Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

[Twiler]

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.

Is there anything in this post you haven't said before in this thread?

 

[eerok]

One thing I have to wonder: considering Harris's affiliation with Heartland, did he also pass out cartons of cigarettes in class?

 

[eerok]

Actually, here's the perfect Heartland slam-dunk:

Second-hand smoke is plant food!

 

[Trakar]

You know, that consensus of scientists that we're controlling the climate. I assume that's right, since Harris believes otherwise, and he's wrong because he's a Denier, right?

Influencing, affecting, impacting are the verbs I perceive in the works of the vast and overwhelming concensus of climate scientists. Harris is an engineer not a scientist and certainly not qualified or acknowledged as a "climate scientist." He rails against scientific understandings he is not trained in and does so out of paid support for philosophical and political persuasions that find the scientific understandings inconvenient to their philosophical and political preferences. From my personal perspective, Harris seems more "shill" than "denier."

"Shill" (from Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)

A shill, plant or stooge is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he or she has a close relationship with that person or organization. Shill typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) that he or she is secretly working for. The person or group that hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed).

 

[mhaze]

Influencing, affecting, impacting are the verbs I perceive in the works of the vast and overwhelming concensus of climate scientists. Harris is an engineer not a scientist and certainly not qualified or acknowledged as a "climate scientist." He rails against scientific understandings he is not trained in and does so out of paid support for philosophical and political persuasions that find the scientific understandings inconvenient to their philosophical and political preferences. From my personal perspective, Harris seems more "shill" than "denier."

"Shill" (from Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill)

Yes, I have noted that from a biased perspective, all evil is attributed to the object of the bias and prejudice.

But let me ask this: By your logic, John Cook of Skepticalscience is a paid shill.

Something wrong with that?

Oh yeah. He's "on your side", so he cannot be a paid shill. I could continue with a dozen more examples, but you get the point. Can you explain then this attribution of the evil stereotype strictly to those who are against your viewpoints without noting the essential propagandic nature of your attitudes?

Please don't respond by further affirming the propaganda.

 

[eerok]

Yes, I have noted that from a biased perspective, all evil is attributed to the object of the bias and prejudice.

That's nice, but you didn't acknowledge my money shot:

Second-hand smoke is plant food!

So is my cheque in the mail, or what?

That's gotta be worth at least twice scale.

 

[mhaze]

That's nice, but you didn't acknowledge my money shot:

Second-hand smoke is plant food!

So is my cheque in the mail, or what?

That's gotta be worth at least twice scale.

I understood you were trying to spin the subject. A lot of people have been doing that.

All I was doing was going down the list of "Claims" by these half educated guys that wrote this "Report" and one by one, looking at whether they were true, somewhat true, or total bs.

Bit of difference there?

 

[Trakar]

Yes, I have noted that from a biased perspective, all evil is attributed to the object of the bias and prejudice.

That is not only not what I am saying, it is completely unrelated to what I have said, as you clearly understand.

But let me ask this: By your logic, John Cook of Skepticalscience is a paid shill.

A shill is a person who is paid to help another person or organization to sell goods or services. The shill pretends to have no association with the seller/group and gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic customer. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial; An accomplice at a confidence trick during an auction or gambling game; To promote or endorse in return for payment, especially dishonestly; To put under cover; to sheal

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill

Do you have any evidence that John Cook is pretending to be something he is not, and being paid to pretend to be impartial and promote or endorse (especially dishonestly) an ideal or philosophy not in accord with objective facts and mainstream science understandings?

If so, please present these evidences.

No, I do not feel that a qualified and actively publishing mainstream climate scientist who actively promotes mainstream climate science is a shill, but I am willing to entertain such an argument if it can be compellingly and convincingly supported and evidenced.

 

[mhaze]

That is not only not what I am saying, it is completely unrelated to what I have said, as you clearly understand.

A shill is a person who is paid to help another person or organization to sell goods or services. The shill pretends to have no association with the seller/group and gives onlookers the impression that he or she is an enthusiastic customer. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

A person paid to endorse a product favourably, while pretending to be impartial; An accomplice at a confidence trick during an auction or gambling game; To promote or endorse in return for payment, especially dishonestly; To put under cover; to sheal

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shill

Do you have any evidence that John Cook is pretending to be something he is not, and being paid to pretend to be impartial and promote or endorse (especially dishonestly) an ideal or philosophy not in accord with objective facts and mainstream science understandings?

