenge the thesis that humans are the main reason for the present climate change
    ◦ Not a single prediction made on the basis of climate models has been accurate
    ◦ A post containing a fundamental confusion between short-term stochastic weather variations and long-term deterministic climate change
    ◦ CO2 levels have increased ‘somewhat’ during human history, with an uncertainty of +/- 50%
    ◦ Temperatures all but stopped rising almost two decades ago
    ◦ The rate of sea level rise is unchanged since we’ve been measuring it
    Perhaps Dr. Warn could return her Ph.D. to McGill if she’s now only using it to line a cat litter box.

  52. The Peobody Energy investigation found that the company repeatedly denied in public financial filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it had the ability to predict the impact that potential regulation of climate change pollution would have on its business, even though Peabody and its consultants actually made projections that such regulation would have severe impacts on the company. They misled their investors.

  53. Coming from an advocate of Tom Harris, i.e. somebody with an obvious inability to recognize a scientific dolt.

  54. Jayson; too much political science not enough data driven, empirical evidence. You suffer greatly from confirmation bias (a great enemy of the scientific method).

  55. “I may try publishing the analysis in a proper journal one day, but am presently involved in other arenas.”Patrick Frank
    Sounds like he doesn’t even believe it himself.

  56. You could (and should) criticize Tom Harris for exactly the same reasons. What’s sauce for the duck…

  57. Are you sure it’s the same person? The Helen Warn posting here repeatedly appears to have no scientific background whatsoever. Or perhaps a bad case of Alzheimer’s is involved.

  58. Your comment had little intersection with mine. Nonetheless, statements based upon empirical evidence can hardly be call duckspeak.

  59. Definitely. She used the same avatar on occasion when previously commenting on the National Post as HelenW, and we had our share of snippy exchanges. On several occasions she stated to other posters that she had a Ph.D. in meteorology, which I found to be an unusual enough claim for a National Post climate skeptic to be worth checking (A spherical model of baroclinic stability, 1975 McGill Ph.D. thesis). Judging from publications she appears to have left the field about ten years later.

  60. Carbon dioxide levels are now about 400 ppm. For over 400,000, years CO2 levels have never been below 180 or above, until now, 300 ppm. Three hundred years ago they were 280 ppm. At its lowest, the Earth was about 10 C° colder than it is now, and glaciers covered much of the Earth. So, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, CO2 was 100 ppm more than at the depths of the glaciations. Now it is 120 ppm higher than at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
    In fact, the last time CO2 levels are thought to have been this high was more than 2.5 million years ago, an era known as the Pliocene, when the Canadian Arctic boasted forests instead of icy wastes. The land bridge connecting North America and South America had recently formed. The globe’s temperature averaged about 3 degrees C warmer, and sea level lapped coasts 5 meters or more higher.

  61. Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:
    That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
    That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
    That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
    Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
    That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
    The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
    They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
    They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
    The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
    The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
    The expansion of the Hadley cells.
    The poleward movement of storm tracks.
    The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
    The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
    The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
    That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
    References
    Troposphere warms, stratosphere cools
    Manabe and Wetherald 1967
    Manabe and Stouffer 1980
    Ramaswamy et al. 1996, 2006
    De F. Forster et al. 1999
    Langematz et al. 2003
    Vinnikov and Grody 2003
    Fu et al. 2004
    Thompson and Solomon 2005
    Nights warm more than days
    Arrhenius 1896
    Dai et al. 1999
    Sherwood et al. 2005
    Winter warms more than summer
    Arrhenius 1896
    Manabe and Stouffer 1980
    Rind et al. 1989Balling et al. 1999
    Volodin and Galin 1999
    Crozier 2003
    Polar amplification
    Arrhenius 1896
    Manabe and Stouffer 1980
    Polyakov et al. 2001
    Holland and Bitz 2003
    Arctic warms more than Antarctic
    Arrhenius 1896
    Manabe and Stouffer 1980
    Doran et al. 2002
    Comisa 2003
    Turner et al. 2007
    Pinatubo effects
    Hansen et al. 1992
    Hansen et al. 1996
    Soden et al. 2002
    Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures
    Rind and Peteet 1985
    Farreral et al. 1999
    Melanda et al. 2005
    Temperature trend versus UAH results
    Christy et al. 2003
    Santer et al. 2003
    Mears and Wentz 2005
    Santer et al. 2005
    Sherwood et al. 2005
    Water vapor feedback from ENSO
    Lau et al. 1996
    Soden 2000
    Dessler and Wong 2009
    Ozone hole effect on southern ocean winds
    Fyfe et al. 1999
    Kushner et al. 2001
    Sexton 2001
    Thompson and Solomon 2002
    Hadley Cells expand
    Quan et al. 2002
    Fu et al. 2006
    Hu and Fu 2007
    Storm tracks move poleward
    Trenberth and Stepaniak 2003
    Yin 2005
    Tropopause and radiating altitude rise
    Thuburn and Craig 1997
    Kushner et al. 2001
    Santer et al. 2003
    Seidel and Randel 2006
    Tropical “super greenhouse effect”
    Vonder Haar 1986
    Lubin 1994
    Constant average relative humidity
    Manabe and Wetherall 1967
    Minschwaner and Dessler 2004
    Soden et al. 2005
    Gettelman and Fu 2008

