Arguments
Tom Harris' Carleton University Climate Misinformation Class
Posted on 10 May 2012 by dana1981
A few months ago, the Canadian Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism (CASS) issued a report regarding a slew of climate misinformation being taught at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada by Tom Harris. Somehow Harris, who is an engineer and communications specialist with zero climate research experience, and is the Executive Director of the Heartland Institute-funded International Climate Science Coalition, was put in the position to teach a class on climate and Earth science at Carleton University. More recently, Harris has taken to denouncing what he terms "climatism," which appears to be a disparaging synonym for "climate science." How an anti-climate science engineer was made lecturer of a climate science class at Carleton University is something of a mystery, and a poor decision by the university.
The CASS report followed the growing trend of climate misinformation debunkings using the Skeptical Science database. In this post we will examine just a few of the myths identified by CASS as regrettably being used by Harris to misinform Carleton University students.
Galactic Cherries
A popular climate myth, coming in at #21 on the list of most used climate myths, is that global warming is being caused by galactic cosmic rays. The reason this myth is so popular is that it's a relatively new hypothesis, and thus has only been investigated by climate researchers in recent years. However, the vast majority of studies on the subject have found little if any relationship between galactic cosmic rays and global temperatures.
That didn't stop Harris from exhibiting one of the 5 characteristics of scientific denialism to claim otherwise in his lectures - cherrypicking. As John Cook wrote two years ago in describing this denialism characteristic,
"[cherrypicking] involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research..."
This is precisely how Harris taught his class, picking out the few scientific studies which seemed to indicate a relationship between cosmic rays and global temperatures, and completely neglecting to mention the vast majority of studies finding little to no correlation between the two. More importantly, galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has been flat on average over the past six decades, and therefore could not be responsible for a long-term global warming trend over that period. As Figure 1 shows, starting around 1925, the cosmic ray increase lagged behind the temperature increase, and temperatures continued to rise after 1970 while cosmic ray flux did not.
Figure 1: Reconstructed cosmic radiation (solid line before 1952) and directly observed cosmic radiation (solid line after 1952) compared to global temperature (dotted line). All curves have been smoothed by an 11 year running mean (Krivova 2003).
Additionally, there was a record high cosmic ray flux observed in 2009 (Figure 2). The hypothesis espoused by Harris claims that cosmic rays are supposed to cause cooling by increasing cloud cover, yet 2009 was one of the hottest years on record.
Figure 2: Record cosmic ray flux observed in 2009 by the Advanced Composition Explorer (NASA)
Harris chose simply not to teach these inconvenient facts to his students, instead only presenting the cherrypicked bits of information which seemed to support the case he wanted to present them.
Downplaying the Human Influence on Climate
Along similar lines as his cosmic ray cherrypick, Harris decided to toss physics aside and claim that human effects on the climate are too small to measure.
"Until we understand natural cycles of climate without humans, it’s very very tough to tease out what affect humans are having because it’s much smaller. It’s not the big carrier wave that nature is doing anyways, it’s a smaller affect on top of that...There isn’t a good correlation between temperatures and CO2 over the record."
This myth fails on two levels. First, as Richard Alley has discussed, CO2 has historically been the principle control knob for the Earth's temperature, and the current human influence on the climate involves a rapid increase in the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Second, many different studies have shown that the human influence on global temperatures has dominated the natural influence over the past century, especially over the past half-century (Figure 3). Once again, Harris neglects to mention the vast body of scientific research and literature which contradicts the assertions he makes in his lectures.
Figure 3: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).
Denying the CO2 Control Knob Again
CASS caught Harris downplaying the influence of CO2 on climate once again, repeating the myth that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.
"[the] most important greenhouse gas is water vapour...."
Harris of course neglects to mention that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dictated by the temperature of the atmosphere - water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Thus something else has to initiate global warming before water vapor can kick in and amplify it. This inconvenient fact makes it very difficult to argue that water vapor is "the most important" greenhouse gas.
Indeed, as Lacis et al. (2010) noted in a paper titled Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature (emphasis added),
"Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does...Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state."
Once again, Harris failed to accurately portray the body of scientific research and evidence, which contradicts the information he taught his students.
