jump to example.com

Citizens’ Climate Lobby founder must rein in overaggressive volunteers

earth-newBy Tom Harris

In my December 29, 2014 Augusta Free Press article, “Taming the climate debate”, I wrote about the importance of working to establish a social climate in which “leaders in science, engineering, economics, and public policy” can “contribute to the [climate change] debate without fear of retribution.”

At stake are trillions of dollars, countless jobs, the security of our energy supply, and, if people like Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) founder and president, Marshall Saunders, are right, the fate of the global environment itself.

So, it is a tragedy that, because the debate is now riddled with censorship, personal attacks, and even death threats, many experts are afraid to comment publicly. Saunders should consider whether the behaviour of some of his CCL volunteers is exacerbating this problem.

In describing their “Methodology,” CCL assert on their Website that they “believe in respect for all viewpoints, even for those who would oppose us.” In his September 20, 2014 article, “Speaking Truth to Power – and to Friends,” former NASA scientist and now CCL Advisory Board Member Dr. James Hansen writes, “Founder Marshall Saunders espouses respect and love for political opponents of a carbon fee…”

In that light, let’s examine how some CCL volunteers have behaved when faced with opponents of their belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing a climate crisis.


My interactions with the group started in late 2012 when CCL (Canada) spokesperson Cheryl McNamara had the following letter to the editor published in the Vancouver Sun in response to my December 26 article, ”Ottawa must get real on climate change”:

Readers Get Real About Climate Change, Vancouver Sun, December 28, 2012

Any self-respecting newspaper would not seriously consider printing an opinion piece by someone who claimed smoking isn’t harmful to human health. The evidence on human-caused climate change is clear, too.

Tom Harris is funded by the oil industry and denies what 97 per cent of climate scientists confirm: greenhouse gases are contributing to our warming planet.

The irony is that Harris also worked with the APCO, an independent communications consultancy which tried to advance the idea that tobacco isn’t harmful to human health.

Cheryl McNamara, Toronto

The points made in McNamara’s letter are completely false.

  • I have always opposed smoking; both my grandfather and aunt died miserable deaths due to smoking excessively. As an airworthiness engineer at Transport Canada, I contributed to getting smoking banned on long haul flights in our country. We found that aircraft air filters would become plugged, so pilots were exposed to so much second hand smoke that their visual acuity was significantly reduced, presenting a flight safety hazard, especially at night. My engineering peers would laugh to see me now accused of helping the tobacco industry.
  • I have never been “funded by the oil industry.”
  • I have never denied that “greenhouse gases are contributing to our warming planet.”
  • My employment with APCO had nothing to do with tobacco and I only heard about their supposed promotion of “the idea that tobacco isn’t harmful to human health” after I left the company in 2006.

CCL had made similar erroneous charges against me earlier in the year in the Edmonton Journal which I ignored. However, since the falsehoods were continuing even though they were provably wrong, I notified the Vancouver Sun about the problem. They agreed with my corrections and took the CCL letter off their site and the original URL no longer functions.

Despite my requests to representatives within both the Canadian and American CCL that they remove the offending letter from their site in their list of media triumphs, they would not. How does this fit with Saunders’ goal of “respect and love” for opponents?

This sort of thing has continued ever since, CCL representatives repeatedly attacking me with erroneous and irrelevant charges when I disagree with their stance on climate science. A recent example was CCL’s Pete Kuntz’s May 23 letter to the editor of the Union-Bulletin in Walla Walla, Washington. Kuntz is listed as writing from Northglenn, Colorado.

Besides the usual CCL accusations of ICSC receiving funding from vested interests, Kuntz wrote “Harris is a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry.”

A quick check of the Website of the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada shows that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lobbyist for anyone, let alone “the fossil fuel industry.” We consider lobbying mostly a waste of time until the public better understand the science, which is why we concentrate on public education.

Kuntz also repeated CCL’s old chestnut about my supposed pro-tobacco work: “Harris used to work for Big Tobacco back in the day when it was denying smoking causes lung cancer, fake ‘doctors’ and all (DeSmog Blog).”

I never respond in kind but simply make appropriate factual corrections when possible. But it isn’t long before CCL personal repeat their bogus claims in other media outlets.

So I was not surprised to see Kuntz’s May 25 Augusta Free Press piece “Climate change denial is a scam,” this time identifying himself as hailing from Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He repeated CCL’s tall tales about my pro-tobacco work as well as ICSC’s supposed funding sources, something he could not possibly know since the identities of those who help ICSC cover its operating expenses have been confidential since I started as Executive Director in 2008.

The suggestion that my opinion is for sale is, of course, seriously offensive, and begs the question: how does this fulfil Saunders’ goal of “respect and love” for opponents?

It does not matter who funds us. All that matters is whether what we are saying is correct or not, a point we are happy to debate with anyone. If funding sources did matter, then we note that most climate scientists are employed by organizations that promote the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (DAGW). These researchers obviously have a direct interest in supporting their employers’ point of view.

