Wednesday, June 28, 2017

Tom Harris Deceives About Science

Tom Harris, the fossil fuel industry paid shill, has another letter where he tries to portray science as nothing more than an opinion. If that wasn't bad enough, he quoted Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry as an authority. You can imagine that it didn't go very well - and it didn't. Read it here. I collaborated with commenter Terry on a response, which is shown below.


Regarding the June 26, 2017 “Scientific theories aren't truth, but educated opinions,” this article is designed to deceive the reader. This isn’t a surprise considering the author, Tom Harris, is paid to place articles for the purpose of undermining climate science.

It is deceitful for Harris to claim science is an opinion. Gravity isn’t an opinion. It isn’t an opinion that humans must breathe air. The greenhouse effect isn’t an opinion. All of these are conclusions, supported with scientific evidence and reached via the scientific method.

As for his “experts” questioning climate science, the truth is that in excess of 97% of all climate scientists agree that manmade climate change is real. If 97% of engineers said a bridge was unsafe, would you drive over it because someone who isn’t even an expert in the field insists that science and engineering are opinions?

Concerning ‘skeptics,’ Harris isn’t one. A skeptic examines the facts with an open and questioning mind. Harris doesn’t fit that description. He has rejected science and has a long resume of advocating for the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. See more at

We also note how Harris quoted DoE Secretary Rick Perry concerning having an ‘open discussion.’ So, let’s have an open discussion concerning Secretary Perry.

Perry has received considerable funding from oil and gas interests, was a board member of Energy Transfer Partners — owner of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), is a former chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), and received funding for his presidential campaign from the CEO of Energy Transfer Partners. Perry even advocated eliminating the DoE during his presidential run.

Once the facts are presented, the picture is not as painted by the highly deceptive Harris. And, that is not an opinion.

Dr. Christopher Keating and Terry

Sunday, June 11, 2017

The Hockey Stick and Breitbart

There are few things that will get anti-science climate change deniers in a froth more quickly than bringing up the hockey stick. Maybe it’s because the hockey stick shows, without question, that global warming is real. The graph even leads to the conclusion, with no other data necessary, that it’s caused by humans.

For a review, the hockey stick is a nickname given to a graph produced my Dr.s Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes (NorthernHemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations)

The nickname is a result of the shape of the graph showing average global temperatures for the last several centuries. There was a gradual downward trend following the end of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) in the 14th century until a very large upturn in the late-19th century. Here is the original graph:

Source: Mann, Bradley and Hughes, 1999
As you can see, there is no comparable uptick in temperature anywhere else in the graph and this change occurred as our industrial complexes were expanding, strongly indicating this uptick was caused by us. Of course, further research was needed to confirm this result. That research has been done and the hockey stick has been confirmed by multiple studies.

Source: Mann, et al, 2008

Interestingly, this paper has been scrubbed from the NOAA website. The science haters in charge of the government are trying, and failing, to hide the science.

You can read a good discussion concerning the hockey stick here.

With confirmation of the hockey stick comes confirmation of the conclusion. Yes, the science is settled – manmade emissions are causing global warming and the associated climate change.

So, it isn’t surprising to find deniers go into a tizzy every time someone mentions the hockey stick and to produce any number of arguments to try and discredit it. The latest was an article in the Notrickzone: Scientists Increasingly Discarding ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Graphs

[UPDATE: For an excellent review of how completely false the Notrickzone article is go here. I particularly like the summary:
We rank the claims made by both Breitbart and No Tricks Zone as false, because they dramatically misrepresent the findings of the scientists who conducted the research and utilize poorly-articulated straw man arguments to further misrepresent the significance of the work of those scientists. These studies were local in nature, narrow in scope, meant to address how the climate system functioned in the past, and pose no threat to the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.
Thanks to jmac for providing the link.]
It doesn’t take long to see what the problem is with this article, namely cherry picking. Cherry picking is selecting data to support your predetermined conclusion and ignoring data that doesn’t. Take a quick look at the article and you’ll see graphs for the western Mediterranean, the Spanish Pyrenees, northern Spain, Arctic summer temperatures, South China Sea, Alberta, Scotland, and more. In other words, the author of this piece went and found scientific papers that discussed some aspect of temperature for some given region and he then expanded it to mean global warming.

There’s two huge problems with this. The first is that we are discussing ‘global’ warming, not ‘Alberta’ warming. There’s the cherry picking. Given global warming, it is a fact of the laws of thermodynamics that some areas will actually see a cooling trend. As more heat is stored in the atmosphere, more work will be done. Weather can only occur when there is a temperature difference between regions. So, as more work is done in the form of weather, it is required that some areas be warmer than others. That is why we focus on global averages. We want to know what is happening to the entire planet. What is happening in the Spanish Pyrenees is important and is a worthwhile thing to study, but it doesn’t fall under the definition of ‘global’ warming.