  62. Making projections is one thing; one may be able, if one has an actual algorithm that can make those kind of predictions, one may be able to project an outcome, based on a specific set of criteria but there is no way to know if your criteria are even relevant, until the future unfolds, so without knowing the future ahead of time, there is no way to make predictions of anything. If one did, it would be simply meaningless speculation. You might as well go out and ask every person on the street, to describe their own worst nightmares because it might be a relevant issue for investors?
    This is meteorologist type thinking! I personally don’t believe that anyone should be expected to be able to predict the future, not even Peobody Energy and Associates.
    Only climatologists, weathermen and meteorologists, think they can predict the future, which is part and parcel of the reason they don’t understand that they are not a science, no matter how much they protest the fact! Guess-work is anti-science and trying to create computer programs to do your guess-work for you, does nothing to legitimize it or make it any more meaningful. It is all just guess-work, forecasting, prognostication, crystal ball gazing, Voodoo and Witchcraft, call it what you like, it is anything but a science!

  63. Ergo, one should be able to prosecute the IPCC for fraud and misleading the public.

  64. Why do you seem to be so preoccupied with credentials?…… Just asking.
    Really, when you get right down to it, credentials on the internet are rather meaningless. People can claim anything and regularly do. Look at your friend there, cunudiun. You seem to have a pretty good handle on most stuff, just don’t pay any attention to cuntdiun, he’s just panicking cause he sees more and more people wising up. He doesn’t have anything to contribute and only issues abuse, ignore him! You make way more sense than he does.

  65. Deploying large numbers of Mind Controllers,
    Rothschild climatologists are Talmudic deceivers.

  66. Svante and others got it wrong.
    Thermodynamics interacts with and dominates radiation.
    If radiation mattered a lot, it would be included in the lapse (-g/Cp)

  67. Gallilao: Corporations make projections all the time. “Our sales did not meet the forecasted numbers,” or “we feel confident in the forecasted economic growth and expect to exceed our targets.” In the end, all financial forecasts, whether about the specifics of a business, like sales growth, or predictions about the economy as a whole, are informed guesses.
    When corporation us projections to misled investors they break the law.

  68. Gallilao: The fact you can prosecute companies for misleading their investors does not mean you should be able to prosecute the IPCC because you have a theory that IPCC are “greedy power mongers, trying to steal from the public purse” by starving future generations.

  69. Yes they do but only if they are not going to be held accountable, which they are not, or they wouldn’t make the predictions in the first place, which is why Peobody didn’t.

  70. There is no reason you can’t. The only thing preventing me from suing those ba*tards is money. If I had the resources I’d sue them in a minute!

  71. Gallilao: “Prosecute” descibes an action taken by the authorities to institute criminal proceedings against the suspects for a crime.
    My point is that Tom Harris’s paranoia extends beyond common phrases like carbon pollution and carbon footprint. Mr. Harris claims that, “speaking out on the other side of the climate debate could soon result in civil or criminal charges.”

  72. Corporation make projections all the time but “only if they are not going to be held accountable?” False.
    Corporation are accountable for their projections. If they intentionally misled their investors, then they break the and can be prosecuted by the AG or the SEC.

  73. So I went back and read Tom’s article in the Sun again, and I don’t see any statements based on empirical evidence. I see some well-worn misinformation, some simple canards(!), and a desire to downplay important elements of climate science. I don’t think Jayson McLean’s article was particularly well-written either, but we’re talking here because the Sun doesn’t have comments.
    Again, if you think Tom Harris speaks for your perspective, you should be holding him to a higher standard, and that means “data driven, empirical evidence”.

  74. Apparently this is a difficult concept for people who believe all corporations are naturally good and exist for the benefit of society at large.

  75. And in fact he has an endless supply of that kind of innuendo; it’s his stock in trade. Well, that and confused accusations about various logical fallacies.

  76. Yes, that is exactly what he says, I believe it is exactly what he intended to say. So what is your point?

  77. Gallilo, Like Tom Harris belief a common term “carbon pollution” is a government plot to control minds, Mr. Harris fears climate debate “could soon result in civil and criminal charges” is paranoid nonsense.

  78. He’s absolutely right, he is just alluding to the logical result, of the fanatical suppression of facts and opposition to scientific data, demonstrated by the alarmist faction, when they try to censor opposing views because their own position is indefensible and they have no leg to stand on, so the only defense for their lunacy is to try to muzzle the opposition.
    AGW is fraud and so are those who promote it!