Perhaps most ironic in Kuntz’s Free Press piece is his criticism that I and Bryan Leyland, my co-author, are not scientists but are engineers. He does not seem to know that engineering is applied science and requires a good understanding of science and applied mathematics. With both Leyland (MSC—Power Systems) and myself (MEng—thermofluids) having advanced degrees and having spent many years studying climate science and computer modelling, we are quite capable of commenting meaningfully on the evidence for and against DAGW.

But qualifications do not prove anyone right. All that counts is the validity of what is being said. For instance, before being trained by Al Gore in 2007, Saunders’ professional career was in real estate brokerage specializing in shopping center development and leasing. Yet we never criticize him for lacking a background in the field because, once again, the accuracy of his comments is all that matters.

Kuntz directs readers to a site critical of the second year climate science course I gave to 1,500 students at Carleton University in Ottawa. He fails to mention that both the course originator and current instructor, Earth Sciences professor Tim Patterson, and I have debunked the critique as hopelessly naïve and misleading. I even went on TV (see here) to respond to the attack.

In defense of his position on the science, Kuntz proclaims,Every climate scientist publishing in peer-reviewed science journals worldwide agrees.” Nonsense. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change reports list hundreds of peer-reviewed papers published in the world’s leading science journals that either question or refute the DAGW hypothesis that CCL holds dear.

Kuntz concludes by directing readers to the CCL Website, saying, “They’ve got a realistic plan.” Like many of CCL’s published letters, there is no mention of his affiliation with CCL.

Kuntz and McNamara are just two examples of CCL spokespeople who seem to ignore the respectful approach advocated by their founder. Saunders will soon have an ideal platform from which to remind them that their passionate belief in their cause does not give them license to abuse opponents. From June 21—23, one thousand CCL volunteers gather in Washington DC to “hear from inspiring speakers, receive lobby training and go to Capitol Hill to meet with members of Congress.” Let’s hope CCL’s president and founder uses the opportunity to rein in overly aggressive members of his team.

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (www.ClimateScienceInternational.org).

  • cunudiun

    Be sure to take a stack of these posters to put on the tables at the big Heartland conference lie-in June 11-12 in Washington, DC. All your favorite hack propagandists, corrupt scientists and bought politicians will be there, along with their adoring pit-bulls.

    • TomHarrisICSC

      I do not reply to anonymous posters too frightened to identify themselves..

      • Brian Valentine

        Obviously they have something to hide.

        In junior high I recall, someone had slipped a spitting attack anonymous letter under the principal’s door, the principal advised the school over the PA system – “Never answer anybody too cowardly not to identify themselves.”

        • zlop

          Only those guilty, object to NSA recording and analyzing their every thought, and the Pentagon having a virtual duplicate, used in War on the Serfs simulations.

          • So, let me get this straight, someone identifying themselves only as ‘zlop’ is criticizing others for being anonymous and deniers think that is credible? Wow!

          • zlop

            Christopher Keating, as usual, gets things wrong. Those who parade personal details,
            instead of science an logic, are often attacked by the likes of, top maggot, David Suzuki.

            “Why Climate Scientists Receive Death Threats — When people don’t like the
            message about climate change, it seems the answer is to shoot the messenger”

            Tim Ball received 5 death threats. How many have you received, Christopher Keating?

          • No death threats because of my stance on climate science. Several threat of lawsuits, including one by Heartland’s good friend, Russell Cook. (He backed down very quickly and says it wasn’t a threat, but a couple of lawyers I spoke to said it certainly was.) I’m still waiting on those lawsuits.

      • zlop

        To be so confident, you must have extremely good protection.
        “Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’ … Timothy Ball, a former climatology
        professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats”

        Endless list of people persecuted for expounding Climate Truth
        “David Suzuki Deniers should be jailed – YouTube”

        • cunudiun

          Great speech! Your interpretation is a little off.

          • zlop

            A near top level Maggot;
            “David Suzuki comparing humans to maggots – YouTube”

      • Morbeau

        “I do not reply to anonymous posters too frightened to identify themselves.”

        And yet here you are.

        • TomHarrisICSC

          The same applies to you too.

          • cunudiun

            Tom is winning in the “I can spell my name” department. Congratulations, Tom.

          • Morbeau

            Tom, you’re such a card!

      • renewableguy

        I just see this serious lack of substance from you. Hiding?

    • Notice how anonymous commenter “cunudiun” hurls accusations, but cannot bother to tell readers how the accusations are proven (for example, he/she is probably fully aware that no prominent person hurling the ‘corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation has the actual evidence to back that up). And notice how anonymous commenter “cunudiun” literally cannot bring himself/herself to link directly to Heartland’s ICCC10 conference ( http://climateconference.heartland.org/ ).

