Time to Fan the Flames of Civil War Between Climate Alarmists and Their Influential Allies

by | Dec 26, 2019 |

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In his December 19th article, COP 25: Paris Accord destroyed, Dr. David Wojick describes the new civil war that has erupted between climate alarmist extremists and alarmist moderates. Wojick, an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology, and policy, explains:

In Madrid the “Action Now!” radicals would not even consider compromise. Their extremism then caused the moderates to take hard-line positions as well, so the COP stalled out and failed to act on any significant issue. That what the radicals demand is impossible did not help. The negotiating machinery ground to a noisy halt.

That is great news, of course. Standing up for a realistic view of climate change and energy will become less daunting if our opponents are fighting amongst themselves. But it is not enough. Climate realists, those of us who promote policies based on a proper understanding of science and economics, need to do everything in our power to drive a wedge between climate change alarmists and their powerful allies in other fields as well.

Arguably the greatest strategic triumph of climate alarmism has been to associate the movement with liberalism in general and environmentalism in particular. Because most influential opinion leaders in society—mainstream media, scientists, and teachers—are liberals, the close association between global warming advocacy and these groups results in alarmism being regularly boosted in the press, classrooms, and at conferences across the world. It is as if the movement had access to a vast, free public relations service amplifying their message far louder than they could ever afford if they had to pay for it themselves.

Climate alarmism is further boosted by the broadly-accepted perception that ‘stopping climate change’ is an integral part of environmental protection. None of these associations make any sense, of course—climate alarmism actually violates many liberal causes and has little to do with real environmental protection.

But it makes no difference. Climate alarmism drives public policy throughout the world largely because of its powerful alliance with liberalism and environmentalism. So, let’s take a quick look at some of the very real and important points we can present to liberals and sensible environmentalists to encourage them to finally kick climate activists off the stage.

The most obvious example is that the drive to ‘stop climate change’ has resulted in the deployment of expensive wind and solar power across the world. As I explained in my December 3rd presentation at the seminar hosted by The Heartland Institute in Madrid, Spain to counter this year’s UN climate conference, prices for new solar and wind power vastly exceed that of conventional energy sources. This has essentially no impact on the wealthy since power costs represent such a small proportion of their overall living expenses. But the impact on the poor and those living on fixed incomes can be exceptionally difficult to manage. Social justice warriors should be outraged by this trend.

Left-wing activists should also be upset that, in the name of ‘stopping global warming,’ developed countries appear reluctant to help developing countries take advantage of their abundant, inexpensive hydrocarbon fuel resources. In his book, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, Steve Goreham, Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America, cites the example of the $3.9 billion loans approved by World Bank in 2010 for the construction of South Africa’s Medupi power station, slated to be the fourth-largest coal-fired electricity generating station in the world. The U.S. member of the World Bank board abstained from approval because of his concerns about climate change. The representatives of four European nations did the same. They apparently wanted poor countries to use wind and solar power instead, sources that are too expensive for widespread use even in wealthy nations. The loan passed only because developing country representatives on the World Bank board voted for approval.

This situation will only get worse. Goreham writes,

“Environmental groups such as BankTrack, Friends of the Earth, and Rainforest Action Network have forced most major banks to sign the ‘Equator Principles.’ The Principles demand that banks lend only in an environmentally responsible manner. This responsibility increasingly precludes lending to projects involving oil, gas, and coal-fired power plants… Under tremendous pressure, Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and most other banks of the world have surrendered and signed the Equator Principles.” 

Because of the politically correct, but scientifically flawed hypothesis of CO2-driven climate problems, “the growth of hydrocarbon energy will be limited and millions will continue to suffer in the developing world—a form of eco-genocide,” Goreham concludes. 

The expanded use of biofuels to supposedly reduce CO2 emissions to ‘stop climate change’ has resulted in a significant fraction of the world’s grain going to fuel instead of food. In its January 29, 2015 press release, Friends of Science (FOS), an Alberta-based climate realist group, explained how this is leading to disaster for many of the world’s poorest people. FOS cite former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Zeigler, who in 2007 called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production in an official UN communique. Zeigler was candid, “It is a crime against humanity to convert agricultural productive soil into the soil which produces foodstuff that will be burned into biofuel.”

The growing demand for biofuels is also creating problems for indigenous landowners in developing countries, especially those in Indonesia and Malaysia where the vast majority of the world’s palm oil is grown. In Palm Oil and Biofuels Policy Reform, a February 2015 open letter to the European Parliament endorsed by 197 worldwide civil society organizations from across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, it was asserted,

“This relentless drive for palm oil has devastating and often irreversible consequences for people and the environment in our countries.”

The letter describes how the encroachment of palm oil plantations is forcing the displacement of people from their ancestral homes and causing detrimental environmental impacts:

“Palm oil plantations require huge amounts of water and contaminate vital water sources with effluents including rivers and lakes used for fishing, washing, and drinking. The destruction of forests and fertile agricultural land to make way for oil palm plantations is jeopardizing the food sovereignty and cultural integrity of entire communities who depend on the land as their source of food and livelihoods.”

The civil society organizations pleaded with Members of the European Parliament:

“Unless you take action to restrict demand for biofuels, Europe will continue to force the transformation of our countries’ vital forests, community lands, and biodiversity hot-spots into industrial-scale, monoculture oil palm plantations.”

Similarly, because activists have convinced politicians that humans control our planet’s climate as if we had a global thermostat, only about 1/20th of the over $1 billion spent every day across the world on climate finance goes to assisting people to adapt to the very real challenges they face today due to natural climate change.

The remainder is dedicated to trying to stop hypothetical human-caused climate change that might someday happen. No matter what one’s political orientation, it should be clear that letting people suffer today to possibly help those in the future is immoral.

By now, many in the public have heard of the carnage that Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs), erected in the name of stopping climate change,’ often inflict on local bird and bat populations. The mortality statistics for Spain alone is sobering: that country’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing between 6 and 18 million birds and bats every year. And, of course, the consequences for people living near IWTs can be severe as well. Besides a significant loss in property value, health concerns abound, largely due to the infrasound, low-frequency noise that penetrates everything in its path.

Liberals have often ridiculed conservatives for supposedly being absolute about morals, politics, and even science. For example, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity was supported by the German left, while those on the right opposed it, believing it threatened their cultural worldview. But this expected approach—relativism and skepticism from liberals and absolutism from conservatives—has been turned upside down in the climate debate. While right-wingers call for open debate about the causes of climate change, the Left considers such discussion intolerable and behaves as if we know the future of climate decades in advance, a position that is indefensible, scientifically, and philosophically. It must be explained to progressives: by unquestioningly supporting climate alarmism, they have sold out philosophically, declining to employ the skepticism they like to think they would normally practice.

