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:
Blade says:
March 4, 2012 at 9:09 am
“I count just 32 data points for Arctic sea ice extent year-to-year since 1979. In that small sample you have somehow … ”
I haven’t extracted a quadratic expression for the 32 points to derive coefficients and confidence levels. I am relying on the the opinions of leading experts in Arctic Sea Ice who publish in the peer reviewed literature, for my interpretations of the data.
If you don’t like the 32 points, look at longer term data which uses ship logs to infer sea ice coverage over a 107 year period:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=826
The recent trend in summer Arctic sea ice decline is quite striking. Since the data only goes to 2007, we have to look at the succeeding 4 years to see the acceleration.
Another strong indicator of Arctic Sea Ice decline is the reduction in multi year ice, due to the reduction of the rate of ice formation in the winter.
REPLY: This sea ice diversion has nothing to do with this thread, we DO have a thread on sea ice where it can be discussed factually, though that probably excludes Mr. Adler – Anthony
[snip – this is not only off topic to the story, but please learn to cite something other than a blogger who won’t put his own name to his publications, like Gleick, he’s got a fake name used to push his points – Anthony]
Mr. Adler,
We do not agree.
The future of global warming, or more probable global cooling (in my opinion), will decide this question.
In 2003 with Tim Patterson’s input, I wrote in the Calgary Herald that global cooling would recommence by 2020 to 2030, based on Tim’s work on the Gleissberg Cycle. At that time, NASA predicted a strong SC24, which has not materialized. If anything, global cooling may commence sooner.
You can read our 2002 article on the science of climate change at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
The eight-point summary* includes a number of predictions that have all materialized, in those countries in Western Europe that have adopted the full measure of global warming mania. My country, Canada, was foolish enough to sign the Kyoto Protocol, but then wise enough to ignore it.
To date, our predictive record is infinitely better than that of the IPCC – since none of the IPCC’s scary predictions have materialized.
Over and out.
Regards, Allan
________________________
* Summary:
Kyoto has many fatal flaws, any one of which should cause this treaty to be scrapped.
1. Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.
2. Kyoto focuses primarily on reducing CO2, a relatively harmless gas, and does nothing to control real air pollution like NOx, SO2, and particulates, or serious pollutants in water and soil.
3. Kyoto wastes enormous resources that are urgently needed to solve real environmental and social problems that exist today. For example, the money spent on Kyoto in one year would provide clean drinking water and sanitation for all the people of the developing world in perpetuity.
4. Kyoto will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs and damage the Canadian economy – the U.S., Canada’s biggest trading partner, will not ratify Kyoto, and developing countries are exempt.
5. Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment – it will cause energy-intensive industries to move to exempted developing countries that do not control even the worst forms of pollution.
6. Kyoto’s CO2 credit trading scheme punishes the most energy efficient countries and rewards the most wasteful. Due to the strange rules of Kyoto, Canada will pay the former Soviet Union billions of dollars per year for CO2 credits.
7. Kyoto will be ineffective – even assuming the overstated pro-Kyoto science is correct, Kyoto will reduce projected warming insignificantly, and it would take as many as 40 such treaties to stop alleged global warming.
8. The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.
________________________
Eric Adler says: “Wow! There is not a single dissenting voice in the comments on this blog. Is it because such comments are blocked, or because no one bothers anymore?”
It is because unlike eadler, most of us here have a moral compass. Comments are not being blocked, it is just that eadler is the exception, with a Gleick-like lack of ethics.
Adler is the perfect example of a site pest. IMHO, the sooner he is run off the better. He belongs in Tamina’s echo chamber, not here polluting the internet’s Best Science & Technology site.
Eric Adler says:
March 4, 2012 at 9:21 am
(responding to)
Allan MacRae says:
March 4, 2012 at 8:58 am
Based on the IPCC’s perfect track record of being dead wrong, I suggest you bundle up.””
It is my understanding that the very scary projections are not for the current period, but rather for 50 to 100 years in the future. I don’t see why it is significant that they haven’t materialized to date.
Looking at a graph of global annual average temperature, one sees a steady increase since 1980, despite a number of short term peaks and plateaus such as we are currently experiencing. These are due to internal variation due to solar cycles, volcanoes and El Ninos. None of these has had any lasting influence on the trend since 1980. The IPCC is projecting a long term trend, and the short term internal variation does not disprove their projections.
I regret repeating your errors above, but they are – in their significance and their proof of the hypocrisy of your supposed argument – illustrative …
1915 -1940. 25 years of increasing temperatures – Note that CO2 must be assumed steady during this period since measurements in 1958 began at 280, and lower CO2 levels are deadly to plant and animal life. Local CO2 increases were likely in north Europe 1914-1918 and 1938-1945. El Nino and La Nina? Irregular. Volcanoes? Irregular.
