Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

[mhaze]

So your point, is that non-scientific, advocacy organizations should not be cited or credited as scientific evidence and that doing so largely invalidates their arguments? I generally agree with this, which is what I find especially troubling about this professor's strong, and in at least one case a founding, connection to several pseudoscience political advocacy organizations.

Do you have a copy of, or more specific pointer to this "... uses something like 'Desmogblog' as a reference..."? I saw 150+ respected published science journal cites, I may have missed it but I would like to see the specific cite to clarify whether it was cited as a scientific reference or something more mundane.

Of course, a "Find" will bring it right up - if that's not convenient for you, let me know and I'll snip the section or get the page number. But this sort of thing is not uncommon, really. I've known situations where MediaMatters was suggested or required to college students as an unbiased source.

Oh, and note that I suggested the document be used in the class. Fascinaing truthiness there. The class could be asked "Find out about Desmogblog. Should they be quoted in a paper like this one critical of content in a college class?" That'd be a great homework assignment.

They'd of course find much more than this:

Desmogblock is set up by....

James Hoggan, PR man, who got paid $300,000 to set up a website attacking critics of global warming. That's right, DeSmogBlog is bought and paid for, and the irony is that its founding donor John Lefebvre, although a greenie, is now a convicted criminal done on money-laundering conspiracy charges. His company reportedly was also dabbling in carbon trading allowances as an offshoot from its online gambling business.

One wonders what Hoggan needed $300,000 for. The fee for a blogsite is around $10 a month. The only other investment is your time.

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the...whos-paying-global-warmings-top-bloggers.html

 

[Trakar]

Of course, a "Find" will bring it right up - if that's not convenient for you, let me know and I'll snip the section or get the page number...

Oh, I found where this (and other blogs) were mentioned, regarding the media kerfluffle that sprung up around the pseudoscience/political mockumentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." What I cannot find is any reference or citation of Desmogblog (or any other blog) as a science support. Which is probably why it is not listed among the References at the end of the paper. All of the science presented in this paper appears to be well supported with journal published science.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Ottawa has been invaded by right-wing hooligans lately. Nothing surprises me anymore.

What I find strange and difficult to understand is that Harper government keeps giving millions of dollars to developing countries to help their "climate change adaptation programs" through crown corporations. A bit like saying "we need and will use that Alberta oil, you poor countries will be the first to suffer consequences, so here are few millions dollars to help you to adapt. In the meantime we will teach our students that global warming isn't happening".

 

[mhaze]

Oh, I found where this (and other blogs) were mentioned, regarding the media kerfluffle that sprung up around the pseudoscience/political mockumentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle." What I cannot find is any reference or citation of Desmogblog (or any other blog) as a science support. Which is probably why it is not listed among the References at the end of the paper. All of the science presented in this paper appears to be well supported with journal published science.

What I'm saying, and I think you'd agree with me, is that there shouldn't even be a mention of something like Desmogblog in a paper that seeks to take the high ground of scientific credibility in order to criticize another, whom they believe isn't quite on their lofty plateau of science.

What I interpret the reference to Desmogblog as is simple. The authors think it is a credible source, and they include it unwittingly, not knowing the bias it displays of their own attitude.

But leaving that aside, certainly, the "science" critiques in the paper can themselves be criticized. Briefly, they seem hastily and sloppily researched and assembled. Here is one example.

(claim 35) For example, if you have a coal station, or some sort of source of particulate matter that’s near the glacier, it can build up a black, sooty sort of layer on the glacier, and as you know black absorbs sunlight more easily than light colours, so the kind of pollution produced in a lot of these coal firing stations , if it’s not taken out at the source, can actually reduce ice and glacier cover nearby.‛


RESPONSE: There has been a reduction in the quantity of soot emitted from power stations over the past century [52] – Harris provides no evidence for local black carbon emissions.​

Harris is actually more right here. The response doesn't take into account the fact, as reported in a science paper by James Hansen, that the old soot doesn't just go away. And the response seems to not even be right at all concerning current soot productions.

I could continue like this, picking out other obvious errors. But it would be interesting to hear these guys debate, and I think Harris would win.

Certainly it would be quite interesting to have a course like this that wasn't just pro-environmental brainwashing, but which illustrated both sides of the controversy as well as the political and other ramifications and how they filtered the scientific data and conclusions.

