July 03, 2019

When climate skeptic scientists get “unpersonned” (Guest: Tom Harris)

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show


What happens to you when you are a high profile skeptic of the human contribution to "global warming," or don't believe the liberal line that taxes will change the weather?

If you are the President of the United States — who once called climate change an “expensive hoax” — then prepare for accusations from the likes of the New York Times, that you're seeking “to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.”

But how can you "undermine" science by simply examining it?

Even scientists who express skepticism face similar ridicule. Allan MacRae was un-personed by his own professional society.

MacRae is a prominent long-time member of APEGA (Alberta Professional Engineers and Geologists Association) who was going to receive a lifetime achievement award for his contributions in 2019.

Then, when APEGA staff learned MacRae had expressed climate change skepticism, APEGA strongly condemned his comments and MacRae’s award was withdrawn. None of his expertise in the hard sciences mattered when up against the liberal politics of his own peers.

Is it any wonder more skeptical scientists don’t speak up when this is how “scientific consensus” is enforced?

Joining me to talk about the professional bullying of skeptics and much more is PJ Media columnist Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition.

 

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-07-08 23:03:07 -0400 · Flag
In this op-ed https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/sciences-untold-scandal-the-lockstep-march-of-professional-societies-to-promote-the-climate-change-scare/ : Dr. Jay Lehr and Mr. Tom Harris assert Greenpeace, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Canada (APEGA), American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), Geological Society of America (GSA), The Royal Society, and “other science bodies” have fallen into the same “anti-human, anti-environment” trap which is like the communist conspiracy described by JFK in 1961.

A simpler and more rational explanation is that Greenpeace and these professional associations and scientific organizations accept the clear and compelling scientific evidence of human-caused climate change.
commented 2019-07-08 12:05:46 -0400 · Flag
Unable to refute science! Must! insult! IPCC!

Nobody can actually show it’s a “lie”.
commented 2019-07-07 17:08:16 -0400 · Flag
“Its an insult to science”
“Its unscientific”
UN IPCC Scientist Debunks UN IPCC Lies
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics at Stockholm University.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1PS9-oOfRw

You believers of the lie will be exposed.
commented 2019-07-06 14:36:20 -0400 · Flag
LIZA ROSIE commented 18 hours ago
You’re very much the lone wolf Andrew.”

I seem to have the backing of the vast majority of climate scientists and their research. Meanwhile the opponents seem to be mostly people who spend their time mashing the keyboard angrily on the Breitbart comment section.
commented 2019-07-05 20:28:00 -0400 · Flag
You’re very much the lone wolf Andrew.
commented 2019-07-05 15:47:57 -0400 · Flag
- Climate science is the worst kind of pseudoscience. It’s a fraud designed to promote socialism – which is ironic since the climate alarmists gave the Soviet Union a pass for their environmental disasters much as they do with China today. I find it interesting when debating this on social media, those who’ve bought the man made climate change nonsense are so sure that they have science on their side yet have no understanding what the actual science says. They’ll sometimes cut & past something from Skeptical Science but are surprised to find out it’s the blog of failed cartoonist John Cook (the guy behind the 97.1% consensus fraud). Only in the world of climate science can you examine 11,944 scientific papers, have 41of them back your position & then declare a 97.1% consensus.
commented 2019-07-05 11:37:31 -0400 · Flag
LIZA ROSIE commented 22 hours ago
You are some kind of biology teacher, social justice warrior, who bends facts and contorts them for your own purposes Andrew. Don’t pretend you’re an authority on anything. You haven’t lived long enough. "

“If carbon dioxide levels become any lower things will be pretty damn brown and barren in 50 years”
We’ve never even come close, even during ice-age equilibrium levels which are below 200ppm, of reaching the point where it limits plant growth. The more efficient fixation pathways are saturated at closer to 100ppm. At present 400ppm, there’s more than the plants need – they keep their stomata (leaf pores) closed and thus don’t “breathe” most of the time, either to conserve water, or because some other nutrient is limited and there’s no point to fixing carbon if you can’t use it. (to counter the "but greenhouses! argument, they supply those typically limited nutrients in excess specifically to get around it).