The other problem is that some of these graphs, showing temperature trends for limited regions instead of global averages, still show the hockey stick is present, even for the isolated region in question. The author of this article is trying to prove the hockey stick isn’t real by showing examples of it actually existing. And, I’m sure he has no problem with that logic.

I’m not the only one to find this article doesn’t pass any kind of scientific muster. You can read a much better review, conducted by five scientists, here.

I also refer you to this comment that was submitted:

This is just another giant cherry pick by "nottickszone" of the earths average annual air temperature. These cherry picks are typical of "notrickszone" and other denier blogs. Nobody has said that every region of the earth will warm at the same rate.
“Global warming” means Earth's average annual air temperature is rising, but not necessarily in every single location during all seasons across the globe.

"Temperature trends across the entire globe aren’t uniform because of the diverse geography on our planet—oceans versus continents, lowlands versus mountains, forests versus deserts versus ice sheets—as well as natural climate variability. When you’re zoomed in on a particular place, you may not be able to see the overall trend.

It is only when scientists calculate the average of temperature changes from every place on Earth over the course of a year to produce a single number, and then look at how that number has changed over time that a very clear, global warming trend emerges. In other words, it’s only when we “zoom out” to the planet-wide scale that the trend is obvious: despite a few, rare areas experiencing an overall cooling trend, the vast majority of places across the globe are warming.
Observed trend in temperature from 1900 to 2012; yellow to red indicates warming, while shades of blue indicate cooling. Gray indicates areas for which there are no data. There are substantial regional variations in trends across the planet, though the overall trend is warming. Map from FAQ appendix of the 2014 National Climate Assessment. Originally provided by NOAA NCDC.

The reason a “zoomed out” view makes the long-term trend so clear is that Earth's annual average temperatures from year to year are found to be very stable when nothing is forcing it to change. Today, though, every decade since 1960 has been warmer than the last, and the last three decades each have been the warmest on record. Relative to geologic time, the warming that has occurred—1.5°F (0.85°C) over a span of 100 years—is an unusually large temperature change in a relati vely short span of time.

However, not all land masses and oceans have experienced or will experience a constant, identical rate of warming. Natural variations in our climate system cause temperatures to vary from region to region and from time to time, leaving sporadic fingerprints in the long-term temperature record. When you consider the global map above, you can see that in a few parts of the world temperature trends were basically ”flat” over the last century."

In conclusion, I have to wonder why this guy would write an article that is so easily debunked. I guess there are people who will believe anything that affirms their hatred of science, but why would you be willing to make such a fool of yourself in the process? But, then again, I guess that's what they specialize in at Breitbart.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Guest Post: If deniers only want a debate, then why do they keep censoring comments?

The following was submitted to illustrate how the anti-science people censor anything they don't like. This, of course, is completely counter to having a debate. If they really wanted to debate the science, they would welcome pro-science people who cite the facts and the evidence. Draw your own conclusions.

You can find the original posting at:



The following comments include several of mine which seem not to have been posted on the PJ Media website, although for the life of me, I don't know why? The site seems to favor the comments of deniers, so I thought showing those that weren't shown or were delayed for some mysterious reason might make a good guest post for DOGW. At present, I am not sure that I will ever find them back where they vanished, after previously seeming to have been successfully posted there, in part, because the site possibly has a biased moderator, and because they may have been deleted due to some technicality. But over and over again the ones that I consider the best, are being held back or deleted entirely. Go figure?

Mekhlis  Peter Johnson * a day ago

I guess that a street sweeper can have an opinion on AGW, and it might be every bit as correct (or false) as Mr. Nye's. But a street sweeper would not advertise as the "Science Guy." My point was, and still is, that there is no more reason to listen to Nye than there is to anyone picked at random from the phone book. He is no scientist--certainly not a climate scientist. He is a first-rate fraud, though."

Peter Johnson  Mekhlis * a day ago
Nye can advertise himself as "the science guy," because he IS a "science guy." He may not have the same education or be the best qualified to explain climate science to others, but he has had a TV show on which he taught and demonstrated scientific facts. And, as far as I know, neither has he advertised himself as (Bill Nye the AGW expert guy).
Although a mechanical engineer does not learn all that a scientist learns in his education, he is none the less a scientist, and one that does understand many of the principles underlying our present global warming. I can understand why you may not give him much credit for being an exceptionally learned expert, but I have no idea why you think he should be called a fraud? ---has he ever claimed to know as much as climate scientists do? ---if not, how is he committing fraud?

