The
following are links to articles Tom Harris has placed in the news
media. A quick perusal of these articles will reveal the level of deceit
and anti-science rhetoric that characterizes Harris' typical writing.
**********************************
The Heartland Institute is one of the most anti-science organizations in the country. It is, therefore, not surprising to find an article by Harris here. After all, Harris is not only devoutly anti-science, but is also a member of Heartland's team and has long ties to that organization. Harris promotes his favorite customer - coal - and makes a number of false claims. The most glaring is that secure energy requires we use coal. Clearly, this is not the case. The amount of energy the U.S. generates from coal has dropped from nearly 100% one hundred years ago to less than 40% today. History has shown we can successfully replace 60% of the energy with something else (not to mention the fact that that 60% is larger than the total 100% one hundred years ago). What he also doesn't mention is how coal is the dirtiest of all energy sources and the only way utilities can afford it is by making someone else pay the bills. Hence, the reason why coal is lobbying the Trump administration to deregulate coal. Fewer regulations means more costs passed on to someone else.
Another of Harris' bizarre and alarmist editorials. By Harris' standards, anyone who doesn't agree with him is 'Big Brother.' The fact that he committed crimes by violating court orders has nothing to do with the fact that he was being investigated. Contrary to Harris' claims, he was not cleared of any wrong doing. The government merely admitted it didn't have to money to prosecute him and his fellow alarmists.
Harris claims that, since carbon dioxide is mostly oxygen, it's not only harmless, but good for us. Could be deadly advice to the incautious. Read my response here.
Alarmist Harris predicts massive famines if we don't pollute the atmosphere. No kidding. Read my response: Alarmist Tom Harris Demonstrates Desperation of Science Haters or my letter to the editor here.
How America can dominate the world energy market
Harris provides more of his typical deceit. I submitted a response to the Washington Times and will provide a link to it, if they print it.
Ball and Harris attempt to discredit the data. To no surprise, they fail. You can read my response article here: Climate change deniers attempt to bury public with anavalanche of propaganda
This article is so flawed that I will need to make a posting debunking it. Stay tuned.
This is one of the most offensive and shameless examples of Harris' disinformation campaign. He lies about spending money to address climate change the "might, or might not, happen in the distant future." Of course, climate change isn't something for the "distant future" and he admits it in his very letter by stating we need to take care of people suffering today. If climate change is something for the distant future, why are people suffering from it today? The fact is, the reason people are suffering today is because people like Harris worked hard to prevent us from doing anything about it when we could. Now, the consequences are beginning to mount home and Harris is trying to dissimulate the results of his actions.
Harris took full advantage of a mistaken report by the NY Times which incorrectly "leaked" a government climate change report that was fully available to the public and had been for several months. While Harris and other deniers enjoyed this moment it ultimately played against them. The final report was eventually signed by Trump and released unchanged. The principle reason why it wasn't suppressed? They were afraid of the public outcry over their efforts to censor the scientific findings. Maybe it wasn't such a mistake on the part of the NY Times after all.
In praise of Pruitt
This is the same Tom Harris who claims the ICSC is non-partisan. Just goes to show, you can't believe anything this guy says. And, this article supports that claim. He states that Ontario electricity rates have gone up 300% and implies this is due to canceling coal generation. Neither is true, as the facts clearly show.
A weak and deceptive attack on the IPCC. Read my analysis at:
Harris continues his lie that coal is an affordable source of energy. What he fails to tell people is that coal can only be afforded (not affordable!) if someone else pays the bill for the pollution. At the same time, he fails to mention all of the renewable energy jobs that are lost when we use coal-fired power plants. You can read my response here.
Harris attempts to portray science as an opinion. Doesn't do it very well. Here is the response Terry and I wrote for the Duluth News Tribune. A more direct version can be seen here. Here's yet another response to his deceit.
I did an in-depth review of this Skype interview:
Conservatives Must Strongly Support Trump On Climate Change
**********************************
The Heartland Institute is one of the most anti-science organizations in the country. It is, therefore, not surprising to find an article by Harris here. After all, Harris is not only devoutly anti-science, but is also a member of Heartland's team and has long ties to that organization. Harris promotes his favorite customer - coal - and makes a number of false claims. The most glaring is that secure energy requires we use coal. Clearly, this is not the case. The amount of energy the U.S. generates from coal has dropped from nearly 100% one hundred years ago to less than 40% today. History has shown we can successfully replace 60% of the energy with something else (not to mention the fact that that 60% is larger than the total 100% one hundred years ago). What he also doesn't mention is how coal is the dirtiest of all energy sources and the only way utilities can afford it is by making someone else pay the bills. Hence, the reason why coal is lobbying the Trump administration to deregulate coal. Fewer regulations means more costs passed on to someone else.