Attempting to divorce your enemy from its allies is a strategy as old as warfare itself, of course. Julius Caesar used ‘divide and conquer’ during the Gallic Wars to overcome the militarily strong Gauls. So did Napoleon and a host of other leaders throughout history. And, of course, it is the lack of unity amongst Arab nations that is a major factor in Israel’s continuing existence despite its small size in comparison with its Islamic neighbors.

Wojick concludes his piece about the extremist/moderate split in the climate alarmist community by observing:

“Ironically the Paris Agreement has been killed by the irrational fear of climate change that spawned it in the first place…They [the extremists] are wrecking the climate scare political movement. It is like I am fighting an enemy force and suddenly it is having an endless civil war. I am all for that.”

It’s clearly time to fan the flames of even larger civil wars between climate alarmism and its powerful allies. 

Avatar

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer, and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.

Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and save 15%
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
68 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave James
Dave James
2 years ago

The defination of the word “shill” is a person who publicly gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
Mr. Harris endorses Dr. Wojick, Mr. Goreham, and Heartland Institute’s, Madrid confernence. without disclosing his role as a “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for the Heartland Institute. (Source Tom Harris bio, Heartland website)
Mr. Tom Harris endorses Dr. David Wojick’s opinion piece and a book by Mr. Steve Goreham. Mr. Harris calls Dr. Wojick “an independent analyst” but Dr. Wojick is not independent. Both Dr. Wojick and Mr. Goreham are associates of the conservative, pro-fossil fuel Heartland Institute. (Source David Wojick, Steve Goreham bios, Heartland website)
Mr. Tom Harris often promotes the Heartland Institute and/or Heartland’s political agenda but he has also disclosed his role with Heartland in his by-line. For example: “Climate Realists To Debate Empty Chairs In Times Square Event” By Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris, Sept 18, 2019, America Out Loud)

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

To be fair, Mr. Tom Harris has been much better disclosing his relationship with the Heartland Institute in his opinion piece published on America Out Loud than in the past.
Unfortunately Mr. Harris did not use his by-line with Dr. Jay Lehr is this opinion piece which discloses his direct relationship with the conservative pro-fossil fuel Heartland Institute. Instead he used a by-line that did not disclose his conflict of interest: “Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.”
Mr. Harris has a history of endorsing statements, speeches, conferences and reports by the Heartland Institute without disclosing his conflict of interest. For example: In an opinion piece titled “Washington D.C. Conference Exposes ‘Climate Delusion’” by Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr, Aug 3, 2019, PJ Media, Mr. Tom Harris endorses a statement by the “new president of The Heartland Institute,” Heartland’s NIPCC reports, an open letter to Donald Trump from the Heartland Institute without disclosing his role as a “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for the Heartland Institute.
Mr. Harris’ actions are not an oversight or one time mistake. For years he has been offering excuses for failing to disclose his conflict of interest. For example: See the comment section in this Harris op-ed: “Withdrawing from Paris Agreement is not enough” By Tom Harris May 15, 2017, Mourtie Times)

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Mr. Tom Harris is mistaken. Because I haven’t criticized everything in Mr. Harris’ opinion piece which is false and misleading does mean I agree with content of Mr. Harris op-ed.
His failure to disclose his conflict of interest with the Heartland Institute while endorsing a Heartland conference and statements of fellow Heartland associates is a direct criticism of the content if this opinion piece. It goes directly to Mr. Harris’ credibility.
Attempting to minimize his actions is all too common for Mr. Harris. For example: see the comment section of “Withdrawing from Paris Agreement is not enough” By Tom Harris May 15, 2017, Mourtie Times.
Mr. Harris asserts he is not a shill for the Heartland Institute because “It is only if someone is being paid by an entity to promote specific messages…that one could logically be accused of being a shill for that entity” but there is not requirement a shill be paid.
Mr. Harris offered a second excuse. He claimed he was not a shill for Heartland Institute because he does not have a close relationship with Heartland. His excuse was demonstrable untrue. Mr. Harris wrote in comments that he is a “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for the Heartland Institute and posted link to his bio on the Heartland website.

Christopher Keating
Christopher Keating
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

I’ll gladly take that challenge. Your pieces are always so flawed it is a simple exercise to debunk them. You stated, “Share the Out Loud Truth.” Okay, I will. Let’s take a look at this article and discuss the truth, which you are lacking in. Let’s skip the ad hominem attacks you make in the beginning that have no supporting evidence and there merely to inflame. We’ll skip right to specific claims you make. So, let’s get started:
Harris states, “…prices for new solar and wind power vastly exceed that of conventional energy sources.”
This is false. Prices for new construction wind and solar is cheaper than new fossil fuel construction. In many places, construction of new wind and solar is even cheaper than running existing fossil fuel generators. That’s why coal fired power plants are being phased out. They simply can’t compete with the cost of renewable energy. And, keep in mind that coal always passes the cost of its damage on to others. Meaning, it only charges operating costs and not damage expenses. All of the damage done by coal is paid for by someone else and it still can’t compete. Here’s a couple of examples:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-solar–battery-price-crushes-fossil-fuels-buries-nuclear/#a78e6ec5971f
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/25/business/coal-solar-wind-renewable-energy/index.html
There’s a lot more if you’d like to do some research.
He then stated, “of the $3.9 billion loan approved by World Bank in 2010 for construction of South Africa’s Medupi power station, slated to be the fourth largest coal-fired electricity generating station in the world. The U.S. member of the World Bank board abstained from approval because of his concerns about climate change. The representatives of four European nations did the same. They apparently wanted poor countries to use wind and solar power instead, sources that are too expensive for widespread use even in wealthy nations.”
There is just enough truth in this statement to make Harris seem credible (he isn’t). The Medupi station was financed by the World Bank after objections over CO2 emissions by the US and several European nations, who all abstained instead of voting ‘No.’
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/apr/09/world-bank-criticised-over-power-station
However, this station did not provide cheap electricity. The cost has ballooned from an initial estimate of 80 billion Rands in 2007 to 234 billion Rands by 2019. It has become so economically unviable that economists are recommending it be shut down. Imagine how much solar and wind could have been built, especially since we’ve already seen those power sources are even cheaper. Oh, don’t forget that you have to purchase coal to run that plant while wind and sunlight are free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medupi_Power_Station
https://www.fin24.com/Budget/how-medupi-and-kusile-are-sinking-south-africa-20191009
He follows this with the astounding statement, “Because of the politically correct, but scientifically flawed hypothesis of CO2-driven climate problems,…”
He makes an inflammatory statement here without any science to support his claim. It’s pretty amazing, in this day and age, that anyone would even suggest that CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t result in warming. Quite simply, this planet would not be habitable without the greenhouse effect caused by the naturally occurring CO2 levels. This is well established, and proven, science going all the way back to the 1820s when Fourier first calculated the Earth was warmer than it should be. Harris cannot produce any science to show otherwise, but that doesn’t stop him from saying it.
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm
https://www.co2.earth/1820-1930-fourier-to-arrhenius
Discussing biofuels, Harris states, “…explained how this is leading to disaster for many of the world’s poorest people” and even stated that it was a “crime against humanity.” In fact, the evidence shows exactly the opposite. The Trump administration has been actively engaged in reducing the requirements for ethanol additives to gasoline. The result has been huge amounts of corn laying on the ground unsold. Once again, Harris is misleading. But, that’s what he’s paid to do.
https://ktiv.com/2019/09/26/ethanol-demands-are-down-farmers-and-producers-point-to-epa-waivers/
Harris goes on about palm oil. Palm oil is used in many products, including biofuels. However, it can be grown in a sustainable manner without the need to ravage the rainforest. Strange how Harris didn’t mention any of that.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/which-everyday-products-contain-palm-oil
Then, he repeats one of his favorites lies, “Similarly, because activists have convinced politicians that humans control our planet’s climate as if we had a global thermostat,…”
No. No one is making any claim that we control the climate (or weather). The claim is we are changing the climate. Since no one is claiming we can control the climate, why is Harris making that claim if not to deceive?
”The mortality statistics for Spain alone is sobering: that country’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing between 6 and 18 million birds and bats every year.”
Again, he’s engaged in the lie of omission. What he isn’t telling you is that the fossil fuel industry is killing about 20 times as many birds as wind farms.
http://theconversation.com/wind-farms-are-hardly-the-bird-slayers-theyre-made-out-to-be-heres-why-79567
Additionally, he used an outdated report from 2012 for this claim without providing more current data on the issue. The truth is that birds fly along aerial highways and we can position wind farms to avoid them. Cats and flying into buildings kill many times more birds than wind mills.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/bird-death-and-wind-turbines-a-look-at-the-evidence
There is no evidence to support any claims that humans are being affected by nearby wind farms. And, studies have shown that, on average, property values around wind farms do not go down.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/22/politics/fact-check-trump-wind-turbines-property-value/index.html
And, he finishes with one of the science-haters favorite claims that they only want an open debate, “While right-wingers call for open debate about the causes of climate change, the Left consider such discussion intolerable and behave as if we know the future of climate decades in advance, a position that is indefensible, scientifically and philosophically.”
What Harris isn’t telling you is that an open debate has been going on for about 200 years now and continues. I refer you to the scientific literature if you don’t think this topic has been debated. What the science-haters want is to make unsupported claims and have the public accept them without any science in order to delay taking any actions to address the problem. If science-haters like Harris really have any evidence to support their claims, they can submit papers to the refereed scientific journals. These journals have been published many contrarian papers in the past, but they were all citing what was thought at the time to be scientifically valid arguments. These have all been shown to not be valid. So, if Harris, or any other science-hater, would like to make a scientifically valid claim, the community would love to hear it. Harris’ problem is he can’t.