 

[Trakar]

What I'm saying, and I think you'd agree with me, is that there shouldn't even be a mention of something like Desmogblog in a paper that seeks to take the high ground of scientific credibility in order to criticize another, whom they believe isn't quite on their lofty plateau of science.

What I interpret the reference to Desmogblog as is simple. The authors think it is a credible source, and they include it unwittingly, not knowing the bias it displays of their own attitude...

While I certainly agree that blogs, in general, have no established standard of credibility or reliability with regards to objective facts and supporting references, and thus, in content, they are not, generally, acceptable as supporting evidences for scientific findings. IOW, some blog that discusses Chemical processes and the author's thoughts about particular chemical processes, isn't reliable as supporting evidence for a published paper on that subject. That said, social sciences and the review of cultural patterns and behavior, has often utilized examples of writings, television and movies in their discussions of trends and influences between media and the cultures represented in that media. My impression of the discussion in this paper, with regards to blogs, seems more along the latter lines than the former (chemistry) situation:

...[At this point in the lecture, Harris shows the film ‚The Great Global Warming Swindle.‛]
RESPONSE: A variety of sources have taken this film to task over factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations:
 Sir John Houghton (Sir John was the co-chair of the IPCC and provides a series of responses to claims made in the film)
 RealClimate (a review of several of the scientific claims made in the GGWS)
 DeSmogBlog (a review of some of the GGWS’s arguments along with more details on the contributors)
 Scienceblogs has two posts: one discussing the main points, and a second discussing the link between solar activity and temperature.
 Fermi Paradox (also covers solar vs. temperature)
 Climate Denial (covers some of the background to the documentary and provides links to RESPONSEs)
 Monbiot.com (George Monbiot covers the questionable past of the documentary’s maker)...

In that it is not discussing any science from the blogs, it is merely talking about the contentious nature of the film and the substantive public voices which have spoken out against it.

But leaving that aside, certainly, the "science" critiques in the paper can themselves be criticized. Briefly, they seem hastily and sloppily researched and assembled. Here is one example.

Well, while the science they cite, seems solid, and they have adopted a scientific format for this report, this isn't a referreed or peer-reviewed paper, it is a report by a special interest group laying out a reasoned argument in support of their position. It is a skeptical society and they are to be commended for a well structured report and a persuasive argument,...but they aren't producing science in this report, and I see no reason to confuse or conflate this report with published science.

Certainly it would be quite interesting to have a course like this that wasn't just pro-environmental brainwashing,...

I am not aware of any university course that consists of "pro-environmental brainwashing," but I would be interested in any examples of such that you are aware of.

...but which illustrated both sides of the controversy as well as the political and other ramifications and how they filtered the scientific data and conclusions.

something this course did not attempt. I am not sure that such is any more appropriate than trying to present "both sides" of evolution, CFCs, tobacco, or Dianetics

 

[Pipirr]

They are supposed to be about education. Teaching fantasy, ignorance and bad science is not education.

I'd think that would be an uncontroversial argument.

Ask any reputable scientific body to put together a curriculum on climate change, and what they come up with would be nothing like what Harris was teaching. You'd have to be an expert in what climate science is not to create a course like Harris.

 

[Trakar]

I'd think that would be an uncontroversial argument.

Ask any reputable scientific body to put together a curriculum on climate change, and what they come up with would be nothing like what Harris was teaching. You'd have to be an expert in what climate science is not to create a course like Harris.

I struggled with your last sentence, but I think I agree with it as well. This class appears to have been carefully crafted in its distortions and misrepresentations.

 

[mhaze]

While I certainly agree that blogs, in general, have no established standard of credibility or reliability with regards to objective facts and supporting references, and thus, in content, they are not, generally, acceptable as supporting evidences for scientific findings. IOW, some blog that discusses Chemical processes and the author's thoughts about particular chemical processes, isn't reliable as supporting evidence for a published paper on that subject. That said, social sciences and the review of cultural patterns and behavior, has often utilized examples of writings, television and movies in their discussions of trends and influences between media and the cultures represented in that media. My impression of the discussion in this paper, with regards to blogs, seems more along the latter lines than the former (chemistry) situation:....

That is a word salad, but since you mention chemistry, I can easily show an example where blogs are valuable, and "published papers" are not. (well not REALLY even the right place to look. First the MSDS, then the opinions of chemists). Many, many other examples.

