Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

[Trakar]

Mhaze, I have to wonder about the point of your participation in this thread. You've posted so much volume here, and yet the pertinent fact is undisturbed: Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science.

Now you may well disagree with the consensus opinion of climate scientists, in which case you are welcome to write a paper to inform them of their failings. In the meantime, the simple fact is that Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science.

So the OP is quite correct as it stands: "Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University" is a matter of fact. One might note further that it's no secret that Harris is a PR man for several anti-science and anti-environmentalist lobby groups; it's no secret that he's a mechanical engineer with no credentials as a scientist; and it's no secret that he cites no actual science in his course. Harris's is a fluff course from hell—an insignificant elective for non-science majors that's been usurped by a career FUD artist.

This is a travesty of Canadian education. And if there's any justice, fur should fly over it.

And in case you're confused about my point—the simple fact is that Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science. Niggling and poking at the report that exposed Harris's failings, or attacking the reporters themselves, will change nothing about what Harris is on record as presenting in his course.

I'll even rephrase this one more time. There is no question that Harris contradicts established climate science using rhetoric rather than science. This is called propaganda. He should be turfed from teaching at any university because he is not qualified to do so.

When science gets politicized, reasonable people provisionally accept the consensus of scientists. Big fat conspiracy theories about established science is quite contrarily not for reasonable people. What more need be said?

Well and astutely stated!

 

[eerok]

Well and astutely stated!

Thank you. I doubt that my comments will stem the flow of Mhaze's nonsense, though.

Extremist outliers always seem to think that their critics are extremists themselves. They don't understand the concept of objectivity, which in the present context means that they don't understand science or how it works.

 

[mhaze]

While the above may not be contradictory or mutually exclusive, it is not internally consistent. .....

Now you are left to arguing about the meaning of words like "dramatic" and "about the same", which is ridiculous position, and totally irrelevant because they reference different periods of time. There's really no more that needs be said than the earlier analogy:

• 2012 was pretty hot.
• Is consistent with "Jan of 2012 was pretty cold".

...Wiki is unacceptable as a compelling or authoritative reference of fact......

And the references are in the article, and as I've noted to change in position of the UN reports is understood by a great many people - obviously not you. You can look it up, instead of dodging by arguing about "quality of references". Face it, you misunderstood the Claim, and so did the Report writers. It's pretty hard to do but here's how: Take a statement that says something like "The UN did a complete turnaround" and ignore the UN.

 

[eerok]

Mhaze, do you think Harris was a liar or a fool?

He was a liar if he spread misinformation about climate science knowingly. He was a fool if he spread misinformation about climate science because some other liar or fool convinced him it was true.

 

[Trakar]

Now you are left to arguing about the meaning of words like "dramatic" and "about the same", which is ridiculous position, and totally irrelevant because they reference different periods of time.

You are the only one trying to redefine disparate terms to similar meanings

And the references are in the article, and as I've noted to change in position of the UN reports is understood by a great many people...

The misunderstandings of those who deliberately attempt to distort and reject mainstream science understandings, and those who are misled by those attempts, are irrelevent Ad Populum fallacies that have no bearing on what the actual science or the IPCC surveys of that science have stated.

substance-less noise eventually loses even distractive value due to a phenomena sometimes known as inurement.

 

[mhaze]

You are the only one trying to redefine disparate terms to similar meanings.

False. The terms I showed had disparate meanings were "1850 forward" and "1980 forward". You then tried to argue the meaning of and importance of "dramatic". I then pointed out for the 3rd time that the two statements were consistent. Apparently you have some trouble accepting this.

..... irrelevent Ad Populum fallacies that have no bearing on what the actual science or the IPCC surveys of that science have stated. .....

I have no idea what you might be referring to.

Certainly I don't view it as important if the UN did a U turn. But in going down the list of claims and responses, I listed this particular claim, refuted the "Response", and noted the misunderstand of the "Report writers" and of you.

You may if you like argue a DIFFERENT issue, that's up to you. Like what "mainstream science ..." blah-blah-blah...

That's simply not this particular issue, though.

 

[RobDegraves]

Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Mhaze, I have to wonder about the point of your participation in this thread. You've posted so much volume here, and yet the pertinent fact is undisturbed: Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science.

Now you may well disagree with the consensus opinion of climate scientists, in which case you are welcome to write a paper to inform them of their failings. In the meantime, the simple fact is that Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science.

So the OP is quite correct as it stands: "Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University" is a matter of fact. One might note further that it's no secret that Harris is a PR man for several anti-science and anti-environmentalist lobby groups; it's no secret that he's a mechanical engineer with no credentials as a scientist; and it's no secret that he cites no actual science in his course. Harris's is a fluff course from hell—an insignificant elective for non-science majors that's been usurped by a career FUD artist.

This is a travesty of Canadian education. And if there's any justice, fur should fly over it.

And in case you're confused about my point—the simple fact is that Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science. Niggling and poking at the report that exposed Harris's failings, or attacking the reporters themselves, will change nothing about what Harris is on record as presenting in his course.

I'll even rephrase this one more time. There is no question that Harris contradicts established climate science using rhetoric rather than science. This is called propaganda. He should be turfed from teaching at any university because he is not qualified to do so.

When science gets politicized, reasonable people provisionally accept the consensus of scientists. Big fat conspiracy theories about established science is quite contrarily not for reasonable people. What more need be said?

I have to agree that this is a very good summation of the topic.

Mhaze won't agree.. but I don't think anyone will care.