Science Downunder and global warming

January 16, 2014
Written by: Kaye Lee
72 Replies

Recently, in response to two articles written by Rossleigh, we were honoured by the presence of two gentlemen from the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) who disagree with the widely-held consensus on anthropogenic global warming and its effect on climate change.

Tom Harris, a mechanical engineer who was formerly the Executive Director of the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), and who currently is the Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), said:

“The only thing that counts in this debate is whether or not human produced carbon dioxide emissions is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.

The reason no one properly demonstrates this is because the idea of consensus on this topic among these people is an urban legend and of no merit what-so-ever.”

When directed to the NASA site showing the consensus he dismissed it as “simply a statement by an official government body”.

After much discussion about his credentials, previous employment, and funding, Mr Harris said “Kaye Lee’s comments are largely just aggressive attacks made up to divert attention from the failings in the science, which, even she admitted previously, is all that really matters.”

And I agree with him. If the science is right then who funds it doesn’t matter. But he steadfastly ignored all scientific arguments placed before him, and ignored all questions until the following.

When asked “what percentage of global GDP mitigating CO2 will cost and what percentage it will cost the world if manmade CO2 is not mitigated and the globe continues to warm?” he provided a link to the Lord Monckton Foundation.

Having written previously about Lord Monckton, I was interested to have a look, and what an eye-opener it was. The linked page started with a very spurious graph (which appears to be repeated on every page on the site), and then launched into an appeal for funds to make a “powerful and ‘game changing’ video to communicate Lord Christopher Monckton’s recent calculations on the cost of climate mitigation vs the cost of adaptation.”

“This video will require significant travel. We are interviewing internationally renowned experts such as President Vaclav Klaus, Anthony Watts, Fred Singer, Henry Ergas and others. A camera crew will need to literally lap the planet to film these experts and capture their thoughts and views on the current state of climate mitigation etc.

Long story short, we have calculated a budget of $156,000 all together. Needless to say we don’t have that in the piggy bank beside our bed, so we’re running a crowd funding campaign to try and gather the money we need to make this video happen.”

Interesting experts.

Outgoing Czech President Vaclav Klaus was charged with high treason for granting amnesties resulting in multiple high-profile corruption cases being suspended. In one fell swoop, a dozen high-profile corruption cases – cases that involve millions of dollars in asset-stripping, bribes and fraud – were thrown out. The senators also accuse Mr Klaus of flouting the constitution by refusing to ratify European treaties, and for refusing to rule on the appointment of judges despite being ordered by courts to do so.

Siegfried Frederick Singer (S. Fred Singer) is a former space scientist and government scientific administrator. Singer runs the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), an organization which focuses on global warming skepticism. According to their website, SEPP also covers topics such as nuclear radiation, DDT, science and regulation at EPA, energy policy, and space exploration.

According to leaked documents, Singer has been receiving $5,000 a month from the Heartland Institute. His affiliations with tobacco and oil industries are well documented.

Henry Ergas is an economist and a columnist for the Murdoch-owned Australian newspaper. He has been appointed by long-time friend, Malcolm Turnbull, to do the cost benefit analysis for the NBN, a venture he has widely criticised in the past. I have been unable to find any qualifications in climate science but hey, he probably knows Maurice Newman and Cardinal Pell, those other unqualified “experts” on climate change, and they may have had rousing discussions at IPA birthday bashes with Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Gina, Rupert and our fearless PM. Close enough.

Anthony Watts is an American TV weather presenter and runs the blog Watts Up With That. He founded surfacestations.org, which questions the reliability of the surface temperature record whilst ignoring the thousands of lines of evidence such as melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, retreating glaciers, thousands of species migrating, seasons shifting, local populations of species going extinct. As for the temperature record, warming is also being observed over the ocean, well away from urban heat island and microsite influences.

Rather than watching the YouTube video, I went to Lord Monckton’s paper entitled “Is CO2 mitigation cost-effective?” As it was basically unintelligible for a layperson (and I suspect equally so for scientists), I will share an abstract:

“Australia’s carbon tax: This note, originally presented before distinguished delegates at the 2012 annual seminars on planetary emergencies of the World Federation of Scientists, summarizes and updates Monckton of Brenchley (2013), which applies a simplified but robust method of climate-mitigation investment appraisal to the recently-introduced Australian carbon dioxide tax (Parliament of Australia, 2011). For the first time, mainstream climatological and inter-temporal-appraisal approaches are combined. The cost of the tax over the intended ten-year term is compared with its benefit in the cost of warming-related damage avoided by successful implementation and the consequent intended cut in Australia’s emissions. A zero inter-temporal discount rate is assumed. The minimum market rate would be 5% (Murphy et al., 2008).

Conclusion: This analysis is deliberately simple, but complexity would be unlikely to change the outcome sufficiently to render any policy to mitigate CO2 emissions at all cost-effective. Removal of some of the simplifying assumptions would tend to worsen the cost-benefit ratio still further, for most of them lead to understatement of it. Results from other case studies broadly confirm the outcome in the Australian case. Therefore, future adaptation at need is recommended, but present-day mitigation is not.”

It took only one page for Lord Monckton to determine that mitigation in the next ten years will cost more than adaptation. “Bugger anyone who lives longer than ten years from now” seems to be the scientific basis of this rather ‘interesting’ page.

I figured there had to be a longer version and yes, I found one that was 11 pages long. Girding my loins to wade into a detailed scientific analysis, I found this. Nice colours!

With some trepidation, I ventured further and found “A plain-English service to science and truth by the Lord Monckton Foundation 1 January 2014.”

NO WORRIES, MATE!

Australia’s fave Lord puts the bedwetting profiteers of doom at the failed Climate Council straight about global warming.

Bullsh*ttin’ bedwetters

The latest propaganda sheet from those bedwetters at the now axed Climate Council says the world has kept on warming. Not for the last 17 years 3 months it hasn’t. The RSS graph shows no global warming at all despite ever-rising CO2 in the air.

There’s nothing like the real data to reveal the Inconvenient Truth (geddit?).

The Climate Council bedwetters say scientists are “more certain than ever” that Man made most of the global warming since 1950. But it was Australian scientists who proved that only 0.3% of 11,944 papers published since 1991 said most of the warming since 1950 was our fault. Oops!

Science consensus? 0.3% consensus!

We can’t affect the weather much

The bedwetters say warming of 3 Cº this century would be a big deal. In your dreams! The Vostok ice-core data show global temperature has gone up or down only 3 Cº in the past 420,000 years, despite ice ages, solar flares, orbital changes, meteorites and stuff. So if we succeed in turning 1/3000 of the air from oxygen to plant food in 100 years, will we cause mega climate change? Nah, it won’t happen.

The bedwetters say global warming (that isn’t happening) will cause more extreme weather. But the UN’s climate panel reports “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency” for 100 years. Ask the captain of the ship stuck in Antarctic ice in summer about extreme weather.

Extreme weather?

Seen it all before!

‘We made the global warming since 1950!’

The bedwetters say the only possible explanation for the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950 is that it’s all our fault. B*ll*x! Natural variability probably caused most of the global warming that stopped over 17 years ago. As we scientists say, “Sh*t happens! Get over it! Get a life!”.

‘But it must be our fault!’

In the left corner, CO2 concentration change. In the right corner, change in the Sun’s output of heat. Which one is a whole lot closer to the real temperature changes, in blue on both graphs?

Yup, you got it. It’s the Sun, stupid!

Climate change? No worries, mate!

Mate, if this is your idea of “science downunder” you may have to take a summer course (geddit?)

Or you could take a gander at some of those peer-reviewed papers that work on a slightly longer timescale than ten years.

Or you could listen to the commenters here because I am sure they will be more than happy to assist in your edumacation. No wuckins!