“There is more concrete observable proof that all of these variations are normal and have been seen many times before over the centuries than any manipulated ‘conclusions’ coming from flawed climate models”
The observations of both normal and human induced variations (one does not preclude the other) are based upon the same models. Either you accept the models, or you reject them. You can’t pick and choose which pieces you like. All models are “flawed”. They’re models and suffer from simplification, but the ones including some human contribution seem to work a lot better than those that don’t. There’s a distinct warming trend out there without any astronomical explanation, the only hypothesis we have is the atmosphere is holding heat better. What drives heat retention? Greenhouse gases.

The fundamnental problem, Liza, is this: to exclude human influence, you’d have to both say, that a) humans increasing the concentration of a potent GHG, one responsible for around a fifth of the total forcing of the atmosphere, by 50%, has no effect whatsoever, and b) some other, as of yet unidentified, factor, is causing that warming instead.

You might then wonder why speculating the political motivations of the IPCC is irrelevant. It’s essentially an admission that you don’t understand the question and are instead trying to divert to answering a question you do understand. The actual debate is occurring at a completely different level – what’s that alternative explanation?

" I mean for any layman to see, let alone someone who has been studying it for (guess here) 35 or 40 years as has Tom Harris."

Tom Harris works for a think tank. He’s paid to stir the pot, which is more than suffiicient to counter the appeal-to-authority type argument inherent in his length of experience. What’s his official publication record like? Very poor, he has put out little peer-reviewed research. Are his critiques of others’ work valid? Sometimes, but usually in trivial ways (arguments about extremes aren’t nearly as meaningful as people think, if you go back further you’re more likely to encounter more extreme events, an effect which can disguise shifting averages). Do his colleagues put out anything that supports his theories? Not really, especially once you filter out the cherry-picked data. He’s very much a lone wolf.
commented 2019-07-05 11:07:48 -0400 · Flag
““Science journals” are not written by scientists…scientists cannot compose so much as three consecutive paragraphs that would not induce that classroom hypnotic torpor that boys get dosed with ritalin for (and which isn’t their fault)….they are written by JOURNALISTS….story tellers…”

Have you ever read the actual papers? They are .. pretty bad. Science journalism is something else, and usually a lay interpretation thereof by people who don’t really get it any more than you do. That’s where the hyperbole arises – journalists looking for drama from what originally started with a 10% variance in two columns in a bar graph. If statistically sound, it’s scientifically valid, but not very exciting.

As you note, most actual scientists are bad at communicating with the broader community. It’s a problem we’re well aware of; the anti-vaxxers win not because their message is valid, but because they’re putting out memes and memorable catchphrases, while the scientists put up that bar graph and mumble jargon for fifteen minutes, something his grad students get but noone else does. Who wins? We are trying to address that within the scientific community; but scientists get recognized for their publication record, not how much outreach they do, so it’s an uphill battle.
commented 2019-07-04 17:51:52 -0400
“nor trying to make a name for myself advocating for something I’m a glorified layperson in.”

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Oh but you are…you are indeed.

Andrew, the term “science-fiction” is an oxymoron…a self contradicting term…yet everybody knows what it means and the vast majority of people have either read sci-fi novels or watched movies…it is a source of great entertainment in a world that is boring when it is not down right tortureous drudgery…the only thing that even competes is “supernatural” horror…which again is not scientific.

“Science journals” are not written by scientists…scientists cannot compose so much as three consecutive paragraphs that would not induce that classroom hypnotic torpor that boys get dosed with ritalin for (and which isn’t their fault)….they are written by JOURNALISTS….story tellers…
commented 2019-07-04 16:04:52 -0400 · Flag
allan and tim do not give up. the truth is always right over the might. hang in their guys, you are not alone.
commented 2019-07-04 16:00:24 -0400 · Flag
any spelling they are political and wrong.
commented 2019-07-04 13:47:15 -0400 · Flag
I always get that wrong.
correction: IPCC
commented 2019-07-04 13:45:48 -0400 · Flag
The ICCP is too corrupt and political to be trusted on any level.
commented 2019-07-04 13:43:59 -0400
You are some kind of biology teacher, social justice warrior, who bends facts and contorts them for your own purposes Andrew. Don’t pretend you’re an authority on anything. You haven’t lived long enough.

If carbon dioxide levels become any lower things will be pretty damn brown and barren in 50 years. There is more concrete observable proof that all of these variations are normal and have been seen many times before over the centuries than any manipulated ‘conclusions’ coming from flawed climate models. I mean for any layman to see, let alone someone who has been studying it for (guess here) 35 or 40 years as has Tom Harris. Besides,Climate Science International clearly has a long list of scientists and experts as advisers to lean on. It certainly is not only Tom Harris’s opinion. Who We Are: http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280
commented 2019-07-04 12:11:13 -0400
“Every single IPCC Model has failed the Scientific Method”

Mostly because modeling can’t follow the standard hypothesis-experiment-theory process, at least not yet. Give them 50 years and they will. Also, the non-IPCC models agree with the IPCC ones, it’s actually hard to find disagreeing models.

Historical examinations are robust.

“if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

Is it wrong, though? We won’t know for decades.
commented 2019-07-04 12:07:27 -0400 · Flag
"
GLENN CRAIG commented 5 hours ago
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 6 hours ago
Macrae is not a climate scientist, it’s unprofessional to pretend to be a professional when you’re not. Certainly not becoming of a supposed prize-winner.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So what are YOUR credentials Andrea?"

Comparable to his, advanced degree in something unrelated, but I’m not nominated for Petroleum Engineer of the Year or whatever nor trying to make a name for myself advocating for something I’m a glorified layperson in.
commented 2019-07-04 10:14:24 -0400 · Flag
Canadian climate change is created by the hot air that comes out of Trudeau’s mouth.
commented 2019-07-04 09:08:52 -0400
Claiming some one is or is not a “climate scientist” is simply and appeal to authority. It’s more valid to examine predictive skill.

“So, here is an incomplete list of what I consider to be the core scientific disciplines which have been primarily responsible for developing our current understanding of climate change and its implications. Atmospheric and Physical Sciences: Climatology, Meteorology, Atmospheric dynamics, Atmospheric physics, Atmospheric chemistry, Solar physics, Historical climatology Earth Sciences: Geophysics, Geochemistry, Geology, Soil Science, Oceanography, Glaciology, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoenvironmental reconstruction Biological Sciences: Ecology, Synthetic biology, Biochemistry, Global change biology, Biogeography, Ecophysiology, Ecological genetics Mathematics, Statistics and Computational analysis: Applied mathematics, Mathematical modelling, Computer science, Numerical modelling, Bayesian inference, Mathematical statistics, Time series analysis.” https://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/31/so-just-who-does-climate-science/ The IPCC has a big problem with fiddled data and failed predictions. Mainly because they do not follow the Scientific Method. They have never defined a Null Hypothesis.

“What is ‘The Null Hypothesis’?
In all things of a statistical nature, such as measuring climate change over time, a null hypothesis is defined and tested.
The null hypothesis must be assumed to be true unless statistical analysis proves it is outside the range of random probability.
That range has a strict mathematical definition. It is two or more standard deviations away from the prediction of the null hypothesis.
In laymen’s terms it means there is a 95% or greater chance that the null hypothesis is wrong.
In that case, the null hypothesis is rejected.
The purpose of the null hypothesis isn’t to prove anything. Its purpose is to eliminate possibilities. In the case of climate change it can be used to eliminate natural variability as a cause of climate change.”
https://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/the-ipcc-and-the-null-hypothesis/
commented 2019-07-04 08:40:59 -0400
“Accusations from the likes of the New York Times, that you’re seeking “to undermine the very science on which climate change policy rests.” It does not “rest” on science. It rests on failed model predictions and fiddled data. https://cliscep.com/2019/06/30/climate-scientists-fiddling-the-data-again-and-again-and-again-and-again/ Every single IPCC Model has failed the Scientific Method.

https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said,
“It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

cLIEmate UNscience is climate Lysenkoism, not science.
commented 2019-07-04 07:18:45 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 6 hours ago
Macrae is not a climate scientist, it’s unprofessional to pretend to be a professional when you’re not. Certainly not becoming of a supposed prize-winner.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

So what are YOUR credentials Andrea?
commented 2019-07-04 02:21:03 -0400 · Flag
Rebelation, it comes up using duckduckgo as a search as well. I never ‘google’.
commented 2019-07-04 02:17:18 -0400
Our politicians are cowards, all of them, bowing to the bullying of the unelected backroom boys. The backroom boys. Therein lies the problem.
The followers have bought the lie and yes it is a religion for them, but its no religion for the backroom boys. Its about social control, and the investments of the elite. But mostly its a power trip.

We vote these politicians in and they are immediately reduced to puppets.
Ford and Scheer, and even Kenney are supposed to be opposing Trudeau and here they are enabling him and the whole damn thing is based on a lie. They have folded like the cheap suits they wear.
commented 2019-07-04 01:01:48 -0400 · Flag
In other words, the aim is to collapse western economies – just like Maurice Strong intended all along.

WOW – you believe it? I typed in Tom’s web address into Google, and it says the site can’t be found. I tripled checked my spelling. I then typed it into Firefox, and it came right up.
commented 2019-07-04 00:55:30 -0400
Macrae is not a climate scientist, it’s unprofessional to pretend to be a professional when you’re not. Certainly not becoming of a supposed prize-winner.

LANCE HODGE commented 2 hours ago
Lest we forget all the active volcanoes as we speak above and below sea level right now but you evil suv drivers and hockey moms should be in rickshaws”

Volcanic emissions are estimated at a couple hundred million tonnes a year, versus human emissions in the tens of billions.

“The spikes were during some of the coldest times in history. If CO2 was such a heat-trapping gas, the world should have been MUCH hotter. The climate emperer has no clothes and nobody will speak up until some one with nothing to lose blows the secret.’

Which spikes are those (exact era, CO2, temperature, versus the “flanks”?). What is the mechanism by which you propose carbon dioxide cools the climate?
commented 2019-07-04 00:11:21 -0400 · Flag
So sick of the climate madness. When the Mayor of your town justifies an action “because we are in a climate emergency” how is that not an hysterical justification that defies common sense. It is hysteria politics plain and simple. I don’t think nearly as many people believe this crap as the loud few in positions to be loud would like you to believe. But they are so zealous they don’t care about frightening children that the sky is falling and they don’t have a future. Shameful.
commented 2019-07-03 23:33:46 -0400
In a way, I hope it does get colder and plants won’t grow as well. Only when it hits Joe and Jane Public will we have a revolution. I also was sent a chart by a friend which shows CO2 levels over 265 million years. The spikes were during some of the coldest times in history. If CO2 was such a heat-trapping gas, the world should have been MUCH hotter. The climate emperer has no clothes and nobody will speak up until some one with nothing to lose blows the secret.
commented 2019-07-03 23:11:55 -0400 · Flag
Lest we forget all the active volcanoes as we speak above and below sea level right now but you evil suv drivers and hockey moms should be in rickshaws
commented 2019-07-03 21:48:34 -0400 · Flag
This is indeed a religious cult.

The evil penisoids from the planet Mars came here to gang rape GAIA the man hating Earth goddess of the Vestal Virgins from the planet Venus….OH and punish those evil penisoids GAIA surely will.