Mekhlis  Peter Johnson * a day ago
An engineer is no "scientist." He is an engineer. Since that distinction should be apparent, I have no more to say on this subject. Goodbye.

Peter Johnson  Mekhlis * a day ago
"Mechanical engineering"
"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
"The mechanical engineering field requires an understanding of core areas including mechanics, kinematics, thermodynamics, materials science, structural analysis, and electricity. In addition to these core principles, mechanical engineers use tools such as computer-aided design (CAD), and product life cycle management to design and analyze manufacturing plants, industrial equipment and machinery, heating and cooling systems, transport systems, aircraft, watercraft, robotics, medical devices, weapons, and others."
"Mechanical engineering emerged as a field during the Industrial Revolution in Europe in the 18th century; however, its development can be traced back several thousand years around the world. In the 19th century, developments in physics led to the development of mechanical engineering science. The field has continually evolved to incorporate advancements; today mechanical engineers are pursuing developments in such areas as composites, mechanics, and nanotechnology. It also overlaps with aerospace engineering, metallurgical engineering, civil engineering, electrical engineering, manufacturing engineering, chemical engineering, industrial engineering, and other engineering disciplines to varying amounts. Mechanical engineers may also work in the field of biomedical engineering, specifically with biomechanics, transport phenomena, biomechatronic, bionanotechnology, and modeling of biological systems."
OOPS! I'm technically wrong--a mechanical engineer just needs to know many different things from many different branches of science---silly me!
You really do have nothing more to say about it, because you deny the broader role of science that permeates and incorporates knowledge taken from many different scientific fields. Do you allow deniers to borrow your hair splitter too?

In this next comment, Mekhlis resorts to the obnoxious tactic of insulting me and demeaning my use of Wikipedia, apparently just because he believes it is worthless. It is so ironic that many deniers think this kind of vitriolic and pugnacious attitude, just reeking with condescension, is theirs to use righteously and at will, while thinking it is they who are being insulted for simply having their beliefs challenged?

Mekhlis  Peter Johnson * a day ago
Congratulations. So, you have learned to cut and paste, and from Wikipedia at that, the dunces' go-to "source" that would earn an undergraduate an 'F' in any class. At least copying improves your otherwise shockingly poor grammar. Of course, advanced engineers master all sorts of fields; but Nye never earned an advanced degree, even in engineering. He has merely a Bachelor's degree, and you have no evidence at all that he has any expertise in any of the fields that you copied above. More to the point, read the segment that you copied, if you can: it says nothing whatsoever about climatology; he is certainly no environmental scientist. Nye also has lately taken to pontificating about gender, although he has no training in genetics, biology, biomedicine [not biotechnology], or even psychology. I do not see any reference above to any of these disciplines. With his bow-tie and plaid-jacket shtick he has managed to fool rubes into believing that he is a scientist, but he is nothing of the sort. A person who pretends to have expertise that he does not in fact possess is a fraud, plain and simple. I don't expect to convince you. This exchange is both pointless and tiresome, and it is a waste of my time. Goodbye for good.

My words:

1.The results of Googling the word "Biotechnology:"

"Biotechnology is a technology that is based on biology, and uses living organisms to make innovative products and techniques that will improve our lives. ... GE is a process where scientists and researchers deliberately modify the genetic makeup of an organism."

2.The results of Googling the word, "Bionanotechnology:"

"Bionanotechnology is a branch of nanotechnology which uses biological starting materials, utilizes biological design or fabrication principles or is applied in medicine or biotechnology."

3.The results of Googling the word "Biomedical Engineering:"

"Biomedical engineering (BME) is the application of engineering principles and design concepts to medicine and biology for healthcare purposes (e.g. diagnostic or therapeutic)."

These are various fields which utilize Mechanical engineering skills as part of their expertise. "Biomedical," refers to:

"Biomedical sciences are a set of applied sciences applying portions of natural science or formal science, or both, to develop knowledge, interventions, or technology that are of use in healthcare or public health."

So, all the three above scientific field are all included as areas of knowledge that are utilized by Engineers, and they all overlap with Mechanical Engineering in fields such as Aerospace Engineering,
Metallurgical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, and Industrial Engineering.

Each field deals with different specific applications of their knowledge, but all of them drink from a common well of knowledge that depends on the same basic, and fundamental scientific knowledge.

The world of science is not in Kansas anymore, it has numerous and similar applications across a broad spectrum of similar usage.