      At GelbspanFiles.com, I routinely refer my readers directly to material that I speak about, so that they may read the material in its full context and judge it for themselves in addition to reading what I say about it. “Cunudiun” paints himself/herself into a credibility corner, insinuating that his/her pronouncements must be trusted and never questioned. Stop and think about this: As one astute observer of the global warming issue once observed, “if I was on the side that I felt like I was armed with live ammo and the other side was armed with blanks, I’d want to debate every chance I got just so I could beat ’em every single time.”

      The IPCC / Al Gore side wants everyone to believe they are the ones with the live ammo, but when faced with tough questions about the core merits of the science merits, and with tough questions about any accusations they hurl at skeptic critics, they turn tail and run overtime, sidestepping the questions while hurling ad hominem attacks over their shoulders. Shooting blanks, in other words. All the while having every appearance that they are petrified of what happens to their cause if more of the public stops to see what they are trying so desperately to hide.

      For all of those cheering on anonymous commenter “cunudiun”, don’t expect him or her to attend ICCC10 and to report back about what exact lies were told. So why place any trust in such an individual who is all show and no go?

      Now, regarding that Unabomber billboard: “Heartland Institute ‘Unabomber billboard’ brings out Global Warming Alarmists’ One-Trick Pony” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/heartland_institute_unabomber_billboard_brings_out_global_warming_alarmists_one-trick_pony.html

      • cunudiun

        Yes. Russell, let’s do have a conversation about the Unabomber billboard. I’m sure the more attention we bring on that the better for Heartland, and let’s also have a conversation about Your Lord Monckton’s pause fraud — and all the other trick ponies we have up our sleeves, particularly the big one called science.

      • Great attempt at damage control from a total disaster. I particularly loved the line, “of explaining why the issue is on the verge of total collapse.” Three years (at least!) and counting since you uttered that silly statement. You really do make me laugh.

        • Morbeau

          It’s worth noting that Russell Cook is another Heartland “Expert”, who often shows up in these discussions to support Tom Harris. I get the feeling we’re talking to the Heartland Institute’s communications department.

          • It is interesting to see just how quickly Cook shows up when someone asks Harris to produce some evidence to support his wild claims.

      • cunudiun

        Russell, sorry to be so late. I was so put off by the tone of your comment, I didn’t notice you were asking for evidence.

        Evidence? Here:


        National Research Council


        Royal Society / National Academy of Sciences

      • cunudiun

        Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

        · That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
        · That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
        · That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
        · That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

        · Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
        · That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
        · The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
        · They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

        · They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
        · The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
        · The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
        · The expansion of the Hadley cells.

        · The poleward movement of storm tracks.
        · The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
        · The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
        · The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
        · That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

      • Robert

        “The IPCC / Al Gore side ”
        We see what you did there…..

      • RealMrTea


        PLEAE explain to me why EVERY major science agency on the entire planet agrees on this…


        I belong to 3 of them, and the take this very seriously and vote on these statements, inclusing haveing stronger statements of their own…

        American Association for the Advancement of Science
        “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.”

        American Geophysical Union
        “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.”

        American Meteorological Society
        “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.”

        American Physical Society
        “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.”

        So are you saying that EVERY science agaency in the WORLD is wrong?

        Perhaps you might contact these people.


        While not nearly as well funded


        They are on the same side of science as you, and I think you would fit RIGHT in… And I hear they have openings 🙂

    • cunudiun

      Oh, yes, I forgot the link. There they all are!
      For only the $100 entrance fee, you ought to be able to spread around as many little brochures with this picture on them as you want.

    • zlop

      Similar to others framed up, like the shoe-bomber –Ted was MkUltra?
      “Understanding Unabom provides in depth insight into the coordinated activities of elements of the FBI, NSA, and CIA before September 11th 2001. Activities that included the manufacture and management of a series of high profile, random terrorist events and selective assassinations. The case explodes the fiction that the FBI and the CIA did not Communicate in high profile cases. Ultimately, it exposes the deep common roots, and the common personnel of many different dirty cases tracing all the way back to Rumsfeld and Cheney’s coverup of the Olsen murder during the Ford Administration. The facts of Unabom have been covered up in a blizzard of ridicule akin to Kennedy’s grassy knoll. Covered up, despite a wide trail of undeniable proof and multiple witnesses.”

    • Brian Valentine

      Why don’t you go scratch your rear end?

  • cunudiun

    And as for the science …

    • John McLean

      If cunudiun was honest he would know that Mockton’s point is that the trend in the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly has been flat for the last 18 years and 2 months; Monckton isn’t saying that the trend has been flat since measurements began.

      Let’s use cunudiun’s logic another way. The trend since my birth has been upwards, but I’ve not grown taller in the last 25 years. According to cunudiun’s logic the trend in my height should be a worry because it will continue to increase.