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Post Views: 572

72 comments

Login here

Register here

Tom HarrisJanuary 16, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Kay-Lee: Show us all, will you, what is “the widely-held consensus [among scientists who study the causes of climate change] on anthropogenic global warming and its effect on climate change”. Meanwhile, I suggest the following radio program may help you understand the situation better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzyp4JRqLQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUDY7l-SSUUEdeBmQhbEV_VA

Tom HarrisJanuary 16, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Please tell us all about Dr. Singer’s affiliations with tobacco and oil industries. It should be easy if they are, as you assert, well documented.

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 4:43 pm

I keep coming back to the wonderful theory that carbon dioxide can’t be harmful because we need it. I’d like to hand them all some “dry ice” and tell them that they can hold it without risk, because it’s just solid carbon dioxide! 🙂

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:00 pm

Here is a memo sent by an official at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution soliciting $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a “research” paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html

Singer also collaborated on an article for APCO Associates, the PR firm hired by The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), on behalf of Philip Morris for their “junk science” campaign.

On Feb. 21, 2001, Dr. Singer wrote to the Washington Post, saying: “As for full disclosure: My résumé clearly states that I consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. “My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil.” At the time that Dr. Singer wrote this letter, ExxonMobil was listing him on their website as a recipient of US $10,000 in direct funding and as a participant in an event to which ExMo contributed $65,000.

For more read here

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:04 pm

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

RussJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:09 pm

Who decided the Idiot Viscount was “Australia’s fave Lord”?

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Monckton did Russ. I find that whole thing insulting. It is so typical of some bloody pom thinking we are too stupid to understand. And that is the site that Tom Harris directed me to to get the “science” side of things. Kind of indicates the level of debate in his circles.

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:19 pm

I notice that Tom Harris hasn’t actually answered the question put to him previously, which is “Can you explain which part of the hypothesis that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to climate change?”
For someone who keeps telling us it’s the science that’s important I notice that he very rarely talks about actual science, preferring to attack scientists, then argue that any querying of his sources is irrelevant.
If he is being paid by the fossil fuel industry it’s sad that they can’t find anyone better able to actually talk about the science.
Still his mate, Lord Munchhausen sounds quite impressive – just ask him!

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:24 pm

Sorry that should read “Can you explain which part of the hypothesis that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to climate change that you dispute?”

FSM is coming.January 16, 2014 at 5:30 pm

Well done story Kaye Lee!

This Tom Harris fella clearly is a moron of very high caliber. To think mechanical engineering has any links to climate, to the degree of being an ‘expert’ just proves he is as dumb as a box of hair.

You have only fools to support you Tom Harris.

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:34 pm

Actually FSM, the climate change denial movement has billionaires to support them.

FSM is coming.January 16, 2014 at 5:36 pm

No one said being rich is an auto-qualifier for being smart..

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:37 pm

Good point. I am trying not to type James Packer.

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:02 pm

I will give you Tom’s reply when I asked him about that Ross….

“This is hillarious – Kaye Lee simply makes up stuff about my employment, my second degree, my supposed lobbying status, my previous work location, etc., all of which is simply fabricated or copying from sources that fabricate it all. I’ll not going to bother to take the time to answer all this stuff.

Smart people can see through such logical fallacies (and in this case, lies). Next, she will say I am a member of the Klu Klux Klan, Hell’s Angels, promoted tobacco and am a member of the Conservative or Republican or Tea Party (oh, she already used that one) Parties. What next Kaye Lee? For someone who admitted that all that matters is the science, you certainly are throwing a lot of mud about on things you know nothing about. Note I am not returning the favour since I don’t care who you are or whether you worship the devil or smoke dandilions. All that matters is who is right and who is wrong on the science.

I guess I should be flattered by all this attention. Afterall one gets the most flak when one is over the target. Thank heavens (scratch that, I don’t believe in heaven, so you can’t accuse me next of being a religious evangelist, not that that would matter anyways, although I do believe humanity decended from extraterrestrials – not) no one is bringing up any serious science to counter what ICSC is saying. Now, that would be a concern (if the science critiques were right, that is).

Cheers, all,

Tom Harris
[Lobbyist, teapartyist, denier, Toronto-worker, MBA] – NOT. I plead guilty to spending the past 50 years trying to play guitar decently, though.

uknowispeaksenseJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:26 pm

Everyone should remember the old saying “If you can’t blind them brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” The good old ‘Lord’ Monckton seems to take it to another level. “If you can’t baffle them with bullshit, blind them with bright colours!”

More and more though, the Tom Harrises, Anthony Wattsits, and Christopher Moncktonites are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The more I see their nonsense, the sillier they appear and I find it difficult to accept that anybody really takes them seriously. They all take each other seriously of course and that in itself demonstrates just how wilfully ignorant they are. Dunning and Kruger need to do another study to determine the root cause of this ignorance.

FSM is coming.January 16, 2014 at 5:34 pm

Tom Harris, ‘Expert’ Yet you are clearly too stupid to be able to Google.

“Please tell us all about Dr. Singer’s affiliations with tobacco and oil industries. It should be easy if they are, as you assert, well documented.”

“Dr singers link to tobacco and oil”
About 61,300,000 results (0.30 seconds)

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:54 pm

From Sourcewatch:
“Prolific Op-Ed Writer … and “editor”

Harris has been a prolific writer of anti-Kyoto op-ed pieces, typically quoting scientists associated with Friends of Science,” Mark Holland wrote in June 2006.
“Tom Harris is everywhere in the blogosphere these days posting comments wherever anyone is saying positive things about the recent CBC climate change documentary, The Denial Machine,” Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog commented November 21, 2006.
“Harris has popped up here, here and again here, cutting and pasting the same batch of criticisms of CBC’s reporting and attempting to salvage something of the NRSP’s battered reputation,” Littlemore wrote.
Editing the Wikipedia and SourceWatch
“In other Tom Harris news,” Tim Lambert of Deltoid (ScienceBlogs.com) wrote November 7, 2006, “he’s been editing the Wikipedia page on the Natural Resource Stewardship Project in an attempt to remove the fact that as well as heading the NRSP he works for the High Park Group a PR company that lobbies for energy companies.”
Read the comments which follow Lambert’s Deltoid posting, which includes the following dated November 8, 2006, by John Quiggin: [6]
“It gets better. Harris is editing Wikipedia denying that he is associated with High Park Group. Meanwhile the HPG website says:
Tom Harris, Director, Ottawa Operations
Tom specializes in strategic communication and media relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies. Tom holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from Carleton University and a Master of Engineering (Mechanical – thermo-fluids) from McMaster University.
“Telephone: (613) 234-3039
“So apparently there are two Tom Harrises in Ottawa with identical qualifications and connections to the oil industry,” Quiggin wrote.
Note that the HPG web bio for Tom Harris has been deleted, possibly at Harris’s request, since Quiggin’s Deltoid posting.”

uknowispeaksenseJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:55 pm

@ David Black. If you are referring to the photo of him with the hat and striped jacket…ummm he appears to be posing for it. Was there actually any reference to his condition or his eyeballs associated with the photo? If there was, I can’t see it. Perhaps you are a little oversensitive? Perhaps you disagree with the article and can’t find anything to legitimately criticise? Believe me when I say I am not attacking you but am genuinely interested in the motivation behind your comment.

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:56 pm

David, I could find another photo of Monckton. It isn’t his look that concerns me. Can you find me another planet to live on when this one cooks?

FSM is comingJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:07 pm

Ok, clearly nothing to stand by Mr Harris.
I’ll summarise my opinion of you and everything you stand for in these lyrics..

“It took a lot of work to be the ass that I am. But I’m pretty damn sure anyone can, easily, equally Fu*k you over”

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:12 pm

Perhaps the photo of Monckton dressed as a sheikh would be a fairer photo to use…

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:16 pm

You mean this one? (I know I have posted it before but it has to rank up there as one of my favourites)

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:19 pm

“The ICSC, headed by Tom Harris, a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant, is trying to grab media attention with a new report written by the who’s who of the climate denier conspiracy bunch. The report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is part of a series published by a Chicago-based front group for the oil and tobacco industries called the Heartland Institute.