My words-In this final response I made to Mekhlis, I included the criticisms of Sarah Palin, because she seems pretty typical of all the non-scientist "experts" who seem to think they know more about global warming than the actual scientists that study it. However, the information about Nye's knowledge and career illustrates that engineers apply science when doing their jobs. Thus, it is absurd for Mekhlis to deny that people like Nye have a great deal of scientific knowledge that they use and apply in their work. So, if these facts don't make them scientists, why do they know so much about it, and apply it so expertly?

Peter Johnson  Mekhlis * a day ago
"So how do Nye and Palin's scientific credentials compare?"
"Palin has none. She has a bachelor's in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho. She has spent her career in politics. In addition to serving as governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, she was chairperson for the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission between 2003 and 2004 and Republican vice-presidential candidate in the 2008 election, among other posts.
Nye has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Cornell. He also has six honorary doctorate degrees, including Ph.D. s in science from Goucher College and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute."
"He held various positions as an engineer between 1977 to 2009, such as contributing to the designs of 747 planes for Boeing and the designs of equipment used to clean up oil spills."
"From 1999 to 2009, Nye worked with a team at the NASA and California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory to design and create the MarsDial, a sundial and camera calibrator attached to the Mars Exploration Rover."
"Nye also holds three patents: a redesigned ballet toe shoe, a digital abacus (a kind of calculator) and an educational lens."
"Nye has written books on science, including "Undeniable" and "Unstoppable," which cover evolution and climate change, respectively. This is all in addition to decades of work in science advocacy and education, including acting as CEO of The Planetary Society and teaching as a professor at Cornell.
To sum up, Nye has a degree and experience working in engineering, which is the application of science. He has also spent much of his career working with and for the scientific community. Thus, his credentials make him more of a scientist than Palin."
"Editor's Note: SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation.
Categories: SciCheck and The Wire"

My words-Congratulations! You have graduated towards resorting to ad hominin insults, when the facts do not support your beliefs.

Yes, I cut and paste, and from many reputable sources--not just Wikipedia! Have you somehow transcended the petty human belief that if you want to quote people and articles that provide verifiable knowledge, then it is appropriate to provide links that show where that knowledge was taken from?
If your entire rebutting technique is going to consist of marginalizing my sources or insulting the facts that I provide, then this conversation really is pointless. So, go right ahead and drop out of it--be my guest, in fact.

My words-Lately it seems that many of my best posts end up living in purgatory on my disqus page. So, I am including this short back and forth between two other commenters, one being cunudiun, who I thought made excellent points. In The final post I added my two cents worth mainly because I think I wrote it well.

JinJa  cunudiun * 3 months ago
Why don't you admit that your a shill who wants the debate to be over? Do you say the debate is over? Yes or no?

cunudiun  JinJa * 3 months ago
What debate precisely? Yes to some things. No to others.

JinJa  cunudiun * 3 months ago
Climate science, precisely. Is debate over? Simple enough.

cunudiun  JinJa * 3 months ago
Ok. I'll answer that one if you answer mine: Chemistry: is the debate over?

JinJa  cunudiun * 3 months ago
Never. Old and new concepts are explored all the time. Your turn.

cunudiun  JinJa * 3 months ago
Ok. Same. Now answer this one. Is water composed of hydrogen and oxygen? Settled or not?

JinJa  cunudiun * 3 months ago
Nah. You still owe us your answer. Then I will reply.

cunudiun  JinJa * 3 months ago
I answered "Same," meaning same answer as yours. Should have made that clearer. Does that mean nothing in chemistry is settled? Is my point.

JinJa  cunudiun * 3 months ago
I was taught that scientists since Aristotle usually agree that nothing in science is settled, nor should be. Of course my evil corporate funded 10th grade public school teachers might have been lying about it.

Peter Johnson  JinJa * 13 days ago
What you are not seeing are two basic facts---that global warming exists, and that man is the primary cause of it. Those are facts--that's what the consensus confirms, those facts are firmly known. But of course there will continue to be unknowns about many specific questions involving climate science or about any branch of science, for that matter. That's why cunundiun asked you if it's a fact that water is composed of both Hydrogen and Oxygen--the answer is yes! That is completely known and completely verifiable--however that in no way implies that every single question raised by chemists is always completely known and completely verifiable. What your science class instructor was probably saying--was that there will always be specific unknowns in any field of scientific endeavor--in other words scientists will probably never know all there is to know about AGW, or about any other branch of science--they are not claiming to be know it alls! Yet they can continue adding knowledge regarding many specific scientific phenomena.

Many basic facts ARE virtually known--as cunudiun points out--that the chemical bond between hydrogen and oxygen is what produces water, or the fact that human beings are causing global warming to increase through our manufacture of Co2 as the result of combining fossil fuels and oxygen when catalyzed by heat. That's what the fire is, a chemical process whereby fossil fuels are combined with oxygen, by applying heart (and unfortunately) releasing billions of tons of Co2 as a harmful by-product of rapid oxidation.