      Anyone with intelligence knows that for a trend to continue, the trend in each of the contributing factors has to continue in the same fashion (growth or decline) and that the relationships between those factors has to remain the same. It is simply foolish beyond measure to calculate temperature trends and bithely project them into the future.

      • cunudiun


      • Monckton took a data base and found an average. Given any data base, there will always be an average. There are three major issues with Monckton’s average, though. First, the average was higher than the trend line. If there was no warming, the average would have bisected the trend line. Second, he has to keep changing the endpoints to keep getting a flat line. If there was no warming, he would not need to do that. Third, if you use his first starting point of no warming, you get a very definite warming trend. Again, that could not happen if there was no warming. The irony is Monckton and Watts actually proved, conclusively, there is global warming.


        The science doesn’t lie, only people do. That means the truth is going to get you in the end and Monckton and Watts just proved that point, as well.

        • cunudiun

          I admire your tenacity, but you see why I abbreviated my answer to plain “Duh”. This person has seen my graph. It is staring him in the face, and he still answers, “Monckton’s point is that the trend in the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly has been flat for the last 18 years and
          2 months.” After I put that graphic composition together, he still imagines that I don’t know or understand what Monckton says, and feels the need to teach me something. What’s the use even talking to these cretins? DUH!

          • I never talk to them one-on-one. They have lost their minds and will never get them back. There is nothing you can do or say to help them. But, in a case such as this, we are on the world stage and we aren’t just talking to them. There are people who have not made up their minds and we can’t let the deniers have the stage to themselves. So, when I refute someone like Harris or Cook, it isn’t for their sake, it’s for everyone else who might be reading it.

          • cunudiun

            Far out!

        • RealMrTea

          EXACTLY…. You win the Interent…

          “figures don’t lie, but liars figure”
          ~Mark Twain

        • Voodude

          Some temperature time-series support Lord Monckton’s approach, some do not. What annoys you, Christopher, is that MOST temperature time-series actually do support a cooling trend. It is the new climate icon – the downward hook of …
          the Scythe

          • Sorry, Brian Marple Mulder, but you are wrong once again. And, you’re no longer anonymous.

          • CB

            How do you know Voodude is Mr. Mulder?

            I would ask you to be gentle with both Voodude and ZLop. If you have their docs, please don’t drop them.

            They aren’t well. I think that’s clear from their posts. If they were paid propagandists, they would be more effective.

          • I began with his IP address and went from there. I have no intention of exposing their personal lives. That has nothing to do with climate science.

          • CB

            Thank you.

          • Your welcome. I just wanted to know who this troll was. Now, everyone will know – any time he shows up somewhere.

        • Voodude

          Monckton took a look at global temperature series, and noticed that it hadn’t gone up, in quite a while. So he (and others) did a simple linear regression analysis, to see how far they could go… And, month to month, the pattern persisted. Yes, it had warmed. But it stopped. 70-some papers have come out, trying to explain “the pause” because nobody has the guts to call it “the peak”. The ocean ate my global warming. Aerosols. Flat-out denial (it is still warming) … frantic adjustments to the historical record (It’s worse than we thought) … Christopher, you’re going to do the happy dance, if the present El Niño holds out … but, it is just a regular oceanic cycle…

          • Brian Mulder, if you’re going to lie try to at least come up with a new one. The Monckton-Watts lie about the nonexistent ‘pause’ has been completely debunked. Take a look here:

            and here:

            Sorry, Voodudd, I mean Voodude. Wrong again.

          • Voodude

            Delworth, Thomas L., et al. 2015 “A link between the hiatus in global warming and North American drought.” Journal of Climate

            Vuille, Mathias, et al. 2015 “Impact of the global warming hiatus on Andean temperature.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
            Yao, Shuai-Lei, et al. 2015 “The global warming hiatus—a natural product of interactions of a secular warming trend and a multi-decadal oscillation.” Theoretical and Applied Climatology
            Roberts, C. D., et al. 2015 “Quantifying the likelihood of a continued hiatus in global warming.” Nature Climate Change
            Rosen, Julia. “Indian Ocean may be key to global warming’hiatus’.” Nature
            Gleisner, Hans, et al. 2015 “Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data.” Geophysical Research Letters
            Douville, H., A. Voldoire, and O. Geoffroy 2015 “The recent global‐warming hiatus: What is the role of Pacific variability?.” Geophysical Research Letters
            Wei, Meng, Fangli Qiao, and Jia Deng. 2015 “A Quantitative Definition of Global Warming Hiatus and 50-Year Prediction of Global Mean Surface Temperature.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences

            Maybe you should enlighten these folks. They are busy publishing about it… Maybe you should talk to the peer-review panels in these various journals – anything that is debunked, well, papers just should not be published about it… they’re fools, not knowing what YOU know.

