Saturday, March 24, 2007

Tom Harris - Busted!

A post from Tom Harris, Natural Resources Stewardship Project, at Free Dominion :*

Posted: 01/ 10/ 07 2:20 pm
Post subject: If the science is wrong, then nothing else matters

"I completely agree with fourhorses that the ultimate aim is to create a situation where the CPC can say assertively, "The science no longer supports the assumptions of the Kyoto Accord."

However, politically this cannot be done overnight without the Conservatives taking what they consider to be an unacceptable hit (do people think they would really lose votes with this statement (from Canadians who would otherwise vote for them, that is?).

So, the solution put on this site a little while ago by Tina is one I would support as well - namely, they don't take sides at all and admit they don't know and so are holding unbiased, public hearings in which scientists from both sides are invited to testify. The resulting chaos, with claims all over the map, will do enough to thoroughly confuse everyone (which is appropriate, actually, since the science is so immature and, frankly, confusing) and take the wind out of the sails of the "we are causing a climate disaster and must stop it" camp entirely, and the CPC can quietly turn to important issues without really having had to say much at all.

What's wrong with this approach?

Sincerely,
Tom Harris, Executive Director, Natural Resources Stewardship Project
Web: www.nrsp.com


Dear Sir :

What's wrong with this approach you ask?
I do believe I can answer that question for you.

1) Contrary to what you seem to believe, it is not the aim of science to create "chaos" and "thoroughly confuse everyone".
We leave that to the paid shills and hacks of the oil industry.

2) Science is not a handmaiden to the agenda of any political party.
This includes inventing dubious vote-getting strategies for the Cons.

3) To the extent to which such a bullshit scheme might be temporarily successful, you would serve to undermine public confidence in the very discipline you claim to represent.

Finally, and this is the most important one for you and your organization so pay attention :

4) With this single post on a public forum, you have completely forfeited any claim you or your organization might have had to represent either science or scientists.

Sincerely,
Alison, Creekside

*with thanks to the anonymous researcher who sent me this link.

Update and Note to Self : Always check to see if that speedy little Zorpheous fellow didn't get there first.

12 comments:

Ian said...

Heh. Nice one.
I imagine a whole new and completely different TimTomHarrisBall person/org will now materialize on the denial event horizon.

Kudos.

Zorpheous said...

For my next trick I am going to slow pick apart of the NSRP's denial science, it will slow, painful, without mercy and done with a great deal of joy.

Zorpheous said...

oh by the by, it was BigCityLib who point this out to me on his blog in January. I file away that link and post to swat Tom with ;-)

Bet, hey feel free to hoof in nutz as much as you want too. One can never kich those twits in nads enough.

Holly Stick said...

Harris shows up on FreeDominion once in a while; it's easy ground for him since they are already AGW denialists. Is he posting on other rightwing sites lately?

It's kind of pitiful reading the Free Dominion threads about global warming. They are constantly assuring each other that climate change is perfectly natural and not caused by humans, it's all a socialist money-sucking plot, etc., etc. There are one or two dissenting voices, but most just keep repeating that they don't believe it, the ice caps on Mars are melting, etc., etc. A clear case of incestuous amplification (a phrase someone used a few years ago to describe the Bush Administration).

Now FDers are trying desperately to understand why the Harper government is making noises about global warming. They tend to think the government does not really believe in it but is lying to be re-elected. Sad, really.

What bothers me is that they may be right; that Harper does not believe there is a crisis and he will follow the advice of Harris and some FDers to delay and to make lots of noise and do almost nothing to actually help the situation. Well, after all the Liberals did very little.

Alison said...

Zorph : I'll let it go this time but in future please try not to post something a whole day before I do, ok?

Holly : Hope you're wearing your hazmatsuit when you're wading through FreeperDome. Unfortunately I seem to have misplaced mine so if you hear any unusual echos in there, let us know.

Anonymous said...

Actually it was two days, Alison. ;)

Alison said...

Zorph, I am trying to be gracious about this - don't push your luck. ;-)

Dan said...

Proof of of Tim Ball's science! Forget the man. Experience the hypotheses!

Dan said...

Plus a free, bonus, but lame protest by "Stan", who didn't (wouldn't? couldn't?) read Ball's only scientific publication on climate change and the atmosphere, or anything remotely related to greenhouse gas. Nice try, Stan.

Zorpheous said...

My bad, I'll give you a heads up next time ;-)

Anonymous said...

When reading the "Proof" submitted above by Dan, be sure to click through the links. Priceless.

Anonymous said...

Food for thought:
This issue will be decided over a long period of time, and you and I will probably not be around to witness the result.
I'm not about to guess any of your ages; but my age allows me to remember quite a few scares that DID NOT come true.
The "coming ice age" that was reported in the 1970's, the threat of the U.S.S.R., the HIV/AIDS issue, the "Dr. Strangelove" scenarios, and the "bird flu" pandemic quickly come to mind.
Given more time, I could come up with many more.
After those examples, I admit that I am slow to respond to any latest scare.
I am also slow to worry about the latest drought or hurricane season.
When I hear that Mars is also warming (can anyone explain that?), it adds to my skepticism.
When I add some of my admittedly little scientific knowledge that levels of carbon dioxide increase AFTER the climate warms, it's hard to buy into increased CO2 being a cause, rather than an effect.
When ice caps melt and have now regenerated by 67% (there are satellite pictures), it also gives me pause.
When history shows that Greenland got it's name for a certain reason, Greenland becoming green again seems more cyclical that catastrophic.
When the underside of glaciers are warmed because of geothermal volcanic activity, they slide more easily, and subsequently break off into the ocean. They are not really "melting" away.
Now, let's add in the bureaucracy of the United Nations, and evaluate their validity based on their history of successful [sarcasm] results all over the world. You can give them your money. I choose to get something more useful for mine.
If I'm not mistaken, in order to be accepted as "science", a theory must be absolutely proven to the point that anyone can achieve the same result, every time. Global warming seems to fail that test. It is NOT proven beyond ANY doubt. It is a "theory" about a very complicated subject, for which the answer is "NOT" known. Perhaps, it is a "Catch-22" situation. We can GUESS; but, we really don't KNOW.
And finally, thank you.
I always enjoy the opportunity for civil debate where we all might learn something

Blog Archive