Another of Harris' bizarre and alarmist editorials. By Harris' standards, anyone who doesn't agree with him is 'Big Brother.' The fact that he committed crimes by violating court orders has nothing to do with the fact that he was being investigated. Contrary to Harris' claims, he was not cleared of any wrong doing. The government merely admitted it didn't have to money to prosecute him and his fellow alarmists.
Harris claims that, since carbon dioxide is mostly oxygen, it's not only harmless, but good for us. Could be deadly advice to the incautious. Read my response here.
Alarmist Harris predicts massive famines if we don't pollute the atmosphere. No kidding. Read my response: Alarmist Tom Harris Demonstrates Desperation of Science Haters or my letter to the editor here.
How America can dominate the world energy market
Harris provides more of his typical deceit. I submitted a response to the Washington Times and will provide a link to it, if they print it.
Ball and Harris attempt to discredit the data. To no surprise, they fail. You can read my response article here: Climate change deniers attempt to bury public with anavalanche of propaganda
This article is so flawed that I will need to make a posting debunking it. Stay tuned.
This is one of the most offensive and shameless examples of Harris' disinformation campaign. He lies about spending money to address climate change the "might, or might not, happen in the distant future." Of course, climate change isn't something for the "distant future" and he admits it in his very letter by stating we need to take care of people suffering today. If climate change is something for the distant future, why are people suffering from it today? The fact is, the reason people are suffering today is because people like Harris worked hard to prevent us from doing anything about it when we could. Now, the consequences are beginning to mount home and Harris is trying to dissimulate the results of his actions.
Harris took full advantage of a mistaken report by the NY Times which incorrectly "leaked" a government climate change report that was fully available to the public and had been for several months. While Harris and other deniers enjoyed this moment it ultimately played against them. The final report was eventually signed by Trump and released unchanged. The principle reason why it wasn't suppressed? They were afraid of the public outcry over their efforts to censor the scientific findings. Maybe it wasn't such a mistake on the part of the NY Times after all.
In praise of Pruitt
This is the same Tom Harris who claims the ICSC is non-partisan. Just goes to show, you can't believe anything this guy says. And, this article supports that claim. He states that Ontario electricity rates have gone up 300% and implies this is due to canceling coal generation. Neither is true, as the facts clearly show.
A weak and deceptive attack on the IPCC. Read my analysis at:
Harris continues his lie that coal is an affordable source of energy. What he fails to tell people is that coal can only be afforded (not affordable!) if someone else pays the bill for the pollution. At the same time, he fails to mention all of the renewable energy jobs that are lost when we use coal-fired power plants. You can read my response here.
Harris attempts to portray science as an opinion. Doesn't do it very well. Here is the response Terry and I wrote for the Duluth News Tribune. A more direct version can be seen here. Here's yet another response to his deceit.
I did an in-depth review of this Skype interview:
Conservatives Must Strongly Support Trump On Climate Change
Proof lacking that humans control climate
This is one of the instances where Harris makes the claim that we can't control the climate. He fails to mention that no one is claiming we are controlling the climate, we are changing the climate. More proof of his deception. Here is a reader's response:
Letter-writer’s group has dubious backers
There
was an interesting occurrence in the comments section of this article.
Harris stated he was going to go to the editor in an attempt to have
this article removed. This is one letter, written in support of the above letter, that was shared with me:
The article "Letter-writer’s group has dubious backers" by Austin Irish, regarding
climate change denier has spurred Tom Harris to posts that he plans to
contact you about it being "misleading and insulting".
Sometimes
the truth hurts. The article contains only a small bit of disturbing
truth about Tom Harris and his ties to the fossil fuel energy, so I hope
this article will remain rather than be removed due to Tom's
objections.
In one of
his videos he tells the crowd to contact all newspapers he has published
articles in to contact the editors and give fake reviews about how much
they like articles by Tom Harris. He says this is to counteract the
many complaints by those who know and understand the real science
proving global warming is caused by human activity which is supported by
97% of climate scientists globally. He also censors others by flagging their comments to his articles when they contain truthful information he dislikes.
Tom
Harris is paid to contact the international media with his
pseudoscience ridden articles about global warming. His intention is to
influenece the public and politicians, with the goal of putting a stop
to attempts at controlling green house emissions, stating it is too
expensive. This is terrifyingly dangerous since the subject matter
involves the future of our planet.
The
news is supposed to share the truth to the public. Each time Tom Harris
is published, the newspaper involved is sharing dangerous lies and
pseudoscience, flying against their policies of only sharing the truth
to its readers.