If so, please present these evidences.

No, I do not feel that a qualified and actively publishing mainstream climate scientist who actively promotes mainstream climate science is a shill, but I am willing to entertain such an argument if it can be compellingly and convincingly supported and evidenced.

Huh? You are referring to the John Cook who is a cartoonist?

But regarding your definition of shill, one who was, previously to taking money to promote view X, promoting view -X, would definitely qualify as a shill. One who could be bought and paid for. But one who had view X, and then accepted money for promoting view X (which they already sincerely believed in) would not be a shill.


http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=6290316
Here's an interesting example. I'm sure you understand that there has been both .... some stretching of the truth about polar bears by AGW Faithful, and also, some distortions of the truth in the scientific literature about polar bears.

Is this guy "a shill"?



Mitch Taylor, a professor from Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ont., who specializes in polar bear research, also confirmed that he had been paid to do independent review work for the Heartland Institute, but has now stopped because of a busy workload teaching classes. He said there was nothing wrong with the funding.
"I'm not getting paid to produce anything by anybody," said Taylor.
He explained that he has been shut out of important technical meetings regarding the official status of polar bears because other scientists disagree with his research suggesting they are exaggerating claims about the species being at risk from climate change.
"I'm getting paid to be able to function as a normal scientist because there is no funding of this perspective through any of the normal channels," Taylor said. "I can't even go to the meetings."
He said he believed that the Heartland Institute had paid him a monthly fee of about $750, and that he remained in contact with the think-tank and would work with it again.
"I've been working on polar bears since 1978 . . . and my voice is being basically, just disallowed. I no longer have access to the ordinary communication routes that are available."

Regarding John Cook again, a pretty good look at the systematic deletion of scientific arguments from the posts is here:

http://nigguraths.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/skepticalscience-rewriting-history/

I've followed his blog since it began and I've seen this. You can go look at my old posts on JREF and see how I would laugh about "the best part of a skepticalscience post is the comments".

The above link explains Cook's behavior as....

The deletions carried out by Cook don’t make sense as an exercise in moderation. They seem driven by an ardent need to present a clean and neat view of global warming. Of a need to reassure that no intelligent discussions exist, and all possible questions have (long) been answered.

Then we have the result. A $10K award to John Cook for quality propaganda.

Establishment science apologist and propagandist John Cook has been awarded the Eureka Prize by the Government of New South Wales supposedly “for communication that motivates action to reduce the impacts of climate change.”



But on a cursory examination of the facts, I won't accuse either John Cook or Tom Harris of being a shill. Quite clearly both of them sincerely believe in their point of view. However, you immediately leaped to the conclusion of Great Implicit Evil. Which is of course, objectively an affirmation of the propagandic method.

And that's improper in science.

 

[Trakar]

Huh? You are referring to the John Cook who is a cartoonist?

No, I'm referring to:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml

About the author: Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.

I was mistaken about him being a published climate scientist, my apologies, as stated previously, I don't do blogs and was somehow confusing John Cook with Eric Steig (I ran into them both at one of the Fall AGU meetings a couple of years back and must have mixed up their backgrounds), nontheless, John Cook's relevent science credentials are solid, he doesn't claim his own personal authority with regards to climate science and he isn't trying to teach a science class that disparages and distorts mainstream science understandings.

No, he is apparently not a shill.

as to the other red herrings you are throwing out in an attempt to further run this thread offtopic, please don't respond by further attempts at spreading pseudoscience and partisan political rhetoric.

 

[mhaze]

No, I'm referring to:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/about.shtml


I was mistaken about him being a published climate scientist.....

No, he is apparently not a shill.
......

No, the CARTOONIST JOHN COOK is not a shill. And he's made a boatload of scientific errors and logic errors in his website, as per the link I noted.

And neither is Tom Harris. Using the same standards, and same definitions, and applying those equally.

Oh. By the way. I take it you don't like the polar bear scientist? I like polar bears. They are so cuddly and cute and and carnivorous and everything. Well except when you need to grab that handy, dandy high powered rifle to make them drop dead. It's so nice that a scientist is able to speak their honest opinion about polar bears and science.

Don't you think?

 

[eerok]

All I was doing was going down the list of "Claims" by these half educated guys that wrote this "Report" and one by one, looking at whether they were true, somewhat true, or total bs.

Half-educated is half better than Harris. He is not a scientist and has no credentials in his subject. Rather, he's a notorious and experienced lobbyist with a career in speaking against environmentalism on behalf of energy companies.