CO2 is a Pollutant
Harris also decided to delve into the realm of laws and policy, repeatedly claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant.
"Carbon dioxide of course is a greenhouse gas, but it is not a pollutant. it’s invisible, odourless, it’s essential to plant photosynthesis...It’s not a pollutant and it’s probably a benefit....The debate of course is not whether it’s a pollutant – because it’s not a pollutant. Carbon footprint is not a pollution..."
In fact, CASS documents Harris claiming that CO2 is not a pollutant at least four times, showing two additional videos in which it is again claimed that CO2 is not a pollutant, and also twice claiming that another greenhouse gas - nitrous oxide - is not a pollutant.
Why, in a class entitled "Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective", is Harris so focused on the legal and policy issue of the definition of a pollutant? As it so happens, CO2 and other greenhouse gases are indeed pollutants, at least based on the U.S. Clean Air Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency correctly determined that greenhouse gases meet the definition of air pollutants because they pose a threat to public health and welfare through climate change, and Canadian scientific organizations certainly concur with this conclusion. However, the definition of this term is primarily a legal question, and thus it is puzzling why Harris placed so much emphasis on the issue in a climate and Earth science class.
It's also worth noting that while we often hear this argument from climate denialists that CO2 isn't a pollutant because it's tasteless and odorless, human sensory perceptions generally have little to do with whether a substance is is deemed a pollutant. As noted above, pollutants are characterized by the threat they pose to public health and welfare, not based on whether they're ugly or stinky.
Denying Settled Science
In his lectures, Harris even goes as far as to deny some of the most settled aspects of climate science.
"...the majority of the rise of CO2 has nothing to do with humans....One of the things I find astounding about this whole climate debate is that some of the most basic tenets – you know, the idea that CO2 rise is mainly caused by humans, the idea that temperature rise is definite, its occurring, - many of these things are either not true or are simply unknown, or highly debatable."
Of course we know for a fact that the planet is warming, and similarly there simply is no question that the CO2 increase is due to human emissions. The easiest way to prove this is through a simple accounting approach (i.e. see Cawley 2011) - human emissions are roughly twice as large as the increase in atmospheric CO2 (most of the rest is absorbed by the oceans, which leads to ocean acidification). Harris disputes this with yet another cherrypick:
"I’m getting emails now from scientists, one in particular from Poland, who just authored a paper with a guy from Norway, very leading scientists on CO2 studies, who say that they’ve shown in fact the majority of the rise of CO2 has nothing to do with humans."
Once again Harris rejects the body of scientific evidence in favor of one paper which somebody emailed him about, and apparently expects his students to exhibit the same lack of skepticism.
Climate Denial 101
We have only touched on a few of the many climate myths identified in Harris' lectures by CASS, who in fact documented over 100 such myths in their report. Tamino also takes Harris to task for his minsinformation regarding warming in the United States in a recent Open Mind post.
Harris' Carleton University course was clearly less of a climate and Earth science class and more of a climate cherrypicking denial class, teaching students how to ignore the vast body of scientific evidence and only consider the few bits of information which appear to support one's pre-determined conclusion. However, such denial is entirely anti-science, and this behavior should certainly not be taught in a university classroom. Hopefully Carelton University will learn from this error and disservice to their students.
Listen here to the course originator, Professor Tim Patterson dismiss their findings and their ridiculous approach:
http://www.fcpp.org/media.php/1996
Tom Harris
climatescienceinternational.org
Patterson's dismissal comes across as a man living in an alternative reality.
Talk about everything but the content of the course. Nothing substantive in it.
Unimpressed. {snip}
1) Twist the word "denier" to link it to WW2, then complain that people are calling you a holocaust denier
2) Attack a critic by saying they are an activist geneticist, not a climate scientist
3) Say that your critics don't understand climate from a geologic perspective
4) Complain that your critics didn't go through official channels
5) Claim that the planet is not particularly warm today from a geologic perspective (true, but irrelevant)
6) End by saying that the weather is awfully cold outside
Yep, I would agree that it shows Tim Patterson dismissing your critics. It's a shame, though, that he didn't include any science in that defence.
- How is it that you have no qualification to teach such a course, yet you object to a critique by people you regard as untrained?
