Climate change denier Tom Harris, Executive Director of the?International Climate Science Coalition?(ICSC),?says experts fear?they will be labeled as climate change deniers if they speak out. In fact, according to Harris, philosophers and scholars aren’t coming out as climate change deniers because they fear for their personal safety. Here’s a taste of what he has to say:
“Many are undoubtedly deterred by the aggressive tenor of the debate and so fear for their own personal safety. Death threats and other abuses have been experienced by those on both sides of the controversy.”
All those gun-toting environmentalist liberals are striking fear into the hearts of climate change deniers!
Harris lays out why labeling client change deniers?will lead to “little or no input from the brightest minds of science” during December’s UN climate conference. He goes on with statements that show just how much he cares: “Nature does not care about the political orientation of the debaters or who funds them.” In other words, fellow climate change deniers, all that matters is the validity of arguments. And, despite overwhelming evidence, nature believes us! Thank god we convinced her because we?may now proceed to plunder her and spout whatever we desire into her atmosphere, without negative repercussions.
Climate Change Deniers Just Understand Science Better!
In addition to his whiny reverse psychology tactic, Mr. Harris proceeds with a convoluted diatribe about how correlation does not always equal causation. He speaks of an error called “affirming the consequent.” and explains it like this:
“If my theory is true, then a logical consequence of that theory is that X should turn green. X does turn green. Hence my theory is true. This is a deductive logical fallacy. Something unrelated to your theory could have caused X to turn green.”
“When activists claim that rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels occurring concurrently with rising temperature proves the theory of CO2-induced global warming, philosophers should explain that they are committing the affirming the consequent fallacy. The same applies to observed correlations between climatic conditions and other potential drivers.”
He writes as if this is a new concept that scientists have never considered. Besides, it shouldn’t be difficult for anyone to?understand that thickening a planet’s thermal blanket is likely to alter temperature and impact climate patterns.
The public relations whiz wraps up his argument by pointing out, once again, what scientists already know. There are no “proofs” in science. Here, he includes what may be his most ridiculous statement:
“Since observations always have some degree of uncertainty, they can never prove anything to be true.”
Let’s think logically about this one. Scientists seek the truth and understand we must often peel back layers to get to that truth. However, that doesn’t equate to denying the most apparent realities of already-peeled layers.
No Thanks, Mr. Harris
Scientists are skeptics, and those that deny scientific findings, are um…deniers! However, for your valiant effort to pull on the heart strings of those who accept science, you have my nomination for a Liberal America climate change spin doctor of the year award, and the year is still young. I bet?the?Koch-brother associated Heartland Institute, which reportedly gave the ICSC $45,000 in 2007, would be proud! Meanwhile, I’ll continue to revel in being called an un-American, pinko, kool-aid drinker and whatever other insults the deniers throw at me. Mr. Harris, take your climate change denier olive branch back to your?public relations’ masters.