The effects and dangers of chlorine triflouride.

But that'll be the reflections of experienced chemists about the issues, while Desmogblog is a paid-for, politically biased, propaganda machine.

Little bit of difference?

 

[mhaze]

I struggled with your last sentence, but I think I agree with it as well. This class appears to have been carefully crafted in its distortions and misrepresentations.

I struggle with your last sentence and thought to correct it:

Filtered through the narrow, slitted eyes of some hysteria warmers and propagandists at some unknown "council" who wrote a pseudoscientific "Report" to criticize a curriculum, when viewed in turn through prejudiced, biased, and gullible believers in global warming, the class in question appears to have been carefully crafted in it's distortions and misrepresentations.

Little problem there?

 

[Trakar]

I can easily show an example where blogs are valuable, and "published papers" are not. (well not REALLY even the right place to look. First the MSDS, then the opinions of chemists). Many, many other examples.

The effects and dangers of chlorine triflouride.

But that'll be the reflections of experienced chemists about the issues, while Desmogblog is a paid-for, politically biased, propaganda machine.

Little bit of difference?

So, more like the RealClimate of chemistry?

Regardless, you don't illustrate the value of blogs, merely one blog that tries to adhere to a relatively high level of professional standards. Many do, that is not the point.

 

[mhaze]

...something this course did not attempt. I am not sure that such is any more appropriate than trying to present "both sides" of evolution, CFCs, tobacco, or Dianetics

OF COURSE!!!! Just believe what the "Council" told you and reach the conclusions they wanted you too!

The first problem is that you accepted everything they said about the course as truth. You have no objective evidence about the course.

None at all.

 

[Trakar]

OF COURSE!!!! Just believe what the "Council" told you and reach the conclusions they wanted you too!

The first problem is that you accepted everything they said about the course as truth. You have no objective evidence about the course.

None at all.

I am basing my assessment on the evidences presented, yes. The evidence is not refuted anywhere that I am aware of. What evidence are you basing your assertions that the situation was different upon?

 

[Trakar]

I struggle with your last sentence and thought to correct it:

Filtered through the narrow, slitted eyes of some hysteria warmers and propagandists at some unknown "council" who wrote a pseudoscientific "Report" to criticize a curriculum, when viewed in turn through prejudiced, biased, and gullible believers in global warming, the class in question appears to have been carefully crafted in it's distortions and misrepresentations.

Little problem there?

If you are referring to the lack of evidence supporting your contentions, I would consider that a rather large problem,...please address it.

 

[mhaze]

I am basing my assessment on the evidences presented, yes. The evidence is not refuted anywhere that I am aware of. What evidence are you basing your assertions that the situation was different upon?

No fact checking outside of biased source that supports your prejudice?

seems strange./

 

[Krikkiter]

No fact checking outside of biased source that supports your prejudice?

seems strange./

mhaze, can you answer the actual question please? I'm interested in your reply.

 

[mhaze]

mhaze, can you answer the actual question please? I'm interested in your reply.

Sure. Let's recap.

A liberal, pro AGW group criticizes a particular teacher's university level class for not toeing the party line. The group produces a "Report" that references Desmogblog, and which is of shoddy scholarship.

I find a scientific error in that report very easily, and note it here. We could find many others.

A discussion ensues on the JREF forum in which liberal, pro AGW believers accept the "Report" unquestionally as being authoritative, factual and representative of mainstream science. Unfortunately, the report isn't that at all - it's a criticism of the content of a classroom, consisting of lectures, student discussion and written assignments.

The actual content of the classroom is unknown outside of the published syllabus and the criticism by a "Report" which is notably biased, as indicated.

I've also noted issues in the "Report" which criticize the professor, which reflect quite poorly on those writing the "Report", and which seem to reflect positively on the professor.

HERE'S a juicy little tidbit from their prestigiously named REPORT:

students were actively encouraged to ridicule those individuals who espoused views considered "alarmist" by the instructor

YES! Here 'ya go! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54​

Well...unless one thought that someone professing Belief in the AGW Religion should never, ever be criticized or ridiculed. I have a suggestion. Why not go and look at the attitudes of students taking the course?

• Great to hear alternative perspectives on climate change and to get away from the global warming dogma for a bit. Not sure if a believe it or not but very interesting all the same. Keep the debate alive! and always question the church of science.
  