This is the same small group of people who claim a grand conspiracy by the United Nations to take over the world. This echo chamber of climate denial attempts to prop up non-experts in the hopes of grabbing a few headlines before journalists figure out they have been fooled by conmen.”

Here’s another one for your angels Tom.

JohnBJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:35 pm

Well done Kaye Lee – a very well done and worthwhile investigation,
Now if you could only get an interview with our current Science Environment minister Greg Hunt.
It would be interesting to where he is getting his AGW scientific advice.

David BlackJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:36 pm

About the photo of Lord Monckton …
He suffers from a medical condition which gives him that protruding eyeball effect. There are many pictures of him where his condition is not so obvious.
It is really hateful to feature that one.

JohnBJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:37 pm

Note – “Science” was meant to be struckthrough in above post.

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:54 pm

I have a lovely photo of Monckton in a Stars and Stripes cowboy outfit. Perhaps that’s more to David’s taste.

Pingback: Weakest argument ever? | uknowispeaksense

uknowispeaksenseJanuary 16, 2014 at 8:39 pm

I have a better photo for you to use….http://wp.me/p2fD5I-Ap

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 8:50 pm

David, au contraire, I am full of love. Love to you and everyone you deal with! Xx

KeithJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Something I have noticed is that science has bypassed people such as Tom Harris and Monckton; yet, they keep pushing the same barrow. They need to be able to give a very good critique of the assessments discussed in the following reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM

They might say something such as there was more ice coverage in 2013 compared to 2012. But photos in 2013 show a blue tinge indicating thinner ice. Photos from space also show fissures in the ice in February 2013, how do they explain that?

Oceans and seas are being damaged through human activity; do they agree with that proposition? Can they explain why acidification is occurring?

uknowispeaksenseJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:06 pm

“you people”? Interesting…and I don’t hate anyone. Bemusement and pity is what I often feel for people who refer to others as “you people”.

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:24 pm

Unfortunately, the paper “A plain-English service to science and truth by the Lord Monckton Foundation  1 January 2014” appears to have been removed. Lucky I copied it first 🙂

This may be a site issue…….or a small example of how we CAN make a difference.

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:43 pm

Lots of colour – I was impressed!

http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Setting_the_Climate_Council_Straight_about_their_propaganda.pdf

David BlackJanuary 16, 2014 at 8:43 pm

@UNIKNOWISPEAKSENSE
Thanks for the civilized response.
I was referring to the picture on the HOME of this site, which has no hat and striped jacket.
You people are so full of hatred.

Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:45 pm

The potato and the rose Ross 😉

BrianJanuary 16, 2014 at 10:40 pm

More time wasted on useless fruitcakes. It would be bloody hysterical if it weren’t so damned serious. Seems only hell on earth will get their attention.

olddaveyJanuary 16, 2014 at 10:50 pm

Marty Feldman had the same medical condition as Monkton. However that’s where the similarity ends as Marty was in possession of a great deal of intelligence.

Matters not.January 16, 2014 at 11:59 pm

Must admit I can’t understand why we are discussing this. As I understand it the the science is ‘in’ while the politics isn’t. I also understand that the continuing political debate is funded by those who have a lot to lose if governments here, there and everywhere act in the ‘general’ interest.

For those who don’t know the Kochs (and others) funded an ‘independent review of the ‘science’, undertaken by ‘sceptics’. The chief researcher was Richard A. Muller who said before the study commenced:

we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious, ….we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close

Anthony Watts who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, stated (at the time)

“I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.”

Needless to say when the results were announced, he ‘ran away’. Anyone surprised?

After doing their ‘homework’ the chief researcher said publically:

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

More here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

Has anyone asked Mr Harris (and others) how they handle that ‘truth’ as provided by BES If not then why not?

Really this is not a ‘debate’ about the science, it’s a debate about what people want to believe. And at the political level there is simply no leadership.

John FraserJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:03 am

John FraserJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:12 am

News Hounds (we watch Fox so you don't have to) :

"Last night’s (1/30/07) Hannity & Colmes offered a “debate” about global warming with a panel made up of global-warming deniers, only. Each of the two guests has ties to the energy industry that were not disclosed to viewers by the “we report, you decide” network. The debate was prompted by an upcoming report from the U.N. on the issue. It must have been the inclusion of the U.N. that prompted “fair and balanced” FOX News to decide that it just couldn’t take a chance with anyone with a different opinion, even if that opinion is in the mainstream of science.

During the discussion, the biased FOX News chyron did its part, too, to cast doubt on the UN and global warming: U.N. SET TO RELEASE GLOBAL WARMING REPORT: IS IT FACT OR FICTION?

Nobody told the viewers that guest Professor Fred Singer has served as a consultant to several oil companies – just the kinds of entities who would prefer not to be fingered as a cause. Furthermore, Singer’s organization, SEPP, has received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org.

Singer acknowledged that the temperature is rising but, he insisted, there was no proof that it’s not part of a natural cycle. “We find that there’s really no evidence to support the man-made hypothesis.” Singer said. “There has never been a case of human activity causing a global warming and, of course, sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age.”
Singer is also alleged to have debated Carl Sagan on the effects of the Kuwait petroleum fires during Operation Desert Storm. According to Wikipedia, Sagan thought the petroleum fires would lead to ecological disaster. Singer said such a view was ridiculous, that the smoke would go up only a few thousand feet and then be washed out of the atmosphere by rain. Three days later, black rain began falling over Iran, which essentially put an end to the speculation. Singer has also been a spokesperson for the tobacco industry and has written op-ed pieces on the “junk science” of second-hand smoke hazards."

Denny faircloughJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:39 am

What a typical Dunning Kruger* Tom Harris is. If there was really a God, I wish he would tell us why he lets pathetic dumb jokes like this circumvent natural selection so damn easily? Cant linger… have to go off and vomit again.

revolutionarycitizenJanuary 17, 2014 at 5:38 am

Science is scepticism, the moment scientists stop being sceptics they’re no longer scientists, and it is that simple…

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 17, 2014 at 7:21 am

Sceptical is one thing. A refusal to accept evidence is another.

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 17, 2014 at 8:24 am

Or as Lord Monckton, using all of his powers of eloquence and all his qualifications, put it on the website:
‘As we scientists say, “Sh*t happens! Get over it! Get a life!”.’

FSM is comingJanuary 17, 2014 at 9:13 am

A lot of these deniers need to be arrested our at least put back in school.
They keep trying to muddy the definition of the word science!

Science definition..
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Kaye LeeJanuary 17, 2014 at 9:32 am

Reading “About us” on Lord Monckton’s site was amusing.

“The Lord Monckton Foundation has been established to support the work of Lord Christopher Monckton the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

The Lord Monckton Foundation stands as the wall of the West, the redoubt of reason, the sentinel of science, the fortress of freedom, and the defender of democracy.

The politicization and perversion of objective science, and especially of climate science, are a menace to the West and to the world.

The tendency towards global governance is gathering both momentum and permanence through entities such as the United Nations, the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the latest and crudest pretext for necessary tyranny.
However necessary it be that nations should collaborate and cooperate in matters of common concern, every cession of sovereignty from a nation to a supranational or global entity at present entails a real transfer of legislative and increasingly of fiscal power from elected to unelected hands – both legislation and taxation without representation.

Is science dead? Must reason fail? Shall objectivity be slaughtered again on the pagan altar of mere ideology? Is life now objectionable, liberty deplorable, the pursuit of happiness a crime? Has the nation had its day? Is the globalization of governance really a public good? Can democracy survive it? Should not the use of the ballot-box be extended? Should not every supranational and global institution of governance be elected? The Foundation exists to illuminate questions such as these, and to inspire devotion to the cause of Western civilization, true reason, sound science, universal liberty and worldwide democracy in the hearts of all men of goodwill. Let freedom ring!”

