Kyoto withdrawal draws praise from climate-realist quacks

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      Mechanical engineer Tom Harris is the executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition.

      He's also one of Canada's most visible deniers of the scientific consensus that human beings are contributing to climate change by increasing greenhouse-gas emissions into the atmosphere.

      The DeSmogBlog, which investigates those who deny human-caused climate change, has revealed that Harris is also a veteran spin doctor who's been affiliated with groups funded by the energy sector.

      "In 2008 and 2009 the ICSC sponsored the Heartland Institute's annual International Conference on Climate Change," the DeSmogBlog reported. "The sponsors of the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change have collectively received over $47 million USD from organizations connected to the oil and gas industry."

      Harris, on the other hand, characterizes himself as a "climate realist".

      Today, the right-wing Frontier Centre distributed a news release declaring that Harris's group applauds the Conservative government's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

      Will wonders ever cease?

      Groups like the International Climate Science Coalition try to spread the fiction that there's a serious scientific debate over whether or not humans are contributing to climate change. This gives Prime Minister Stephen Harper cover to virtually ignore the issue, which pleases the oil and gas executives who live in his Calgary riding.

      If you want to see how Harris spins this message, check out the video below:

      Humans don't cause climate change—aliens must be responsible!

      Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at




      Dec 13, 2011 at 1:05pm

      Charlie, still drunk on Suzuki's urine, I see. If you take the time to look at the actual data that the alarmsits claims are built on it very easy to question the validity, accuracy and rationality of the CAGW myth. Try it, you might like it. As for funding, it doesn't matter who's funding the sceptics side, the alarmists have received billions of dollars more to promote their myth.


      Dec 13, 2011 at 1:13pm



      Simply because you dont agree with their stance?!

      Talk about immature, uneducated and mostly insecure!

      MMMMM? ;)


      Dec 13, 2011 at 1:54pm

      Very happy Canada is pulling out of this mess!


      Dec 13, 2011 at 2:33pm

      Lol, Quacks? I believe you are the one who fits the analogy of the world being flat... Get some facts before you start writing green propoganda.
      P.S. I believe in being green and stuff but the way you guys go about fear mongering people into buying your green merchandice so that they can all pat themselves on the back and pretend they did a good thing is ridiculous. Just another way for billionairs to make more billions...


      Dec 13, 2011 at 2:41pm

      What is an "alarmsit"? What is a "sceptic"? What is a "quak"?

      Day after day, the denial cult demonstrates that it really doesn't deserve to be viewed with respect. If you don't have the education or intelligence required to write a coherent sentence, why should anybody take you seriously?

      Should we believe that those who haven't yet learned to spell are bright enough to make rational judgements about science? Really? I don't think so.

      The reality is that smart people rule the world, and the not-so-smart dig the ditches. Sorry, but that's just the way it is - no matter what you might hear from CPC headquarters.

      Martin Dunphy

      Dec 13, 2011 at 2:46pm


      "Sceptic" and "skeptic" are both accepted spellings of the word. It just depends upon which dictionary rules your nitpicking world.

      Have a nice day.

      Stompin' Tom

      Dec 13, 2011 at 3:41pm

      Thanks, Charlie.

      You can expect Tom Harris to weigh in soon because… that’s what he does and that’s what he advises his oily denier friends to do.

      And yes, ultimately what counts are the arguments and not the funding. But the arguments all come out in favour of real scientists, who pretty much all agree that humans are fuelling rapid climate change and putting humanity's future at risk. On one side are 98% of the world's climate scientists, all the world's major scientific academies and institutions, and most of the world's governments (left and right).

      On the other side are the fossil fuel industry and scared wealthy conservatives, and a few weatherman bloggers. And this is where funding does come in. What could the motivation be for rejecting sound science and direct observation?

      As for the questions about funding for non-profits, here are two pieces that put it in perspective:


      Dec 13, 2011 at 3:56pm

      How about "alarmsit" and "quak", Dunphy? You wouldn't be cherry-picking to make a point, would you? lol.

      Let's not lose sight of the point: Most of those who deny man's influence on climate change aren't smart enough to change a lightbulb. They grasp at concepts they don't understand to reach childish, ridiculous conclusions.

      Nitpicking? Nope. Just pointing out that we are not created equal. Some people really are smarter than others.

      Don't like the real world? Tough. Get used to it.

      Martin Dunphy

      Dec 13, 2011 at 4:25pm


      I'm editing your "real world". It's not tough. And I <em>am</em> used to it.

      Tom Harris

      Dec 13, 2011 at 8:50pm

      Glad to see people are noticing our support of the Kyoto withdrawal. Here is my TV interview about this on Charles Adler last night:

      If anyone has a better copy, please let me know. I just did this by video-taping the screen as Sun did not chose to highlight this interview on their site.


      Tom Harris
      Executive Director
      International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)