July 31, 2019

Climate skeptics are welcome in Trump's America: Here's what they talk about (GUEST: Tom Harris)

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show


Great things are happening in the American oil and gas sector. They're in the midst of a boom.

South of the border, our American friends are drilling, pumping, building pipelines and exporting like never before, while here in Canada it can take a decade just to get to “no” on a pipeline.

But the fossil fuel industry isn't just the only thing booming and being liberated from government regulation in the United States.

The ability to freely discuss fossil fuels and their effect on the environment is also exploding under President Trump:

Unlike in Canada, where our moral and intellectual superiors in government and at the state broadcaster scold climate change skeptics as uneducated rubes, prominent figures and scientists can have dissenting opinions on man-made global warming without being run off the airwaves and run out of a job.

My guest tonight is Tom Harris of the International Climate Science Coalition. He's fresh off one of those rigorous discussions they're allowed to have in the United States - the 13th Annual Heartland International Conference on Climate Change.

He joins me to talk about the success of that conference held at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-08-06 16:38:25 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
If you can’t refute me directly, why don’t you just concede the point and stop wasting both of our time?
-—————————
I have refuted you numerous times on numerous points. But that is a waste of time when all YOU have to do is……

find a reputable scientist’s group who agrees with you. Shouldn’t be too hard given the number of doctors world wide who work in the field of parasitology.

Why don’t you give these chaps the old college try? Present your credentials and “independant thoughts” and see what they say?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/parasitology

You know there are none who agree with you so you want to waste time arguing what has no scientific merit. You won’t submit your doctoral study into babies are parasites because you know you would laughed out of the building.

You also want to hold fast to your ludicrous position because you want to believe and promulgate lies.

Why don’t you tell why you do?
commented 2019-08-06 12:47:51 -0400
I’m not going to present it at a conference. I’m asking YOU to refute it, since you’re the one who is objecting and not really being able to explain why.

If you can’t refute me directly, why don’t you just concede the point and stop wasting both of our time?
commented 2019-08-06 12:41:15 -0400
How am I wrong, “Duke”? You keep insisting I am, but can’t seem to provide any positive evidence, omission from an incomplete list isn’t that.

What kind of inter organism relationship is it if not parasitic?
commented 2019-08-06 11:34:28 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON

Part of being a scientist is drawing outside the lines. You are, by definition, exploring new ideas, which means independent verification cannot exist if you’re the first one to try it.
-————————-
But in parasitism you are not the first. Not by a long shot. This is well established in the field of science.

Your (Duke’s) job, then, is to act as a peer reviewer – are my arguments reasonable? If not, why not?
-———————-
You can’t be serious. I’ve been telling you for 2 years now that your ideas are unreasonable to say the least. Your “ideas” are in contradiction of all known scientific and medical knowledge -that which has already been peer reviewed.

Take your ideas to a scientific conference ands present them to your peers. See what kind of reception you get.

What evidence do you feel is missing from my argument?
-—————————————
Peer review. Coherence with reality. All of which is shown by providing other reliable sources in the field that you refuse to provide. You refuse to provide evidence in the form or recognized authorities who hold to your view. But there are none and you know it. So you play with he definition of words in order to distract from that reality.

Why do you want to believe and promulgate lies which make you look like af oil before the world?
commented 2019-08-05 13:55:01 -0400
So, summary for people that will write 300 word responses that completely fail to address anything I’ve said:

1) What evidence do you feel I am missing that invalidates my argument?
2) Am I actually missing sufficient evidence that it’s not a “scientific” argument? How much do I need, and what would satisfy your demands?
3) Is my argument inherently unreasonable, and why or why not?
4) IF you cannot refute a comment, would it be considered irrefutable?
commented 2019-08-05 13:51:24 -0400
What did I say that was wrong? Anything? Nothing?

’BASED ON EVIDENCE"

What evidence do you feel is missing from my argument? If there is some critical failure let me know and I’ll try to address it. It is not obvious to me, however, so you’ll have to help by pointing it out. That’s how peer-review works, incidentally, but for it to work you actually have to put forward a thorough critique.

Try not to get distracted, though. Your definition of scientist is fascinating, but you haven’t established where I diverged from this path.

