More Fakegate fallout. On February 28, 2012, the report Climate Change Denial in the Classroom was issued by the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism of the Centre for Inquiry (Canada) (CFI). The related news release, Climate Change Denial in Carleton University Course Exposed by National Science Team, was issued on the same day.
I found the media response to this report, as well as the report itself, rather stunning for all the excitement surrounding it. It seemed to be nothing more than some sort of piling on “gotcha journalism” like the sorts we’ve seen in The Guardian and other left leaning newspapers since Fakegate first broke. One the biggest failures in journalism come from the Guardian, where both Leo Hickman and Suzanne Goldenberg ran with stories naming me, without so much as asking me a question first or determining if the documents were real or not. Initially I thought Goldenberg might have a modicum of journalistic sense, having the presence of mind to send me an email asking for a response, but then I discovered she’d run the story without waiting for my response, and then via an update, only including a small portion of my detailed response, as I show in entirety here.
I asked Mr. Tom Harris, who is specifically named in the report, if this course was a requirement for Earth Science undergraduates at Carleton, or if it was an elective.
He responded immediately that it was an elective, and that nobody was required to take it to get their Earth Sciences degree at Carleton. So it seems to me that all of the media angst and smear surrounding this report is simply that they don’t want students to even be able to choose to take it. The fake moral outrage displayed is quite impressive.
I asked Tom Harris to provide background for me, and he has contributed significantly to what follows, and I have edited and added as needed for this story to convey the background from his side of the story (as well as mine).
The CFI report billed itself as “an audit” of the 2011 version of the 2nd year elective course for non-Earth Science majors at Carleton—“Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective” (course designator ERTH2402). ERTH2402 is a “survey” course that presents an overview of many of the most important areas of climate science at the level of an educated layperson. It has attracted a viewing audience in the general public via CUTV, Carleton’s cable TV station seen across Canada and, via the Web, internationally.
The ERTH2402 course was created by Carleton University Earth Sciences Professor Tim Patterson, PhD, and he taught the course for over a decade. Due to his public climate education work with Professor Patterson since 1998, his teaching experience, and his science and technology background, Mr. Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition, was selected to teach the 2009 version of the course while Dr. Patterson was on sabbatical. 95% of the course material presented to students by Mr. Harris in 2009 was the same as that presented by Dr. Patterson in 2008.
The 2009 version of ERTH2402 was taught successfully with approximately 500 students completing the course. Consequently, Mr. Harris was invited to teach ERTH2402 three more times—twice in 2010 and again in 2011, achieving consistently high student ratings. A total of about 1,500 students completed the course in the four sessions taught by Mr. Harris (who describes the course here). ERTH2402 was not offered in 2012 but Professor Patterson will teach the course again in 2013.
In September 2010, Carleton University postdoctoral fellow Dr. Christopher Hassell, a contract biology instructor (Conservation Biology) at the university, requested, and was granted access to the lectures for the January – April 2011 term. In his September 13, 2010 e-mail to the university “Video on Demand” staff, Dr. Hassell wrote, “I am not interested in taking the course, but simply desire some background information on the lectures” (see p. 89 in the subject audit report).
Dr. Hassell then worked with three other authors (two other biology PhDs and a communications professional) to complete the 98 page report “Climate Change Denial in the Classroom”. At no point before media release of the “audit” did the authors contact Mr. Harris or inform him of their work. Mr. Harris states he has had no previous contact with any of the authors.
The first main stream media to cover the report was The Guardian (London, UK). Their piece was: “Heartland associate taught ‘biased’ climate course at Ottawa university—Expert audit finds man connected with climate sceptic think tank taught climate course to students at Carleton University.”
Approximately one hour before publication on The Guardian Webpage on Feb 28, the author of the piece, The Guardian’s US environment correspondent Suzanne Goldenberg, left a message on Professor Patterson’s voice mail requesting an interview. Professor Patterson did not receive the message until after Goldenberg’s piece was uploaded to the Guardian’s Website. In her article, Goldenberg wrote, “The head of the earth sciences department, Tim Patterson, did not respond to requests for comment.”
How could he? Sheesh. Ms. Goldenberg’s method here almost ensures that no comment could be made before publication. And judging from how she reported on the 2009 Heartland ICCC, where she immediate jumps in the headline from skeptics to “deniers” it seems clear she has a built in bias, perhaps even an irrational hatred, like we see from other environmental reporters on a regular basis.