Do I have that right cunudiun? (seriously)--you probably know much more about chemistry than I do? My last chemistry class was about 47 years ago.

What always impresses me is not just the total denial of science when their claims are threatened, but also the fact that, while exuding an air of anger and snobbery, deniers often resort to the claims that their opponents are insulting them? This is an easy out which keeps the commenter from actually responding to the points brought up by his or her opponents. But this ruse is accepted by too many people who would rather suspect a vast scientific conspiracy than the very logical conclusion that big oil and big coal companies are using their billons in profits to protect every last iota of their profits, which might be threatened if they were forced to reduce Co2 emissions. If more deniers really knew what is at stake, my hope is that they would quickly change their tune and take actions to preserve the only environment and the only planet we have.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

When Deregulation of Coal Isn't Deregulation

Our favorite fossil fuel paid shill, Tom Harris, who is very active in promoting the failing coal industry, has stated, in a response to Dave James,
James demonstrates one of the ways that the climate debate is being poisoned: attack the messenger with logical fallacies (James seems to like the straw man fallacy as he often says that I favor de-regulation of coal, for example, when I have repeatedly explained that I do not (there is a big difference between promoting deregulation and promoting the cancellation of stupid regulations such as regulating carbon dioxide emissions)).

For the record:
noun: deregulation; plural noun: deregulations
the removal of regulations or restrictions, especially in a particular industry.
So, Tom Harris has stated he is not advocating for deregulation of the coal industry, he merely wants to remove the regulations. I wonder if that statement actually makes sense to even him?

The part of this that is distasteful is that Harris never discusses why we have regulations on coal in the first place. And, he apparently doesn't care. He only wants to promote his employers and help them make even more obscene profits, no matter what the cost. And, the cost is considerable.

Take a look at this article in Science News, When coal replaces a cleaner energy source, health is on the line. The article is a discussion of the paper Impacts of nuclear plant shutdown on coal-fired power generation and infant health in the Tennessee Valley in the 1980s, which appeared in the journal Nature Energy. The paper concerns a study of a period in the 1980s when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) shut down a couple of nuclear power plants and replaced them with coal-fired plants. This was done as a result of the nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear facility. One plant, Paradise Fossil Plant, increased it's electrical production by about 27%. An increase in air pollution was a natural consequence. A study found that babies born near the plant 18 months after the increase had about 5% lower birth rate compared to babies born in the same area 18 months before the increase. There was no discernible change in other areas that did not experience an increase in fossil fuel emissions. As the article points out, lower birth weight is linked to trouble later in life, including a lower IQ, lower earnings and health problems, particularly heart disease. To put it in context, the extra emissions can be compared to a pregnant woman smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. 

Harris and his friends in the fossil fuel industry don't seem to care. But don't worry. They aren't advocating for deregulation. They only want to remove the government regulations. You know, those "stupid regulation" that limit the particulate pollution, the sulfur-dioxide pollution, the mercury emissions, the arsenic discharges, etc.


Monday, May 22, 2017

My Mistakes Identified By Tom Harris

I made an extensive review of a ridiculous interview Tom Harris made on Skype. You can read it here: Tom Harris Fraudulent Scientist. Harris has made a couple of interesting remarks, including stating that I made numerous mistakes.
Mr. Keating has made attacking me into a bit of a cottage industry - see Much of what he says is so wrong (or irrelevant) that it is not worth my time to correct. Nevertheless, the fact he spends so much time attacked me tells me I am over the target: the hopelessly flawed science backing the climate scare.

I have offered Harris the chance to point out any mistakes and stated I would gladly correct the post and even give him credit for the correction.

You haven't given us any specifics, Tom. I'll tell you what, show us where I'm wrong and I'll correct anything you can demonstrate isn't correct. To sweeten the pot for you, I'll even acknowledge that you were the one who corrected me. I would think this would be easy, considering you just stated that "Much of what he says is so wrong..." We're anxiously waiting to hear from you.
Here's a screen shot of the exchange:

Here is the list of all of my mistakes identified by Tom Harris:


Saturday, May 20, 2017

Tom Harris the Fraudulent Scientist

unjustifiably claiming or being credited with particular accomplishments or qualities.
Synonyms: dishonest, cheating, swindling, corrupt, criminal, illegal, unlawful, illicit

Now we can say for absolute certainty - Tom Harris is a fraud. The subtitle on this posting should be "How many lies can one man tell in 30 minutes?"