          • Perhaps you should spend more time studying science and less time denying it. Read some of those papers instead of merely doing a search and copying the titles. If you were to read any of them, you would see they do not say global warming has stopped. Far from it. And, of course, every single one of you deniers insist on ignoring all ocean heating – 93% of all global warming. Why is that Brian Mulder? Are you afraid of the science? Are you afraid the facts will prove you wrong? You should be because they do.

          • Voodude

            No, it is that the papers are flying by, trying to explain (with different explanations) something that you know, doesn’t exist in the first place.

        • Voodude

          “he has to keep changing the endpoints to keep getting a flat line.”

          The endpoints are fixed. The rightmost is now and the left-most, the “beginning” – is as far back as possible, with a negative slope. but the mathematics escapes you, Christopher.. How’s this one, for example?

      • Robert
  • This article shows what a class act Tom Harris is. Whereas his opponents try smear after smear, propagating falsehoods and attempting to convey guilt by word play, Harris remains clean and clear and stays with the truth and reason. When you read his work you see someone who could easily be a friend, whereas his opponents scream and screech for control over citizen’s lives. Tom, keep on keeping your nose clean and head held above the gutter sniping. Eventually honesty, integrity, reason and diligence will pay off in full.

  • cunudiun

    And as for the science…

    Here’ s what the global temperature record looks like after the first four months of 2015. The pause is with Waldo.



    • zlop

      GISS is a world leader in data adjustments.
      Lower troposphere is stable http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2015_v61.png

    • Harold H Doiron, PhD

      Using your science, what is your explanation for the temperature trends from 1940 to 1970? Did atmospheric CO2 decrease during that 30 year period? How do you use such data to forecast how much warmer we will be in 2100? Don’t know? Come to ICCC-10 and find out. https://www.heartland.org/events/iccc-10

      • There are still natural cycles in the climate. The fact that we have added our own, manmade effects does not take that away. Before the 1970s, the natural effects were dominant and manmade effects were still minor. Manmade effects have become increasingly dominant since then. In fact, the natural cycle is currently a cooling one and we would be experiencing a cooling planet if not for manmade global warming. So, what happens when that natural cycle turns into a warming cycle and is added to manmade global warming?

        • Harold H Doiron, PhD

          I agree with your observations in this comment and answered your last question in the Feb. 2014 The Right Climate Stuff Research Team report at:

          http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions.pdf (See Figures 4.4 and 4.5) and why we don’t subscribe to the alarming and unscientifically supported rants of Cunundiun.

          • cunudiun

            Is posting a very scientifically supported graph and saying “The pause is with Waldo” a rant? LOL. You people really have nothing at all, do you?

          • OMG! How ridiculous! The Climate Wrong Stuff! Let me guess, paid for by the fossil fuel industry?

          • Harold H Doiron, PhD

            I thought you were a serious person. My mistake.

          • I’m seriously amused. Does that count?

      • cunudiun

        How can someone so completely ignorant as yourself have been an invited speaker at Heartland conferences? Oh yeah, this question answers itself.

        Aerosols and particulate pollution, which tend to increase the earth’s albedo and cool the atmosphere , are the usual answers to your question, though undoubtedly there was also natural variation at work, as there always is. It was in the 70’s and 80’s when many advanced industrialized countries cleaned up their particulate pollution, that the masking effect this had on global warming disappeared, and there was less remaining to counterbalance the positive forcing of CO₂. This is child’s stuff. Why do I have to explain it to you? Why do I have to take your science test when Tom Harris has run away from both science questions I gave him.

        • Voodude

          Oh, so, CO2 really isn’t the control knob on climate, eh?

          • Voodude

            hadcrut4gl vs Mauna Loa co2 – headed in opposite directions

    • Voodude

      This claim that “The US recorded its warmest first quarter since the 1880s … “ is unsupported by the satellites themselves.

      Remote Sensing Systems’ data from NOAA satellites, show the first quarter of 2015 to be not-so-impressive…
      RSS Global Satellite data (anomaly)
      2015 Jan 0.3667 °C
      2015 Feb 0.3268 °C
      2015 Mar 0.2546 °C
      2015 Apr 0.1745 °C

      Earth System Science Center, at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, using a different set of NOAA Global Satellite data, V6.0 beta, shows similar results:
      2015 Jan anomaly: 0.24 °C
      2015 Feb anomaly: 0.14 °C
      2015 Mar anomaly: 0.12°C

      here it is, Version 6.0 beta: http://vortex.nsstc.uah[DOT]edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta1

      • cunudiun

        Ever hear of NASA GISS?

        • Voodude

          Ever hear of Gavin Shmidddt?

        • Voodude

          I suppose these haven’t been adjusted enough. The come from the “adjusted” database, though.

  • tomwys

    When attacks are ad-hom or irrelevant to the subject at hand, you’ve already won the day!

    Keep it going, Tom, and relenting is not an option!!!

    • cunudiun

      Keep it going Tom. Doubling down on stupidity is always the smart thing to do.