That’s not freedom ringing – it’s the death knell for fruitcakes. Australians don’t like being lied to Mr Monckton and your assumption that we are ill-informed, easily manipulated bogans is insulting.

diannaartJanuary 17, 2014 at 9:54 am

Top work Kaye Lee.

I f the climate science deniers really wanted to present as serious and sincere sceptics, why references to those who accept the science as “bed-wetters”? Impossible to give any credence to such people who pepper their pronouncements with ad hominems from the get-go. Not exactly a practice worthy of publication in anything except rags such as the Daily Malfeasance.

As I have asked before, where is the peer reviewed science giving any validity to their claims? – instead we are treated with the usual crowd; Monkcton et al.

cassilva48January 17, 2014 at 10:05 am

http://davidpratt.info/climategate.htm
Climategate and the corruption of climate science
davidpratt.info
The scandal beginsHockey ‘shtick’The palaeoclimate agendaClimategatekeepingFree the data and codeTemperature adjustments and trendsIPCC and the coming apocalypseFurther information
19 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Kaye LeeJanuary 17, 2014 at 10:17 am

dianna,

Peer-reviewed papers like this one perhaps?

Abstract: We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of ,500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of ,1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2uC global warming, would spur ‘‘slow’’ feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4uC with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648&representation=PDF

revolutionarycitizenJanuary 17, 2014 at 10:34 am

Evidence is not proof, and even evidence of one thing is no reason to give up scepticism. Science relies on continuous questioning and examination, not only of one’s hypothesis but science and its methods.

Kaye LeeJanuary 17, 2014 at 11:13 am

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

The overwhelming body of “evidence” leads to the conclusion that our burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Predicting weather is an inexact science but with so much at stake, risk management must be undertaken now.

uknowispeaksenseJanuary 17, 2014 at 11:20 am

@revolutionarycitizen. You are so right. If ever I am diagnosed with brain cancer I will remain sceptical and demand scepticism from the oncologists and reject their evidence. It certainly isn’t proof of anything. I will even refuse treatment until they admit to the whole chemotherapy/cancer scam, right up until the moment that I am in constant agony, have lost control of all my bodily functions and can no longer recognise my family members. After all, everyone knows the pharmaceutical companies have invented the whole thing to make money. Right?

Matters not.January 17, 2014 at 11:56 am

From the New York Times:

The report is not final, but a draft dated Dec. 17 leaked this week and was first reported by Reuters. The New York Times obtained a copy independently.

Business leaders will address many of the problems raised in the draft next week, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where a day will be devoted to addressing the rising economic costs of climate change — and the costs to businesses and governments of solving the problem.

Within the business community, “there is an awakening of increasing economic risk — a recognition that operating conditions are changing and we need to respond,” said Dominic Waughray

More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/science/earth/un-says-lag-in-confronting-climate-woes-will-be-costly.html?hp&_r=0

revolutionarycitizenJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:34 pm

It is the scepticism of people like oncologists which invents new procedures, it is the willingness of people like oncologists to question previously held opinion which furthers their craft. All science works this way, the very fact that they know it is a tumour is a result of that very scepticism you think is irrelevant.

didisaythataloudJanuary 17, 2014 at 11:42 am

David Black, as far as I can see, His Most Worshipful Lord Monckton is the one placing the most emphasis on his eyes – judging by the number of photos he has had taken. But bugger the eyes, really. Normally, I am one who tries not to hate, but forgive me if I have no fondness for someone who thinks it’s ok to prevent any meaningful response to climate change until it is frankly too late. I say this while sitting through a massive and elongated heat wave in Melbourne, and having had to buy anti-hystemines because of my reaction to heat stress. And I am normally such a resilient person! This, of course, used to be quite unusual weather for Melbourne, but is becoming more frequent and more extreme. Last time we experienced this level of blast-furnace, so many people died they ran out of space to put them.

I shouldn’t forget to mention, of course, that while we await a cool change here, large parts of America are experiencing weather normally associated with the worst of Russian winters, and Europe braces for historic storms. Again.

And of course, in between, or sometimes concurrently with, heat waves here, there have been massive cyclone and flood events, to the extent that one-in-a-hundred year occurences such as the filling of Lake Eyre (normally a salt pan) occurred three years running… I suspect there is someone out there running a book on how many one-in-hundred year events we can identify up over half a decade.

At the very least, David old bean, permit me to detest frauds who think there can possibly be any excuse at all for scotching any effective action on climate change.

Kaye LeeJanuary 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm

It was the scepticism of climate scientists about climate change being due to natural variation that has led us to where we are now. How much evidence do you need to take action?

AnomanderJanuary 17, 2014 at 2:46 pm

Damn! I made the serious mistake of opening the link to Lord Monkeyman’s pdf and burnt the retinas out of my skull. To blatantly try to distort the truth by equating Australia’s contribution to CO2 as a percentage of the total volume is disingenuous at best and dangerously stupid and mendacious at worst. What a contrived and bizarre piece of perverted shit, as is every statement from the denialist cohort of Harris. Monkton, Singer, Watts, et al. all of whom should be charged with crimes against humanity.

I like to consider Climate Change denial as a metaphor in which a man decides to lay in the middle of a road, despite many thousands of locals and traffic experts, all familiar with that road, telling him repeatedly that large trucks frequent the road.

Even when these same experts and locals point to all the obvious tyre-tracks, the wear and tear on the road surface, the numerous squished animal carcasses and relate their own experiences and studies in seeing trucks constantly thundering along the road.

Rather than making the effort to move off the road and mitigate the risk, the denialists want to argue that the locals are incorrect, that all these trucks don’t exist because they themselves have never seem one, or that the locals are exaggerating the frequency and size of the trucks and that they really pose no danger. They prefer instead to cite the advice of people from many suburbs away who have no local knowledge of either the road or the traffic volumes and activity.

Even when the locals see the headlights looming on the horizon or hear the roar of the approaching engine, the denialist ignores the advice, instead preferring to believe the driver should be the one to act responsibly on their behalf, or that perhaps some divine force will intervene and divert the truck and save them.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the denialists who are laying on the road, it is all of us, our friends, family and even our children. The road is now rumbling from the weight of the thundering behemoth, smoke from the exhaust is clearly visible and despite all the locals putting themselves in harms way to deliver the warnings time is fast running out for the man to take action and move out of the way.

Like this man, we have a clear choice. Do we accept the advice of the locals and the experts or do we listen to people who are giving us advice that is likely to endanger our lives and the lives of our families?

Christopher ArcusJanuary 18, 2014 at 6:43 am

Just wow. Someone that challenges Fred Singer is associated with Heartland and Big Tobacco. And NASA is just an official body… What? Was that reasoning? I missed it. Weakest denier arguments yet? May be. Thing is just when you think they can’t get any more daft, along comes another to top him in the whacko department. But I have to hand it to you. This one is a doozie.

KeithJanuary 18, 2014 at 1:26 pm

Here is a clip mainly about glaciologists,It shows the attitude of various politicians and climate change deniers. If you are a climate change skeptic then watch this clip, and see if you have no second thoughts.
You can bet Harriss et al haven’t watched anything like it, and would not have the data to argue against what is going on in the Arctic Circle. We are literally sitting on a time bomb
http://www.wilderutopia.com/environment/energy/climate/climate-disruption-arctic-death-spiral-underway/

JohnBJanuary 18, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Keith,
Further to your ‘Actic time bomb’ concerns,
“Arctic News” provides graphic detail – the unstoppable “methane monster” is awakening.
Ignore it at the peril of life on Earth as we know it:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/

KeithJanuary 18, 2014 at 5:44 pm

Thank you John, I guess the Arctic Circle is under winter conditions at present which makes your reference even more of a worry as more methane is likely to be released come June/July.

KeithJanuary 18, 2014 at 6:33 pm

I had a look at Tom Harris’s site http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=564

The worry is that he has a program he offers ” For high schools, colleges and universities:
Climate Change in an Era of Negative Discovery”.
I do believe that some of the matters taught have been superseded by climate scientists; examples that jumped out is the role of galactic cosmic rays, and changes in the suns output.