Parker Gallant
Parker Gallant
Reply to  Christopher Keating
2 years ago

Are you this Christopher Keating?
“Keating’s challenge is pure theater, and it impresses only those who are ignorant of the actual debate and the nature of the claims on both sides.
Maybe it’s not surprising that Keating lost his teaching job at USD because he violated the university’s requirement that all faculty must perform “their instructional, scholarly and service duties civilly, constructively and in an informed manner. They must treat their colleagues, staff, students and visitors with respect, and they must comport themselves at all times, even when expressing disagreement or when engaging in pedagogical exercises, in ways that will preserve and strengthen the willingness to cooperate and to give or to accept instruction, guidance or assistance.” He “did not get along with the only other full-time physics professor at the university [and] filed a grievance against her with their department head. [When she] responded with an accusation of sexual harrassment against Keating,” “[a]fter two heated exchanges with Keating, the department head rejected Keating’s claims. Some time later, having been reprimanded for not seeking approval from either his colleague or the department chair for something that required such approval, Keating explained in an e-mail that he would not seek approval from his colleague because ‘she is a lieing [sic], back-stabbing sneak.’” He also reportedly said “he would not trust his department chair or communicate with the university’s only other full-time physics professor.”

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Calling out Mr. Tom Harris failure to disclose his conflict of interest in this opinion piece is not a “vote of confidence.” Acting as a shill is something to be avoided because is show a lack of creditably.
Mr. Harris endorses Dr. Wojick, Mr. Goreham, and Heartland Institute’s, Madrid conference in this opinion piece without disclosing his role as a “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for the Heartland Institute. If Mr. Harris did not want to act as shill for the Heartland Institute, then he would have disclosed his conflict of interest either in the body of this op-ed or in his by-line.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

Mr. Tom Harris rewrote his by-line on the opinion piece adding the words “and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.” Tom Harris is shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The time to disclose his direct ties to the Heartland Institute is before they have been pointed-out.
If Tom Harris had disclosed his ties in his opinion piece or in his by-line then there would be no question about Mr. Harris shilling for the Heartland Institute.
By failing to disclosure, Mr. Harris has open himself up to criticism. His after the fact addition of his direct relationship to Heartland to his by-line is an admission of the soundness of by criticisms. However, Mr. Harris does not apologize for misleading the readers of America Out Loud or for his false claims that he is a victim of an attack.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

Rather than take responsibility of the content of his opinion piece, Mr. Tom Harris blames the editors of America Out Loud for failing to disclose his direct relationship with Heartland. Mr. Harris excuse fails for two reasons. First, Mr. Harris has the sole responsibility to disclose his conflicts of interest if he does not want to be considered a shill for the Heartland Institute.
Second, this is just another in a long list of excuses Mr. Harris has offered when he has be called out. For example: Tom Harris endorses a statement by Heartland Institute President Dr. Tim Huelskamp without disclosing he is closely associated with the Heartland Institute. (Source “The EPA Must Continue To Cancel Damaging And Unnecessary Enviro Rules” by Tom Harris and Tim Ball, Jun 25, 2018, Daily Caller)
In comments Mr. Harris argued he was not acting as a shill because, “You have no idea what we said when we submitted our article, so you are just making this up. In fact, in the cover letter, we wrote, “Since we reference The Heartland Institute in our article, I should tell you that Dr. Ball and I are among the hundreds of policy advisors to Heartland.”
However, Mr. Harris’ excuse make no sense. Private conversations and unpublished cover letters are not disclosures.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

Acting as a shill or the Heartland Institute is not trivial. It has a direct impact on Mr. Tom Harris’ credibility. Mr. Harris acknowledge as much by changing his by-line to include the words that he is, “…a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.” It is troubling than Mr. Harris won’t take responsibility for the content of his opinion piece.
Tom Harris often writes misleading op-eds about climate science promoting false political conspiracy theories for example: “[RETRACTED] Media Hysteria: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation” By Jay Lehr & Tom Harris, February 20, 2019, Western Journal.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

By not disclosing his conflict of interest, Tom Harris is being misleading.
Tom Harris asserts he “shills for no one” but time and time again Mr. Harris endorsing statements, speeches, conferences and reports by the Heartland Institute without disclosing his role as a “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for the Heartland Institute.
When confronted by his failure to disclose his conflict of interest in this opinion piece, Mr. Harris offers false excuses and blames his editors. But deep down even Mr. Harris knows his is wrong. That is way he changed his by-line on the opinion piece to include that he is, “…a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute.”