Goldenberg did however speak with Mr. Harris earlier in the afternoon. Harris had the presence of mind to ask Ms. Goldenberg if he could record the interview (she gave the OK) and the 26 minute interview may be heard here (MP3 audio) and the verbatim transcript of the discussion you can read here: Tom_Harris_Interview_with_the_Guardian-28-02-12 (1) (PDF)
Mr. Harris also corresponded with Goldenberg by e-mail four hours before the piece went live to ensure she was aware of the details of Mr. Harris’ connection with the Heartland Institute. According to him, when he last taught at Carleton he was not a “Heartland associate” (and still is not) and did not become an unpaid “Policy Advisor” with Heartland until approximately six months after he had completed teaching the Carleton course.
On 28 February 2012 19:36, Tom Harris tom.harris@xxxxxxx wrote:
Dear Suzanne,I forgot to mention that Heartland asked me to be a Policy Advisor a few months back and I accepted (you can see their many advisors at http://heartland.org/experts). There is no remuneration for this position and I have no assigned responsibilities, aside from commenting when interesting items related to my field arise when I want to.
Tom
Mr. Harris explained to Goldenberg that Heartland encourages fair and open dialog on climate change and even hosted a friendly public debate between a “skeptic” and an “alarmist” at their last climate conference in Washington DC seven months ago. In 2010, I also talked about this at WUWT and praised Scott Denning for his choice to embrace skeptics and about the warm welcome he received. Even Joe Romm was invited to the last conference. He declined of course, because even though there would be no cost to him he can’t risk being treated warmly by climate skeptics; it might make his head explode.
This call for open and equal debate on the part of Heartland is also evidenced in their invitation to Dr. Peter Gleick to have him debate James Taylor at the Heartland Annual Dinner, which Dr. Gleick declined shortly before launching his criminal phishing attack on Heartland.
Contrary to Goldenberg’s statement that the review of the Earth Sciences course was “an expert audit”, Mr. Harris in his telephone interview (from the transcript linked above) explained to her that it was conducted by two biologists and a writer, none of whom apparently have significant expertise in Earth Sciences or Climate Science.
According to Mr. Harris, contrary to assertions in the Guardian piece, the 2011 version of the ERTH2402 course was well supported by peer reviewed science literature and was in no way extreme. It merely concluded that we are a long way from understanding the science well enough to be able to make reliable forecasts about future climate. Harris says the course was completely nonpartisan politically and avoided any sort of commercial endorsement.
Goldenberg wrote in her Guardian article:
“A team of scientists, who reviewed the videotapes of Mr. Harris’s lectures provided by the university, found 142 false, biased and misleading claims”.
Mr. Harris advises me that he will release an appropriate response to those claims when he has thoroughly reviewed the CASS “audit” report. However, as of this writing, no problems have yet been raised by Carleton in the course material as taught in 2011. It appears that Carelton University itself has no issue with the course material, only the CASS group and the media seem to have issues.
Suzanne Goldenberg’s Guardian piece condemning ERTH2402 is itself riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations, omissions, and errors, some of which were described in a letter to the editor sent by Mr. Harris to The Guardian early on February 29. So far, The Guardian has not responded or published the necessary corrections in either their Letters to the Editor or “Corrections and clarifications” sections.
If they don’t, and I’m predicting they won’t, I’ll carry the letter from Mr. Harris here as a separate post.
Here is a TV interview from yesterday with Mr. Harris:
Nick Luke:
The Guardian’s offenses to journalistic standards and basic common decency go back much, much further. Because of their adverse reaction to his (eye witness) reports on the forced famine in the Ukraine in the early 30’s, Malcolm Muggeridge resigned from his position on what was then the Manchester Guardian. (He wasn’t able to get a decent journalist’s position thereafter.)
As some posters may recall, I regularly go on about the junk model-based pseudoscience called ‘Conservation Biology,’ which is the bogus foundation of the ‘Species At Risk’ industry, ‘Biodiversity Crisis,’ and which provided the ‘evidence’ of imminent polar bear extinction to their partners in IPCC Climastrology.
So, no surprise who the smearers were here: “In September 2010, Carleton University postdoctoral fellow Dr. Christopher Hassell, a contract biology instructor (Conservation Biology) at the university, requested, and was granted access to the lectures”
I consider ‘Conservation Biology’ to be an even more junkified post-normal ‘science’ than IPCC Climatrology and that will become more evident as the UN shifts from AGW to Biodiversity.
The only way they can get at Tom Harrison is by means of a drive by smear piece fruit fly climate garbage.
