Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

[mhaze]

@mhaze

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

My question...




Your answer...



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.

I wonder if you realize....you've contributed NOTHING to this conversation? I doubt it. Let's see.

Have you contributed any arguments, based on the material presented?

Have you contributed additional material?'

Nope.

Pop your bubbles, dude.

 

[RobDegraves]

Hmmm... let's see...

Have you contributed any arguments, based on the material presented?

Have you contributed additional material?'

I take it then that you have not read this thread much at all.

Just to remind you I suppose...

@mhaze

1.
Quote:
Looking good! What's the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skeptcism a cover for (......) now?
A. It's spelled Skepticism.
B. "CASS is a working group of the Center for Inquiry Canada", which is a branch of the Center for Inquiry
Quote:
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) is a non-profit educational organization with headquarters in the United States whose primary mission is to encourage evidence-based inquiry into paranormal and fringe science claims, alternative medicine and mental health practices, religion, secular ethics, and society. CFI is dedicated to promoting and defending science, reason, and free inquiry in all aspects of human interest.

2.
Quote:
Sounds sort of like JREF. Is the Committee a bunch of clowns of sciency truthiness?
Other than a badly phrased ad hominem, your statement lacks any definable point.

3.
Quote:
Added. Look, I'm not trying to start something here, but we all know there are wacko looney globby warmers lurking around. Are they in the "Committee"?
You mean like ... scientists?




Anyhoo... I looked into the matter somewhat.

Tom Harris responded to the report in a very cursory manner, intimating he thought it was a joke. However, from the report we have comments like...
Quote:
"...we keep seeing things like this: ‘Few still debate the primary cause of climate change.’ Except 90% of the scientists in the field.‛ (TH)
Which seems rather more like a bias than a fact.

Interestingly...

Quote:
Harris has previously worked as a public relations consultant on a project funded by the oil and gas industry that used "research" accounts at the University of Calgary to produce a video that attacked the Kyoto Protocol and peer-reviewed scientific literature linking human activity to climate change. Alberta-based Talisman Energy kick-started the project with a $175,000 donation in 2004.
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technol...309/story.html

You can look at the original by just reading the post itself in this very thread. However, I note that you never answered or acknowledge any of the points therein and instead elected to rant on about the background of people only vaguely related to the report.

Pop your own darn bubbles... whatever that means.

 

[mhaze]

....I note that you never answered or acknowledge any of the points therein and instead elected to rant on about the background of people only vaguely related to the report.

Pop your own darn bubbles... whatever that means.

Actually, Harris has responded in depth on the "report". See the link..

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

Which you seem to have ignored.

Actually, I've responded directly on several of the points in the "Report". Others for various reasons do not need "a response". Have you responded on any of the points in the "Report"? Nope.

Actually, do you have a point? Because if you do, you have not made clear what it is.

You like the Report, you don't like it? You think Harris is stupid, able to do what he does because of intellectual freedom, etc. You believe everything is accurately presented in the Report, you don't.

See? You haven't made any point. I'm trying to help out a bit here.

Here's a point I'll make. I think this little scheme is an attempt to "follow on" publicity at the tail end of Fakegate, the little recent charade about Glieck and Heartland. So it was put together rather sloppily and quickly - which the "Report" shows.

In turn that means that the "Audit" was likely done by the writers of the "Report" watching the televised or previously recorded copies of the class, which were broadcast on the University TV station and thence to parts of Canada. They didn't "audit" the course in the typical sense of the word, which means sitting in on the class after paying the fee for auditing it.

These are called "deductions and inferences". They are a contribution to the conversation because in turn they imply that the entire video of the course is likely available to verify or falsify any claims made by the authors of the "Report".

 

[a_unique_person]

All you are doing is referring to non scientists as authorities. Tim Ball is no sort of a climate scientist. He is an old hack with only a highly suspicious history of any sort of science, who misrepresents his own standing in the scientific community.

 

[mhaze]

All you are doing is referring to non scientists as authorities. Tim Ball is no sort of a climate scientist. He is an old hack with only a highly suspicious history of any sort of science, who misrepresents his own standing in the scientific community.

Did someone mention Tim Ball? No? Well, there only one proper response to your whacky derail.

 

[a_unique_person]

In that interview you linked to Tom refers to Tim.

 

[mhaze]

In that interview you linked to Tom refers to Tim.

Oh. Okay. So? He referred to lots of people. Is Tim Ball someone that should not be referred to?

I referred to Ted Turner earlier. Is he someone that should not be referred to?

I suspect that what you get to is that some fashion in which Ball was referred to was inappropriate? Obviously, you are referring to Tim Ball. You have no problem in doing so. But Harris should not?