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

Mr. Tom Harris continues to deflect. He claims he is not responsible for the content of his opinion piece. Mr. Harris blames “the editor” for not disclosing his conflict of interest. However it is Mr. Harris’ sole responsibility to disclose his direct connection to the Heartland Institute when he endorses their statements, speeches, conferences and reports by Heartland if he does not want to act as a shill for the Heartland Institute.
If this was an oversight or a one-time mistake, by Mr. Harris, then it might be forgivable but it fits a years-long pattern of misleading op-eds by Mr. Harris.
For example: In a 10/30/17 opinion piece, “Pruitt Is Right To Withdraw Obama’s ‘Clean Power Plan’” by Tom Harris in the Daily Caller, Mr. Harris endorses the Heartland Institute’s Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report, a statement by the science director of the Heartland Institute, and the Heartland Institute’s 12th International Conference on Climate Change without disclosing his role as “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for the Heartland.

Dale Mullen
Dale Mullen
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Tom: It seems that when a poster is so caught up with ad hominem attacks that they don’t even bother with actual content of an opinion piece, there is not much anyone can to bring these childish characters up to speed. Ignoring them is probably the only realistic option as realism is apparently not something in which they have any significant familiarity.
You’ve made a number of good points in your article and something which the scientific literates are going to have to consider more seriously. As we’ve known for years, the alarmist crowd aren’t even able to tolerate the various views of each other, let alone the views of someone they’ve chosen as an enemy.
The “looking glass” held up in front of them might have the greatest effect (eventually). We apparently are blowing ~$1 billion every day on nonsense connected this very expensive scam. The so-called renewables which have been soaking up increasingly more of our money each year, have been shown to be intermittent, totally unreliable, extremely expensive, and often prove to be even more of an environmental hazard than the systems they are trying to replace,
The Paris Accord may prove to be our best defense against the financial ruination and the destructive socialist takeover of our society. Perhaps we should encourage more of the same.

Christopher Keating
Christopher Keating
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Done. See my post above. And, showing you are a paid shill working for the fossil fuel industry is not an ad hominem attack. It is a logical argument showing how your claims are biased and you are not trustworthy.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Dale Mullen
2 years ago

For years Mr. Tom Harris would endorse Heartland reports, statements, panels, conference, etc… without disclosing his direct connection with Heartland. Mr. Harris offer many false excuses over the years for his actions. But when Mr. Harris began writing op-eds with Dr. Jay Lehr, it seemed he turned over a new leaf. Dr. Lehr’s and Mr. Harris’ by-line often identified their close relationship to the Heartland Institute. Unfortunately, Tom Harris is once again asserting that failing to disclose his conflict of interest is not a mistake.
Dale Mullen and Mr. Tom Harris confuse polite, direct and well supported criticism of the content of Mr. Harris’ opinion piece for a personal attack. Mr. Harris chose not to disclose his conflict of interest while endorsing the Heartland conference and the writings of fellow Heartland associates.
Mr. Harris has no rational response to my criticisms so first, he pretends he did disclose his direct connect to the Heartland Institute by attaching a link to Dr. Jay Lehr’s by-line from a different opinion piece. Second, Mr. Harris also asserts he is the victim of an attack.
Failing to disclose a conflict of interest is a mistake. If Mr. Harris did not want to act as a shill for the Heartland Institute, then he would have disclosed his role as “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for Heartland.

David Wojick
David Wojick
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

I am associated with several groups, but I am independent in that none is my boss. Only fools are against fossil fuels.

Christopher Keating
Christopher Keating
Reply to  David Wojick
2 years ago

That is both false and misleading. Your record shows you have done extensive work over the long term for the fossil fuel industry, including being a lobbyist. That is not being independent and clearly demonstrates that the fossil fuel industry pays your bills, i.e. they are your bosses. The reality is that people who can’t accept the inevitable phase-out of fossil fuels is not only a fool, but blind as well. If the anti-science people would stop with their disinformation, we could proceed in an orderly, logical way. Instead, it will be a chaotic shut-down. Either way, the fossil fuel industry will be shut down and replaced with an industry that is both more economical and employs more people while being healthier at the same time.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Dr. Keating’s point about Mr. Tom Harris relationship with fossil fuel industry is evident in Mr. Harris’ opinion pieces. Tom Harris is a pro-coal activist. For example:
“Time to end the war on coal” Jay Lehr and Tom Harris, May 14, 2019, Citizens Journal
“Clean coal for the future” Tom Harris, Feb 9, 2018, Idaho Press,
“Coal key to national security strategy” Tom Harris, Jan 13, 2018, The Spectrum,
“Climate scare must be debunked for coal to recover” Tom Harris, Jan 2, 2018, Superior Telegram,
“Harris: Coal has many uses” Tom Harris, Sep 3, 2018, Casper Star Tribune.
Mr. Harris literally cheers for coal, “Yes, coal is a dependable, inexpensive, cheap energy source – hurrah for coal.” (Source comment by Tom Harris, a year ago in Disqus comments on “America First Energy Conference – “an amazing day”” by CFACT Editor, Aug 22, 2018, CFACT)

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

Mr. Tom Harris asserts that direct quotes with sources so his words can be read in context is “wrong as usual.” Attempting to deny what you have written is not a strong argument.
The extraction, transportation, and burning of coal is an extremely dirty and costly process. (Source “High Cost of Cheap Coal: The Coal Paradox” by Tim Appenzeller, National Geographic Magazine) In fact, coal can no longer compete with cheaper, cleaner energy like natural gas and renewable energy. (Source “Coal can’t compete – and its true costs are even higher than they appear” Nov 9, 2018 by Daniel Cohan, Energy Post.EU)
( The UK soccer player was name Dave James was born in Hertfordshire, England. I’m from Nebraska, USA.)