. "By the way… why do you want to believe that which has no independent verification by any recognized authority on earth? Why do you want other people to believe it too? "

Part of being a scientist is drawing outside the lines. You are, by definition, exploring new ideas, which means independent verification cannot exist if you’re the first one to try it. Your (Duke’s) job, then, is to act as a peer reviewer – are my arguments reasonable? If not, why not?
commented 2019-08-05 10:02:03 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
Lol, a lefty exhibiting independent thought really terrifies you, doesn’t it “duke”.
-————————————

Oh, yeah. Your so called “independent thought” really has me shaking in my boots. Lefties do not think independently. They run with the herd with the prevailing wind. People in the lunatic asylums have lots of independent thought as well. Their thoughts- like yours- do not cohere with reality.

What I want- which I have stated times without number- not sure why you can’t grasp that simple concept- is independent verification of your “thoughts” of which you have none. Hence you cannot provide it. You have no credibility in the realm of science. Someone so bereft of logic and rationality has no credibility in any realm- which is my point in continuing to bring this up at every opportunity.

How real scientists define science. Not just an opinion:
“Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology BASED ON EVIDENCE.”

And, again:

“A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.”

https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/

You want me to follow you down the rabbit hole of sophistic distraction but I’m not wasting my time arguing what is obvious to anyone with two braincells to rub together.

So I get to show you the fool you are to the entire world. No one’s life is ever wasted. You can always serve as a bad example to others.

By the way… why do you want to believe that which has no independent verification by any recognized authority on earth? Why do you want other people to believe it too?

“You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
John 8:44
commented 2019-08-04 14:55:28 -0400
DUKE OF PADUCAH commented 15 hours ago
Here’s my argument, Duke.
-——————————

Still your opinion and not evidence by a recognized scientist or scientific organization."

Lol, a lefty exhibiting independent thought really terrifies you, doesn’t it “duke”. Runs contrary to everything you hold dear, I bet. I am capable of formulating my own arguments and don’t need to be told what to think by someone else. Again, did I say something wrong?
commented 2019-08-04 14:41:00 -0400
My argument falls into that realm, I think. What did I say that wasn’t observation or evidence-based?

Are there actually any flaws in my argument, or is it irrefutable from your perspective?
commented 2019-08-04 00:03:15 -0400
I’m NOT interested in your sophistry.
commented 2019-08-04 00:01:59 -0400
Here’s my argument, Duke.
-——————————

Still your opinion and not evidence by a recognized scientist or scientific organization. I don’t want your opinion. Is that so hard to understand?

How real scientists define science. Not just an opinion:
“Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology BASED ON EVIDENCE.”
commented 2019-08-03 23:59:23 -0400
Here’s my argument, Duke. If you disagree with a specific point, let me know which, and why. I present it as a series of questions.

1) Are the mother and fetus separate organisms? If yes, proceed. If not, then the fetus is not a distinct entity from the mother, and is thus part of her body, rendering the argument moot.

2) If so, are they engaged in a physiologically dependent relationship of some sort? This one is unequivocally yes. Pregnancy, at least in placental mammals, is by definition such a relationship.

3) Evolutionary biologists classify relationships between organisms as beneficial, neutral, or negative, to either member of the relationship. Either participant can experience this independently, leading to nine possible categories of cost-benefit (3×3). Because the fetus clearly benefits from this relationship, we can simplify the array to one of three categories (there are a few other categories not metnioned here, but I argue they are trivial. Regardless, you’re welcome to invoke them if you feel it’s appropriate).
a) Mother benefits, fetus benefits (mutualism/symbiosis).
b) Mother neutral, fetus benefits (commensalism)
c) Mother harmed, fetus benefits (parasitism).

4) Since there is clearly an inter-organism interaction, and the three categories encompass all possible states, it must fall into one of these three categories. The question then becomes, which is it? Pregnancy bears significant metabolic (inncreased food needs) and physiological cost (birth is dangerous!) for the woman, so it could convincingly be argued that it is at least somewhat negative for her. Ergo, the fetus is engaged in a parasitic relationship with its mother,.