Gregory TJanuary 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm

Keith.. thanks for the Arctic Circle Death Spiral link. To me, the most heartbreaking aspect, is the final speech by Severn Suzuki, which shows how we grownups, have failed in our obligations to not only future generations, but to the present ones.

KeithJanuary 18, 2014 at 7:23 pm

Gregory, it was a brilliant eloquent speech that many adults would not have the skills to create.

FrankDJanuary 19, 2014 at 12:06 am

A little background to the film Monckton is backing might be interesting. The “brains” behind the 50-to-1 project is Topher Field, an Australian actor/director of mediocre calibre whose greatest achievement to date was to have a short film make last years Tropfest final 12 (“The Hustle”). It was compentantly made in an okay-if-you-didn’t-see-the-twist-a-mile-off kind of way. He is, however, fairly gifted in the field of internet pan-handling, and he seems to have hooked a patron of note in Monckton. His other hobby appears to be general sh*t-stirring.

Since Topher is (from personal experience of online discussions) a smug public school boy more given to displays of his own cleverness than generating or absorbing any insight into anything of substance, the Discount Viscount no doubt recognises a kindred spirit. Topher’s internet presence would position him firmly in the fringe of the Tea Party, if Australia had a branch. Which goes some way to explaining the choice of “experts”.

It’s hard to tell if Topher actually believes much of what he says, but this project’s funding depends on maintaining that appearence

Kaye LeeJanuary 19, 2014 at 10:59 am

Monckton’s Foundastion has recently been granted Charitable Organisation status so they do not have to pay tax. Nice scam THAT is.

rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 19, 2014 at 11:33 am

What I find most frustrating about taking to your average climate change denier is that they start with the “sceptic” argument – nothing in science should ever be just accepted and everything should be under constant challenge and review. So far, no problem, but then they have this massive leap to and look at all the things that we KNOW. We are SURE that climate change is NOT occuring, because it’s ALWAYS occuring.
Getting some consistency from them is harder than pinning jelly to the wall.

cassilva48January 19, 2014 at 12:24 pm

I would be interested to know what the recent bushfires will have on our environment?

meizpodJanuary 19, 2014 at 1:42 pm

I do not think we need science to prove we are shitting on our own doorstep. Whether a believer or doubter it seems obvious we are consuming the planet and breeding too quickly but with everyone wanting a Mercedes, internet and “to make a difference” the planet’s only option will be to slap us down.

Konstantina VlahosApril 4, 2014 at 9:25 pm

Kaye Lee, you are a living, truth-fire breathing, national treasure. Everything you say gives me hope. With writers like you and John Lord working so hard to get the truth out, I know all is not lost.

Pingback: The omniscient Maurice Newman « The Australian Independent Media Network

Return to home page

Login here Register here

Tom HarrisJanuary 16, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Kay-Lee: Show us all, will you, what is “the widely-held consensus [among scientists who study the causes of climate change] on anthropogenic global warming and its effect on climate change”. Meanwhile, I suggest the following radio program may help you understand the situation better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzyp4JRqLQ&feature=c4-overview&list=UUDY7l-SSUUEdeBmQhbEV_VA
Tom HarrisJanuary 16, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Please tell us all about Dr. Singer’s affiliations with tobacco and oil industries. It should be easy if they are, as you assert, well documented.
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 4:43 pm

I keep coming back to the wonderful theory that carbon dioxide can’t be harmful because we need it. I’d like to hand them all some “dry ice” and tell them that they can hold it without risk, because it’s just solid carbon dioxide! 🙂
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:00 pm

Here is a memo sent by an official at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution soliciting $20,000 from the Tobacco Institute for the preparation of a “research” paper challenging the health effects of second-hand smoke, and suggesting that Dr. Singer be retained to write the report.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html

Singer also collaborated on an article for APCO Associates, the PR firm hired by The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), on behalf of Philip Morris for their “junk science” campaign.

On Feb. 21, 2001, Dr. Singer wrote to the Washington Post, saying: “As for full disclosure: My résumé clearly states that I consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. “My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil.” At the time that Dr. Singer wrote this letter, ExxonMobil was listing him on their website as a recipient of US $10,000 in direct funding and as a participant in an event to which ExMo contributed $65,000.

For more read here

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:04 pm

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024
RussJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:09 pm

Who decided the Idiot Viscount was “Australia’s fave Lord”?
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Monckton did Russ. I find that whole thing insulting. It is so typical of some bloody pom thinking we are too stupid to understand. And that is the site that Tom Harris directed me to to get the “science” side of things. Kind of indicates the level of debate in his circles.
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:19 pm

I notice that Tom Harris hasn’t actually answered the question put to him previously, which is “Can you explain which part of the hypothesis that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to climate change?”
For someone who keeps telling us it’s the science that’s important I notice that he very rarely talks about actual science, preferring to attack scientists, then argue that any querying of his sources is irrelevant.
If he is being paid by the fossil fuel industry it’s sad that they can’t find anyone better able to actually talk about the science.
Still his mate, Lord Munchhausen sounds quite impressive – just ask him!
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:24 pm

Sorry that should read “Can you explain which part of the hypothesis that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to climate change that you dispute?”
FSM is coming.January 16, 2014 at 5:30 pm

Well done story Kaye Lee!

This Tom Harris fella clearly is a moron of very high caliber. To think mechanical engineering has any links to climate, to the degree of being an ‘expert’ just proves he is as dumb as a box of hair.

You have only fools to support you Tom Harris.
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:34 pm

Actually FSM, the climate change denial movement has billionaires to support them.
FSM is coming.January 16, 2014 at 5:36 pm

No one said being rich is an auto-qualifier for being smart..
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:37 pm

Good point. I am trying not to type James Packer.
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:02 pm

I will give you Tom’s reply when I asked him about that Ross….

“This is hillarious – Kaye Lee simply makes up stuff about my employment, my second degree, my supposed lobbying status, my previous work location, etc., all of which is simply fabricated or copying from sources that fabricate it all. I’ll not going to bother to take the time to answer all this stuff.

Smart people can see through such logical fallacies (and in this case, lies). Next, she will say I am a member of the Klu Klux Klan, Hell’s Angels, promoted tobacco and am a member of the Conservative or Republican or Tea Party (oh, she already used that one) Parties. What next Kaye Lee? For someone who admitted that all that matters is the science, you certainly are throwing a lot of mud about on things you know nothing about. Note I am not returning the favour since I don’t care who you are or whether you worship the devil or smoke dandilions. All that matters is who is right and who is wrong on the science.

I guess I should be flattered by all this attention. Afterall one gets the most flak when one is over the target. Thank heavens (scratch that, I don’t believe in heaven, so you can’t accuse me next of being a religious evangelist, not that that would matter anyways, although I do believe humanity decended from extraterrestrials – not) no one is bringing up any serious science to counter what ICSC is saying. Now, that would be a concern (if the science critiques were right, that is).

Cheers, all,

Tom Harris
[Lobbyist, teapartyist, denier, Toronto-worker, MBA] – NOT. I plead guilty to spending the past 50 years trying to play guitar decently, though.
uknowispeaksenseJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:26 pm

Everyone should remember the old saying “If you can’t blind them brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” The good old ‘Lord’ Monckton seems to take it to another level. “If you can’t baffle them with bullshit, blind them with bright colours!”

More and more though, the Tom Harrises, Anthony Wattsits, and Christopher Moncktonites are becoming increasingly irrelevant. The more I see their nonsense, the sillier they appear and I find it difficult to accept that anybody really takes them seriously. They all take each other seriously of course and that in itself demonstrates just how wilfully ignorant they are. Dunning and Kruger need to do another study to determine the root cause of this ignorance.
FSM is coming.January 16, 2014 at 5:34 pm

Tom Harris, ‘Expert’ Yet you are clearly too stupid to be able to Google.