      • CB

        Poor Tom. It must be so difficult to be held accountable for the lies one tells! /s

        “both Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice.”


        • Brian Valentine

          Your Gomment always tells you the truth. Saddam had tons of WMD

        • Voodude

          How come your data stops in 2009 SEVEN years ago?

          Sure, ice melts … we’re in an interglacial period. But the press, and many scientists, run out during the “melt season” and come up with outrageous, doomsday papers. Each melt season, 6000 Gt to 7000 Gt of ice melts off of Greenland and Antarctica. Most of it gets snowed back on.

    • RealMrTea

      “relenting is not an option”

      Especially when your salary is involved….


      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
      ― Upton Sinclair

  • There are so many false statements in this article I don’t have the room here to discuss them all. I will simply discuss his false statements concerning his background:

    Mr. Harris stated, “I have always opposed smoking”

    Reality: Mr. Harris has been an active supporter of the Heartland Institute, which is a major supporter of the tobacco industry. He was also employed by APCO, another tobacco industry supporter.

    I will take it as truthful statement that he opposes smoking, but that hasn’t stopped him from working for the industry. That makes this a very disturbing statement. Why does he work to promote an industry that he is opposed to? Especially when he has personally witnessed the horrors brought by that industry? (See further comments on this subject below.)

    Mr. Harris stated, “I have never been “funded by the oil industry.”

    Reality: Mr. Harris was the Director of Operations for the High Park Group, which is a energy industry lobby. He also worked as the Executive Director for the fossil fuel lobby group called the “Natural Resource Stewardship Project” (NRSP). Two of the three directors on the board of the NRSP were also senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group.

    Mr. Harris stated, “I have never denied that “greenhouse gases are contributing to our warming planet.”

    Reality: This is a very clever statement and meant to deceive. The issue isn’t whether or not greenhouse gases contribute to warming the planet, the issue is whether or not manmade gases are contributing. Mr. Harris has clearly stated he believes any warming occurring today is due to natural events.

    By his statement, Mr. Harris is dodging the fact that he is a denier of manmade global warming and climate change and makes it sound as if he accepts valid science, when the truth is exactly opposite. Take a look at the report on his class teaching at Carlton University where he
    taught a general education class on climate change. He is documented to have taught over 140 scientifically invalid statements, an average of one new invalid statement ever 16 minutes over the course of the semester.


    Mr Harris stated, “My employment with APCO had nothing to do with tobacco and I only heard about their supposed promotion of “the idea that tobacco isn’t harmful to human health” after I left the company in 2006.”

    Reality: APCO was hired by Philip Morris in 1993 to create a front group titled The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). TASSC manufactured a public relations campaign with the purpose of discrediting any science that suggested tobacco increased cancer and heart problems. It also advocated industry-friendly positions on global warming and pesticides. TASSC labeled environmentalists as promoting “junk science” while the Coalition advocated what they describe as “sound science.” Apart from Philip Morris, APCO also received funding from Chevron, ExxonMobil (at least $30,000), Dow Chemical, the National Pest Control Association, 3M, and numerous tobacco and oil companies.

    For Mr. Harris to say he doesn’t care what APCO did before he joined them is like saying he doesn’t care what a given political party did before he joined them. What ever they did, he endorsed it by joining them. And, he didn’t do it just once, he has done it twice with his affiliation with Heartland Institute. For Mr. Harris to say he was not involved is not a credible statement. He is fully aware of what these institutes were doing and he lent his efforts to further their causes.

    The Augusta Free Press was negligent when it printed this article by an anti-science advocate without informing the public of his background and record so they could make a more informed decision.

    • Utter irrelevant , science free , BS .

      • Climate science is science free?

        • Brian Valentine

          Climate “science” has all the rational foundation of astrology. There is nothing there. Nothing at all. Nothing that can interpret “climate” past, present, or future. Absolutely nothing.

        • Voodude

          Vacated, former head of the IPCC, “… it is my RELIGION“…
          You’re cloaked in “science”, but when presented with proper scientific papers, from peer-reviewed journals, that have contrary-to-your-religion conclusions or data, you simply ban the messenger from your forum.

    • TomHarrisICSC

      Christopher Keating: As usual, your arguments are either totally false or completely irrelevant. I won’t give you the respect of correcting each smear individually.

      • If it is irrelevant, why did you bring it up? I merely responded to your own claims. And, if they are totally false, tell us why. Everything I stated has been verified as accurate.

        • TomHarrisICSC

          On other Websites, I have demonstrated why your charges are either untrue or irrelevant but you continue to call white black regardless. I am not going to waste any more time on speaking with you until you stop doing this.

          • Anyone that listens to you has the right to know who and what you are. It is important for the public to know you are a paid fossil fuel industry shill and the things you say are simply not true.

