This month, columnist Tom Harris has written two columns strongly rebuking what most of us understand with respect to climate change. Global warming. You know. His
June 4th and
June 12th columns in the Canada Free Press lay out a multitude of claims, one being that most scientists who say climate change is real are not qualified to make that claim in the first place, that there is no consensus, and that CO2 emissions haven't been shown to do any damage at all. He quotes some climatologists to back up his claims.
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
So just who are Tom Harris and Bob Carter?
First, note how Harris uses people who seem like reputable scientists to make his claim.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Now, Harris belongs to the High Park Group, a public affairs and policy consulting firm with almost no information whatsoever on their website. On the "Our Clients" link, all it says is this:
Past and present HPG clients include:
* private corporations
* national and international not-for-profit organizations
* federal, provincial and municipal governments
Wow, how informative. Nothing else I've searched online has turned up anything.
Harris also seems rather focused on the whole 60 scientists that sent a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister.
From June 4th:
All four scientists were amongst the 61 climate experts who signed the April 6th open letter to Prime Minister Harper asking for open hearings on the science of climate change. However, judging from the reaction of environmental groups and pro-Kyoto scientists, public science consultations will face stiff resistance.
From June 12th:
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Now as for Dr. Carter, it seems he contributes to Tech Central Science Foundation, which has been revealed to have gotten $95,000 from ExxonMobil in 2003 for "Climate Change Support". Well, we all know what that means. (BTW, the Washington Monthly has a lot more information about the formation of this TCS foundation under James Glassman.)
But what I want to focus on is the science itself. It's not OK to simply disregard anything Carter has to say because we found a tie between him and ExxonMobil. That's a sign, to be sure, that something may be fishy about his story. But I'd like to take on the "science" he talks about in his pieces directly. Is he himself making unrealistic assumptions and claims? Is he deliberately leaving out important facts and cherry-picking the data? Unfortunately, I am hardly a climate expert. DarkSyde may know more here. Are there Kossacks out there reading this who understand more about the actual science talked about in Harris' columns?