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

Tom Harris knows I’m a slave to temptation about asking AGW believers what evidence they have to prove skeptics are paid money to lie (thus, cue your pal Keating to hurl his usual “Russell is Tom’s hatchet man” accusation at me), so Tom alerted me to this pile of comments here. I never noticed this site had a comments section due to the way it displays such big gaps below the articles on my computer. So, I’ll grill you stalkers-of-Tom later (I have other stuff to attend to today) about what constitutes ‘paid shill corruption.’ But in the interim time, I gotta ask — since Tom asked about the same-name old UK footballer name — I’ve insinuated several times in that other Disqus comment system that the “Dave James” name you display may not actually be your actual first & last name. Is it, or not? It’s a monstrously simple question. That’s my first & last name that I show, and it’s easily found that Tom and your pal Keating and David Wojick are displaying their real first & last names. Why would a disclosure about this from you seem like it’s an exercise in pulling teeth? You clamor about full disclosure, and yet readers here basically know less than zip about you. Is it plausible that you are hiding some kind of conflict of interest that would be revealed from a simple search of who you are?
Despite what your paranoid ‘constantly gardening’ commenter pal might think over in that other Disqus comment system, none of us have any desire to personally torment you where you live and work. That’s what some zealots on your side of the political spectrum do, in case you haven’t noticed. My fear is that my name is common enough that some zealot may try to firebomb my residence, but make the wrong assumption about my Exxon brothers-funded mansion, and hit one of the other guys with the same name just because it feels like it would be where I live.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Russell Cook
2 years ago

Aargh – senility: I have seen the comment sections at that site once before, but I flat out forget about it: https://americaoutloud.com/trump-administration-to-miss-most-important-climate-change-conference-of-the-year/#comment-58

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
2 years ago

Because Russell Cook has no rational argument, he resorts to name-calling and insults. Mr. Cook’s personal attacks are designed to illicit an angry response and/or to end debate.
Mr. Russell Cook is a blogger and is a fellow Heartland associate of Mr. Harris. (Source archived bio of Russell Cook on the Heartland website) One of Mr. Cook’s roles is “get in and fight back” in comment sections with people who take issue with false and misleading op-eds by Heartland associates.(Source “Exploratory Journeys with Tom Harris” Episode – 17,November 27, 2019: Tom interviews Russell Cook)
Whether or not Mr. Tom Harris is paid by the Heartland Institute makes no difference. There is no requirement that a shill be paid.
Mr. Cook demands to know my full name the asserts he has no “…desire to personally torment you where you live and work.” Mr. Cook hopes to intimate me with abusive language and threats.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Russell Cook
2 years ago

The “Dave James” name you display — that’s your actual first & last name, or is it not? Like I said before, it’s a monstrously simple question, and your continual sidesteps about it, in light of the rest of us being comfortable using our first & last names indicates …… what?
“… Mr. Russell Cook is .. is a fellow Heartland associate .. Source archived bio …” Ok, for comparison: “Donald Trump is a real estate developer; source: archived realtor listings bio.” Did you not comprehend the rationale of using a current tense verb in combination with a past tense adjective, in your attempt to portray me as some kind of day-to-day worker at a think tank?
“… There is no requirement that a shill be paid. …” Aha, first time that I’ve seen in your last several years of trying to portray folks as having ill intentions via that term. I’ve never asked before who pays you or what money mechanism permits you do do your online comment stalking full time, because it’s not a relevant question. As you say, a person’s argument must stand on its own merits. But now, by your own definition, it’s fair to say at a bare minimum that you are a shill for the environmentalist movement. Or are you going to say you have precisely zero association of any kind whatsoever with any description of environmentalist causes?
“… Mr. Cook hopes to intimate me with abusive language and threats.” What abusive language? Nothing abusive about calling you a stalker, you’ve demonstratively followed Tom Harris around the internet in comment sections ever since 2013, and unlike regular folks, your Facebook page serves only as an online article comment section login device for you to hurl accusations at Tom Harris, period. Others call you all sorts of names which you evidently think validates your opinions, but I’ve called you the one thing you can never bury. And the one verb I attach regularly to you is “sidestep, sidestep, sidestep,” because it is plainly obvious that that’s what you do when faced with straight up tough questions. Threats? Really? You and your ‘constantly gardening’ lawyer commenter consultant elsewhere couldn’t name a single threat I’ve made against you if your reputation depended on it. Challenges are what I pose to you and your pals, to stand and deliver on insinuations that nefarious associations with folks supposedly funded by industry money do what we do because we’ve been corrupted and knowingly spread disinformation on behalf of our corrupters.
Friend, if I have any goal here, it is to prompt you to employ rational, critical, objective thinking to what you say and what you believe in, and ask yourself why you feel compelled to sidestep tough questions in order to salvage the faulty arguments, assertions, and false premise points you put out.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Russell Cook
2 years ago

Thanks, Tom! Yep, over all the years I’ve been posing tough questions to online commenters, the AGW believers routinely set themselves up to steer straight into brick walls of their own creation, apparently because they operate mostly on emotional reaction, rather than carefully thinking out their knee-jerk replies to me. Call me an optimist, I’m hoping one day one of my opponents will thank me for opening his or her eyes to how they’ve been shackled to an ideology that has only brought them misery, hatred toward others, and self-inflicted embarrassment from their zeal to protect their own self-worth and their misguided beliefs, when they could have been working for the greater good of others.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
2 years ago

Mr. Russell Cook demands to know my full name then writes “…none of us have any desire to personally torment you where you live and work.” When I call-out his implied threat, Mr. Cook denies the clear implication of his words.
Mr. Cook attempts to distance himself from the Heartland Institute but Mr. Cook is being less than sincere. Mr. Cook acknowledges in his blog that he receives money from the Heartland Institute’s which enables him “…to continue devoting time to this subject.” (Source Gelbspan Files/About)
Mr. Cook also acknowledges that the Heartland Institute provides him the platform for his blog. “Heartland brings together the people who are on the skeptic science side of the issue, but Heartland has also provided me the basic platform of my gelbspanfiles blog…” (Source Comment by Russell Cook on “CPAC 2019: Tim Huelskamp’s Interview with The Daily Caller” written by Billy Aouste March 1, 2019, Heartland Freedom Pub) I did not attempt to portray Mr. Russell Cook as day-to-day worker at Heartland. I wrote Mr. Cook was a blogger. Dr. Christopher Keating did not call Mr. Cook “Tom’s hatchet man” (referring to Mr. Tom Harris) in these comments but Mr. Cook brought up that description.
Since Mr. Cook has no rational response to my criticisms of Mr. Tom Harris’ opinion piece, he insults me and accuses me of being a “shill for the environmentalist movement.” I’m not like Mr. Harris. I’ve endorsed no organization with which I am closely associated. I have never failed to disclose a conflict of interest.
Like Mr. Cook, Dr. Keating, me and everyone else, Mr. Tom Harris’ words are not above criticism. Mr. Cook mistakes polite, direct and well-supported criticisms of Mr. Harris’ opinion piece for stalking. Mr. Cook asserts, “Nothing abusive about calling you a stalker…” Mr. Cook’s name-calling is not the sign of a “rational, critical, objective thinking” post.
In the sentence after Mr. Cook calls me a stalker, he writes, “Others call you all sorts of names which you evidently think validates your opinions…” but I’ve stated clearly that name-calling is childish, irrational and not part of rational debate. I don’t find personal attacks convincing so I don’t use them. Name-calling tells us nothing about the person being attacked but provides insight into the character of the attacker. Name-calling also indicates the weakness of the attacker’s arguments because if you have a strong, cogent, well-supported argument, then you don’t need personal attacks.
As Mr. Cook knows, Mr. Harris’ funding does not matter. The false and misleading statements made by Mr. Harris remain false and misleading whether he is paid to write them or not.
When Mr. Cook writes about “my opponents…shackled to an ideology that has only brought them misery…” Mr. Cook is writing about his own journey, “…hatred toward others, and self-inflicted embarrassment from their zeal to protect their own self-worth and their misguided beliefs…” Science is not about beliefs. Science is about facts and evidence.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Russell Cook
2 years ago