- Can you provide names for the people you refer to who are unethical and for those who are the untrained?
- Do you regard the teaching of such a university course by an unqualified person to be ethical?
- Who do you (an unqualified person) regard as sufficiently well trained to assess the accuracy of the information you gave to your students?
- Does your association with the Heartland Institute create a conflict of interest when teaching?
- Was the information you gave your students in accord with current, published, peer-reviewed science, or did it run counter to the mainstream?
- Who assigned student grades following the course?
Just askin', you unnerstand."...the majority of the rise of CO2 has nothing to do with humans....One of the things I find astounding about this whole climate debate is that some of the most basic tenets – you know, the idea that CO2 rise is mainly caused by humans, the idea that temperature rise is definite, its occurring, - many of these things are either not true or are simply unknown, or highly debatable."
Do you agree that the majority of the rise in CO2 has nothing to do with humans? Yes or no.
I am not remotely interested in the ethics of your critics, I am interested in the accuracy of your scientific position. If you are not willing to defend a particular point, the readers can draw their own conclusion.
"It is vastly disruptive to embrace anthropogenic global warming."
I understand where you're coming from, and share some of your values, but that is the point: your statement above is a very value-laden statement -- ideological in fact.
One can logically embrace the science of AGW with no disruption at all.
Whether there is disruption or not is a question of values and policy, not science. If one values the sustainability of life as we know it on planet earth, where "life" is more about egalitarian and environmental values than individualistic and entrepreneurial values, then it might logically follow that one who holds such values may also embrace solutions to AGW that are potentially disruptive. But there are a few steps of logic there, and logic that is based on assumed values and, thus, I would argue, ideology.
One of the appeals of this site, to me, is that it separates the policy, values and ideology from the science. Not that we should ignore values and policy response, but that we should understand how problems and solutions are discursively framed - accounting for and understanding both cognitive and normative elements.
Unfortunately, Poptech became involved and it spiralled quickly into a dark abyss of his own creation...as usual !
- "There hasn’t been an acceleration in glacier retreat worldwide" (TH)
- When you look at most rural datasets, you don’t see global warming.‛ (TH)
These are factual statements and presumably Mr. Harris offers his students some documentation to back them up. Or is this version of 'teaching' no more than 'take my word for this'?
- You know, we haven’t had any warming since 2003 and CO2 is still rising. I know that’s not climate, but still it just doesn’t really make a lot of sense.‛ (TH)
If it is not climate, why mention it at all?
- Every day in the newspaper I read about another idiot biologist who says that the world’s biota is going to be destroyed by another temperature rise of a degree or two.
-- video shown in class
I am not aware of newspapers being reputable scientific sources.
If these aren't direct quotes from Mr. Harris, then the study can be considered unethical. That's something he or his students could verify.
No doubt you can provide specific examples? With references to back up your position?
I should also like to inquire how you think the demonstrably false claims made in the course square with, say, the obligations set out in the CUASA collective agreement on academic freedom:
Academic freedom carries with it the duty to use that freedom in a manner consistent with the scholarly obligation to base research and teaching on an honest search for truth.
But clearly the above self-touted balance have failed miserably in this case: the course being evident and undefendable nonsense, in contradiction to any peer-reviewed literature. The teacher of the course (Tom Harris) rather than defending his ideas considered here, as the adherance to the Aristotelian ethics would suggest, instead apears to create confusion with his drive-by comment @2.
Where is the source of such uttermost failure of educational ethics at Carleton? Who is the dean responsible for this course and how was is approved? These are very obvious follow-up questions that beg to be answered.
Academic freedom can be sacrified in favour of any inquiry, as too much freedom has been apparently given to some irresponsible people here.
Tom@2, I do hope you are not referencing any of the folks who regularly moderate and/or write articles on this site: To refer to them as "unethical" and 'untrained in the field" is a folly, in and of itself. They have shown themselves to be exemplars of rigorous, honest, and unmotivated-by-policy scientists, who use the scientific method, strictly. ALL are highly qualified to instruct and, indeed, to critique courses such as yours, without the ad hominem pokes such as you've employed.
http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3557509
BTW, several of their issues raised by Hassell et al were completely false factually, which is not surprising since they did not have the notes for the course that only registered students had (where the many scientific references were listed and much more details were included).