Take a look at this remarkable Skype interview he did on May 19, 2017. It's remarkable in the number of false statements he makes. It is also remarkable in that he allows himself to be called a scientist and a climate expert. He is neither. Harris is a mechanical engineer and a lobbyist. He does not have credentials as a scientist, has never performed as a scientist, and is not currently working as a scientist. In short, Harris is allowing himself to be unjustifiably credited with qualities he does not possess. That is the definition of fraud and it is not the first time he has done this. He is a repeat offender, so we have a pattern of behavior.

If you are not fully aware of Harris' resume, you can read a lot more about him at the clearing house web page: Tom Harris Paid Shill

There are so many false and misleading statements in this video that it's hard to list them all, but I'll comment on some. I apologize for the length of this post, but there are just too many lies in this interview to let them go unmentioned.

At the 2:00 mark, Harris states, "Even if you believe we are causing an enormous problem, which I don't, ..." 
Response: This is from a man who has stated he has never denied climate change. 

At the 2:50 mark, "We don't actually know we are causing significant climate change anyway. We have not seen a significant increase, or decrease for that matter, in the global average temperature, which they calculate, it's not a real thing, it's just a statistic. We don't actually see any change since about 2000."
Response: Once again, Harris is denying the existence of global warming and climate change. But, why doesn't Harris tell you that 16 of the 17 hottest years ever recorded have happened since 2000? And, why is Harris trying to cherry-pick the data and not discuss the whole temperature record? You can make any point you want, if you limit the discussion to only the data you want to discuss and eliminate the rest.  

And, don't forget, Harris just stated that temperature is not a real thing. Maybe he needs to tell the oceans, the ice, the birds, the fish, plants, the... well, you get the picture. Everything in nature thinks temperature is a real thing and that it's changing.

At 3:15 "The models are not working."
Response: Really? This is one of the most often quoted lies in the denier-sphere, and one of the most easily debunked. Read about climate models here. You can read my posting on this topic at: Let's discuss climate models. Meanwhile, take a look at this graphic:

Source: Benestad and Schmidt

This is figure 2 from the paper Solar Trends and Global Warming, by Benestad and Schmidt. The blue line is the model output and the red line is the observed global average temperature (<T>). As you can see, the model and measured values are in very good agreement.

At 3:25. Harris goes off a diatribe that addressing climate change is costing $1 billion per day. He says this doesn't make sense when there are many problems that could use a $1 billion per day. 
Response: Take note, he doesn't say anything about where this $1 billion figure comes from and where any the money is going. Not to mention that this is an irrelevant discussion. How does the cost of addressing climate change affect the science? It doesn't. So, why is Harris raising this issue if not to create an emotional response in the listener?

The $1 billion per day figure is actually outdated and probably comes from a 2013 report you can read about here. Interestingly, this same report discusses how in that same year, the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry amounted to $523 billion - more than $1.4 billion per day. Wow! We could address a lot of problems simply by cutting subsidies for the fossil fuel industry! (In case you were wondering, the total amount of subsidies for the renewable energy industry was only $88 billion - about one-sixth as much.)

According to the GAO, the US federal government spent $24 billion on climate change in 2014 - much less than what Harris wants you to believe. When he talks about this $1 billion dollars, that includes things like crop damage (which we can't do anything about), damage due to rising sea level and storms (which we are stuck with), spreading disease (which we are stuck with), etc. In other words, there is no decision to be made regarding spending money on climate change. When a storm wipes out your house or business or crops, you don't get to decide if you're going to spend that money. It already disappeared. So, why doesn't Harris talk about this, unless he wants to deceive?

And, he fails to ever address the coming cost of climate change that we will be stuck with if we don't do something now. After all, the reason we have to address climate change today is because people like Tom Harris worked so hard to prevent us from addressing it in the past.

At 3:50 the host asks Harris about the risk that the US will lose as much as 25% of its sovereignty due to the Paris Agreement. Harris never actually confirms, or denies, this figure. But, after stating the Paris Agreement is not a legally enforced treaty, he goes on about how environmentalists can use agreements like this to engage in legal actions in an attempt to force the government to conform to environmental laws. 
Response: Well, the reason we have to go to court is because people like Harris work so hard to help people break the law. If Harris, and people like him, wouldn't work so hard to block actions to address the problem there wouldn't be a need for legal actions. Having our own courts is not a threat to our sovereignty. This is a false, strawman argument.

At 8:10, Harris goes on about how helping people in the future is "immoral". 
Response: This is a simply mind-boggling statement. If nothing else, remember those people in the future are us. We're not only talking about people 100 years from now, we're talking about helping people tomorrow. Tomorrow is the also in the future. Let's not even get started on the issue of taking care of our own children. According to Harris, helping anyone beyond today is immoral. That's because the only thing that matters to Harris are the profits of his employers - the fossil fuel industry, especially the coal industry.

