Scroll To Top

Sunday, April 20, 2014

The Pseudo-Science Coalition, Bible Science and Conspiracy Theories

Sou | 1:18 AM Go to the first of 31 comments. Add a comment

Is it because of the Christian holiday - Easter time, that's brought out all the religious beliefs at WUWT?

Today there's an article (archived here) about how all the science according to the IPCC is wrong, but science according to the Old Testament is right.  The article is by a Tom Harris who is from the International Climate Science Coalition.  That's an organisation related to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.  It's chief science adviser is Bob Carter.  Bob's a retired scientist who has taken up climate science denial to supplement his superannuation.  He's paid by the Heartland Institute and is also prominent at the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian right wing lobby group.

The International Climate Science Coalition is a misnomer. It should be called the Climate Anti-Science Coalition. Or maybe the Climate Pseudo-Science Coalition.  I'll run with the latter.

Tom's the Executive Director and manages the show, according to DeSmogBlog. He's an engineer by training, not a climate scientist. He studied thermofluids.  That's outside my area of expertise, just like climate science is clearly outside Tom's area of expertise.

Tom and his pseudo-science organisation is pretty cosy with the Heartland Institute, which is probably why he's trying to promote their latest "not the IPCC" report.  After reading the executive summary of the last one I'm not sure that it's worth anyone's time reading the latest one.  I notice that while they tried to match the first two IPCC reports they didn't bother with matching WGIII.  That's probably because they don't want to mitigate global warming. The Heartland Institute advocate adaptation as the sole strategy.  Fortunately for them no-one's paying them any attention.  Their last big launch attracted the following people, according to

  • 5 Heartland participants
  • 5 grumpy-looking old white guys 
  • 1 supporter from the American Enterprise Institute
  • 2 bored looking middle-aged guys playing with electronic devices
  • 1 journalist from CNS news ("The right news. Right now")
  • 1 guy running the Fox TV camera 
  • 2 women who came in late
  • An SkS author and co-conspirator.

Bible science not climate science

Tom from his pseudo-science coalition gets his predictions from the bible but disdains projections from scientists. His article thrice refers to Moses.  (Is that becoming the fashion?) At one point he wrote:
While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true. 
Charlton Heston as Moses

I don't know what he's referring to by "climate Armageddon" or what he thinks should have happened by now.  Maybe he's impatient.  Perhaps he's also got his years wrong and thinks it's 2100 already. That's a common error made by science deniers.  They reckon that because it's not yet two degrees hotter it's never going to be two degrees hotter.  And because seas haven't risen by two metres they are never going to rise by two metres.  I call that dumb. Others might call it stupid or ignorant. Still others might call it deceitful. It depends who is making the claim. When it's the Heartland Institute or the International Pseudo-Science Coalition then it's fair enough to call it deceitful. They know better.

What mistakes, Tom?

Tom's article is littered with claims like "mistakes in the science" and is high on insinuation and low on evidence.  Actually it's not simply low on evidence it has no evidence.  It's all rhetoric.  He includes some twisted quotations from leading figures implying that they don't accept the science.  That's incorrect but it probably goes down well with WUWT readers.  He does bring up the "CO2 is Plant Food" meme, which has dropped to number 42 on the SkepticalScience list of denier arguments.

Need to develop alternative sources of energy

Tom is of the view that we face a long-term energy crisis and writes:
Irrespective of the validity of climate change theories, there are good reasons to develop alternative sources of energy, but climate concerns is certainly not one of them.
The sentence is a bit mixed up.  He should have topped or tailed it.  It also provokes some discussion in the comments.

Just another WUWT conspiracy theorist

Toward the end Tom wrote:
In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science. 
So it turns out Tom's just another conspiracy theorist.  Conspiracy theorists are common at WUWT.  (Given the large number of conspiracy theories Anthony Watts promotes, you'd think he'd support papers like the moon-landing paper. But for some strange reason that and it's successor, Recursive Fury, didn't go down to well at WUWT.)

What wolves?

Tom's final paragraph is curious.  He wrote:
Scientists and others who knew this but promoted the deception for what they considered good reasons will be disgraced. Then no one will believe them when wolves really are at our doors.
What are the wolves?

From the WUWT comments

Given the religious nature of the holiday weekend, there were quite a few religious comments:

Martin 457 knows it was hotter 6,500 years ago because of the garden of eden. And then it got cooler when it rained for 40 days and 40 nights.  He says:

April 19, 2014 at 5:27 am
The bible, in it’s old testament, 6500 years ago, there was a garden of eden. We can look back to that time and see that the climate was warmer then. Then, there was a drastic cooling period. Doesn’t surprise me at all it rained for 40 day’s and nights. The atmosphere cooling like that can’t hold that amount of moisture any longer. DUH! Why that happened, un-explained.
The “not-see’s” are driving their cult away by sheer ignorance. Let them.

Louis says:
April 18, 2014 at 7:24 pm
There’s a big difference between “evidence” and “proof.” Both the Bible and the Koran document the Ten Plagues. Such ancient documents don’t “prove” an event happened, but they do provide historical evidence for it. (The fact that the Passover is still being commemorated after more than 3000 years is also evidence.) People can be open to such evidence, or they can close their minds to it. But they ought to have honest reasons for doing so, not just naked bias against the Bible or against religion in general. 

David L. Hagen reckons Moses did alright with his prophecies and points to a book to prove it and says:
April 18, 2014 at 6:32 pm
Moses had an amazing sequence of prophecies that were fulfilled.
See God’s Track Record of Fulfilled Prophecy By Don W. Olson 2005 pp 9-12
If you follow his link you'll see strong evidence, like how the prophecy that the Israelites would leave Egypt with wealth was fulfilled by them getting backpay.  And how the prophecy that the Nile would turn to blood was fulfilled by the Nile and all the rivers in Egypt turning to blood. Heavy, man!

David M says:
April 18, 2014 at 7:54 pm
While I don’t doubt the serious amount of alarmist nonsense spouted about AGW, i’m sorry, but you lost me as soon as you suggested that Moses made predictions that were more accurate. There are so many things wrong with that I don’t even know where to begin, and only serves to diminish your credibility.. 

Felix is like David M and says:
April 18, 2014 at 6:56 pm
“While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true.”
I’m always a little skeptical of people who accept biblical literalism and reject modern science. But, you all believe as you like. 

SAMURAI goes for (mixed up) ancient greek philosophy, invoking Plato's disciple Socrates (sic) and says (excerpt):

April 18, 2014 at 11:41 pm
An excellent post, Tom. Thank you!
Even as Plato’s disciple Socrates sipped his hemlock, he realized that Plato’s “Philosopher King” Utopia was a failed Utopian dream, and that democracies are ultimately and inextricably ruled by kleptocrats who form kleptocratic regimes designed to enslave and rob its citizens.

MarkW reckons there's a lot more fossil fuel in the ground waiting to be discovered and says:

April 18, 2014 at 9:55 pm
While it is true that we will some day begin to run out of fossil fuels, that day is at least several hundred years in the future.
Planning for it now is a complete waste of time as the technology and societal needs of that far distant future are completely unknowable, and any plans made now stand as much chance of making things worse than of making things better.

Pat Frank worships money, not the bible or moses or greek philosophers and says:
April 18, 2014 at 7:23 pm
I’d like to know how much the COP conferences cost. There have been, what, 19 of them so far? Who’s paying for those? How much has been spent on the salaries and expenses of the participants? Who’s paying for them?
How much has already been spent on mitigation of a non-problem? How much for pointless “carbon-capture” projects? How much has been squandered on the IPCC? How much paid for climate scientists to meet several times a year?
How much money has gone to subsidies for solar and wind farms that merely parasitize the productive economy? How much in tax money has gone to subsidize the Teslas that are just toys for rich people?
Someone should total up how much money has been squandered on the idiocy of anthropogenic global warming. 

While Janice Moore (unpredictably) has more faith in human ingenuity, even more than god this time, and says:
April 18, 2014 at 4:01 pm
The comparison with Moses while not exactly on point (ahem)… is an apt one: just as the Egyptians wanted to retain the economic benefits of the slave labor of the Jews,
so, too,
the Enviroprofiteers (and their henchpersons, the Envirostalinists) want to gain (or retain) the economic benefits (for the elite) of any socialist system that has ever blossomed into full flower — the bulk of the citizens become serfs.
“Equality for the world” and “save civilization as we know it” are mere euphemisms for a harsh, bitter, existence for the many to benefit the few.
(to quote with an edit Winston Churchill — from memory, only)
“Capitalism: the unequal sharing of blessings.
Socialism: the equal {except for the elite} sharing of misery.”
You make many good points, Mr. Harris, this, however is not one of them:
“… we do indeed face a long-term energy crisis… .”
Unless you are a prophet (like Moses really was), you do not know this. Moreover, historical evidence tells us that such doomsaying conjecture is highly likely to be wrong. You are forgetting, dear sir, that human ingenuity lives! Malthus predicted famine…. there was going to be a big copper wire shortage…. and robots were going to take away all the jobs……and on and on.
I will not believe, Mr. Harris! No, I will not believe your prophecy, for I have far too much FAITH IN OUR WONDERFUL ENGINEERS AND CHEMISTS (have you even looked at what nanotechnology is doing, esp. re: synthetic petroleum products?) to believe for one second that our fuel needs will not be met …. or redefined. 
And not one government regulation is necessary. Free markets will do it all.
So, take heart!
On Good Friday, things looked pretty bleak for a bunch of Jewish followers of a certain Jewish rabbi 2,000 years ago… GOOD THINGS LIE AHEAD!


  1. Pseudo-science is well-loved by pseudoskeptics, so no siurprise :-)

  2. Glad to see my piece cause such a commotion above. I never said what you say I said about the Bible. As a matter of fact, I am agnostic.

    1. The quote was a direct copy from your WUWT article, Tom. I've now added more links so you can see where I copied it from. I've made no other changes. Did Anthony change it from your original perhaps?

      BTW - what are the wolves?

    2. I said what I said, no more, no less: "While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies..."

      That does not attribute the events to anything divine or even to Moses (if in fact he even existed - there is a general paucity of evidence of Moses' existence). But the fact remains that, for whatever reason, cataclysm did indeed occur across Egypt in the time frame referenced by the stories in the Bible. In contrast, cataclysm is not happening now.

    3. OMG seems an appropriate response here. For an agnostic you place a lot of faith in oral tradition, Tom. The book was probably written 700 years after the man died, for heaven's sake. (Enough religious expressions, people? :D)

      And strangely for a climate science denier, you place a lot of faith in paleoclimatology - or were you referring to rivers turning to blood or some such?

      Now you are saying that what is being reported in the newspapers today and measured with modern instruments by scientists - you "don't believe" - but you "believe" that events happened just the way it says in the bible.

      (Sheesh, I knew Tom was a denier, I just didn't realise what an utter nutter he is. A good match for Anthony Watts, who is now claiming that "the biggest threat to humanity is an asteroid - and it's about to get much bigger!". He's probably digging an asteroid shelter in his backyard as we speak, er, I mean as we pound our keyboards!)

    4. Sou just making things up. I put little "faith in oral tradition". I am referring to archeological and paleoclimatological evidence of crises in the time frame Moses is reputed to have existed. Research it yourself if you don't believe me.

    5. That's a contradiction, Tom. The book of Exodus was written several centuries after Moses, so it has to have been based on oral tradition. It's just as likely that the stories wove into them past actual weather events of some magnitude - although I don't know why you seem to think they got that right because you just say "look it up". Are you referring to this link? (Provided by a comment to your article)

      And you are saying that you put more credence on paleoclimatology being able to put a strict timeline on past weather events down to the decadal level or thereabouts, than on modern day science that uses direct observation using modern instrumentation.

      In any case, you've already said, at least twice, that you regard climate science as a hoax, so why you accept what you regard as a hoax is beyond me.

      So full of contradictions. When you tell so many lies it's hard to keep your story straight, isn't it.

  3. There is also an Australian wing of the pseudo-science network called the Australian Climate Science Coalition. Bob Carter who was/is receiving a "monthly payment" of $US1667 ($1550)" from the Heartland Institute is an advisor there also.

    Its chairman John Nicol who denies the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect regularly trolls climate articles at The Conversation.

    1. Seems as if it's a lot of overlap. A lot of the same people just using different names to register in different countries. Does the organisation have tax exempt status? That would hurt. Taxpayers subsidising people to send fake messages back to them.

  4. Harris is another truly vile and reprehensible person, resorting to rhetoric and quote-mining.

    I checked the quote from Al Gore (what is this obsession that deniers have with Gore), and as usual, the full quote has a different meaning.

    It can be found here.

    The only 'noble lies' are from Harris. Lets examine in detail one of his claims.

    He said in his article.

    "Coastal communities will be submerged due to rapid sea-level rise caused by soaring temperatures and glacier melt. Record heat waves, droughts, floods, insect infestations, and wildfires will result in millions of climate change refugees fleeing their ruined homelands. Competition over increasingly scarce water resources will lead to armed conflict."

    "Coastal communities will be submerged" <- This is not a failed prediction, as the timeframes are for around 2100. But if you look at island communities like Tuvalu, it's already happening.

    "Record heat waves, droughts, floods, insect infestations, and wildfires will result in millions of climate change refugees fleeing their ruined homelands" <- Just take a look at the parts of the Philippines that was hit by the recent cyclone. The area is still in ruins.

    Or take a look at this.

    It's already happening.

    "Competition over increasingly scarce water resources will lead to armed conflict."<- Hello, ever hear of Syria you idiot.

    Harris has been telling lies for so long, he actually believes his own propaganda, and then has the gall to deride the tactic onto others. Psychological projection anyone?

    But really, a little bit of Googling reveals that climate change is already having a severe impact on society, it's just that Harris is cocooned in a bubble of distorted unreality. He then tries to evangelise his ideology wherever he can, but the only people willing to listen to his lies are the trained flying monkeys at WUWT.

    I also found this 12 year old report about Harris's misinterpretations.

    So for over a decade, Harris has been trying to disgracefully spread his misinformation. What a despicable and immoral individual. And then to cap it off, he comes to this blog and accuses Sou of misrepresentation. What a vile, low act. Sorry, Harris, Sou directly quoted you (I checked). Unless you apologise for your false accusation, I expect Sou to remove any further stomach churning posts of yours.

    1. No, I have been telling people what is true, namely that the science is too immature to make meaningful forecasts of future climate. Sorry of this violates your religion.

    2. All you need to know about Tom Harris.

      "In August 2006, Charles Montgomery wrote in The Globe and Mail that Tom Harris was then a senior associate with HPG, which was a "registered lobbyist for the Canadian Electricity Association (web) and the Canadian Gas Association"

      "Tom Harris, senior associate in APCO Worldwide's Ottawa office ... has worked with oil and gas, coal, nuclear, environmental and aerospace clients for whom he has conducted effective media and public relations campaigns."

    3. I see. Moses making predictions was very "mature" which is why you say that "cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies" but two centuries old science in the modern era, now using 21st century technology is "immature"?

      (I doubt Moses' made prophecies that were anything like what actually happened. Either the writings were modified after the event, were so vague they were bound to happen sooner or later, or it didn't happen. If as you say, you're agnostic, it would be fair to conclude you're just pandering to your target audience.)

      Yet all the projections even when climate science was less mature, twenty or thirty or one hundred years ago have come to pass so far. Earth is heating up, sea levels are rising, ice is melting, heat waves are worse, droughts are worse, bushfires are worse, rain is more intense with more and worse flash flooding, the pH of oceans is dropping etc etc.

      Perhaps Dave is right, that you "believe" your disinformation. I'm a tad more cynical. After all, you're just doing your job, right? And it's important to stay in with what you regard as the "in-crowd". Heavy hitters like the ridiculous Bob Carter who'll say just about anything. (I bet you borrowed the "agnostic" line from him. He's agnostic about climate at the same time as he's saying "it's cooling" and "it's warming" in the same short blurb.)

      If you reported actual science you'd have to find another job. Most of your readers would be the 8%. IMO you don't get HotWhoppered nearly often enough.

    4. Yeah, well he's a lot less effective these days. Reduced to a denier blog and WUWT. If he's lucky he might wangle his way into an article at Canada Free Press or one of the other extremist rags. How the mighty fall.

      Look at what the SkS attendee found at the Not the IPCC launch last week. Most of the people who used to roll up are so "retired" they weren't able to wangle a leave pass and driver.

    5. Harris writes.
      "No, I have been telling people what is true, namely that the science is too immature to make meaningful forecasts of future climate."

      How many times have we heard this before. Most people think that climate science is only a couple a decades old, but they are so wrong. Climate science began in earnest during the 19th century, while Queen Victoria was alive. It is older than continental drift theory for example.

      No Mr Harris, you have been telling an outright lie. (I told you that he actually believes his own propaganda, and has now proved it) The climate models are now sophisticated enough to give a forecast of climate that is 99% accurate on a global basis. BTW. That's not my opinion or view, as I am not qualified to state that, and certainly neither are you to state that the science is 'too immature', in clear defiance of the research.

      A quote from AR5
      "There continues to be very high confidence that models reproduce observed large-scale mean surface temperature patterns (pattern correlation of ~0.99)"

      See that. I have just proven that you are a just another heinous and loathsome liar. When are you going to understand that your 'alternate point of view', to quote Brandis, is in complete defiance with physics, and over 150 years of science.

    6. That's not all, Dave. Tom wrote in his article that climate science is a hoax. He isn't telling people that the science is immature, he's telling people it's a giant worldwide, multi-decadal conspiracy.

      I'd still be mildly curious to know what he reckons the "wolves" are. Sea level rise? Land masses too hot for human habitation? Leprechauns in the oceans? A modern day Moses?

    7. You certainly like to make things up, don't you? Anybody with any brains at all knows I did not say, "climate science is a hoax." How old are you people? 10?

    8. "Participants in Earth Hour are unwittingly helping prop up one of the most threatening scientific hoaxes in history—the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are known to be causing dangerous global warming and other problematic climate change."

    9. In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science.

      Tom, you presumably wrote those words in your piece. You presumably know that any 10 year old reading it would assume you agree with it and accept that it says that climate science will be unveiled as a hoax and therefore is a hoax now.

      Could you answer this question? Why deny what you actually wrote?

    10. Tom, I quoted you verbatim in the article above where you wrote at WUWT:

      "In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science."

      Archived here:

      in the post immediately below yours, Anonymous quoted you being quoted in a press release, which you must have endorsed because you published it on your own website.

      Add that to your denial of what you wrote in your own words about Moses and that makes two bald lies you've told in almost as many comments, not counting all the ones in your article.

      Are you so used to deceiving people that lying is an automatic reaction, or are you suffering a memory disorder. Or maybe you're getting someone else to ghost write your articles and faking that it's you who've written them (without reading them first).

    11. Ouch, can Mr Harris fall any further? Like a petulant child with cookie crumbs all over him telling his mother that he didn't eat any cookies.

      If one was to stay in their bubble of unreality, and only read the distortions from professional misinformers like Monckton, is it any wonder that they come to believe what is said. It's a problematic way of getting information though. As what happened to Steele a few days ago. When presented with a chart of Texas average temperatures, even he said that it showed warming, but instead of believing and accepting it, he claimed it had been manipulated. He just could not accept that his ideology was wrong, so he had to delve into conspiracy ideation. Of course the chart was correct and he was wrong, but he would never accept that. It's the antithesis of scepticism and instead is the hallmark of denialism.

      During the 16th century, Johannes Kepler was obsessed with the Platonic solid model of the solar system. To confirm his model, he teamed up with the wealthy Tycho Brahe, who had the equipment to make the measurements of the heavens. Unfortunately, the measurements appeared to be 8 degrees off. After 40 attempts, to reconcile the difference, the measurements were found to be accurate. Kepler finally had to give up his precious idea. The only way that the measurements would make sense, is that instead of orbiting in a perfect circle, the planets orbited in an ellipse. Of course this is actually the case. This is a true scientist at their best. Instead of trying to come up with some sort of conspiracy theory, he finally had to concede that his ideology was wrong. Doing so enabled him to come up with what is now known as Kepler's laws of planetary motion, a major breakthrough of it's day, and still valid today.'s_laws_of_planetary_motion

      The same is true for climate science. It was thought for many years that atmospheric gases had no influence on the climate, but during the 19th century, measurements by Fourier, then Tyndall and later by Langley, showed that even trace amounts of a gas, could have a huge influence of the climate. Of course this has all now been confirmed by satellite measurements. But did these scientists ignore those measurements and delve into conspiracy ideation? No, the ideology of the past was replaced with a scientific theory, one which still stands today.

      Amazing isn't it. In the 21st century, we still have people who deny the observations and measurements of the 19th century, despite being confirmed by more accurate and sensitive satellite instrumentation.

      CO2 emissions from human activities causing global warming is not just an unproven hypothesis, or hoax. No, quite the opposite. It is not only measurable, but is in line with the laws of physics.

    12. I wonder if Tom Harris is going to pull a 'Wegman', and blame a graduate student for his statement.

      Or perhaps it's a different Tom Harris from the ICSC who wrote this.

      "But then you are not calling others “deniers” and doing all the other despicable things that the ones Dr. Spencer is calling NAZIs are doing. It is that fringe group that are acting like Nazis, not people who sound reasonable like you. People on both sides of the discussion can see when others are acting like Nazis. It actually doesn’t matter what your view on the science is. Despicable behaviour is despicable, and people following this approach should be roundly condemned by people of good will on all sides of the debate."

      and this

      "Yes, they certainly do behave like Nazis. Look what happened when I asked a simple question of climate activists at a meeting here in Ottawa on Feb 5:"

      and this

      "Note to readers: My comment above is already being misinterpreted by our opponents.

      When I wrote, “Yes, they certainly do behave like Nazis.”, I meant no more nor no less than what I said. Those who personally attack others in despicable ways simply because they disagree with their opinions on science matters are indeed behaving like Nazis. They are clearly trying to silence opposition through bully boy tactics, just like the Nazis. Despicable behaviour is despicable, and people following this approach should be roundly condemned by people of good will on all sides of the debate.

      While I am not surprised that some people have come to calling them Nazis, I do not call them Nazis (or, generally, anything else, for that matter) but these trouble makers certainly behave like Nazis. End of story."

      or this

      "But then you are not calling others “deniers” and doing all the other despicable things that the ones Dr. Spencer is calling NAZIs are doing. It is that fringe group that are acting like Nazis, not people who sound reasonable like you. People on both sides of the discussion can see when others are acting like Nazis. It actually doesn’t matter what your view on the science is. Despicable behaviour is despicable, and people following this approach should be roundly condemned by people of good will on all sides of the debate."

      Tom is also a Heartland Expert.

      Check out Harris's lies being exposed here.

      Harris has said that "I worked for 25 years as an aerospace engineer for the Canadian government and as an IT engineer in various companies."

      It seems that in the Bizarro world of deniers, it's aerospace engineers that are now experts in climate science, and climate scientists 'know nuffin'

      Tell me Tom, were any of your colleges qualified in climate science? Of course not, in the real world that is an insane proposition, just as insane as an aerospace engineer now being an expert in climate science.

      I think I am getting it now. The only qualification one needs to be in the ICSC is to be a ideological denier. If one actually had qualifications in climate science, I suspect they would be rejected immediately. What a Bizarro world you live in!!

    13. Yes, this is usually the response when cherished religious beliefs are questioned. Ban the infidel from the site!

    14. Oh. What response - you mean hard evidence? You don't like the evidence we've provided?

      Are you still trying to claim that you that you didn't write these words:

      In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science.

      You're not banned yet, Tom, and I don't think anyone's suggested that. You are working your way towards the HotWhoppery though. And I sometimes end up banning people who do what you've done throughout with your comments - lie till you're blue in the face.

    15. Oh dear, it seems that Tom did manage to go down further. Good old ad hom, you can't beat that. Tom, you have been exposed as a fraudster and a liar. Even the name of your organisation is a straight out fraud.

      Tom tell me this. The name of your organisation is the International Climate Science Coalition, but as we all know, your organisation doesn't actually DO any climate science. Care to provide a recent paper that has been published in a climate related journal?
      (Not an off-topic journal, which is a known trick see

      Your chief science advisor is a Dr. Bob Carter, who according to your website here.

      is a professor and Adjunct Research Fellow at James Cook University, Queensland, but in reality he has been retired from James Cook University in 2002, maintaining the status of "adjunct professor" until January 2013, when Carter's position of adjunct professor was not renewed.

      See this for further information

      What does that mean?
      Well according the rules outlined here

      "The title ‘Professor’ is granted at the discretion of the institution that confers it and use of the title always has an expiration date. Resignation, retirement or termination of the professorial position means the title can no longer be legitimately used. The exception to this rule is the title ‘Emeritus Professor’, which is conferred for life."

      So your organisation is falsely claiming the current job and title of your chief science advisor.

      Are you not ashamed of your and your organisations deliberate and calculated deceptions and lies? Your promotion of the NIPPC report who's authors have been funded by the fossil fuel industry. Conflict of interest anyone?

      What a disgrace!!!

      (Better inform your puppeteers that your swindle is no longer working. Perhaps change the name of your organisation to something that better reflects what you and your co-conspiractors do. The "International Coalition of scams, lies and fraudsters" perhaps.)

    16. Tom, I struggle to see what cherished religious beliefs are being questioned. You mentioned Moses. So what?

      Or do you mean that belief in anthropogenic causes for global warming is a religion? If that's the case then I can clearly consign you to the sixth bolgia of the eighth circle of Hell as someone who has lost the argument and only has denier cliches left to give.

      Or you could address the points like you claim you want to.

    17. I am not paying attention to this site anymore. Anyone with the intelligence of a field mouse can see the difference between what you say I said and what I actually said.

    18. "Anyone with the intelligence of a field mouse" - is that your problem Tom? People with more intelligence than a field mouse can't see the difference, not surprisingly, because I quoted you word for word.

      Funny that you don't appear to have the intelligence to explain "the difference", yourself. (Perhaps that's a bridge too far and takes more than the intelligence of a field mouse.)

      Nor have you explained why you keep denying that you wrote your very own words.

      Not sure that you are the right person to be lecturing about "noble cause lies", Tom. Or maybe you are speaking as an expert, given the number of lies you've managed to fit into your comments here. Noble cause (or even Nobel cause or whatever), there's no excuse - but there is a certain irony isn't there.

    19. Aww, poor Tom. Getting a taste of his own medicine, and guess what, it tastes bitter and revolting.

      If one actually does a check on the quotes that Tom used in his WUWT puff piece, what he accuses Sou of doing, he himself in doing it in spades. Oh, the hypocrisy.

      For instance, he quotes from “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements” published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, which quotes from this study.

      Both of which have suffered from a liberal dose of quote-mining, distorting the original intent.

      And of course there is the compulsary Al Gore quote mine, which is the ultimate in dog whistling, which again, distorted his intent. But then again, on a burn it all, do nothing trajectory, our society will undoubtedly be disrupted, no matter what. Do we wait the short time till our conventional fossil fuels reserves have been seriously depleted, causing skyrocketing prices and destructive hyperinflation (with climate change only making the problem worse), making the shift to renewable energy very expensive, or do act now, making the shift to renewable energy as soon as possible with the side benefit that our climate remains stable enough that we can grow the food for a burgeoning population. The fact is that oil and gas are finite, and at current rates will be depleted in about 60 years. Where will we get the energy to power our society then?

      Tom has found out the hard way that rhetoric and distorted quote mining is a poor substitute for a reasoned fact driven debate, and is easily attacked. (It's basically what deniers have to resort to, as they don't have physics, reality and the world's academic societies on their side) If you read the IPPR piece I linked to, they say the same thing. They state that the climate debate as presented in mainstream media, if it can be called that, is in a state of flux, where a consensus has not yet been achieved, and is subjected to a wide range of extremist viewpoints. It is noted that it is the UK tabloids where the 'alarmist' viewpoint is most often presented. Is the 'alarmist' viewpoint the most effective way of presenting AGW, probably not, as it leads to a feeling of 'helplessness'. They suggest that a more inclusive viewpoint is better, focussing more on solutions, but unfortunately there is still a heavy prevelance of the extremist rhetoric that Tom is a part of, that the media, confounded with a viewer with such a short attention span and a quick index finger, feel that they need to resort to the 'alarmist' strategy to get eyeballs. If one actually takes the time and patience to read the literature, it's not 'alarmist' at all, in fact it's dry and boring, so it's been 'sexed' up for the apathetic layperson. But does the fact that the media 'sex-up' boring climate change, change the facts. No. The media have a long history of 'sensationalising' stories, climate change is just the latest.

      So Tom, I also notice there is no 'thank-you' for noticing the false status of your unemployed chief science advisor, Dr. Bob Carter. Instead we get an angry retort. Your welcome Tom.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true.

    And here we see the selectivity that characterises the fake-skeptic.

    Creative reinterpretations of 'prophecies' made in 2000 year old account (of debatable origin) regarding bronze-age shepherds: hand-wavingly accepted as inherently plausible.

    21st Century science supported by multiple strands of evidence? Not so much...


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.