• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

I completely agree with Mhaze, and always have; We control the climate.

I shun Mhaze's detractors.
 
eerok said:
Yeah, now where did I put that remote ...
Click to expand...
Right, and you guys let me know when you "reach a consensus" on whether we control the climate, cuz you sure don't have it now. But please do let me know.
 
mhaze said:
Right, and you guys let me know when you "reach a consensus" on whether we control the climate, cuz you sure don't have it now. But please do let me know.
Click to expand...
You're slow to realize that "control" is the wrong word to use here.

Perhaps you've been reading too many quotes from Harris. He seems unaware even of the difference between climate and weather, so I'd hardly turn to him for coaching on rhetorical nuance.
 
Twiler said:
Mhaze is completely wrong; Global warming definitely isn't occurring, and the scientific community is engaged in a gigantic conspiracy to conceal it.

I don't know why Mhaze believes such gibberish.
Click to expand...

Mhaze, given that Twiler, your greatest supporter has turned against you, how can you claim to have a consensus?
 
eerok said:
You're slow to realize that "control" is the wrong word to use here.

Perhaps you've been reading too many quotes from Harris. He seems unaware even of the difference between climate and weather, so I'd hardly turn to him for coaching on rhetorical nuance.
Click to expand...

Actually, the discussion is whether Harris's comment about it being nothing but arrogant to believe that we control the weather is the subject, along with the response in the "Report". So it's not at issue what the right word is, it's simply a matter as to whether Harris was (A) Right (B) Wrong.

What's going on here that is rather hilarious is all the squirming by Warmers trying to find some way to not agree with Harris, yet appear smart.
 
mhaze said:
Actually, the discussion is whether Harris's comment about it being nothing but arrogant to believe that we control the weather is the subject, along with the response in the "Report". So it's not at issue what the right word is, it's simply a matter as to whether Harris was (A) Right (B) Wrong.
Click to expand...

The consensus of climate scientists is that human changes to the environment have impacted global climate. If what you're talking about has anything to do with this, can you make it more clear?

IMO the real question is whether Harris was (A) Bought (B) Incompetent (C) Right Wing (D) All of the Above.
 
mhaze said:
Actually, the discussion is whether Harris's comment about it being nothing but arrogant to believe that we control the weather is the subject, along with the response in the "Report". So it's not at issue what the right word is, it's simply a matter as to whether Harris was (A) Right (B) Wrong.

What's going on here that is rather hilarious is all the squirming by Warmers trying to find some way to not agree with Harris, yet appear smart.
Click to expand...

This is just the old 'false duality' trick. When did you stop beating your wife?
 
eerok said:
The consensus of climate scientists is that human changes to the environment have impacted global climate. If what you're talking about has anything to do with this, can you make it more clear?

IMO the real question is whether Harris was (A) Bought (B) Incompetent (C) Right Wing (D) All of the Above.
Click to expand...
The use of the word "impacted" has already been discussed an rejected as a misdirection from Harris's exact words and the similar derail used by the "Report". The remainder of your comments are irrelevant.

Twiler said:
This is just the old 'false duality' trick. When did you stop beating your wife?
Click to expand...
Actually I don't see the 'false duality'. You must be referring to logical error known as "false dichotomy" and indicated largely by "either or". You are right in a sense, but not as you think.

You see, the "Report" asserts that it rebuts Harris's statements, and the one in question is that we are "arrogant to think we control climate".

It is the Report that asserts it can rebute the statement, but misdirecting or reframing is not rebutting. Not at all. If there is a "false dichotomy", then, where is it? Clearly in the responses in this thread by JREF members, they simply try yet again to argue "against Harris" by saying that we "impact, or affect, or influence" climate. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether Harris is right, or Harris is wrong. Or with whether the Report is making things up when they "Rebut" Harris.

Here's the concise statement. Dualism would imply that A) we control climate B) we don't control climate. Asserting that is a logical error may be done by noting the options are (control or not control) but (control, impact, influence, or affect).

But control still remains mutually exclusive to the other options. Control is control. Not much more needs be said.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
The use of the word "impacted" has already been discussed an rejected as a misdirection from Harris's exact words and the similar derail used by the "Report". The remainder of your comments are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand perfectly—the science is irrelevant to you. I'm just trying to explain to you that this doesn't make it go away.

Harris's exact words show that his main objective is to misrepresent climate science so as to dismiss it. That doesn't make the science go away, either.