          • TomHarrisICSC

            Anyone that listens to Professor Keating has a right to know that he and I have had several public interactions in the past few weeks, each time Keating accusing me of lying and being a “paid fossil fuel industry shill.” Besides the obvious logical fallacies of making such charges, I will no longer to bother to demonstrate that his accusations are entirely without merit. I will not stoop to Professor Keating’s approach of attacking the messenger.

          • cunudiun

            “each time Keating accusing me of lying and being a “paid fossil fuel industry shill.”

            Looks to me like Keating has been getting it right! You still don’t get it do you Tom. There is such a thing as honest science, and then there’s the stuff you do,

          • RealMrTea

            Anyone that listens to a OIL COMPANY SHILL like you.. is a fool…


          • renewableguy

            It appears Professor Keating is getting under your skin. You haven’t divulged who you are and continue to duck from the truth. How is this martyr thing working for you.? If you are truly hurt, what are you doing in public like this? I am starting to think this is just one big act on your part. Enjoy your fossil fuel check.

  • jameshrust

    Much of the writing take place on these columns is disgraceful. I have more experience in these matters than most people. I was subject to the same vituperation of today’s climate alarmists by the anti-nuclear lobby in the 1970s. Some of the same people are still alive and part of the climate alarmists.
    My thoughts under these circumstances are the same as attorney Joseph Welch’s during the 1954 televised McCarthy hearings when Sen. McCarthy came out with unsubstantiated accusations. On June 9, 1954, attorney Welch exclaimed, “Have you no sense of decency?” “You have done enough.” Sen. McCarthy’s reputation was ruined and he was dead of alcoholism within 3 years.
    It takes a special person to engage in constant accusations on the Internet without singing their real name. I have always signed my complete name on anything I have written.
    James H. Rust, Professor of nuclear engineering

    • Brian Valentine

      You can see from the postings that the “scientific” background of these people is very meager, they have no discernment, they post things that cannot possibly be true, and as long as it seems to meet their agenda, it is all equally valid.

      They don’t have an original idea, they cannot fathom the idea that people are trying to prevent civilization from collapsing to a famine driven scamper for existence, their powers of reasoning never advanced beyond teen angst, and the chances are regrettably low that they ever will.

      The good news is (more or less) historical precedent – as Socrates is noted to have worried, observing the youth of his day, that civilization cannot conceivably survive

  • Dennis Mitchell

    The good Dr Rust brings an interesting perspective to the topic. If you have been around long enough and have been involved , instead just sitting in the bleachers, the recognition of the unethical behavior of the climate alarmists are merely reworked previous politically based actions. I emphasize the ethics issue as neither morals nor laws have deterred the boldness and greed of the nonsense non-science vandals of fundamental science in their charge to conquer the world through fear. It is after all, about the alarmists being in charge of everybody and their assets? . Hasn’t the world seen enough of totalitarian movements to understand this has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with power. Mr. Harris speaks the facts and in doing so will be the inevitably target of the ethically challenged and their false accusations. I view Mr Harris, along with a host of other brave souls who stand up for truth, as environmental science patriots.

    • cunudiun

      Yes, everyone else clearly is an ethically-challenged totalitarian, because you say so! Do you have anything specific to bring to the table, or just blather? All your fantasies ignore one thing: climate science.

    • Robert

      ” unethical behavior of the climate alarmists are merely reworked previous politically based actions.”
      Any chance of something specific?

    • renewableguy

      Tom Harris is in a clear minority on climate change. The rejection of climate change has remained a steady 3% over the last few decades while scientific consensus increased up to 97%. Those 3% are low skilled people, like Tom Harris who is really not trained in the field of climatology. He is on here playing victim and martyr all the while collecting checks from the fossil fuel industry on this issue.

      • renewableguy

        Several opinion polls have been published in peer review showing consensus on climate change. If we are getting impatient with people like Tom Harris, there is good reason for it. We are in a dangerous future on the path Tom Harris speaks of. 100% renewable energy is needed and quite quickly.

        • Voodude

          The UN took a poll. “Action On Climate Change” didn’t fare so well. It came in last. Dead last

  • Pingback: Tom Harris Fights for the Right to 2nd Opinions, Re: The Climate Change Debate! | "Mothers Against Wind Turbines™" Phoenix Rising…()

  • We’re beginning to get overrun with requests from some commenting in this forum and related forums to publish letters and guest columns as responses to comments being made here and on related stories.

    We are glad to foster the discussions here, but AFP has a broad focus that includes environmental issues and many others.

    Please respect that we have a job to do to keep up with the world at large.

    Also, it wouldn’t hurt if folks would remember to be civil.

    • zlop

      Broad focus is motivated, deception to control, by the One World Order, Rothschild, Gore and Blood Carbon Tax Extortion Racketeers.