 

[a_unique_person]

Not unless you are wanting to refer to someone who has no idea at all. Which would be useful for the course he was teaching.

 

[RobDegraves]

@mhaze

I think you must be trying to appear dense, or you are not bothering to actually read anyone's posts.

Actually, do you have a point? Because if you do, you have not made clear what it is.

You like the Report, you don't like it? You think Harris is stupid, able to do what he does because of intellectual freedom, etc. You believe everything is accurately presented in the Report, you don't.

See? You haven't made any point. I'm trying to help out a bit here.

Let's go back to what I posted and to which you have yet to respond in any meaningful way.

I will simply respost the parts in which I make a point that you should answer...

Tom Harris responded to the report in a very cursory manner, intimating he thought it was a joke. However, from the report we have comments like...
Quote:
"...we keep seeing things like this: ‘Few still debate the primary cause of climate change.’ Except 90% of the scientists in the field.‛ (TH)
Which seems rather more like a bias than a fact.

I read Tom Harris's response but it does not contain any actual refutation of the report... worst yet, he makes a number of claims that are obviously false.

We should get rid of the notion that there is a consensus and we should look at it as science and we should teach the whole field - not just the tiny little bit that says greenhouse gases are responsible.

Which tiny little bit is that?

Oh yeah, there is no consensus. I mean, that is a myth. It’s been – you know people say there’s a consensus but whenever I’ve challenged people – show me that there’s actually been a poll of people who focus on the causes of climate change and that the majority of them think that human caused climate change is dangerous problem – nobody presents a poll.

So... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/10/971002070106.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations

How's that for a point so far?

I'm just curious if you can answer points in a serious and reputable manner. So far, it's been pretty poor showing.

 

[mhaze]

Not unless you are wanting to refer to someone who has no idea at all. Which would be useful for the course he was teaching.

I have no clue what you are trying to get at.

...
I read Tom Harris's response but it does not contain any actual refutation of the report... worst yet, he makes a number of claims that are obviously false.
....

You mean, the part where he lists the logical fallacies in the first page, or the questionable competence level of the authors, or the part where he notes the unscientific blog desmogblog, or the part where he notes the questionable scholarship and slipshod logic, or the part where he laughs at the word "Denier" in the title?

Nope. None of those were noticed by you, were they?

Because you actually thought the "Report" was scientific, and not just sciency.

So why don't you actually make a point? Something like "For xyz reason he should be (censored, fired, whatever)"? You seem to have demonstrated some interesting abilities to believe certain things without critical examination. What I'm trying to get at is what you do with your prejudical and faith based atttitudes. So what's the bottom line?

 

[RobDegraves]

So why don't you actually make a point? Something like "For xyz reason he should be (censored, fired, whatever)"? You seem to have demonstrated some interesting abilities to believe certain things without critical examination. What I'm trying to get at is what you do with your prejudical and faith based atttitudes. So what's the bottom line?

1. Your stupid and juvenile insults are boring me. Either start to respond to actual points or I won't bother with you anymore. Let's face it, no one cares about your point of view as far as I can tell. You can go and hang out at conspiracy web sites for all I care.

2. I made a number of points and I notice that you have not responded to any of the evidence or links I presented. You just insult and belittle and think that is evidence?

Quote:
Tom Harris responded to the report in a very cursory manner, intimating he thought it was a joke. However, from the report we have comments like...
Quote:
"...we keep seeing things like this: ‘Few still debate the primary cause of climate change.’ Except 90% of the scientists in the field.‛ (TH)
Which seems rather more like a bias than a fact.
I read Tom Harris's response but it does not contain any actual refutation of the report... worst yet, he makes a number of claims that are obviously false.

Quote:
We should get rid of the notion that there is a consensus and we should look at it as science and we should teach the whole field - not just the tiny little bit that says greenhouse gases are responsible.
Which tiny little bit is that?

Quote:
Oh yeah, there is no consensus. I mean, that is a myth. It’s been – you know people say there’s a consensus but whenever I’ve challenged people – show me that there’s actually been a poll of people who focus on the causes of climate change and that the majority of them think that human caused climate change is dangerous problem – nobody presents a poll.
So... http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1002070106.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Th...essment_Report

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti..._organizations

Tom Harris claims he is not a "denier" yet he claims there is no consensus, even though I can point out that there clearly is.

Ergo, Tom Harris makes claims that are not true about climate change. Ergo, in that specific instance, the report is correct.

Simple enough for you?

 

[mhaze]

1. Your stupid and juvenile insults are boring me. Either start to respond to actual points or I won't bother with you anymore. Let's face it, no one cares about your point of view as far as I can tell. You can go and hang out at conspiracy web sites for all I care.

2. I made a number of points and I notice that you have not responded to any of the evidence or links I presented. You just insult and belittle and think that is evidence?