1940 -1975. 35 years of decreasing temperatures – based on NASA-GISS Hansen’s records in 1988. (Before he began changing his own “historical” temperature records between 1995 and 2012. Note that CO2 steadily increased during this period. El Nino and La Nina? Irregular. Volcanoes? Irregular.
1980 – 1998. 18 years of increasing temperature, based in large measure on NASA-GISS (and others) manipulation of the US surface temperature records. Total apparent increase? 1/3 of one degree. Latest corresponding actual global temperature measured this month? Lower than this value. Note that CO2 levels steadily increased during this entire period. El Nino and La Nina? Irregular. Volcanoes? Pinatuba was significant. Others? A few..at irregular intervals.
1998 – 2012. 14 years of slightly-decreasing temperatures – while CO2 levels steadily increase. El Nino and La Nina? Irregular. Volcanoes? No major volcanoes.
Now. Just what “trend” are you claiming? What evidence are you using – other than one limited (self-serving cherry-picked) 1980-1998 period?
Are itemized lists of the alleged scientific problems available; together with a short description of the problems?
As I am lead to believe that there have been 5 ice ages in the past, and hence 4 warm periods; and that dinosaurs do not seem to have driven SUV’s; I think that a study of history will allow some light to be shone in the probable sources. Most likely the movement of the solar system in the appropriate galaxy.
Allan MacRae says:
March 4, 2012 at 10:54 am
“In 2003 with Tim Patterson’s input, I wrote in the Calgary Herald that global cooling would recommence by 2020 to 2030, based on Tim’s work on the Gleissberg Cycle. At that time, NASA predicted a strong SC24, which has not materialized. If anything, global cooling may commence sooner.
You can read our 2002 article on the science of climate change at
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm”
It is relevant to discuss this article, because Patterson was an author of the Carleton College course which is the subject of this thread, and it is likely that some of the article was reflected in the course.
The article is full of mistakes, and space allows me to cite only a few examples.
You wrote:
“CO2 is at most a minor contributor to global climate change. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied significantly over geologic time. …Strikingly, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today’s value during the Ordovician glaciation, around 440 million years ago. CO2 is simply a minor driver in the many factors that influence climate…”
Since the sun’s brightness was considerably lower 440M years ago, than it is today, the argument doesn’t hold water. In fact, geologic investigation shows that the glaciation was for a short period of time, 500,000 years, and was caused by a reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, as a result of increasing rock weathering, and reduced volcanic emissions.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/951.abstract
You also wrote:
“..detailed analysis of CO2 concentrations indicates that CO2 levels often rose and peaked several hundred years after temperature. These results further emphasize that climate change drives major changes in CO2, not the reverse. Temperature change affects the carbon cycle, which then produces fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentration. ..”
What you neglected to mention is that the ice ages are triggered by fluctuations in solar irradiation due to tilting of the earth’s orbit. Scientists who model this, find that these variations are too weak to explain the variation in temperatures during the ice age cycles. When they include the feedback effects of CO2 and albedo variations due to ice coverage, the temperatures can be accounted for. The climate sensitivity calculated due to CO2 concentrations needed to explain the ice age data, is similar to what results from models which explain the current global warming due to anthropogenic emissions. Two different polls of climate scientists show that 97% accept the theory that human caused emissions of GHG’s are causing global warming today.
There are many more examples of fallacies in the article, but I will stop here.
RACookPE1978 says:
March 4,2012 at 11:18 am
You said to me:
“I regret repeating your errors above, but they are – in their significance and their proof of the hypocrisy of your supposed argument – illustrative …”
You give illustrations of trends in global annual average temperature over certain periods which you claim prove the “hypocrisy of my supposed argument”.
Firstly, I reject your claim that you could possibly prove that the arguments I made were “hypocrisy” based on your illustrations. A hypocrite makes an argument he doesn’t believe in. You don’t know me well enough to conclude that I am a hypocrite. If the argument proves me a hypocrite, then 97% of climate scientists, who accept global warming must also be hypocrites.
Secondly, the illustrations that you produce fail to take into account known factors which were acting continuously during that period, which explain the trends.
1) During the time period 1915 -1950, there was a systematic increase in solar radiance.
2) During the period 1940 -1975, aerosals resulting from SO2 emissions due the dramatic increases in the burning of coal are believed to be responsible for cooling during this period. Some papers published during this period predicted global cooling if the emission trend continued.