5) To clean up some loose ends regarding semantics.
a) Some may argue that it’s not entirely a negative relationship. This is true, although if your conclusion changes depending on your approach, it is clearly not objectively definable. Which is to say, it can’t be objectively wrong, or, as you say, a “lie”.
b) Some describe parasitism as only something that occurs between species, but colloquially, intraspecific parasitism is occasionally referred to, for example “parasitic twins” in humans, or when describing the mating habits of certain anglerfish. This is definitely an underappreciated category (and rarely mentioned) but one which does seem to exist.

Ergo, pregnancy represents, at least in some light, a parasitic relationship.
commented 2019-08-03 23:03:37 -0400
“I already said many times it is not. It is desperately seeking comforting lies. "

What kind of relationship is it, then? Commensal? Symbiotic? Something else?
commented 2019-08-03 22:10:49 -0400
Ah, what the heck. Here is the scientist’s defintion of a scientist:

“A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.”

https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/

Counts out Andrew obviously. Explains a lot of the lunacy zhe propagates.
commented 2019-08-03 22:06:28 -0400
Still no evidence from the “scientist”. Evidence? We don’t need no steenking evidence. Now science is open to our feelings.

How real scientists define science. Not just an opinion:

“Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.”

Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

Source:
https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/

I woulda thunk that someone with a PhD in science would know this but schools ain’t what the usta be.

“Sicks muns ago I cud’n spiel scintist. Now I are wun.”
commented 2019-08-03 21:54:45 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON commented 10 hours ago

How about we think for ourselves, “Duke”. Not everyone needs to be told what to think.


Strange comment coming from a PhD scientist. Science is all about evidence until it refutes your lies.

Is it a parasitic relationship, or not? If not, then what is it?
-————————
I already said many times it is not. It is desperately seeking comforting lies.

Ayatollah ya once.
Ayatollah ya twice.
Khomeini times I got to tell ya?
commented 2019-08-03 11:56:15 -0400
ALBERTA MAGA commented 11 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson it is you green fanatics who think problems can be forcibly solved, and the oil companies have developed more green improvements than Greenpeace or Tides ever has. "

What are your thoughts to Suncor or Enbridge running wind farms (as they do, in Alberta and Ontario)? Garbage, indeed. Do they know something we don’t?

ALBERTA MAGA commented 11 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson Batteries are highly toxic , and why would a fuel be recyclable? Products made by fossil fuels are recyclable unlike Green tech.”

Petroluem products are highly toxic. Recyclability is not determined by feedstock. Polyethylene derived from condensate is chemically identical to that derived from biological feedstocks; and the challenging component of fibreglass, the resin, is presently petroleum derived. The biodegradable versions, (e.g, polylactic acid) which don’t contribute to the “microplastic” problem, are actually easier made from renewable feedstocks – making lactic acid biologically is similar to making booze or vinegar, you need the right strain of bacteria and a big vat, and not much more.

The chemicals in a battery are essentially a “fuel”, albeit one where the reaction products are contained rather than dumped overboard, and which are easily regeneratable to original form.

"
ALBERTA MAGA commented 11 hours ago
Andrew these blades are a challenging waste product"

Yes, they are. Industry has two choices to this
A) Address the challenges; or
B) give up.

They have selected A).
commented 2019-08-03 11:46:15 -0400
Can you not provide a list from a recognized authority that includes humans babies as parasites. Shouldn’t be too difficult if you are correct. But you’re not. You know you’re not and that is why you can’t provide such a list. "

How about we think for ourselves, “Duke”. Not everyone needs to be told what to think.

Is it a parasitic relationship, or not? If not, then what is it?
commented 2019-08-03 01:02:25 -0400
Andrew how about you use what you prefer and i will use what i prefer, and quit acting like any alternative is cleaner because that is complete bunk.
commented 2019-08-03 01:00:57 -0400
Andrew these blades are a challenging waste product. Why does the whole world have to revolve around what you support? Go build a recycling facility for these blades then , no one is stopping you. Wind Turbines cannot replace Fossil Fuels , so why should the world change for them?
commented 2019-08-03 00:58:22 -0400
Andrew Stephenson Batteries are highly toxic , and why would a fuel be recyclable? Products made by fossil fuels are recyclable unlike Green tech.
commented 2019-08-03 00:55:36 -0400
Andrew Stephenson it is you green fanatics who think problems can be forcibly solved, and the oil companies have developed more green improvements than Greenpeace or Tides ever has. Whining and stunts do not bring change. And these Turbines are GARBAGE! PURE AND SIMPLE! Also how much fossil fuel was used to build , transport , and then in the future recycle these blades? Far more than they will ever save us from using.
commented 2019-08-02 17:58:21 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
’Can you define a parasitic relationship for us, Al? And, what, specifically, is inconsistent with that?
-——————————
Who is this, “Al” to whom you refer? The proper term of address is, “My Lord, Duke”. Thank you.