Tom Harris claims he is not a "denier" yet he claims there is no consensus, even though I can point out that there clearly is.

Ergo, Tom Harris makes claims that are not true about climate change. Ergo, in that specific instance, the report is correct.

Simple enough for you?

It's simple enough for simple people. I guess I don't qualify.



You see, Harris is absolutely right when he says that in scientific circles, in the (you know, actual science...?) words like "Denier" are simply not used. The actual reason for that isn't quite relevant but if you like I can explain it. What is relevant is that the "Report" uses words like that....let's say, politically charged words, yet claims to be a scientific critique.

Technically, is it plausible that the report is correct in one or more places GIVEN THAT ONE PRESUMES that they've accurately and honestly quoted Harris? Sure. Is that relevant? Nope.

Now let me ask you a question, 2 actually. (1) Is it plausible that the Report does not, in many instances, quote Harris accurately? (2) What is your opinion about "what should be done", if anything? Does a professor have academic freedom? Should some politically motivated outside the university group be allowed to influence teaching methods and practice? I think (2) is actually what this OP is about. Or are you simply trying to derail the thread into a "pro AGW vs anti AGW" triviality of a discussion? That's my impression from what you seem to think is "evidence". If you want to do that, you need to pop on over into that one moderated thread in Science. This forum can't handle discussion about AGW except in a moderated thread because of the screaming and hysterical whining warmers.

I didn't have this problem teaching college because it was logic that I taught. No variations into politics or opinion or consensus were possible.

 

[RobDegraves]

Well.. I'm pretty well done with you.

You didn't address any of the points I mentioned, even though you asked me to do so.
Just to be fair...

Now let me ask you a question, 2 actually. (1) Is it plausible that the Report does not, in many instances, quote Harris accurately? (2) What is your opinion about "what should be done", if anything? Does a professor have academic freedom? Should some politically motivated outside the university group be allowed to influence teaching methods and practice?

1. The statements that Harris makes in his own interviews make the report's points obviously correct. He states that there is no scientific consensus on global warming, even though it's provable that there is. Ergo, he states things that are not true.

2. What should be done?

Nothing from us or the report. Each university needs to establish to what level they want to impose as scientific rigor for it's courses. Then, their reputation will be based on those policies. I went to Carleton University, so I hope that they will not hire more like Harris.

But that is not my problem.

This forum can't handle discussion about AGW except in a moderated thread because of the screaming and hysterical whining warmers.

So far, you have not impressed anyone with your logic or grasp of science, least of all myself.

What you have demonstrated however, is a lack of maturity and desire to actually find out the truth. Keep to your beliefs if you wish... I suspect most here consider you a crank... and now I do as well.

Done.

 

[Krikkiter]

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

None of that answers my question...

"Please show how the sources cited are wrong."

You know, you could reference some of the (from your link: "... if you look at the tens of thousands of scientific papers that are put out every year, there are good scientists who say we are causing virtually no climate change ...") scientific studies that refute the links in the report.

If you can't show the evidence everything you've written is just bluster.

 

[mhaze]

None of that answers my question...

"Please show how the sources cited are wrong."

You know, you could reference some of the (from your link: "... if you look at the tens of thousands of scientific papers that are put out every year, there are good scientists who say we are causing virtually no climate change ...") of scientific studies that refute the links in the report.

If you can't show the evidence everything you've written is just bluster.

Completely the wrong question.

What you are asking is for me to clarify things in a biased and poorly written "Report". It's well established it's poorly written. The discussion of which you seek to see occur is the actual content of the course. But you don't have that. Instead you've got a political criticism of it called "The Report".

(Also my criticsm of the report may be completely divergent than Harris's, and my opinion concerning articles and so forth may have little relation to his. Accordingly, you are wrong to ask for my opinions).

But lets agree that Harris is skeptical about many aspects of the AGW religion. It's easy to establish that the Religion of AGW has many facets and it's stink has flavored not just many discussions, but some amount of the scientific work in various ways.

So WHAT?

What is relevant is whether a University should allow him to teach as he sees fit, and whether an outside special interest group should affect the curriculum of a university, and if so, in what ways.

 

[RobDegraves]

Again with not answering the questions put to you and substituting childish taunts instead of reason.

It's well established it's poorly written.

No.. that would be your opinion and an obviously biased one at that.

It's easy to establish that the Religion of AGW has many facets and it's stink has flavored not just many discussions, but some amount of the scientific work in various ways.

You mean it's flavored the scientific work with facts. How ghastly.

What is relevant is whether a University should allow him to teach as he sees fit, and whether an outside special interest group should affect the curriculum of a university, and if so, in what ways.

Been there, done that.