      Global warming science has become a belief system. Science, neither the Sun nor CO2, causes climate changes;
      ““If you accept the science,” Kerry continued. “If you accept that the science is causing climate to change”

      • renewableguy

        Climate change is now fact. If you don’t go with climate change as fact then it is like saying the earth is flat. There is still a flat earth society existing, although we no longer talk about it. Tom Harris has elected to be a flat earth society equivalent of denying something that is true and is a fact. That is why there is 97% consensus on climate change by the climate scientists. This makes Tom Harris a climate denier.

        • zlop

          “Tom Harris has elected to be a flat earth society
          equivalent of denying something that is true and is a fact”

          “Actually, even the Flat Earth Society believes in climate change”

          “That is why there is 97% consensus on climate change by the climate scientists.”

          That is another deception, by mercenaries of the Evil Elite.
          In private conversations, they admit that, it is BullCH4,
          but suppose that Evil World Order energy policy might be good.

          “Carbon tax is wealth redistribution – Australian Climate Madness”
          This is misleading and purposely inaccurate, Wealth is increased
          for the Rothschild, Gore and Blood Carbon Tax Extortion Racketeers,
          while all he Serfs are made poorer.

          • renewableguy

            Only one problem, human caused climate change is now a fact and has always been a fact. We are just now realizing it, except you.

          • zlop

            “CHEMTRAILS in Ontario, Canada since 1998”
            “Chemtrails – Delivery System For Dept. Of Death’s Toxic Cocktails”

            1998 was the warmest. Would Earth be cooler without chem-trail warming?

          • renewableguy

            You know I do have a problem with too much wealth concentration. Democracy is truly distorted by buying off politicians rather than the politicians listening to the people. Wealthy is ok, abuse of one’s wealth is not.

          • zlop

            In communism, Oligarchs own the State.
            In Capitalism, Oligarchs own Corporations, which own the State.

            Communism is more efficient in concentrating wealth.
            That is why capitalists support Communism.

          • TedKidd

            Absolutely correct about the “tax” portion being regressive – hence the need for the “dividend” portion of fee and dividend which turns the regressive into progressive.

            Unpriced externalities must be squeezed out of this system, or the profit motive in theft of value from the commons will continue to reward polluting.


          • TedKidd
          • TedKidd

            Simple, logical talking points:


      • NiCuCo

        It is the greatest conspiracy in the history of Man. Hundreds of scientific organizations, tens of thousands of papers, all wrong. All those scientists with their magic decoder rings and secret handshakes, going to hidden meetings to plan what doctored data to use next.

        Or, maybe it is just another branch of science which started in the 19th Century, with the work of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius, before there was the UN, the NWO, the EPA, chemtrails, Obama, HAARP, Gore, Agenda 21, the Moon landing hoax and those who are after our precious bodily fluids.

        • zlop

          You are bringing up very good points.

          Since ancient days — “started in the 19th Century,
          with the work of Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius”

          Science has moved on. Specifically. Arrhenius, IPCC net bottom
          warming is incorrect. The greenhouse effect is a thermodynamics
          phenomenon. Even Carl Sagan Used Thermodynamics
          to calculate the surface temperature of Venus.

          • NiCuCo

            “Arrhenius, IPCC net bottom warming is incorrect.”

            Not in the world of science.

            “Even Carl Sagan Used Thermodynamics to calculate the surface temperature of Venus.”

            No doubt.

          • zlop

            “Arrhenius, IPCC net bottom warming is incorrect.”
            “Not in the world of science.”?

            I gave you the Potential Temperature chart.
            Why are you unable to appreciate its significance?
            Energy transport is mainly by convention and turbulence.
            ( a gas blocks what is absorbs,
            there is only little radiative transport inside )

    • TomHarrisICSC

      Yes, CCL’s founder and president Marshall Saunders advocates a respectful approach to opponents. I wish CCL volunteers would take more note of that when they are actually faced with an opponent.

      • cunudiun

        A respectful approach to opponents would be easier when opponents are deserving of respect.

  • Pingback: Letter from the overaggressive volunteer on climate change - Augusta Free Press : Augusta Free Press()

  • zlop

    Is there a “Citizens’ Climate Lobby ” or is it just another front for the Carbon Tax Racketeers?
    “Abel Danger 9-11-2014 $92 Trillion Dollar Carbon Disclosure Project Gambling on Contrived Disaster” https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=-7QlmtOMNGM#t=72

  • renewableguy

    We are looking at the future losers of the world economy. Tom Harris is helping to represent the desperate struggle to hold onto the wealth of fossil fuels to keep their billions coming in. This is a dying energy system and they know it. They are willing to lie to wring all the wealth they can out of a ever shrinking market. Renewable energy will win the century. Power will shift to a better life on earth, rather than life killing fossil fuels.

  • zlop

    According to the IPCC — “In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

    However, there is strong correlation with sunspots. Solar activity is declining.
    Expect Ice Age Doom, very soon.

  • TedKidd