“When I call-out his implied threat ….” Indulge this audience, what specifically do you feel the threat is? Don’t be bashful about sharing what you BELIEVE it is. Meanwhile, you once again offer a false premise statement, that I demand to know what your full name is. That word-for-word demand has never once been seen in any comments of mine directed at you. I ask a simple question over and over and over, is that your first and last name, or is it not? It’s a yes or no question. Like I said before, there’s no way for you to spin that into being an implied threat if your reputation depended on it.
And, like I’ve said before, keep on speculating on what you think my intent, actions, or words are, because that’s all you got: unsupportable speculation. BELIEFS, in other words. You claim I’m ‘attempting to distance myself from the Heartland Institute’ – where do you get that from? One other time elsewhere, you tried to say Heartland was distancing themselves from me, which was equally weird. “Distancing” for what reason, in either case? Heartland didn’t like what I said somewhere? Don’t be bashful, show it! I don’t endorse what Heartland said somewhere? Show it! Truth is, I’m leading you around by a nose ring on my challenges for you to prove whatever association I have with them is as sinister as you imply, because I know full well you can’t. Call me sadistic about that, it’s sorta fun to watch you attempt to defend your guilt-by-association insinuations, a.k.a. beliefs. As any critical thinker knows, guilt-by-association is one of the more worthless accusations anyone can hurl. Meanwhile, regarding Tom Harris and your implications about his Heartland association, you did once say “He who PAYS the piper calls the tune,” and ever afterward, you’ve tried to distance yourself from your own words.
Correct, you’ve never failed to disclose a conflict of interest …. but don’t simply stop there. You’ve never disclosed essentially anything about yourself at any level, except for some pointless bit about your birthplace area. Glad you acknowledge that funding doesn’t matter (you thought it did previously, don’t forget). It sure does matter to your fellow commenter Christopher Keating. Why he doesn’t read you the riot act for straying off his reservation on that point is beyond me. On being “shackled to an ideology,” nossir. When you to claim it’s my own journey, ….. dare I say it …. that’s psychological projection on your part. Give yourself credit for correctly identifying what science is. But whether you like it or not, all you have are unsupportable beliefs as to why readers here should dismiss what Tom Harris says about the skeptic side of the issue, and why readers should dismiss me altogether.

David Wojick, Ph.D.
David Wojick, Ph.D.
2 years ago

Here is a follow up to the piece Of mine that Tom cites.
A year of ineffective climate madness looms
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2019/12/26/a-year-of-ineffective-climate-madness-looms/
The year 2019 saw the rapid rise of climate hysteria, but as the saying goes: “You ain’t seen nothin yet.” Now that the hysteria is firmly established and well organized, it is sure to get bigger and louder. But I see very little coming from it except the noise, as long as skeptics keep up the good fight.
This is especially true in the U.S. Presidential race, which is climate policy-wise by far the biggest thing going on in the world. Many of the Democrat candidates are going to try to ride the hysterical wave to victory. Their winning is not likely.
My take is the further left you go the fewer votes you get, and these folks are going far left on climate. In my view the only viable candidate in the pack is Biden and he may not be crazy enough to get the nod. Nor can he beat Trump, so things are looking good on that front.
Another big unknown is what the hysterical demonstrators are going to do. Bigger marches? More disruption? (The police now have glue remover.) Or maybe something we have not seen before, hopefully not more violent. I am sure the advocacy insider email traffic is buzzing over this. (Maybe some new wacky signs. “I don’t want to die!” seems to be catching on.)
For that matter, will the hysterics endorse specific candidates for the Democrat nomination? Or perhaps get active in specific Congressional races? They might even form their own party (but Greta Thunberg cannot run, more’s the pity). Political action seems like the logical next step for the extremists, which could further destabilize the green movement, given that most of the political action groups are moderates.
There are lots of other climate crunch points in progress as well. In a recent meeting the EU failed to come up with a more ambitious emission reduction goal for 2030, despite its hysterical leadership calling for one.
The next meeting on this proposal will be in June. No doubt we will see lots of “Action Now!” marches and demonstrations then, but ambition may well be lacking at the EU national member level, which is all that counts. Several countries are already missing their 2020 target and there are anti-action demonstrations too boot, from yellow vests to farmers and coal miners. The political leaders are running a bit scared of this stuff.
The UN will have several semi-summits, leading up to the grand COP 26 in Glasgow, beginning in November. Given what happened in Madrid’s COP 25 we are likely to witness the progressive collapse of the entire UN climate action process.
The UN’s Paris Accord process is entirely too slow and compromising for the Action Now! hysterics to tolerate. This will be especially certain if the Action Now! hysteria builds during 2020, which is very likely. That the mythical $100 billion a year promised to the developing countries does not show up in Glasgow will compound the collapse.
Then too there is a lot going on at national levels around the world. Especially promising is the rapid rise of new populist parties that oppose the drastic actions demanded by the Action Now! radicals. Left wing hysteria typically generates a conservative reaction. How could it not? Angry mobs are dangerous.
Mind you I expect to see a lot of meaninglessly symbolic green action in response to the hysterical noise-making. This includes toothless declarations of “climate emergency” and pointless promises of zero emissions by far off 2050. Politicians promising the impossible, to be delivered in the far distant future, do no harm. Hence their popularity.
My definition of winning the great climate change debate is that no serious harm is done by the alarmists. While I expect an escalating crescendo of hysterical shrieking during the course of 2020, the reason will be that my side is winning and the loud side is losing.
As things stand now, skeptics have a chance to win big in 2020, but we must keep the pressure on. Hold your nose, plug your ears, and hit them hard. You ain’t seen nothin yet.
Please share this strategic analysis.
David

Christopher Keating
Christopher Keating
2 years ago

Mr. Harris has frequently denied his affiliation with the fossil fuel industry. However, Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by Murray Energy shows Harris’ organization, the ICSC, received $60,000 from that one coal company in 2018 alone. Additionally, the Heartland Institute, who Harris is closely affiliated with, received $130,000 in 2018. Yes, in fact, Tom Harris is a paid shill. Amazingly enough, he claims to be a climate realist but has NEVER produced any valid science to back up his claims. Why is that?
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1061839749
You can read a lot more about Tom Harris and his claims at https://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html

Christopher Keating
Christopher Keating
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

That’s your argument? A nation-wide organization has more funds than you so this somehow defends you from being a paid shill? Pathetic!