Can you not provide a list from a recognized authority that includes humans babies as parasites. Shouldn’t be too difficult if you are correct. But you’re not. You know you’re not and that is why you can’t provide such a list.

Why do you want o believe and promulgate lies?

Why are you willing to look like a complete imbecile for the sake of a lie?
commented 2019-08-02 12:54:55 -0400
ALBERTA MAGA commented 12 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson those blades are being buried in a landfill , SO THEY ARE GARBAGE!! What part of that is beyond your capacity to comprehend??”

Wind turbines haven’t been around for long enough for a lot to need disposal (the current generation will probably long outlast their 25 year depreciation period). However, the infrastructure to recycle them is developing rapidly. Recycling strategies have been developed in the last three to five years. When a lot of them need recycling, it will be feasible (right now they grind them up and use them as filler in new blades, but you can also pyrolyze them for energy and recover the glass)

One of the more interesting things to happen in 2018 is the development of fully recyclable resin – which renders such composites completely and easily recyclable.

Watch out for “conventional wisdom”, MAGA. When people are faced with a problem, they tend to fix the problem, rather than giving up. Yes, fibreglass is challenging to recycle. What do you do? You figure out how to solve that problem and figure out how to make it recyclable rather than simply giving up on something that will probably play a long term role in becoming sustainable. EV batteries too expensive? Let’s try to make the cheaper. It’s certainly not an excuse to stay with fossil fuels, which are themselves unrecyclable with environmentally challenging waste products.
commented 2019-08-02 12:39:42 -0400
“And again you provide nothing to support your opinion whatsoever. The old awaits your evidence form a recognized authority on parasites that include humans in the list.

’Can you define a parasitic relationship for us, Al? And, what, specifically, is inconsistent with that? Do fetuses not draw resources from their host at considerable metabolic cost? Is that not parasitism? If not, then what is it?

The omission of pregnancy from an evidently incomplete list doesn’t mean much. Confusing negative confirmation from simple lack of mention seems to be something you do a fair bit.

Perhaps we could meet halfway. I agree, a baby is not a conventional parasite (as in helmiths, amoeba, or insects) due to its cis-specific nature, but pregnancy could be a special case representing a parasitic relationship hetween two organisms, does it not? Again, if you disagree, how would YOU describe it, in ecological terms? I’d like to hear what you actually think, Al, not what you’ve been told by others.

This seems to be a subject of intense debate among others, but its’ well into the realm of philosophy rather than science. The term “parasite” has a fairly open definition, which allows considerable subjectivity. Can questions which are philosophical and/or semantic rather than scientific be “lies”?
commented 2019-08-02 08:50:47 -0400
Due to the fact we are having a pleasant summer in Canada CTV has to go to Europe to boost their fake news planetary man made global warming narrative.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/scientists-link-europe-heat-wave-to-man-made-global-warming-1.4534041
Funny last week they claimed the medieval warming period was only a local event and that this put "a stake through the heart’ of a major argument of climate skeptics. Maybe they should work towards more consistency.
commented 2019-08-02 01:59:49 -0400
On a recent trip to Detroit from Hamilton, I saw many “windmills”. The ones that were spinning, were killing Birds/Raptors. It’s a good thing that only 20% of them were working..
commented 2019-08-02 00:58:57 -0400
Andrew Stephenson those blades are being buried in a landfill , SO THEY ARE GARBAGE!! What part of that is beyond your capacity to comprehend??
commented 2019-08-02 00:58:02 -0400
Andrew Stephenson i do not like corruption of any sort. SO you are wrong once again , now go do as Soros and your paid off politicians tell you to do.
And electric cars are not great sellers , FACT!! They have needed tons of tax money to exist as they are.