  79. Gallilao, Explain the logic behind Tom Harris’s claim that the term “carbon pollution” is government conspiracy to control the minds of the populace.

  80. So what did your experts say? Are you going to let me defend my position or are you not really interested in the truth? You should be, you know! All the hard science, the Physics and Thermodynamics is all on your side, you just don’t know it. I’m the one that can give you the real artillery. The hard scientific artillery.

  81. Gallilao wrote that Tom Harris is “absolutely right” and that Mr. Harris’s comments were the result of logic.
    I understand why Gallilao chooses not to back-up his/her assertions. Tom Harris’s claim that the term “carbon pollution” is government conspiracy to control the minds of the populace has no logical explanation.

  82. Tom, here is some more for your EXPERTS to mull over:
    Circa the 1800s, at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 is estimated to have been about 275 ppm. In other words, (1,000,000 / 275 = 3636) for every 3636 particles of air in the atmosphere, 1, was a CO2 particle (3636:1).
    During the intervening period, CO2 levels have risen to about 400 ppm, an increase of about 125 ppm. In other words, (1,000,000 / 125 = 8000) for every 8000 particles of air, 1 particle of CO2 has been added, over the last 166 years (8000:1). That means that, since the Industrial Revolution, (1 particle/ 166 years = 1 particle / (8000*166=1,328000) 1,328,000 particles / year) the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased an average of about 1 particle of CO2, for every 1,328,000 particles of air, each year, for the last 166 years (1,328,000:1).
    So,…. IF we are magnanimous, in the extreme, bordering on psychotic, and are willing to accept responsibility for all the additional CO2 in our atmosphere, accumulated over the last 166 years, then we are responsible for adding 1 particle of CO2, for every 1.33 million particle of air……. per year! (It is probably more like, we add 1 particle of CO2, for every 3 Million particles of air……per year! To be realistic…) And that is for the whole of the worlds’ population. Per nation or per capita, the amount is so small, you need a telescope to see all the zeros in the ratio.
    How can anyone in their right-mind, believe for even an instant, that such an infinitesimal amount of such a benign and beneficial trace gas, could ever be able to affect the Huge Heat Balance of our entire planetary ecosystem? The very notion defies all reason and logic. If CO2 were dynamite, we couldn’t make enough to light-up a firefly’s ass. And even if CO2 could affect climate, in any way, which it can’t, we still couldn’t produce enough to have any affect, at all!
    The whole AGW farce is a fraud and a crime.

  83. “desire to downplay important elements of climate science” — Climate Science is Mind Control — a psychological operation — by the Rothscild, Gore and Blood, Carbon tax extortion racketeers.

  84. Is there a Mind Control song? Because there should be.
    (to the tune of “Spiderman:”)
    Mind control, mind control
    Wherever you go, there’s a troll
    Mind control, mind control
    Look out! There go your thoughts of home now
    There go your hopes and dreams.
    !?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
    (The question marks are part of the song, and the exclamation points are punctuation. Or is it the other way around?)

  85. What an embarrassment for the University of Ottawa to have one of their PhD graduate write such a ridiculous piece. Would you call U of O Earth Sciences professor Ian Clark (one of our top advisers) a “climate change denier” too since he dares disagree with you, a PhD in political philosophy, on the primary causes of climate change? Geez.

  86. I stand by every word of that article.
    The quote you gave obviously concerned an article about proxy temperature constructions, mentioned here, not the Negligence article. It’s disingenuous of you to quote so entirely out of context.
    If you want to debate my work, I’m here for you.

  87. Apparently, you consistently avoid quoting 97% of climate scientists who maintain that AGW climate change is an actuality. Instead you quote the incredibly miniscule percent who believe otherwise. Very telling Tom.

  88. Do you believe that having someone who is not qualified (such as yourself at Carleton U) lecture at a university is ethical?