“Please tell us all about Dr. Singer’s affiliations with tobacco and oil industries. It should be easy if they are, as you assert, well documented.”

“Dr singers link to tobacco and oil”
About 61,300,000 results (0.30 seconds)
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 5:54 pm

From Sourcewatch:
“Prolific Op-Ed Writer … and “editor”

Harris has been a prolific writer of anti-Kyoto op-ed pieces, typically quoting scientists associated with Friends of Science,” Mark Holland wrote in June 2006.
“Tom Harris is everywhere in the blogosphere these days posting comments wherever anyone is saying positive things about the recent CBC climate change documentary, The Denial Machine,” Richard Littlemore of DeSmogBlog commented November 21, 2006.
“Harris has popped up here, here and again here, cutting and pasting the same batch of criticisms of CBC’s reporting and attempting to salvage something of the NRSP’s battered reputation,” Littlemore wrote.
Editing the Wikipedia and SourceWatch
“In other Tom Harris news,” Tim Lambert of Deltoid (ScienceBlogs.com) wrote November 7, 2006, “he’s been editing the Wikipedia page on the Natural Resource Stewardship Project in an attempt to remove the fact that as well as heading the NRSP he works for the High Park Group a PR company that lobbies for energy companies.”
Read the comments which follow Lambert’s Deltoid posting, which includes the following dated November 8, 2006, by John Quiggin: [6]
“It gets better. Harris is editing Wikipedia denying that he is associated with High Park Group. Meanwhile the HPG website says:
Tom Harris, Director, Ottawa Operations
Tom specializes in strategic communication and media relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies. Tom holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from Carleton University and a Master of Engineering (Mechanical – thermo-fluids) from McMaster University.
“Telephone: (613) 234-3039
“So apparently there are two Tom Harrises in Ottawa with identical qualifications and connections to the oil industry,” Quiggin wrote.
Note that the HPG web bio for Tom Harris has been deleted, possibly at Harris’s request, since Quiggin’s Deltoid posting.”
uknowispeaksenseJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:55 pm

@ David Black. If you are referring to the photo of him with the hat and striped jacket…ummm he appears to be posing for it. Was there actually any reference to his condition or his eyeballs associated with the photo? If there was, I can’t see it. Perhaps you are a little oversensitive? Perhaps you disagree with the article and can’t find anything to legitimately criticise? Believe me when I say I am not attacking you but am genuinely interested in the motivation behind your comment.
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:56 pm

David, I could find another photo of Monckton. It isn’t his look that concerns me. Can you find me another planet to live on when this one cooks?
FSM is comingJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:07 pm

Ok, clearly nothing to stand by Mr Harris.
I’ll summarise my opinion of you and everything you stand for in these lyrics..

“It took a lot of work to be the ass that I am. But I’m pretty damn sure anyone can, easily, equally Fu*k you over”
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:12 pm

Perhaps the photo of Monckton dressed as a sheikh would be a fairer photo to use…
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:16 pm

You mean this one? (I know I have posted it before but it has to rank up there as one of my favourites)
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:19 pm

“The ICSC, headed by Tom Harris, a former Canadian energy company public relations consultant, is trying to grab media attention with a new report written by the who’s who of the climate denier conspiracy bunch. The report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science, is part of a series published by a Chicago-based front group for the oil and tobacco industries called the Heartland Institute.

This is the same small group of people who claim a grand conspiracy by the United Nations to take over the world. This echo chamber of climate denial attempts to prop up non-experts in the hopes of grabbing a few headlines before journalists figure out they have been fooled by conmen.”

Here’s another one for your angels Tom.
JohnBJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:35 pm

Well done Kaye Lee – a very well done and worthwhile investigation,
Now if you could only get an interview with our current Science Environment minister Greg Hunt.
It would be interesting to where he is getting his AGW scientific advice.
David BlackJanuary 16, 2014 at 6:36 pm

About the photo of Lord Monckton …
He suffers from a medical condition which gives him that protruding eyeball effect. There are many pictures of him where his condition is not so obvious.
It is really hateful to feature that one.
JohnBJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:37 pm

Note – “Science” was meant to be struckthrough in above post.
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 7:54 pm

I have a lovely photo of Monckton in a Stars and Stripes cowboy outfit. Perhaps that’s more to David’s taste.
Pingback: Weakest argument ever? | uknowispeaksense
uknowispeaksenseJanuary 16, 2014 at 8:39 pm

I have a better photo for you to use….http://wp.me/p2fD5I-Ap
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 8:50 pm

David, au contraire, I am full of love. Love to you and everyone you deal with! Xx
KeithJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Something I have noticed is that science has bypassed people such as Tom Harris and Monckton; yet, they keep pushing the same barrow. They need to be able to give a very good critique of the assessments discussed in the following reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSsPHytEnJM

They might say something such as there was more ice coverage in 2013 compared to 2012. But photos in 2013 show a blue tinge indicating thinner ice. Photos from space also show fissures in the ice in February 2013, how do they explain that?

Oceans and seas are being damaged through human activity; do they agree with that proposition? Can they explain why acidification is occurring?
uknowispeaksenseJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:06 pm

“you people”? Interesting…and I don’t hate anyone. Bemusement and pity is what I often feel for people who refer to others as “you people”.
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:24 pm

Unfortunately, the paper “A plain-English service to science and truth by the Lord Monckton Foundation  1 January 2014” appears to have been removed. Lucky I copied it first 🙂

This may be a site issue…….or a small example of how we CAN make a difference.
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:43 pm

Lots of colour – I was impressed!

http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Setting_the_Climate_Council_Straight_about_their_propaganda.pdf
David BlackJanuary 16, 2014 at 8:43 pm

@UNIKNOWISPEAKSENSE
Thanks for the civilized response.
I was referring to the picture on the HOME of this site, which has no hat and striped jacket.
You people are so full of hatred.
Kaye LeeJanuary 16, 2014 at 9:45 pm

The potato and the rose Ross 😉
BrianJanuary 16, 2014 at 10:40 pm

More time wasted on useless fruitcakes. It would be bloody hysterical if it weren’t so damned serious. Seems only hell on earth will get their attention.
olddaveyJanuary 16, 2014 at 10:50 pm

Marty Feldman had the same medical condition as Monkton. However that’s where the similarity ends as Marty was in possession of a great deal of intelligence.
Matters not.January 16, 2014 at 11:59 pm

Must admit I can’t understand why we are discussing this. As I understand it the the science is ‘in’ while the politics isn’t. I also understand that the continuing political debate is funded by those who have a lot to lose if governments here, there and everywhere act in the ‘general’ interest.

For those who don’t know the Kochs (and others) funded an ‘independent review of the ‘science’, undertaken by ‘sceptics’. The chief researcher was Richard A. Muller who said before the study commenced:

we are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious, ….we are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find. We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close

Anthony Watts who popularized several of the issues addressed by the Berkeley Earth group study, stated (at the time)

“I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.”

Needless to say when the results were announced, he ‘ran away’. Anyone surprised?

After doing their ‘homework’ the chief researcher said publically:

Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

More here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

Has anyone asked Mr Harris (and others) how they handle that ‘truth’ as provided by BES If not then why not?

Really this is not a ‘debate’ about the science, it’s a debate about what people want to believe. And at the political level there is simply no leadership.
John FraserJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:03 am

<
John FraserJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:12 am

<

News Hounds (we watch Fox so you don't have to) :

"Last night’s (1/30/07) Hannity & Colmes offered a “debate” about global warming with a panel made up of global-warming deniers, only. Each of the two guests has ties to the energy industry that were not disclosed to viewers by the “we report, you decide” network. The debate was prompted by an upcoming report from the U.N. on the issue. It must have been the inclusion of the U.N. that prompted “fair and balanced” FOX News to decide that it just couldn’t take a chance with anyone with a different opinion, even if that opinion is in the mainstream of science.