You can dispute the quotes from Harris's course all you like, but there's no doubt that Harris has been advocating a distorted, corporate-friendly vision of climate change that contradicts the prevailing opinion of scientists in the field. That's not education, that's propaganda.

Your quibble about the writers of the report is dismissed as utter nonsense.

 

[Trakar]

Half-educated is half better than Harris. He is not a scientist and has no credentials in his subject. Rather, he's a notorious and experienced lobbyist with a career in speaking against environmentalism on behalf of energy companies.

You can dispute the quotes from Harris's course all you like, but there's no doubt that Harris has been advocating a distorted, corporate-friendly vision of climate change that contradicts the prevailing opinion of scientists in the field. That's not education, that's propaganda.

Your quibble about the writers of the report is dismissed as utter nonsense.

There is nothing "corporate-friendly" about Harris's statements. Despite the manner in which some wish to portray business and corporations in general, what is best for individuals and corporations is not this quarters' margins to the exclusion of all other considerations. A part of education is learning to understand and distinguish between the best available facts and "sales-pitches" by shysters and shills selling short-sighted distortions of these for ulterior special interest gain.

The vast majority of business owners know that ignorance and denial of reality is not profittable. Most feel as disabused and put upon by those seeking to distort the science and muddle public policy action to address climate change as the scientists themselves feel.

Global Investor Survey on Climate Change - http://www.igcc.org.au/Resources/Documents/Global Investor Report embargoed to June 13th.pdf

Government too slow on climate change: survey - http://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/news/government-too-slow-on-climate-change-survey4711.html

Multiple Polls Reveal Overwhelming Concern about Global Warming among Americans:Noisy minority, confusing questions and misleading headlines have created wrong impression, researchers say - http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...-concern-about-global-warming-among-americans

In Sarasota, Businesses Take Small Steps to Confront Climate Risks - http://www.climatecentral.org/news/...s-take-small-steps-to-confront-climate-risks/

Actually, Small Business Owners Do Want a Climate Bill - http://www.justmeans.com/Actually-Small-Business-Owners-Do-Want-a-Climate-Bill/21070.html

Energy Innovation, Efficiency Can Help Small Businesses Prosper - http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/1492-national-energy-regulation-small-business-support.html

Results of the SWCCIP Tourism Group’s Tourism Business Survey -http://www.oursouthwest.com/climate/registry/100400-tourism-survey-report.pdf

 

[mhaze]

Half-educated is half better than Harris. He is not a scientist and has no credentials in his subject. Rather, he's a notorious and experienced lobbyist with a career in speaking against environmentalism on behalf of energy companies.

You can dispute the quotes from Harris's course all you like, but there's no doubt that Harris has been advocating a distorted, corporate-friendly vision of climate change that contradicts the prevailing opinion of scientists in the field. That's not education, that's propaganda....

Odd, and to think that it was I that was claiming the "Report" was propaganda. Now you are saying that regardless of how many errors of fact, and errors of logic that the "Report" may have, IT IS HARRIS who is exercising propaganda.

That's quite interesting as a viewpoint. Particularly since the "Claims" of the report are supposed to be the actual evidence that establishes the "fact" that Harris is the bad guy you claim he is. You now propose disregarding the actual evidence and simply relying on the premise.

That is the propagandic method. Create big lies, based on little, usually out of context, parts of the truth; demonize, stereotype, and repeat slogans incessantly.

So you are a propagandist?

 

[mhaze]

There is nothing "corporate-friendly" about Harris's statements. Despite the manner in which some wish to portray business and corporations in general, what is best for individuals and corporations is not this quarters' margins to the exclusion of all other considerations. A part of education is learning to understand and distinguish between the best available facts and "sales-pitches" by shysters and shills selling short-sighted distortions of these for ulterior special interest gain.

The vast majority of business owners know that ignorance and denial of reality is not profittable. Most feel as disabused and put upon by those seeking to distort the science and muddle public policy action to address climate change as the scientists themselves feel.