  89. Regarding Mr. Tom Harris’ stint at Carleton University, MacLeans published an article called
    “Professor criticized for course denying climate change”
    Tom Harris IS NOT A PROFESSOR AND NEVER HAS BEEN ONE. MacLeans should publish a disclaimer to inform readers of this egregious mistake, since only highly educated academics with PhD’s deserve this title, not Mr. Harris (who has an MA in Engineering).
    His expertise in anthropogenic climate change – none.
    Mr. Tom Harris lectured for a short time at Carleton University before he was unceremoniously removed for teaching his anti-anthropogenic climate change rhetoric. MacLeans also doesn’t mention that Mr. Tom Harris and several organizations he has been affiliated with, have been funded by fossil fuel industries…clearly a conflict of interests. Money can make some people sell their souls apparently, even if it means regurgitating information and propaganda that flies against internationally accepted scientifically proven facts.
    For MacLeans to call Mr. Harris a professor is a travesty. A professor has the highest educational rank at universities and research institutions. They are experts in their areas of expertise and are accomplished and recognized academics. They are scholars with doctorate degrees (typically Ph.D. degrees) who teach in universities. They conduct original research and teach grads and undergrads in areas of their expertise. They publish advanced original research in peer reviewed journals in their fields. A professor may also serve as a public intellectual, offering opinions to media and in other forums on current issues and other complex matters that require expert illumination, which Mr. Harris endeavours to do but fails miserably at, owing to his lack of education on the subject and financial interests in the fossil fuel industry. After much work, a professor may become tenured which allows him or her academic freedom. It is beneficial for society and academy in the long run if scholars are at liberty to examine, hold, and advance controversial views without fear of dismissal, however it must be emphasized that only tenured professors are afforded this freedom since they have the education, peer reviewed publications, extensive experience and overall knowledge required to intellectually select and teach such materials.
    Mr. Harris has never put in the several years of education required to become a professor. He has never put in the hard work and time required for research or writing advanced scholarly studies that are published in peer reviewed journals. Mr. Tom Harris had the audacity to teach controversial ideas, without the required education, peer reviewed publications, experience or overall knowledge. Doing so is allowed only to tenured professors for reasons already discussed.
    This is all why Mr. Tom Harris was kicked to the curb of Carleton University…and rightfully so.

  90. Ian Clark, one of your “top advisors” has affiliations with The NRSP which was exposed as being controlled by energy industry lobbyists; The Fraser Institute which has received money from the oil billionaire Koch brothers, Exxon and tobacco companies; The Competitive Enterprise Institute which has been funded by Texaco, Koch Bros Foundations, Ford Motor Company and tobacco companies and The Heartland Institute which has been funded by Exxon among others.
    You have some affiliations in this list yourself Tom, along with the ICSC, which has been affiliated with The Heartland Institute…one of those funded by Exxon.
    There are numerous oil industry ties to you and Ian Clark, which renders all your anthropogenic climate change denials worthless.

  91. Mr. Tom Harris had a stint at Carleton University after which MacLeans published an article called:
    “Professor criticized for course denying climate change”
    Tom Harris IS NOT A PROFESSOR AND NEVER HAS BEEN ONE. MacLeans should publish a disclaimer to inform readers of this egregious mistake, since only highly educated academics with PhD’s deserve this title, not Mr. Harris (who has an MA in Engineering).
    His expertise in anthropogenic climate change – none.
    Mr. Tom Harris lectured for a short time at Carleton University before he was unceremoniously removed for teaching his anti-anthropogenic climate change rhetoric. MacLeans also doesn’t mention that Mr. Tom Harris and several organizations he has been affiliated with, have been funded by fossil fuel industries…clearly a conflict of interests. Money can make some people sell their souls apparently, even if it means regurgitating information and propaganda that flies against internationally accepted scientifically proven facts.
    For MacLeans to call Mr. Harris a professor is a travesty. A professor has the highest educational rank at universities and research institutions. They are experts in their areas of expertise and are accomplished and recognized academics. They are scholars with doctorate degrees (typically Ph.D. degrees) who teach in universities. They conduct original research and teach grads and undergrads in areas of their expertise. They publish advanced original research in peer reviewed journals in their fields. A professor may also serve as a public intellectual, offering opinions to media and in other forums on current issues and other complex matters that require expert illumination, which Mr. Harris endeavours to do but fails miserably at, owing to his lack of education on the subject and financial interests in the fossil fuel industry. After much work, a professor may become tenured which allows him or her academic freedom. It is beneficial for society and academy in the long run if scholars are at liberty to examine, hold, and advance controversial views without fear of dismissal, however it must be emphasized that only tenured professors are afforded this freedom since they have the education, peer reviewed publications, extensive experience and overall knowledge required to intellectually select and teach such materials.
    Mr. Harris has never put in the several years of education required to become a professor. He has never put in the hard work and time required for research or writing advanced scholarly studies that are published in peer reviewed journals. Mr. Tom Harris had the audacity to teach controversial ideas, without the required education, peer reviewed publications, experience or overall knowledge. Doing so is allowed only to tenured professors for reasons already discussed.
    This is all why Mr. Tom Harris was kicked to the curb of Carleton University…and rightfully so.

  92. Haa haaa haaaaa…. Look at whose talkin/// You use Breithbart,,, Watts Up With That and other dishonest lying citations.

  93. His credentials are he is a old sage hermit who lives in a high mountain cave and eats grass, worms, wild honey and mice. His IQ is 280 and communicates with wild animals and birds.
    I see by your qualifications by your comments and the links for lying articles you post, that you are a corrupt AGW denier.
    Are you paid to lie or do you just do as S. Graves does and have fun doing that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

RELATED POSTS