During the discussion, the biased FOX News chyron did its part, too, to cast doubt on the UN and global warming: U.N. SET TO RELEASE GLOBAL WARMING REPORT: IS IT FACT OR FICTION?

Nobody told the viewers that guest Professor Fred Singer has served as a consultant to several oil companies – just the kinds of entities who would prefer not to be fingered as a cause. Furthermore, Singer’s organization, SEPP, has received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org.

Singer acknowledged that the temperature is rising but, he insisted, there was no proof that it’s not part of a natural cycle. “We find that there’s really no evidence to support the man-made hypothesis.” Singer said. “There has never been a case of human activity causing a global warming and, of course, sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age.”
Singer is also alleged to have debated Carl Sagan on the effects of the Kuwait petroleum fires during Operation Desert Storm. According to Wikipedia, Sagan thought the petroleum fires would lead to ecological disaster. Singer said such a view was ridiculous, that the smoke would go up only a few thousand feet and then be washed out of the atmosphere by rain. Three days later, black rain began falling over Iran, which essentially put an end to the speculation. Singer has also been a spokesperson for the tobacco industry and has written op-ed pieces on the “junk science” of second-hand smoke hazards."
Denny faircloughJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:39 am

What a typical Dunning Kruger* Tom Harris is. If there was really a God, I wish he would tell us why he lets pathetic dumb jokes like this circumvent natural selection so damn easily? Cant linger… have to go off and vomit again.
revolutionarycitizenJanuary 17, 2014 at 5:38 am

Science is scepticism, the moment scientists stop being sceptics they’re no longer scientists, and it is that simple…
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 17, 2014 at 7:21 am

Sceptical is one thing. A refusal to accept evidence is another.
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 17, 2014 at 8:24 am

Or as Lord Monckton, using all of his powers of eloquence and all his qualifications, put it on the website:
‘As we scientists say, “Sh*t happens! Get over it! Get a life!”.’
FSM is comingJanuary 17, 2014 at 9:13 am

A lot of these deniers need to be arrested our at least put back in school.
They keep trying to muddy the definition of the word science!

Science definition..
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Kaye LeeJanuary 17, 2014 at 9:32 am

Reading “About us” on Lord Monckton’s site was amusing.

“The Lord Monckton Foundation has been established to support the work of Lord Christopher Monckton the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley.

The Lord Monckton Foundation stands as the wall of the West, the redoubt of reason, the sentinel of science, the fortress of freedom, and the defender of democracy.

The politicization and perversion of objective science, and especially of climate science, are a menace to the West and to the world.

The tendency towards global governance is gathering both momentum and permanence through entities such as the United Nations, the Organization on Economic Cooperation and Development and the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the latest and crudest pretext for necessary tyranny.
However necessary it be that nations should collaborate and cooperate in matters of common concern, every cession of sovereignty from a nation to a supranational or global entity at present entails a real transfer of legislative and increasingly of fiscal power from elected to unelected hands – both legislation and taxation without representation.

Is science dead? Must reason fail? Shall objectivity be slaughtered again on the pagan altar of mere ideology? Is life now objectionable, liberty deplorable, the pursuit of happiness a crime? Has the nation had its day? Is the globalization of governance really a public good? Can democracy survive it? Should not the use of the ballot-box be extended? Should not every supranational and global institution of governance be elected? The Foundation exists to illuminate questions such as these, and to inspire devotion to the cause of Western civilization, true reason, sound science, universal liberty and worldwide democracy in the hearts of all men of goodwill. Let freedom ring!”

That’s not freedom ringing – it’s the death knell for fruitcakes. Australians don’t like being lied to Mr Monckton and your assumption that we are ill-informed, easily manipulated bogans is insulting.
diannaartJanuary 17, 2014 at 9:54 am

Top work Kaye Lee.

I f the climate science deniers really wanted to present as serious and sincere sceptics, why references to those who accept the science as “bed-wetters”? Impossible to give any credence to such people who pepper their pronouncements with ad hominems from the get-go. Not exactly a practice worthy of publication in anything except rags such as the Daily Malfeasance.

As I have asked before, where is the peer reviewed science giving any validity to their claims? – instead we are treated with the usual crowd; Monkcton et al.
cassilva48January 17, 2014 at 10:05 am

http://davidpratt.info/climategate.htm
Climategate and the corruption of climate science
davidpratt.info
The scandal beginsHockey ‘shtick’The palaeoclimate agendaClimategatekeepingFree the data and codeTemperature adjustments and trendsIPCC and the coming apocalypseFurther information
19 hours ago · Like · 1 · Remove Preview
Kaye LeeJanuary 17, 2014 at 10:17 am

dianna,

Peer-reviewed papers like this one perhaps?

Abstract: We assess climate impacts of global warming using ongoing observations and paleoclimate data. We use Earth’s measured energy imbalance, paleoclimate data, and simple representations of the global carbon cycle and temperature to define emission reductions needed to stabilize climate and avoid potentially disastrous impacts on today’s young people, future generations, and nature. A cumulative industrial-era limit of ,500 GtC fossil fuel emissions and 100 GtC storage in the biosphere and soil would keep climate close to the Holocene range to which humanity and other species are adapted. Cumulative emissions of ,1000 GtC, sometimes associated with 2uC global warming, would spur ‘‘slow’’ feedbacks and eventual warming of 3–4uC with disastrous consequences. Rapid emissions reduction is required to restore Earth’s energy balance and avoid ocean heat uptake that would practically guarantee irreversible effects. Continuation of high fossil fuel emissions, given current knowledge of the consequences, would be an act of extraordinary witting intergenerational injustice. Responsible policymaking requires a rising price on carbon emissions that would preclude emissions from most remaining coal and unconventional fossil fuels and phase down emissions from conventional fossil fuels.

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0081648&representation=PDF
revolutionarycitizenJanuary 17, 2014 at 10:34 am

Evidence is not proof, and even evidence of one thing is no reason to give up scepticism. Science relies on continuous questioning and examination, not only of one’s hypothesis but science and its methods.
Kaye LeeJanuary 17, 2014 at 11:13 am

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

The overwhelming body of “evidence” leads to the conclusion that our burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Predicting weather is an inexact science but with so much at stake, risk management must be undertaken now.
uknowispeaksenseJanuary 17, 2014 at 11:20 am

@revolutionarycitizen. You are so right. If ever I am diagnosed with brain cancer I will remain sceptical and demand scepticism from the oncologists and reject their evidence. It certainly isn’t proof of anything. I will even refuse treatment until they admit to the whole chemotherapy/cancer scam, right up until the moment that I am in constant agony, have lost control of all my bodily functions and can no longer recognise my family members. After all, everyone knows the pharmaceutical companies have invented the whole thing to make money. Right?
Matters not.January 17, 2014 at 11:56 am

From the New York Times:

The report is not final, but a draft dated Dec. 17 leaked this week and was first reported by Reuters. The New York Times obtained a copy independently.

Business leaders will address many of the problems raised in the draft next week, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where a day will be devoted to addressing the rising economic costs of climate change — and the costs to businesses and governments of solving the problem.

Within the business community, “there is an awakening of increasing economic risk — a recognition that operating conditions are changing and we need to respond,” said Dominic Waughray

More here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/science/earth/un-says-lag-in-confronting-climate-woes-will-be-costly.html?hp&_r=0
revolutionarycitizenJanuary 17, 2014 at 12:34 pm

It is the scepticism of people like oncologists which invents new procedures, it is the willingness of people like oncologists to question previously held opinion which furthers their craft. All science works this way, the very fact that they know it is a tumour is a result of that very scepticism you think is irrelevant.
didisaythataloudJanuary 17, 2014 at 11:42 am

David Black, as far as I can see, His Most Worshipful Lord Monckton is the one placing the most emphasis on his eyes – judging by the number of photos he has had taken. But bugger the eyes, really. Normally, I am one who tries not to hate, but forgive me if I have no fondness for someone who thinks it’s ok to prevent any meaningful response to climate change until it is frankly too late. I say this while sitting through a massive and elongated heat wave in Melbourne, and having had to buy anti-hystemines because of my reaction to heat stress. And I am normally such a resilient person! This, of course, used to be quite unusual weather for Melbourne, but is becoming more frequent and more extreme. Last time we experienced this level of blast-furnace, so many people died they ran out of space to put them.