Global Investor Survey on Climate Change - http://www.igcc.org.au/Resources/Documents/Global Investor Report embargoed to June 13th.pdf

Government too slow on climate change: survey - http://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/news/government-too-slow-on-climate-change-survey4711.html

Multiple Polls Reveal Overwhelming Concern about Global Warming among Americans:Noisy minority, confusing questions and misleading headlines have created wrong impression, researchers say - http://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...-concern-about-global-warming-among-americans

In Sarasota, Businesses Take Small Steps to Confront Climate Risks - http://www.climatecentral.org/news/...s-take-small-steps-to-confront-climate-risks/

Actually, Small Business Owners Do Want a Climate Bill - http://www.justmeans.com/Actually-Small-Business-Owners-Do-Want-a-Climate-Bill/21070.html

Energy Innovation, Efficiency Can Help Small Businesses Prosper - http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/1492-national-energy-regulation-small-business-support.html

Results of the SWCCIP Tourism Group’s Tourism Business Survey -http://www.oursouthwest.com/climate/registry/100400-tourism-survey-report.pdf

Us business owners can think quite well for ourselves without the help of anonymous Internet far left environmentalist inputs. But thanks. Oh, and whenever you guys figure out some of the basic principles of business, you won't need all those government subsidies and controls on peoples' behavior any more.

Cheers!

 

[Corsair 115]

UOh, and whenever you guys figure out some of the basic principles of business, you won't need all those government subsidies and controls on peoples' behavior any more.

Wait, weren't you the guy who was arguing in favour of billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that would be needed to get Newt's moon base built?

Also, "control on people's behavior any more"... Do you apply such outrage to fire codes? How dare the government tell a business it must have a certain amount of fire exits! How dare the government control business people's behavior in such an outrageous manner!

 

[mhaze]

Wait, weren't you the guy who was arguing in favour of billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that would be needed to get Newt's moon base built?

Also, "control on people's behavior any more"... Do you apply such outrage to fire codes? How dare the government tell a business it must have a certain amount of fire exits! How dare the government control business people's behavior in such an outrageous manner!

Subsidies? Nope. I argued in favor of using prizes, awarded after a private person or company succeeded in a difficult research or engineering task. That's not uncommon. Subsidies are when money is handed out regardless of accomplishments. Also, a moon base built using Newt's concepts would not even be government owned or controlled - it would be private. Which I would favor, as obviously it doesn't encumber a government with financial obligations and such.

I don't have any problem with fire codes. For one thing, fire codes and things of that nature tend to be styled upon a thousand or more years of experience that we have with fire, what causes it, what prevents and controls it in a urban environment. So these codes tend to be highly rational. "Climate control legislation" is often totally the reverse, exacting high costs for nominal or no benefit a-la the promises made, and with 30 some years of history comparing to, in the case of fire, a thousand.

That's a sweeping generalization but you get the picture.

I'm not seeing much of a relation between fire codes and the sorts of thing Trakar mentioned regarding "climate control" and "climate control legislation". Then again, there isn't much of a relation between his post and the topic of this thread, either.

But thanks. Derails are useful because of the basic problem Warmers have here - how to deal with the poor scholarship of the "Report", the countless examples of "Claims" made therein which are simply NOT ANSWERED by their "Response", and still, at the same time, malign and ad hom Harris.

I understand the delicate nature of this problem - to ignore facts, and yet continue to smear a "Denier". It's a tough job, but someone has to do it. And who better to do it than those who are ever vigilant in their quest to Save the World, the True Believers and Faithful of the Climate?

 

[mike3]

Yes, I have noted that from a biased perspective, all evil is attributed to the object of the bias and prejudice.

And your perspective is fully unbiased, right? You have no political ideology or whatever that you use to inform your perspective on who to believe?

 

[mhaze]

And your perspective is fully unbiased, right? You have no political ideology or whatever that you use to inform your perspective on who to believe?

No, we all have perspectives and so forth, based on life experiences, on which our views are formed.

But if I'm simply going down the list of "claims and responses" and finding massive science and logical errors, in the "responses", then you are welcome to call me out on bias, because it's a bias in favor of logic and science. If on the other hand I rejected examination of the "claims and responses" in favor of a preexisting prejudice, as many here have, then that would be a different matter.

I reject THE ABSENCE of scientific and logical examination of the data, which in this case is the "Claims and Responses".

 

[RobDegraves]

But if I'm simply going down the list of "claims and responses" and finding massive science and logical errors, in the "responses", then you are welcome to call me out on bias, because it's a bias in favor of logic and science. If on the other hand I rejected examination of the "claims and responses" in favor of a preexisting prejudice, as many here have, then that would be a different matter.

All you have done for pages and pages is dance around the subject by reverting to purely semantic obfuscation.. as in your endless argument over the exact meaning of "controlled". You have not even touched science or logic.

It would be funny if it was not so tedious.