3) 1980 – present aerosals stabilized in the US and Europe, but are currently beginning to rise as Asia becomes industrialized. TCurrently in China this pollution is becoming unacceptable. It is likely that if this problem is fixed, global warming will accelerate.
Eric Adler says: March 4, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Mr. Adler,
To the best of my knowledge, you are writing nonsense, and I have nothing more to say to you.
Our 2002 PEGG article was co-authored by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Harvard U Astrophysicist, and Dr. Tim Patterson, Carleton U Paleoclimatologist. All three of us agreed on the content, based on our many decades of research. Obviously, we are not going to agree with your viewpoint, which echoes that of acolytes of the global warming “Cause”.
One of the best indicators of the validity of one’s science is the track record of one’s predictions. The global warmists have yet to predict anything correctly – none of your very-scary predictions about “runaway global warming” or “wilder weather” have materialized. Based on your dismal past track record, I don’t like your odds for being correct in the future.
Over and out, Allan
The conclusion in the Carlton report is wrong.
“Conclusion
We have demonstrated that the Earth Sciences Department at Carleton University has until recently run a course which down-plays and contradicts the overwhelming scientific consensus on dangerous, man-made climate change”
No consensus says that, at best the fake consensus states human activities add to the warming..
Re: Eric Adler
“Two different polls of climate scientists show that 97% accept the theory that human caused emissions of GHG’s are causing global warming today.”
No they don’t
I suspect you referring to the two most quoted survey’s
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (The Doran) and
Expert Credibility in Climate Change. (Anderegg)
The Doran 97% refers to 75 out of 77 scientists who “think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”
They don’t say it is the dominant factor, or what the effects will be.
They don’t even mention GHG’s
Anderegg’s survey showed 66% convinced, they adjusted the figure to 97% according to
their own biased criteria, and all they state is a belief in the IPCC conclusions that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Nothing about the effects or how bad they will be.
Rather distasteful to see a lecturer go after a colleague in such an underhand and aggressive fashion. He clearly wanted to do as much damage to Harris’ career and reputation as possible, with no regard for even the reputation of the university itself.
It’s quite disturbing to see how personally risky it is to question the mob on this issue.
In next year’s course offerings:
CMTH1105: Introduction to Climate-Change Arithmetic. By the end of the course, students will be versed in such subjects as real numbers / imaginary numbers / completely-made-up numbers, standard tables for sine, consine, and decline, as well as methods for ensuring that all data plots result in a positive parabola.
Not to be confused with any of the MATH#### course offerings, which teach actual mathematics.
I think it’s worth reflecting on the amazing irony of self-advertised skeptics going after people tooth and nail if they profess any degree of skepticism about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
They’re the skeptics who say ni, all right!
What you describe, Anthony, is common behaviour by neo-Marxists in other battles.
They have organizations with generic sounding names that are run by neo-Marxists, producing biased reports that media copy quotes from. They are always morallly outraged.
(Indeed, a group hereabouts call themselves the Raging Grannies – my response is that grannies should be setting a proper behaviour example for their grandchildren.)
The tactic is not exclusive to neo-Marxists, but is standard for subjectivists. They have nothing but appearances to go on, since their method of knowledge is emotions not facts.
If you want to get deep into philosophy, you can listen to John Ridpath’s condensed attempt to explain why a bad approach to knowledge leads to a troubled philosophy, due to the confusion and frustration the individual feels. “Force, Freedom, and the Human Mind” is taped lecture, AFAIK never in print, apparently now hard to buy. Takes wading through as it is in substantial part a history of views of the human mind – especially explaining “concepts”.
The following piece asks some interesting questions about the affair:
“Carletongate? Maybe, but if so, it may go in all directions”
See http://sierra-rayne.blogspot.com/2012/03/carletongate-maybe-but-if-so-it-may-go.html
Note especially his conclusion:
“The CASS/CFI report authors then make the following statement in the report on p. 89: “We hope that this demonstrates comprehensively that there was no deception on our part in the acquisition of lecture materials.” In contrast, it seems that an absence of any real or perceived deception would have involved Hassall informing the Carleton system administrator that the course materials were to be used as primary source material (not background information) for a report that will be publicly released (with media releases and media coverage) and which will critically (and negatively) assess said materials being requested. As well, does Carleton have any licensing arrangements for the use and/or release of these protected course materials that CASS/CFI obtained access to? It appears that of the four report authors, only Hassall was a Carleton employee. Did Hassall share the materials with his three co-authors (which seems reasonable, as why else would they be co-authors)? and if so, is this consistent with Carleton’s licensing arrangements/expectations for these materials. This issue needs to be clarified for the taxpayers who paid for the preparation of the materials that were analyzed in this report.”
Tom Harris