A University will allow someone to teach as they see fit only if it falls within their guidelines for acceptable behavior, scientific or otherwise. Should an outside group influence the curriculum of a University?

Obviously that is a firm yes. One salient group already does so. They are generally called research scientists and their discoveries eventually become the curriculum.

Facts alter what people teach.

Childish name calling hopefully does not.

Guess which side you are on.

 

[Krikkiter]

Completely the wrong question.

What you are asking is for me to clarify things in a biased and poorly written "Report". It's well established it's poorly written. The discussion of which you seek to see occur is the actual content of the course. But you don't have that. Instead you've got a political criticism of it called "The Report".

Your criticism of the analysis of the course related to their sources - you know.. the blogs?

Specifically:

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.

I apologise if I confused the conversation and am grateful to respondents who are keeping things on track.

To clarify, I'm asking if you know of any science that refutes the sources (the blogs) of the criticisms of the course. And to that end...

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?

(Also my criticsm of the report may be completely divergent than Harris's, and my opinion concerning articles and so forth may have little relation to his. Accordingly, you are wrong to ask for my opinions).

I don't need to ask for your opinions because you give them every time you post (I'm not sure it helps your case) ...

But lets agree that Harris is skeptical about many aspects of the AGW religion. It's easy to establish that the Religion of AGW has many facets and it's stink has flavored not just many discussions, but some amount of the scientific work in various ways.

I don't agree. Seems like Harris, rather than being skeptical, is quite biased and is either completely uninformed or deliberately ignorant for questionable reasons.

So WHAT?

What is relevant is whether a University should allow him to teach as he sees fit, and whether an outside special interest group should affect the curriculum of a university, and if so, in what ways.

A special interest group? I love irony. It's funny and makes a point at the same time.

 

[Krikkiter]

Again with not answering the questions put to you and substituting childish taunts instead of reason.



No.. that would be your opinion and an obviously biased one at that.



You mean it's flavored the scientific work with facts. How ghastly.



Been there, done that.

A University will allow someone to teach as they see fit only if it falls within their guidelines for acceptable behavior, scientific or otherwise. Should an outside group influence the curriculum of a University?

Obviously that is a firm yes. One salient group already does so. They are generally called research scientists and their discoveries eventually become the curriculum.

Facts alter what people teach.

Childish name calling hopefully does not.

Guess which side you are on.

Thank you RobDegraves. I should have read this before posting. Very much appreciated.

 

[mhaze]

Your criticism of the analysis of the course related to their sources - you know.. the blogs?....
I don't agree. Seems like Harris, rather than being skeptical, is quite biased and is either completely uninformed or deliberately ignorant for questionable reasons.

.....

That wold be rather unlikely. Remember he's teaching a first semester course, so many things will be simplified. The students are not knowlegeable about heat transfer, ocean dynamics, quantum mechanics, astrophysics, solar physics, or many other parts of the discussion. In fact Harris notes the fact that the "auditors" were biologists, who by way of training, were not competent, either.

Many things that are brought down to an introductory level of understanding can be criticized as actually being more complex. What you don't know is whether Harris has qualified any or all of his statements in such a fashion, those qualifications being of course, left out of the report. In the interview, he shows an understanding of this so I would assume he did qualify them.

Essentially the document in question takes John Cook's summaries of common arguments against skeptics of one or another aspects of AGW and (1) asserts Harris teaches (X) (2) repeats the skepticalscience argument against that climate skeptic opinion.

If you read the "Report", you will find that in many cases, it simply elaborates on something Harris says, instead of contradicts it. For example, Harris says (less of X) and the Report argues (more of X). Or Harris argues for a result being caused by f(a,b,c,d) and the "Report" argues for a result being caused by (A). Or that the only thing that somehow should be discussed is (A).

I've already noted how the "Report" was wrong, and Harris was correct, regarding black soot. It's a hastily prepared thing, and doesn't appear to be well thought out.

Given the obvious bias of the "Report", I think the question is simply this. Should Harris be forced to teach the AGW Religion or not? That is different than teaching the science.

 

[mhaze]

....Facts alter what people teach.

Childish name calling hopefully does not.

Guess which side you are on.

A side which notes that intelligent discussion does not consist of childish name calling such as calling people "Deniers" in the title of a report, particularly one in which the tenured professor who wrote the curriculum was Jewish and of an age where his parents lived through the events of WWII?

A side which asks:

What is relevant is whether a University should allow him to teach as he sees fit, and whether an outside special interest group should affect the curriculum of a university, and if so, in what ways.

A side which sides with Harris in that many aspects of AGW are ridiculous and should be ridiculed, as much of rabid environmentalism is totally ridiculous. (EG Ted Turner and his remarks about "we'll all be cannibals")