The university hired me to teach it four times and even gave me a raise during that period in the tiny amount (really tiny) they paid me for the course. There was never any criticism whatsoever given to me against the course by anyone who matters in the administration, staff or faculty at Carleton - everything I heard back were compliments so they obviously have no problem with the course. In fact, it is back in 2013 with the originator and original instructor Professor Patterson teaching it.
Remember, the U supplied the vast majority of the teaching material, content and notes, etc. and so they obviously concluded I taught it well, as did the students who rated the course very highly. The fact that an insect biologist and his biologist friends didn't like it is immaterial and I don't plan to even answer their silly charges, many of which are completely wrong.
Tom Harris
Carleton University Sessional Lecturer for ERTH2402 - 2009, 2010 (twice), 2011
Commenters - please refain from directing any more questions to Tom Harris until he has answered Dikran Marsupial's question. We don't want to overwhelm Tom with too many inquiries.
The quotes given are from videos of the lectures given taken by Carleton staff for the benefit of students.
Harris was, until approximately late October 2006, listed as a Director of Operations of the Ottawa office of the High Park Group (HPG), a Canadian PR and lobbying firm. His biographical note states that he "specializes in strategic communication and media relations
But the damage is already done. Read the student ratings here. Examples:
- I was and remain an environmentalist but this class has opened my eyes to REALITY. A real scientific view of climate change. Lets focus our attention and expenses on issues that are of real concern to this planet and on issues that we actually can influence.
- Great to hear a prof going against the grain, presenting us with information to make up our own minds on such an important topic!
- Great to hear alternative perspectives on climate change and to get away from the global warming dogma for a bit. Not sure if a believe it or not but very interesting all the same. Keep the debate alive! and always question the church of science.
Apparently "reality" "goes against the grain" of the "dogma" in "church of science." Lovely.
#24 Dan, I have taught outside my sphere of expertise at a university, but I always taught the accepted position on a point. Crucially, there's a massive difference between:
1: Being a non-expert and teaching the generally-accepted scientific position on a subject.
2: Being a non-expert and teaching material that runs contrary to nearly all expert opinion on a subject.
In the case of (1), you are inflicting upon your students the same knowledge that a world expert would teach in your position. In the case of (2), you have no idea where and why your amateur opinion is different to that of the experts, and so you will not know where and why you may be wrong, precisely because you are not an expert and so have not learned the pitfalls of your subject.
It's clear that (2) applies to Tom Harris here. That such obvious fallacies and pitfalls in the substance of the material reached the classroom is troubling. That trusting students then considered this expert knowledge worth remembering is frightening. It is very revealing that both here and at Open Mind, Harris is failing to answer any points of substance where he is (and to an expert, very obviously) demonstrably wrong.
Tom Harris, can you please answer Dikran Marsupial's question at #7 in this thread? You are being challenged on solid points of substance and coming up with nothing but fresh air.
He has in a way provided an answer to all scientific questions: He taught the course material as approved by college and implicitely has no obligation to defend or explain that material.
Let's see if this doesn't get moderated:
{snip}
TC: Offensive comment snipped.
[DB] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators intentionally submit offensive comments. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
Please note that (according to the audio link supplied by Tom above), Professor Tim Patterson is the originator of the course, which he thought since 2009. Tim is currently on sabatical and Tom is just replacing his position, and teaches "essentially the same" material Tim used to teach earlier. So, should we be enquiring after Tim here, instead? Coincidently, this is a small proof of Dave123's and my assessment.
Moderators, please snip the final "Ja!" word (implying offensive ideology) from comment 28 and then delete this sentence on mine. Thanks.
Carlton Uni is has dropped about 100 places in the academic rankings over the last decade.
I wonder if their Senate will do anything to reverse this trend, given that The Senate is the final academic authority on campus and as such makes decisions of significant importance to students and faculty ... approving new programs and revised curriculum.
Tom: "There really is no consistent correlation between climate and CO2 over geologic time."
Tom: "We did answer the [I guess the CASS report, though I was pointing to this SkS article], in general (the authors were so inexpert in the field, and evaluated the course based only on the video, not the notes provided the students, that it was not worth spending a lot of time on)"