I have the good fortune to view Tom Harrison weekly on SUN Media TV about all things climate and the Solar and Wind fiascoes taking place in Ontario, Canada. Which is virtually bankrupt, due in no small part to the insane green policy’s of the Liberal Government driving the debt and energy prices through the roof. However coming back to Tom Harrison, he is brilliant and a great debater. I would bet the farm on him in any Climate debate with ANY one of the Warmist or group of warmist, it would be a slap down With Tom on the skeptics /level headed climate side it is a NO CONTEST. Keep up the good work Tom you are a hero in my eyes.
See Toms article in the Washington post:
HARRIS: Time to get real about climate change
10/10/10 and 350.org based on urban legend, not science
First, no rational scientist denies that climate changes. As professor Tim Patterson of the Department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa testified before a parliamentary committee, “Based on the paleoclimatic data I and others have collected, it’s obvious that climate is and always has been variable. In fact, the only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” ………………………………….
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/14/time-to-get-real-about-climate-change/?page=all#pagebreak
So, essentially, now the nobs and tools of the “green” industry think introductory courses covering general knowledge is evil taught by evil people?
Will Hickman and Goldenberg and their likeminded ilks be able to stand up to their own logic and level of scrutiny, I wonder? o≈O
Gary Pearse said @ur momisugly March 3, 2012 at 10:46 am
Things have changed Gary, and they changed years ago. My brother’s second degree was engineering gained at MonashU back in the early 80s IIRC. He was required to take an “elective” outside of engineering and the electives were of the “social” variety. He received a very low mark for his first essay. My mother came home one day to find him crying. When she asked why, he handed her his second essay. He had been given a very high mark and my mother expressed her amazement that he should be crying about it. His explanation: After the low mark for the first essay, he decided to write complete and utter bullshit for the second.
The accusers seem outraged that someone might actually have the nerve to claim that CO2 is not a pollutant? One of the central core requirements of the CAGW alarmist creed is to get people to accept that a harmless trace gas and plant food is a pollutant, and its easy to see why isnt it? Once they have conned and bounced people into believing that it is then the case for restricting emissions is that much stronger, the EPA requires it to be classified as a pollutant in order to enact and engage draconian economy destroying and job killing legislation.
You can see why the CAGW alarmist high priests would be really alarmed and threatened by thought that young people could be presented with the truth. In places of education all over the Western world children and young adults are being indoctrinated into believing a falsehood and a great deal of time and effort has gone into spreading and perpetuating this falsehood. In order to enact drastic hugely expensive and economically destructive anti CO2 legislation CO2 has to be portrayed and presented as a pollutant. Where would the CAGW fraud be if became accepted generally that CO2 is a harmless trace gas and essential plant food without which there would be no life? And that the more CO2 in the atmosphere the more life thrives. This is where the CAGW fraud must move into attack mode because to remove that central plank effectively destroys their entire fraud.
What a change for the Left, going from “Question authority” to “Don’t deviate from the mainstream.” And then establishing this as the standard for teaching climate change.
An unwarrented attack on “climate science education” by the warmist mob. Coming to a school near you soon. What a surprise – not.
[The Guardian
Headline circulation: 229,753
Month-on-month change: -0.15%
Year-on-year change: -17.74%]
[The Guardian was down 17.74% year on year, but this figure is also adversely affected by a complete halt to overseas distribution. In January 2011 the paper was sending 17,000 copies overseas daily on average.]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/10/alexander-lebedev-i-circulation
They would to cut down trees, pulp them, dry them, print pulp on them and put the combined pulp in aircraft and fly it to North America. 17,000 copies, every day, for years, while they were telling everyone how to save the trees and not to fly. Year-on-year change: -17.74%, if this trend continues….
The Guardian and the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism, so-called, seem to have forgotten what is the purpose of a university.
The purposed is not to indoctrinate students with the fashionable orthodoxy of the day, rather it is to advance knowledge by questioning the established orthodoxy.
Of course, this applies mainly to mathematics, the sciences, and engineering.
Not regurgitating the prof’s pet ideologies in a humanities essay is the best method of not passing a humanities course.
No, they’re entirely right. It’s taking valuable time away from demonstrating the finer points of plastics: http://bit.ly/zdYlkc
Ms. Golderberg doesn’t put her own opinions in her writing. She finds someone she agrees with and quotes them.
The Pompous Git says:
March 3, 2012 at 11:46 am
Things have changed Gary, and they changed years ago. My brother’s second degree was engineering gained at MonashU back in the early 80s IIRC. He was required to take an “elective” outside of engineering and the electives were of the “social” variety.