Sincerely,
Terry
Harris attempts to portray Scott Pruitt as a progressive thinker and not a climate change denier. We've seen how well that's turned out.
Letter: Paris accord was raw deal for US
This is one of the instances where Harris makes the claim that we can't control the climate. He fails to mention that no one is claiming we are controlling the climate, we are changing the climate. More proof of his deception. Here is a reader's response:
Letter-writer’s group has dubious backers
There was an interesting occurrence in the comments section of this article. Harris stated he was going to go to the editor in an attempt to have this article removed. This is one letter, written in support of the above letter, that was shared with me:
The article "Letter-writer’s group has dubious backers" by Austin Irish, regarding climate change denier has spurred Tom Harris to posts that he plans to contact you about it being "misleading and insulting".
There was an interesting occurrence in the comments section of this article. Harris stated he was going to go to the editor in an attempt to have this article removed. This is one letter, written in support of the above letter, that was shared with me:
The article "Letter-writer’s group has dubious backers" by Austin Irish, regarding climate change denier has spurred Tom Harris to posts that he plans to contact you about it being "misleading and insulting".
Sometimes
the truth hurts. The article contains only a small bit of disturbing
truth about Tom Harris and his ties to the fossil fuel energy, so I hope
this article will remain rather than be removed due to Tom's
objections.
In one of
his videos he tells the crowd to contact all newspapers he has published
articles in to contact the editors and give fake reviews about how much
they like articles by Tom Harris. He says this is to counteract the
many complaints by those who know and understand the real science
proving global warming is caused by human activity which is supported by
97% of climate scientists globally. He also censors others by flagging their comments to his articles when they contain truthful information he dislikes.
Tom
Harris is paid to contact the international media with his
pseudoscience ridden articles about global warming. His intention is to
influenece the public and politicians, with the goal of putting a stop
to attempts at controlling green house emissions, stating it is too
expensive. This is terrifyingly dangerous since the subject matter
involves the future of our planet.
The
news is supposed to share the truth to the public. Each time Tom Harris
is published, the newspaper involved is sharing dangerous lies and
pseudoscience, flying against their policies of only sharing the truth
to its readers.
Sincerely,
Terry
Harris attempts to portray Scott Pruitt as a progressive thinker and not a climate change denier. We've seen how well that's turned out.
Letter: Paris accord was raw deal for US
Harris
calls for a 'debate' on climate change. The problem is the anti-science
people never want a debate and cannot produce any science to support
their claims.
You can read a very well written letter to the editor about this submission by Harris at this link. Here is the opening paragraph
You can read a very well written letter to the editor about this submission by Harris at this link. Here is the opening paragraph
Tom Harris, mechanical engineer (not a climate scientist), wrote an op-ed yesterday with great magical finesse, pulling pigeons out of his hat and turtle doves from up his sleeve, while he tried to defend lawyer Scott Pruitt’s climate change denial. Mr. Pruitt knows nothing about science except perhaps a little political science. As defenders of Mr. Pruitt’s climate change misstatements, Mr. Harris quoted two philosophy professors.
You can’t make this stuff up.
This
letter is notable for Harris' statement that he has never been funded
by the fossil fuel industry. This is contrary to the record that clearly
shows he has represented the fossil fuel industry and been a lobbyist
for that industry. It also goes his practice of never answering the
question about his fossil fuel association.
Near the beginning, Pastor Dan starts by mentioning Tom's
sites which include the ICSC AND Dialogues on global warming / Tom
Harris! Tom told him that the Dialogues site was not his site. How
embarrassing for Tom. Thanks for the plug, Pastor Dan.
Around 14:15 in this YouTube video Tom says...
"We may very well, we're not sure, but we may very well be causing global warming due to our carbon dioxide emissions."
Well, that is contrary to what Tom keeps trying to sell to the public.
A new EPA approach for Pruitt
Harris
says the EPA should not only stop protecting Americans from the effects
of massive pollution, but also stop telling them about it.
Reader's view: Resist calls to smother climate debate
Harris makes false claims that the debate on climate change is being stifled. My response to Harris' letter can be read here.
Near the beginning, Pastor Dan starts by mentioning Tom's
sites which include the ICSC AND Dialogues on global warming / Tom
Harris! Tom told him that the Dialogues site was not his site. How
embarrassing for Tom. Thanks for the plug, Pastor Dan.
Around 14:15 in this YouTube video Tom says...
"We may very well, we're not sure, but we may very well be causing global warming due to our carbon dioxide emissions."
Well, that is contrary to what Tom keeps trying to sell to the public.