At 13:20, the host goes on about how 'global warming, or is it climate change this week...It seems like it changes every single week.' 
Response: That's because this guy is more interested in denying science than trying to understand it. Climate change is not another name for global warming - it's a different issue. They are both what they sound like - global warming is about the rising temperature while climate change addresses all of the changes in the climate, including, but not limited to, global warming. For instance, acidification of the oceans is not global warming, but it is climate change. This was shortly after this same host said Trump has 'been excellent' in regards to environmental laws. How is allowing coal companies to dump their poisonous waste in our drinking water 'excellent'? When you meet people who say things like what this guy said it merely shows they are truly anti-science and not the least bit interested in the facts or the science. They've made their minds up and no amount of logic or scientific evidence will ever change it. It is a mental illness.

At 15:20, the host, after making all sorts of bizarre statements, says to Harris, "I'm not the scientist here, you are." Harris does nothing to correct him. 
Response: As I said earlier, Harris is not a scientist and never has been. By allowing himself to be addressed as a scientist, he is committing fraud by allowing himself to be credited with accomplishments and qualities he doesn't possess.

At 15:40, Harris makes a mind-numbing statement, "Actually, warming is beneficial." 
Response: I'm not going to go into all of the damage that is resulting from global warming and climate change. I'm merely going to point you to Harris' comment about how we're spending $1 billion per day on climate change and there are other problems that could benefit from that money. Amazingly hypocritical!

Immediately after this statement, Harris produces the report from the Nonscientific Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The NIPCC is a completely debunked pseudoscience organization. I like to compare them to the horoscope in the daily paper - they are both equally scientifically valid. If you are using the NIPCC as your reference, you might as well use your daily horoscope as one. Notice how Harris always refers to this organization and it's publication, but he never produces any science. That's because there is no valid science to support the NIPCC, or Harris, either.

18:40 - 'The fear of warming is a bit silly."
Response: Harris' logic is that if one guy doesn't have to shovel snow from his driveway, global warming must be good. He's wrong. Take a look:

17:10 "Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, our science advisor..." 
17: 15 "Dr. Tim Ball, he's a well renowned climatologist..."
Response: Tim Ball is not a climatologist, he's a geographer. Harris is committing fraud again by giving unearned attributes to someone else. Ball has never worked in climate science, was never a member of a climate science department and has never earned any credentials as a climatologist.

According to the courts, where Ball was able to present all of his evidence, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming." 

And, referring to Ball as 'The Plaintiff", the court said: 

"The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the
issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media;


"The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

17:30 Harris states the entire Arctic archipelago is covered by only one weather station.
Response: This is an outright lie.  This web page listed below lists FIVE stations in CANADA ALONE that are either permanently manned or remotely operated. 

And, Harris makes no mention whatsoever of the satellites that orbit and take measurements on a continuous basis. This statement, and his claim about rising Arctic temperature is a grotesque lie on his part.

I could stop there because I have made my point - Harris is a fraud and an anti-science propagandist. But, this is too much fun, so let's keep going.

Starting at about 18:00 he goes on about historical climate change and tries to make the analogy with today's climate change. The climate has always changed, therefore any change we might be experiencing is merely natural.
Observe the false logic. What Harris says is like saying "Pneumonia kills people. Bullets kill people. Pneumonia is a naturally occurring disease. Therefore, bullets are a naturally occurring disease." 
See that the real experts have to say about the natural versus manmade climate change.

1830: The temperature record is "only a few decades."
Response: This is another one of his self-defeating statements because he was just talking about the temperature over the centuries. How can he discuss temperature and climate change over centuries, millennia, and even millions of years, if the temperature record is only 'a few decades'? 

Actually, our current instrument record goes back to around 1850. But, the scientific record (using temperature proxies), goes back even further. Using ice cores, we have a good record going back about 800,000 years. Geologic records give us data going back millions of years.

18:50 Harris discusses the standard deviation of the temperature record and states that it could have gotten colder in 2016 instead of setting a record high.
Response: This is one of those truly deceptive statements Harris loves to make because he thinks everyone is too stupid to check his claims. The only possible way for Harris' claims about the temperature record could occur is if you accept that the actual temperature is at the lower two standard deviations (or more) point. Two standard deviations is about 95%. In other words, there is a 95% chance, in this case, that the temperature is higher than the two standard deviation mark. Harris would require every year to hit the two standard deviation mark. Over a mere 16 years (since 2000), the chances of hitting the lower bound is about 1 in 4.4 x 1031. The odds are impossible.