Any chance that you'll stop dancing around the point and address what climate science claims and why Harris is failing to teach it properly?
 
mhaze said:
[...] Here's the concise statement. Dualism would imply that A) we control climate B) we don't control climate. Asserting that is a logical error may be done by noting the options are (control or not control) but (control, impact, influence, or affect).

But control still remains mutually exclusive to the other options. Control is control. Not much more needs be said.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately a whole lot more needs to be said, because Harris's "control the weather" is a straw man. Only science deniers make that misrepresentation. And the whole point of this thread ...

... wait for it ...

... here it comes ...

... we don't want idiots like Harris teaching anti-science in Canadian universities. If he has some science to offer, let him show it. But he shows none. If he has something other than logical fallacies and empty rhetoric to offer, let him utter it. But he has nothing.

And neither do you.
 
mhaze said:
The use of the word "impacted" has already been discussed a
Click to expand...

It was discussed and your position was rejected. You need to give it up, your argument is beyond stupid.


The only "control" we have over the climate is to cut CO2 emissions and limit the warming we will have caused. Your attempt to equate this with the ability ti make the earths climate do whatever we want speaks to your gullibility and/or dishonesty.
 
eerok said:
Unfortunately a whole lot more needs to be said, because Harris's "control the weather" is a straw man. Only science deniers make that misrepresentation. And the whole point of this thread ...

... wait for it ...

... here it comes ...

... we don't want idiots like Harris teaching anti-science in Canadian universities. If he has some science to offer, let him show it. But he shows none. If he has something other than logical fallacies and empty rhetoric to offer, let him utter it. But he has nothing.

And neither do you.
Click to expand...
Hmm....so there's something wrong with going through the supposed work by the "Report"...

Through an extensive audit of the course material, we identify 142 claims made during the lectures by the instructor, Mr Tom Harris, and various guest lecturers, that run counter to established scientific opinion.

...to see if they are true, or just truthy.

According to you, we should START with the prejudicial attitude that he's a Denier, then proceed to pat each other on the back for each one of the 142 claims.

Considering them objectively is not an option.

Wait...
 
mhaze said:
Hmm....so there's something wrong with going through the supposed work by the "Report"...

Through an extensive audit of the course material, we identify 142 claims made during the lectures by the instructor, Mr Tom Harris, and various guest lecturers, that run counter to established scientific opinion.

...to see if they are true, or just truthy.

According to you, we should START with the prejudicial attitude that he's a Denier, then proceed to pat each other on the back for each one of the 142 claims.

Considering them objectively is not an option.

Wait...
Click to expand...

No, Eerok said that his interpretation of the global warming theory as being a theory that we 'control the weather' is an indication that he is a global warming denier. Anyone can read the post and see that. Except you, apparently.

Still waiting for you to indicate the existence of people who think we control the climate.
 
mhaze said:
Hmm....so there's something wrong with going through the supposed work by the "Report"...

Through an extensive audit of the course material, we identify 142 claims made during the lectures by the instructor, Mr Tom Harris, and various guest lecturers, that run counter to established scientific opinion.

...to see if they are true, or just truthy.

According to you, we should START with the prejudicial attitude that he's a Denier, then proceed to pat each other on the back for each one of the 142 claims.

Considering them objectively is not an option.

Wait...
Click to expand...

It's been considered objectively, over a protracted period of time of more than a century. The conclusion has been reached, using the scientific method. Teaching otherwise is not ethical. Local medical authorities are finally looking to crack down on homeopathy training.
 
mhaze said:
According to you, we should START with the prejudicial attitude that he's a Denier, then proceed to pat each other on the back for each one of the 142 claims.
Click to expand...
No, I read the report before I decided anything. Didn't you?

Harris blatantly wove silly rhetoric into political propaganda, and tried to pass it off as supported opinion. This is simply not acceptable in a university course. I've had eccentric and downright flaky profs in my day, but I never had one who systematically tried to cram horse excrement into my brain the way Harris evidently did with his students.

It's disgusting.
 
lol the deniers are so cute. no science to backup their stuff but want to be taken serious.
 
DC said:
lol the deniers are so cute. no science to backup their stuff but want to be taken serious.
Click to expand...
Interesting take on the matter. On the other hand, I view a list of 100+ "denials of science" as something worth looking into. In doing so, I find in the 20 some cases reviewed, no "denial of science" but just massive and ridiculously stupid logical errors and misdirection by the guys writing the "Report".

Eg, we are talking about one insect biologist Phd, and three non scientists.

But I encourage you: Stick with the prejudice, the preconceived notions, the stereotypes, the demagogery.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom