tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post8687771475964084202..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: The Pseudo-Science Coalition, Bible Science and Conspiracy TheoriesSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84837737370754233812014-04-22T16:57:52.436+10:002014-04-22T16:57:52.436+10:00Aww, poor Tom. Getting a taste of his own medicine...Aww, poor Tom. Getting a taste of his own medicine, and guess what, it tastes bitter and revolting.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />For instance, he quotes from “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements” published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, which quotes from this study.<br /><br />http://www.ippr.org/images/media/files/publication/2011/05/warm_words_1529.pdf<br /><br />Both of which have suffered from a liberal dose of quote-mining, distorting the original intent.<br /><br />http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041614-697487-alarmists-embellish-facts-to-scare-public-about-climate-change.htm<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9380797727261877562014-04-22T15:08:52.187+10:002014-04-22T15:08:52.187+10:00"Anyone with the intelligence of a field mous..."<i>Anyone with the intelligence of a field mouse</i>" - 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.<br /><br />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.) <br /><br />Nor have you explained why you keep denying that you wrote your very own words.<br /><br />Not sure that you are the right person to be lecturing about "<a href="http://archive.today/2YCmB#selection-475.0-475.61" rel="nofollow">noble cause lies</a>", 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.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91495525402061184642014-04-22T14:27:48.623+10:002014-04-22T14:27:48.623+10:00I am not paying attention to this site anymore. An...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.Tom Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449178297355995322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45989842930382969782014-04-21T17:17:43.261+10:002014-04-21T17:17:43.261+10:00Tom, I struggle to see what cherished religious be...Tom, I struggle to see what cherished religious beliefs are being questioned. You mentioned Moses. So what?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Or you could address the points like you claim you want to.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58218692153634686722014-04-21T16:12:31.720+10:002014-04-21T16:12:31.720+10:00Oh dear, it seems that Tom did manage to go down f...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.<br /><br />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? <br />(Not an off-topic journal, which is a known trick see http://www.skepticalscience.com/contrarian-backlash-difficult-lesson-for-journals.html)<br /><br />Your chief science advisor is a Dr. Bob Carter, who according to your website here.<br />http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=394<br /><br />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. <br /><br />See this for further information<br />http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/12/censorship-climate-sceptics-culled-from-universities/?wpmp_switcher=mobile<br /><br />What does that mean?<br />Well according the rules outlined here<br />http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/research/policy_dev/docs/HETitleProf.pdf<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />So your organisation is falsely claiming the current job and title of your chief science advisor.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />What a disgrace!!!<br /><br />(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.)Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-74601476969800877192014-04-21T14:16:51.200+10:002014-04-21T14:16:51.200+10:00Oh. What response - you mean hard evidence? You do...Oh. What response - you mean hard evidence? You don't like the evidence we've provided? <br /><br />Are you still trying to claim that you that you didn't <a href="http://archive.today/2YCmB#selection-759.0-759.105" rel="nofollow">write these words</a>:<br /><br /><i>In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science. </i><br /><br />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.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-47540009853198149122014-04-21T14:10:54.249+10:002014-04-21T14:10:54.249+10:00That's a contradiction, Tom. The book of Exod...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 <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=wDFHZaCXIKYC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=moses+prophecies+plagues+fulfilled&source=bl&ots=-yUj6GIkJC&sig=sns_yVeIjAe3hWp4_aZtokni1xM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UdFRU5vfHaa62gXCu4DoDA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=moses%20prophecies%20plagues%20fulfilled&f=false" rel="nofollow">this link?</a> (Provided by a comment to your article)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />So full of contradictions. When you tell so many lies it's hard to keep your story straight, isn't it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14239119329945286892014-04-21T13:47:18.863+10:002014-04-21T13:47:18.863+10:00Yes, this is usually the response when cherished r...Yes, this is usually the response when cherished religious beliefs are questioned. Ban the infidel from the site!Tom Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449178297355995322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-687834651454247552014-04-21T13:45:13.191+10:002014-04-21T13:45:13.191+10:00Sou just making things up. I put little "fait...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.Tom Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449178297355995322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54490668695615967792014-04-20T20:33:08.647+10:002014-04-20T20:33:08.647+10:00I wonder if Tom Harris is going to pull a 'Weg...I wonder if Tom Harris is going to pull a 'Wegman', and blame a graduate student for his statement.<br /><br />Or perhaps it's a different Tom Harris from the ICSC who wrote this.<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />and this<br /><br />"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:<br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw_cZV1yOHM"<br /><br />and this<br /><br />"Note to readers: My comment above is already being misinterpreted by our opponents.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />or this<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/time-to-push-back-against-the-global-warming-nazis/<br /><br />Tom is also a Heartland Expert.<br />http://heartland.org/tom-harris<br /><br />Check out Harris's lies being exposed here.<br />http://climatesight.org/tag/international-climate-science-coalition/<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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'<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!!<br />Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45326028713606541822014-04-20T18:26:51.322+10:002014-04-20T18:26:51.322+10:00Ouch, can Mr Harris fall any further? Like a petul...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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br />Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20592514414417391832014-04-20T18:10:33.957+10:002014-04-20T18:10:33.957+10:00Tom, I quoted you verbatim in the article above wh...Tom, I quoted you verbatim in the article above where you wrote at WUWT:<br /><br />"In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science."<br /><br />Archived here: http://archive.today/2YCmB#selection-759.0-759.105<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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).Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-66700832194054549672014-04-20T17:51:15.664+10:002014-04-20T17:51:15.664+10:00In the long run, the climate scare will be reveale...In the long run, the climate scare will be revealed as the most expensive hoax in the history of science. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Could you answer this question? Why deny what you actually wrote?Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85635602350165173422014-04-20T16:57:55.760+10:002014-04-20T16:57:55.760+10:00"Participants in Earth Hour are unwittingly h..."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."<br />http://archive.today/rzPtS#selection-1299.258-1307.71Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46657316218702692872014-04-20T15:57:00.719+10:002014-04-20T15:57:00.719+10:00You certainly like to make things up, don't yo...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?Tom Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449178297355995322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45021622345798884372014-04-20T15:53:07.547+10:002014-04-20T15:53:07.547+10:00While historical evidence increasingly suggests th...<i>While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies, modern-day forecasts of climate Armageddon are not coming true. </i><br /><br />And here we see the selectivity that characterises the fake-skeptic. <br /><br />Creative reinterpretations of 'prophecies' made in 2000 year old account (of debatable origin) regarding bronze-age shepherds: hand-wavingly accepted as inherently plausible. <br /><br />21st Century science supported by multiple strands of evidence? Not so much...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18797748243463747122014-04-20T15:20:10.137+10:002014-04-20T15:20:10.137+10:00That's not all, Dave. Tom wrote in his article...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.<br /><br />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?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68463042264266426702014-04-20T15:12:41.899+10:002014-04-20T15:12:41.899+10:00Harris writes.
"No, I have been telling peopl...Harris writes.<br />"No, I have been telling people what is true, namely that the science is too immature to make meaningful forecasts of future climate."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />A quote from AR5<br />"There continues to be very high confidence that models reproduce observed large-scale mean surface temperature patterns (pattern correlation of ~0.99)"<br />AR5<br /><br />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.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75946179326592540032014-04-20T14:38:26.306+10:002014-04-20T14:38:26.306+10:00OMG seems an appropriate response here. For an ag...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)<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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.<br /><br />(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!)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65366649263545153412014-04-20T14:14:50.980+10:002014-04-20T14:14:50.980+10:00Yeah, well he's a lot less effective these day...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.<br /><br />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.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45750857914153415062014-04-20T14:09:30.320+10:002014-04-20T14:09:30.320+10:00I see. Moses making predictions was very "mat...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"?<br /><br />(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.)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.)<br /><br />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.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23905864277973094632014-04-20T14:09:12.922+10:002014-04-20T14:09:12.922+10:00All you need to know about Tom Harris.
http://www....All you need to know about Tom Harris.<br />http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tom_Harris_(Canadian_engineer/PR_specialist)<br /><br />"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"<br /><br />"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."MikeHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83386168024577966892014-04-20T13:55:35.431+10:002014-04-20T13:55:35.431+10:00I said what I said, no more, no less: "While ...I said what I said, no more, no less: "While historical evidence increasingly suggests that cataclysm really did follow Moses’ prophesies..."<br /><br />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.Tom Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449178297355995322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40121143535091105602014-04-20T13:52:09.674+10:002014-04-20T13:52:09.674+10:00No, I have been telling people what is true, namel...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.Tom Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449178297355995322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75245250527708501532014-04-20T13:50:46.158+10:002014-04-20T13:50:46.158+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11449178297355995322noreply@blogger.com