• Nice to have some fresh perspectives on global warming rather than the dramatized fear mongering versions.
  
• like others have mentioned the course is based on his opinion essentially. There are interesting points are brings out, and certainly he's not always lying, but its not a fullyhonest cour
  
• Incredibly terrible professor. Astounding how unqualified this man is. His exams do not reflect what he taught. You can basically answer ever question with the idea of "What does professor Harris think about this?" He shouldnt be allowed to teach the class.
  
• Bloopers are a fun way to learn in which individual students can point out unscientific claims & poor policies based upon them.

http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=1274233&all=true

Composite rating for Thomas Harris = 3.8. Average for Earth Sciences department = 3.25.

 

[Krikkiter]

That's your personal summary, such as it is, but as far as I'm concerned it didn't answer the question.

I'm loath to speak on behalf of someone else but I believe the question related specifically to a purported refutation of evidence or lack thereof.

I read the paper and the links. Please show how the sources cited are wrong. If the sources cited in the paper are correct then obviously the paper is at least objectively correct yes?

 

[RobDegraves]

@mhaze

Probably wasting my time here...

Do you have a problem answering simple questions without going out on a randomly phrased rant?

I find a scientific error in that report very easily, and note it here. We could find many others.

No you have not, unless you count your bizarre mix of rant and off topic links as evidence for anything.

You have not addressed any of the actual points of The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism and even your criticism of DesmogBlog is puerile at best. Yes, it's a blog but your criticism has nothing to do with the science of global warning but simply your ranty opinion of the people involved.

If the report from The Committee (etc) was wrong in it's conclusion, why is it wrong?

Can you respond in a way that is comprehensible and doesn't involve puerile insults and vague assertions?

 

[mhaze]

....
You have not addressed any of the actual points of The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism and even your criticism of DesmogBlog is puerile at best.

Yes, it's a blog but your criticism has nothing to do with the science of global warning but simply your ranty opinion of the people involved.

If the report from The Committee (etc) was wrong in it's conclusion, why is it wrong?

Can you respond in a way that is comprehensible and doesn't involve puerile insults and vague assertions?

You refer to the "Report" which is exactly nothing more or less than an ad hominem attack?

You call my arguments puerile and vague?

You are a fool. See the above highlighted sentence and repent, you cannot even name your faith correctly.

....I believe the question related specifically to a purported refutation of evidence or lack thereof.

I read the paper and the links. Please show how the sources cited are wrong. If the sources cited in the paper are correct then obviously the paper is at least objectively correct yes?

Absolutely not, because you must first argue that the "complaints" listed in the report accurately reflect beliefs or statements presented in a similar fashion to the students. When the "report" is clearly and intentionally biased, there is no reason to accept that premise.

Hint: It's quite difficult to take a speech, and transcribe it to a chapter. It can be done, but with great care. A speaker may ask some questions rhetorically, others, from the devil's advocate point of view. Others, repeated for emphasis, only need to be transcribed once.

Here's an example. It's an interview by what seems to be a rather pushy reporter with Tom Harris, generally about the "Report". As I mentioned in my first post, the "Report" is quite slipshod and on that basis alone ridiculous...Tom Harris, it seems, has much the same opinion.

But the main thing I noticed is that the first part of the report is completely riddled with logical fallacies – guilt by association, ad hominem, motive intent, straw man arguments, red herring. I mean, you just look it up on Wikipedia and you’ve got all the logical fallacies and they are using almost all of them. I mean the fact is all that matters in the course is what was taught, not whether I have some nefarious motive. All that matters is what was taught and if the items in there are actually wrong then fine that’s good input to the next person who teaches the course but all the beginning of the report – and some of its just 100% wrong like saying I was a lobbyist or am a lobbyist. I’ve never been a lobbyist.

http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/...c-tom-harris-a-dirty-denier-of-climate-change

 

[RobDegraves]

@mhaze

So.. I guess you opted to prove my arguments correct yourself rather than let me do it.

My question...

Can you respond in a way that is comprehensible and doesn't involve puerile insults and vague assertions?

Your answer...

You refer to the "Report" which is exactly nothing more or less than an ad hominem attack?

You call my arguments puerile and vague?

You are a fool. See the above highlighted sentence and repent, you cannot even name your faith correctly.

Since you responded in a puerile and vague manner... I guess... I don't have much else to say except ... check mate and thanks for barely trying.