Oh, even if you're interested in only one year, the odds of the higher standard deviations is equally valid. In other words, Harris is making a point that the amount of error in the measurements could be negative without including that the error might be positive. It is equally possible that the temperature was actually higher. Strange how he left that bit out.

19:10 The host states that global warming is merely hot air coming from liberal's mouths. Then he goes into a diatribe that global warming is a grand conspiracy for people to have control over others.
Response: I always find statements like this to be almost hilarious in their stupidity. This guy just made a blanket statement about billions of people and every climate scientist on the planet without knowing a single thing about them. In case you didn't know, that is called bigotry. If you ever had any doubt at all that people like this have no interest in the evidence, this should clear it up for you. According to this guy's reasoning, science changes depending on your political views. And, for the record, I am FAR from being a liberal. 

19:40 Harris states carbon emissions from fossil fuel are not pollution.
Response: Lots has been said on this topic. Here's my comments:

Of course, Harris refers to the pseudoscience NIPCC at this point. See my comments above about that. In short, the only reason Harris would refer to them is because he has no valid science to support his claims. But, that has never even slowed him down. Don't let the science or the facts get in the way. He also refers to the Idsos, another debunked group of fraudulent pseudoscientists who are on the payroll of the Heartland Institute. The reality is, global warming is leading to reduced crop yields and even the crops that we are getting have less nutritional value. Oh, don't forget that CO2 is not selective. If it is food for plants we like, it is also food for plants we don't like, such as weeds in the farm fields and invasive species. Again, Harris never mentions any of that.

21:40 Most of that billion dollars a day goes to alternative energy to try and stop climate change. This is all part of the claim that climate change is just a great conspiracy to control the world because if you control energy, you control the world.
Response: As we've already seen, alternative energy got about $88 billion in 2014 while the FFI got $523 billion  And, Harris doesn't address the fact that energy is already controlled and that list of people includes his employers (Hmmm. Maybe that's why he didn't want to mention it.) Energy is controlled by a few corporations and organizations - such as OPEC, ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. And, who is funding all of the denier activities, such as Harris? The fossil fuel industry. The same ones who already control the world's energy supplies. 

21:50 Harris once again denies the existence of climate change.

22: 10 Harris goes on a lecture about coal.
Response: Harris never mentions all of the damage from burning coal. He never discusses acid rain, arsenic in the water supplies, mercury emissions, particulate air pollution, health hazards, poisonous ash from the power plants, or any of the other issues associated with mining and burning coal. He never mentions something like the study discussed here:

Harris wants you to believe Obama is the only reason coal is struggling. The reality is that coal is struggling for economic reasons. It's simply too expensive.

22:45 The host states, "It is very refreshing I guess is the word I'm looking for, to talk to someone that is a scientist, that is a professional, that knows a lot about you know global, uh, global climate and climate change and things like that..." Harris only smiles.
Response: Just like when the host called Harris a scientist at the  15:20 mark, this statement is not true and Harris did nothing to correct him. Again, Harris has engaged in fraud.

This host the goes on a mindless diatribe about how he wants clean air, but he doesn't want to do it at the "barrel of a gun." His prior statements show this claim is false. Remember, he already said Trump's action on the environment were 'excellent.' He is not interested in clean air, he only wants his own clean air and the rest of the world is expendable. And, by making statement about having to do it at gun point is nothing more than the rantings of a lunatic. Where, and when, has anyone pushed environmental laws on the public at gunpoint? No instances of this actually happening are provided. 

And, while he states he doesn't want any of this done with the government's 'heavy hand', he never mentions how it is market forces, not the government, that is changing the energy industry. No government 'heavy hand,' just the heavy hand of the market.

24:00 Harris goes into a discussion of a great conspiracy to make developed nations, "especially the United States," pay for damages in the developing countries caused by extreme weather, citing an example of the Philippines suing for damage caused by a tsunami.
Response. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, not climate change. Once again, Harris doesn't let the science get in the way of lies and deception.

Instead of making conspiracy claims, maybe Harris should simply discuss how this mechanism allows for a civilized and orderly way for grievances to be addressed. According to Harris, that's a bad thing.

25:20 Harris discusses Micronesia suing a coal company and states, "because they're having dangerous sea level rise."
Response: The longer you let this guy talk, the more he hangs himself. He has already stated there is no climate change and its 'silly' to be concerned about rising temperatures. How can there be 'dangerous sea level rise' if there's nothing to worry about and a little warming is "good for us?"

So, there you have it. This was a lot of fun and I hope you've learned something about Harris in particular and climate change deniers in general.