I shouldn’t forget to mention, of course, that while we await a cool change here, large parts of America are experiencing weather normally associated with the worst of Russian winters, and Europe braces for historic storms. Again.

And of course, in between, or sometimes concurrently with, heat waves here, there have been massive cyclone and flood events, to the extent that one-in-a-hundred year occurences such as the filling of Lake Eyre (normally a salt pan) occurred three years running… I suspect there is someone out there running a book on how many one-in-hundred year events we can identify up over half a decade.

At the very least, David old bean, permit me to detest frauds who think there can possibly be any excuse at all for scotching any effective action on climate change.
Kaye LeeJanuary 17, 2014 at 2:15 pm

It was the scepticism of climate scientists about climate change being due to natural variation that has led us to where we are now. How much evidence do you need to take action?
AnomanderJanuary 17, 2014 at 2:46 pm

Damn! I made the serious mistake of opening the link to Lord Monkeyman’s pdf and burnt the retinas out of my skull. To blatantly try to distort the truth by equating Australia’s contribution to CO2 as a percentage of the total volume is disingenuous at best and dangerously stupid and mendacious at worst. What a contrived and bizarre piece of perverted shit, as is every statement from the denialist cohort of Harris. Monkton, Singer, Watts, et al. all of whom should be charged with crimes against humanity.

I like to consider Climate Change denial as a metaphor in which a man decides to lay in the middle of a road, despite many thousands of locals and traffic experts, all familiar with that road, telling him repeatedly that large trucks frequent the road.

Even when these same experts and locals point to all the obvious tyre-tracks, the wear and tear on the road surface, the numerous squished animal carcasses and relate their own experiences and studies in seeing trucks constantly thundering along the road.

Rather than making the effort to move off the road and mitigate the risk, the denialists want to argue that the locals are incorrect, that all these trucks don’t exist because they themselves have never seem one, or that the locals are exaggerating the frequency and size of the trucks and that they really pose no danger. They prefer instead to cite the advice of people from many suburbs away who have no local knowledge of either the road or the traffic volumes and activity.

Even when the locals see the headlights looming on the horizon or hear the roar of the approaching engine, the denialist ignores the advice, instead preferring to believe the driver should be the one to act responsibly on their behalf, or that perhaps some divine force will intervene and divert the truck and save them.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the denialists who are laying on the road, it is all of us, our friends, family and even our children. The road is now rumbling from the weight of the thundering behemoth, smoke from the exhaust is clearly visible and despite all the locals putting themselves in harms way to deliver the warnings time is fast running out for the man to take action and move out of the way.

Like this man, we have a clear choice. Do we accept the advice of the locals and the experts or do we listen to people who are giving us advice that is likely to endanger our lives and the lives of our families?
Christopher ArcusJanuary 18, 2014 at 6:43 am

Just wow. Someone that challenges Fred Singer is associated with Heartland and Big Tobacco. And NASA is just an official body… What? Was that reasoning? I missed it. Weakest denier arguments yet? May be. Thing is just when you think they can’t get any more daft, along comes another to top him in the whacko department. But I have to hand it to you. This one is a doozie.
KeithJanuary 18, 2014 at 1:26 pm

Here is a clip mainly about glaciologists,It shows the attitude of various politicians and climate change deniers. If you are a climate change skeptic then watch this clip, and see if you have no second thoughts.
You can bet Harriss et al haven’t watched anything like it, and would not have the data to argue against what is going on in the Arctic Circle. We are literally sitting on a time bomb
http://www.wilderutopia.com/environment/energy/climate/climate-disruption-arctic-death-spiral-underway/
JohnBJanuary 18, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Keith,
Further to your ‘Actic time bomb’ concerns,
“Arctic News” provides graphic detail – the unstoppable “methane monster” is awakening.
Ignore it at the peril of life on Earth as we know it:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/
KeithJanuary 18, 2014 at 5:44 pm

Thank you John, I guess the Arctic Circle is under winter conditions at present which makes your reference even more of a worry as more methane is likely to be released come June/July.
KeithJanuary 18, 2014 at 6:33 pm

I had a look at Tom Harris’s site http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=564

The worry is that he has a program he offers ” For high schools, colleges and universities:
Climate Change in an Era of Negative Discovery”.
I do believe that some of the matters taught have been superseded by climate scientists; examples that jumped out is the role of galactic cosmic rays, and changes in the suns output.
Gregory TJanuary 18, 2014 at 6:54 pm

Keith.. thanks for the Arctic Circle Death Spiral link. To me, the most heartbreaking aspect, is the final speech by Severn Suzuki, which shows how we grownups, have failed in our obligations to not only future generations, but to the present ones.
KeithJanuary 18, 2014 at 7:23 pm

Gregory, it was a brilliant eloquent speech that many adults would not have the skills to create.
FrankDJanuary 19, 2014 at 12:06 am

A little background to the film Monckton is backing might be interesting. The “brains” behind the 50-to-1 project is Topher Field, an Australian actor/director of mediocre calibre whose greatest achievement to date was to have a short film make last years Tropfest final 12 (“The Hustle”). It was compentantly made in an okay-if-you-didn’t-see-the-twist-a-mile-off kind of way. He is, however, fairly gifted in the field of internet pan-handling, and he seems to have hooked a patron of note in Monckton. His other hobby appears to be general sh*t-stirring.

Since Topher is (from personal experience of online discussions) a smug public school boy more given to displays of his own cleverness than generating or absorbing any insight into anything of substance, the Discount Viscount no doubt recognises a kindred spirit. Topher’s internet presence would position him firmly in the fringe of the Tea Party, if Australia had a branch. Which goes some way to explaining the choice of “experts”.

It’s hard to tell if Topher actually believes much of what he says, but this project’s funding depends on maintaining that appearence
Kaye LeeJanuary 19, 2014 at 10:59 am

Monckton’s Foundastion has recently been granted Charitable Organisation status so they do not have to pay tax. Nice scam THAT is.
rossleighbrisbaneJanuary 19, 2014 at 11:33 am

What I find most frustrating about taking to your average climate change denier is that they start with the “sceptic” argument – nothing in science should ever be just accepted and everything should be under constant challenge and review. So far, no problem, but then they have this massive leap to and look at all the things that we KNOW. We are SURE that climate change is NOT occuring, because it’s ALWAYS occuring.
Getting some consistency from them is harder than pinning jelly to the wall.
cassilva48January 19, 2014 at 12:24 pm

I would be interested to know what the recent bushfires will have on our environment?
meizpodJanuary 19, 2014 at 1:42 pm

I do not think we need science to prove we are shitting on our own doorstep. Whether a believer or doubter it seems obvious we are consuming the planet and breeding too quickly but with everyone wanting a Mercedes, internet and “to make a difference” the planet’s only option will be to slap us down.
Konstantina VlahosApril 4, 2014 at 9:25 pm

Kaye Lee, you are a living, truth-fire breathing, national treasure. Everything you say gives me hope. With writers like you and John Lord working so hard to get the truth out, I know all is not lost.
Pingback: The omniscient Maurice Newman « The Australian Independent Media Network

The Price of Eggs: Why Harris lost to…

Clean energy progress won’t be Trumped

Australian experts lead global push in Lancet Commission…

How Bad (or Good) is it Today?

To Putin or not to Putin

Unleashing the potential of the rural and remote…

Aged Pension in Australia Makes Life a Struggle

Reality check: Monash experts navigate the future of…

Science Downunder and global warming

Like this:

Related Articles

72 comments

Leave a Reply

Union calls for Julie Bishop to be sacked from ANU…

Homelessness

Share this:

Like this:

Related Articles

72 comments

Leave a Reply