Christopher Keating
Christopher Keating
2 years ago
Dave James
Dave James
2 years ago

Dr. David Wojick writes, “Only fools are against fossil fuels” however the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change is both robust and compelling. Burning fossil fuel is the major source of human-caused greenhouse gases. Calling people who disagree with you fools is not the sign of a strong argument.
Dr. David Wojick asserts that he is independent. However, the conservative pro-fossil fuel Heartland organization identifies Dr. Wojick as an Heartland associate on the website under the “About Us” and “Who We Are.” (Source David Wojick bio, Heartland website)

Christopher Keating
Christopher Keating
2 years ago

Sorry to burst your bubble but it didn’t take very much time at all to debunk you. Your arguments are really very simple and very poor logical failures. Most of your writing is nothing more than unsupported attacks on people who support science and are concerned about the environment. It really is light-work to show the flaws and failures in your pieces.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Mr. Tom Harris has a bad habit of referring to people who disagree with him regarding climate science as “anti-human.” (Sources: “Extreme Environmentalists Are Anti-Human” by Tom Harris and Tim Ball, Jan 9, 2019, PJ Media and “Climate Change Alarmism Is A Despicably Anti-Human Ideology” by Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris, Dec 26, 2019 Humans are Free)
Mr. Harris asserts Greenpeace, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Canada (APEGA), American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), Geological Society of America (GSA), The Royal Society, and “other science bodies” who accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change have an “anti-human, anti-environment agenda” and they “appear to suffer emotional and psychological problems which they seem to deal with by attempting to make others miserable.” (Source “Science’s Untold Scandal: The Lockstep March of Professional Societies to Promote the Climate Change Scare” by Tom Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr, May 24, 2019, PJ Media)

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Mr. Tom Harris asserts I have misquoted him by stating the headlines of his opinion piece. Mr. Harris argues the headlines of his opinion pieces are misleading straw-man argument rather than irrational personal attack. However, asserting people who disagree with you have “A Despicably Anti-Human Ideology” is not “respectful dialog between dissenting parties.” Calling environmentalists “anti-human” is a false argument.
Mr. Harris asserts his did not claim “Greenpeace, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Canada (APEGA), American Institute of Chemical Engineers (AIChE), Geological Society of America (GSA), The Royal Society, and “other science bodies” who accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change have an “anti-human, anti-environment agenda.” Mr. Harris asserts he was only insulting “Activists.”
However a quick review of his opinion pieces shows Mr. Harris wrote, “An example of how professional societies have apparently been hijacked by extremists concerns the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, Canada (APEGA).” Mr. Harris is denying the clear premise of his own opinion piece that Professional Societies and scientific bodies like the Royal Society are in lock step with extremists who have an “anti-human, anti-environment agenda.”

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

“Mr. Tom Harris has a bad habit of referring to people who disagree with him regarding climate science as ‘anti-human.'”
Curiosity question here: apparently in an effort to defend commenter Christopher Keating and Tom Harris’ direct question about when Tom’s ever attacked someone — my interpretation of attack would be to say someone is paid illicit money from secret sources to knowingly spread lies, with no evidence to support the accusation — you offer an article with the “anti-human” words in it. Are you interpreting that to mean Tom Harris thinks people who support science are sub-human knuckle-draggers? My interpretation of Tom’s piece and others such as Lord Monckton and Patrick Moore who criticize the enviro-activist movement is that pro-AGW policies hinder people in third world areas because they are prevented from enjoying the benefits of what cheap, reliable coal plant-sourced electricity provides, or from what GMO crop seed benefits provide. “Anti-human” being a shortcut phrase for “not in favor of prosperity resulting from better electrical power / better crop yields,” in other words. I personally favor third world people getting better immediate medical and food care from ways which high-flying Greenpeace people claim causes the planet to die. You’d criticize me for caring for such people, and spin that to claim I say Greenpeace administrators are sub-human?

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
2 years ago

Mr. Russell Cook attempts to offer an explanation for Mr. Harris statements claiming those who disagree with him are “anti-human” and have “A Despicably Anti-Human Ideology.”
Mr. Cook asserts that calling someone “Anti-human” is “…a shortcut phrase for “not in favor of prosperity resulting from better electrical power / better crop yields…” however Mr. Cook’s attempt to offer a rationalization for Mr. Harris insults does reflect the argument my by Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris doesn’t mention better electrical power or better crop yield.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Dave James
2 years ago

I think readers here will readily understand why I attach the description “sidestep, sidestep, sidestep” to you whenever I encounter you. Did you interpret Tom Harris’ use of the words “anti-human” to mean he thinks people who support science are sub-human knuckle-draggers? It’s a yes or no question.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
2 years ago

Mr. Russell Cook criticizes me of an argument that I did not make. The only persons to postulate that Tom Harris’ use of the word “anti-human” means he thinks people who support science are sub-human knuckle-draggers is Mr. Cook.
Mr. Tom Harris’ statements claiming those who disagree with him are “anti-human” and have “A Despicably Anti-Human Ideology” are insults. Rather than attacking their arguments, Mr. Harris labels environmentalists, professional societies and scientific bodies as “anti-human.”

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

As if to prove Dr. Christopher Keating’s observation that Mr. Tom Harris’ “…writing is nothing more than unsupported attacks on people who support science and are concerned about the environment,” Mr. Harris attacks Dr. Keating rather than dispute any of his arguments.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

A quick review of Tom Harris’ opinion piece shows he indeed compare Greta Thunberg and her movement to both the “human sacrifice of children ” and “Hitler Youth.”
Mr. Tom Harris, Dr. Jay Lehr and Dr. Joel Glass asserted Mr. Thunberg’s movement is like “3,500 years ago, there was also a climate-related group which took advantage of children. Called “Baal,” it was wide-spread in the Middle East where it was based on climate related to food production. At the center of Baal was the human sacrifice of children to supposedly achieve some change in the weather.”
Mr. Tom Harris, Dr. Jay Lehr and Dr. Joel Glass also wrote, “Bringing Thunberg across the ocean to help the flagging U.S. climate movement and to recruit more naive children into its ranks also brings to mind the Hitler Youth…”
Mr. Harris provides a good example of his false and misleading arguments.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Tom Harris can’t reply because his direct words speak for themselves. In the end, Mr. Harris is reduced to complaining about typos.