My Engineering degree was at Auckland University in the 70s. We were the first group to have to take similar courses to “broaden” our horizons. Limits to Growth and one other similar work that I cannot remember but which has been mentioned recently on WUWT were among the texts. I became a skeptic when we did not run out of oil in 1976 as predicted in LtG.
Wow. I just looked at the first few “claims” in the report. Most of them were “proven” to be false by linking to dishonest activist site skeptical science, run by non-scientists and activists.
It is easy to underestimate your opponent in a debate, and I usually try to take care and avoid this trap. But I think it would be very hard to underestimate this lot.
Goldenberg is not a journalist, she’s a propogandist.
Her distortions of reality are bizarre and one would really have to question her motivation. Is she being paid by some green advocacy group, other than the Guardian, to fabricate this nonsense, or is she really that twisted morally, that she can’t tell right from wrong anymore?
majormike1 says:
March 3, 2012 at 11:50 am
What a change for the Left, going from “Question authority” to “Don’t deviate from the mainstream.” And then establishing this as the standard for teaching climate change.
===================================================
That would be when a pervasive majority of communists had effectively infiltrated academia and journalism.
Today, we see this playing out in climatology.
Following the links we come to this:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature
I am sorry to say that an organization that I used to admire has sunk to this level. What produces this degree of certainty and hatred? In science all questions should be on the table. If we can discuss whether neutrinos really travel faster than light without personal abuse then we can certainly discuss the effect of carbon [dioxide] on climate. Maybe I just don’t understand politics.
If you skip to the comment section at the end of the article you will see that a large number of (I assume) regular readers are very upset with this article and some have threatened to cancel their subscriptions. So, maybe there is hope yet.
majormike1 says:
March 3, 2012 at 11:50 am
What a change for the Left, going from “Question authority” to “Don’t deviate from the mainstream.” And then establishing this as the standard for teaching climate change.
Nowadays the left are the establishment.
On the very bright side, that video clip is from a brand new Canadian TV network, Sun News, which provides a Fox-like alternative to the other networks there (the CBC and CTV are both as deep or deeper into the AGW propaganda as the BBC is).
Without that network this side of this story would NEVER have been covered in Canada. And that network has already provided no end of inconvenient coverage of not only the AGW scam but also the inconvenient sources of funds that prop up the usual Canadian ‘environmental’ groups… which are now coming under serious scrutiny. No wonder Desmogblog was so eager to pounce on Fakegate. With their cash flow threatened they are starting to panic.
The worst aspect of this story is the attempt by so called scientists to use the media to silence course material they do not believe in. These two so called experts are true believers, not scientists. I have nothing but contempt for them.
The scary thing is that universities are producing biologists who have bought into the false dichotomy that is AGW. Also, that they thought that Mr Harris would,somehow, be a straw man. Maybe they think associate lecturers are easy targets?
Well done to Mr Harris, you are the sort of lecturer I would have no hesitation in sending my children to, if I had any!
Look, if it was published in The Guardian, it is immediately suspect as left wing agitprop anyway. I don’t think anyone takes anything they read in The Guardian without more than a few grains of salt.
The only people who read it are people who are going to be “spring loaded” to believe everything it says anyway. It is a partisan rag for a partisan readership. In other words, The Guardian is pretty much preaching to the choir anyway. Anyone who is undecided on such issues isn’t reading The Guardian so it isn’t like they are influencing opinions. They are simply part of the echo chamber of people who have already made their minds up anyway. The Guardian is the paper they read for affirmation, not for education.
Sounds like a new intake of university staff, their idealistic young heads crammed full of ideas and enthusiasm. They noticed that some of the older members were unwilling to embrace the new truth and decided to re-educate them. Probably cock-a-hoop that they got in the media but they will regret it. Us old fodies know that in a few years time, when they eventually grow up, they will remember this days work and cringe.
I must have proofread my post ten times, but I still made an error. I meant carbon dioxide and not carbon monoxide. I can pretend that this is an object lesson on the dangers of certainty.
[Fixed. Robt]
Beesaman says:
March 3, 2012 at 12:53 pm
“The scary thing is that universities are producing biologists who have bought into the false dichotomy that is AGW.”
Do not confuse real biologists (an objective science) with the practioners of “Conservation Biology” which is a recently invented “mission oriented” pseudoscience with a political agenda.
Note that it was an identified “Conservation Biologist” at work here and I would bet that the other two unspecified “biologists’ involved were also from the same missionary movement.