A new EPA approach for Pruitt
Harris says the EPA should not only stop protecting Americans from the effects of massive pollution, but also stop telling them about it.Reader's view: Resist calls to smother climate debate
Harris makes false claims that the debate on climate change is being stifled. My response to Harris' letter can be read here.Idea that we can manage climate change by restricting emissions of a trace gas is misguided
More
deceit by Harris, including repeating the lie that Dr. John Bates
accused NOAA of manipulating the data. Here is my response I submitted:
I am writing in response to the comments made by Tom Harris,
"Idea that we can manage climate change by restricting emissions of a
trace gas is misguided." The reading public should be made aware that
Harris is a paid shill of the fossil fuel industry and is paid to support them
by putting deceptive articles in the news media. There is a wonderful example
of his deception in this very letter where he states, "in light of charges
by former U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist, Dr. John
Bates, that agency researchers are manipulating data to support climate
alarmism." In fact, Dr. Bates did not say anything like that and after the
story came out, he stated in an interview to the Associated Press that there
was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
"It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended
Apparently, Harris is hoping if he repeats the lie enough times, it will become
accepted as truth.
And, my response: Reader's View: Limit climate debate to real science
Killing the Paris Agreement Is Not Enough
A thoughtful comment was made about this article that I think sums it up very nicely:
Dave James
Yes,
Tom Harris’s many letters-to-the-editors typically spread
disinformation regarding climate science. Mr. Harris typically makes an
argument that includes incorrect or misleading claims about climate
science.
For
Example: Mr. Harris recently claimed Earth Day participants must
distance themselves from the climate science regarding climate change
because, “As the hypothesis that humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions are
causing dangerous global warming falls into disrepute, all those
associated with the climate alarm will also lose credibility.” Mr.
Harris’
s premise is based upon his false claim regarding what science has to
say about humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions. http://registerherald.com/o...
However,
in this column Tom Harris does not offer his typical pseudo-scientific
arguments against the Paris Agreement. Mr. Harris makes two points: 1)
Climate change is a political battle between Republicans and Democrats
in America and Conservatives and Liberals in Canada. 2) Paris agreement
needs to be abrogated because of its impact on coal.
Tom
Harris reasoning in this column explains Mr. Harris’s other letters: 1)
Mr. Harris considers climate change is a question of politics not
science, and 2) his animosity toward climate science is based upon its
policy implications for coal.
Apparently, Tom likes to kill things. Unfortunately, that includes people. "Killing" the Paris Agreement and the Clean Power Plan will succeed in more profits for Harris' employers in the fossil fuel industry, but will result in more human suffering. He thinks he'll be gone by the time the worst of it comes around, so he doesn't have to worry about it.
STOPPING GLOBAL WARMING HAS NO PLACE IN U.S. ELECTION
Here is a debunking of this article detailing many of Harris' deceptions.:
You can read my review of this deceptive article here:
Harris is Wrong. Manmade CO2 Is Pollution
Here is a reader's response:
Simply plant food? Simply not true
Killing the Paris Agreement Is Not Enough
A thoughtful comment was made about this article that I think sums it up very nicely:
|
|
Dave James
Yes,
Tom Harris’s many letters-to-the-editors typically spread
disinformation regarding climate science. Mr. Harris typically makes an
argument that includes incorrect or misleading claims about climate
science.
For
Example: Mr. Harris recently claimed Earth Day participants must
distance themselves from the climate science regarding climate change
because, “As the hypothesis that humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions are
causing dangerous global warming falls into disrepute, all those
associated with the climate alarm will also lose credibility.” Mr.
Harris’
s premise is based upon his false claim regarding what science has to
say about humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions. http://registerherald.com/o...
However,
in this column Tom Harris does not offer his typical pseudo-scientific
arguments against the Paris Agreement. Mr. Harris makes two points: 1)
Climate change is a political battle between Republicans and Democrats
in America and Conservatives and Liberals in Canada. 2) Paris agreement
needs to be abrogated because of its impact on coal.
Tom
Harris reasoning in this column explains Mr. Harris’s other letters: 1)
Mr. Harris considers climate change is a question of politics not
science, and 2) his animosity toward climate science is based upon its
policy implications for coal.
|
Apparently, Tom likes to kill things. Unfortunately, that includes people. "Killing" the Paris Agreement and the Clean Power Plan will succeed in more profits for Harris' employers in the fossil fuel industry, but will result in more human suffering. He thinks he'll be gone by the time the worst of it comes around, so he doesn't have to worry about it.
STOPPING GLOBAL WARMING HAS NO PLACE IN U.S. ELECTION
Here is a debunking of this article detailing many of Harris' deceptions.:
You can read my review of this deceptive article here:
Harris is Wrong. Manmade CO2 Is Pollution
Here is a reader's response:
Simply plant food? Simply not true
No comments:
Post a Comment