Dave James
Dave James
2 years ago

Both Mr. Tom Harris and Mr. Russell Cook argue: “But now, by your own definition, it’s fair to say at a bare minimum that you are a shill for the environmentalist movement. Or are you going to say you have precisely zero association of any kind whatsoever with any description of environmentalist causes?” However, their argument makes no sense given the definition of the word “shill.”
Shill – \shil\ – noun
1) A person who publicly gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
2) An accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.
3) A person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest.
It’s not being associated with an organization that makes someone a shill. It is endorsing and/or giving credibility to that organization without disclosing your close connection that makes someone a shill.
Over the years, Mr. Harris has repeatedly failed to disclose his direct connection to Heartland when he endorses Heartland’s reports, statements, panels, conference, etc… In this comment section, I’ve provided multiple examples with direct quotes from Mr. Harris (including the source so Mr. Harris’ words can be read in context.)
Mr. Harris and Mr. Cook speculate that I am closely associated with an environmental organization but fail to state which one. Mr. Cook and Mr. Harris offered nothing to show I have a conflict of interest or that I failed to disclose a conflict of interest.
Speculation and failing to understand basic vocabulary are not the signs of a strong argument.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Mr. Tom Harris is mistaken. For two reasons: first, It is not the critics of Mr. Harris’ false and misleading opinion piece who are responsible for his credibility issues but his own words. If Mr. Harris had a rational response, then he wouldn’t need to call to me and Dr. Keating as “climate alarmists.” Second, Mr. Harris is the sole author of this opinion piece but he refers to himself as “us” and “we.” Mr. Harris refers to his article as “our article.” Mr. Harris continues to try to deflect responsibility for his opinion piece by asserting someone else is also responsible for his words.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
2 years ago

Rather than dispute my polite, direct and well-supported arguments, Mr. Tom Harris weakly and vaguely asserts my arguments are less than the best.
Mr. Harris senses desperation but misidentifies it’s source.

trackback
Energy & Environmental Newsletter: January 6, 2020 - Master Resource
2 years ago

[…] Tough Times For Climate Alarmists New Good Book: Scapegoat CO2 A year of climate madness looms Time to Fan the Flames of Civil War Between Climate Alarmists and Their Allies MIT’s new (and simple, but accurate?) Future Climate Simulator 170 Years Of Earth Surface […]

trackback
Energy And Environmental Newsletter – January 6th 2020 | PA Pundits - International
2 years ago

[…] Tough Times For Climate Alarmists New Good Book: Scapegoat CO2 A year of climate madness looms Time to Fan the Flames of Civil War Between Climate Alarmists and Their Allies MIT’s new (and simple, but accurate?) Future Climate Simulator 170 Years Of Earth Surface […]

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.

While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.

The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.

Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.

Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.

Take a Look at the Positive Side of Anarchy

Take a Look at the Positive Side of Anarchy

The only way to achieve liberty and peace is to restore law and order. And the only way to restore law and order is to literally crush the forces of evil. When that begins to happen, we do actually see the positive side of tyranny and anarchy. Conflict is a bedfellow of oppression. Therefore we must end the conflict and, in doing so, end the tyranny. Here’s the positive side of this war…

It’s a LONG-HAUL with COVID-19

It’s a LONG-HAUL with COVID-19

The context is that about 50% of those hospitalized with COVID-19 develop post-COVID symptoms. Severe outpatients also are affected. Characteristic symptoms include headache, hearing loss, tinnitus, loss of olfactory function, sleep disturbance, muscle aches, weakness, fatigue, and chest or abdominal pain…

Be the One.

Be the One.

Be the one — no longer willing to huddle together in the helpless band — the one who dares to join the fight. Another will follow you and then another, and in a flash of time, that bleeding hulk of our nation — once the great light of liberty to the world, now barely flickering — will rise again to throw off the wolves like it has done before, sending them scurrying for safety…

Major Medical Mystery: Why Some People Despite Exposure Don’t Get COVID

Major Medical Mystery: Why Some People Despite Exposure Don’t Get COVID

A small fraction of Americans have escaped COVID infection. CDC uses a figure of 60% for those infected, while the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington says that 76% have been infected. The remainder may have escaped exposure or been exposed but escaped infection. The latter people are the subject of the medical mystery…

Correcting America’s Course Back to the Constitutional Rule of Law

Correcting America’s Course Back to the Constitutional Rule of Law

The US Constitution must scrupulously be followed, especially by the judiciary. It is not for judges to make laws; it is for them to observe and rule on the constitutionality of issues before them. Their oaths, taken upon their confirmations, should include the understanding that their failures to follow judicial protocols would end in their termination…

Does Joe Biden Aspire to be America’s Last President?

Does Joe Biden Aspire to be America’s Last President?

Most ominously, no American administration has ever seemed so entirely unconcerned about hemorrhaging political capital. And that lack of concern about voters’ approval can only mean that this administration no longer believes it relies on political capital (the consent of the governed) for power. We can only assume that this Marxist-aligned administration intends to authorize itself with whatever power it requires to achieve its ends…

Criminal Intimidation Led By Schumer and Pelosi are America’s Domestic Terrorists

Criminal Intimidation Led By Schumer and Pelosi are America’s Domestic Terrorists

The SCOTUS leak was explicitly designed to tip the balance back to Progressivisms demands and rally the Democrat base to intimidate conservatives, political and business leaders by threats of violence because the country is in a Biden mess, one he created in January 2021 to reflect his party’s image as one that clings to the failed philosophy of Marx and Engles…

Pennsylvania Races Plunge to Swampy Politics 

Pennsylvania Races Plunge to Swampy Politics 

The establishment has money and counts itself as power brokers. They love the status quo, the “don’t rock the boat” mentality. They pronounce, “This is our guy!” and expect the masses to get in line. However, many are standing up and deciding to vote conscience over party or affiliation – regardless. But aren’t those the same “stand up” attitude and actions that formed this great nation?

The Ignorance of Politicians Wishing for a Non-Carbon Future is Insane

The Ignorance of Politicians Wishing for a Non-Carbon Future is Insane

Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) seems unaware that in a “non-carbon future,” everything would be dead since carbon is the primary building block of life. Undeterred, the AP release from Beyer’s office claimed: “Warmer temperatures are lowering workers’ incomes, and the increased severity and frequency of natural disasters is lowering overall economic growth…The cost of inaction will be catastrophic.”

America Out Loud 6 years

Celebrating 6 incredible years fighting to restore liberty and justice to our beloved America.

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

 

Here we take on the challenges of our generation so that we can preserve future generations. Please consider making a contribution in the fight for liberty!

iHeartRadio

The APPS are free; the mission is priceless!

Free APP
Healthycell

Podcast Networks

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Tunein
iHeart
Stitcher

Subscribe and Listen on Your Favorite APP

Our Columnists and Show Hosts

Truth For Health

Apple Podcasts

COVID Solution Summit

Apple Podcasts

Evacuating Americans & fully-vetted Afghan's at Risk - Help Us!

Apple Podcasts

Empowering and mentoring conservative trailblazers from Generation Z to win!

Apple Podcasts

Turning Point Action is Recruiting Precinct Chairs - Become a Grassroots Warrior Today!

Apple Podcasts

URGENT - KEEP NINE
Please join us to protect the Supreme Court:
Sign the Petition!

Apple Podcasts

The LATINO USA EXIT from the Democrat Party, click for details...

Apple Podcasts

Fighting corporate censorship and ensuring voter integrity...

Apple Podcasts

Support wounded and fallen police officers. The Wounded Blue.

Wounded Blue
Share via
Copy link