In 2014, Tom Harris received the Excellence in Climate Science Communication Award from the Heartland Institute, which said that he was “perhaps the most frequently cited and interviewed critic of exaggeration and alarmism in the global warming debate.”
Climate alarmist changes his mind, now calls out activists
Engineer said he used to believe global warming frenzy but now says it’s a billion-dollar business, not science-based
John Schwartzentruber
Special to Farmers Forum
First, there was the voice of one crying in the wilderness of despair created by climate alarmism. Then, despite shrieks of horror that someone dared question the science used to stoke visions of a global inferno, courageous people added to the brighter chorus proclaiming that, “The planet is not burning up!”
Ottawa resident, aerospace engineer and former lecturer Tom Harris is one of a growing force successfully refuting the flood of claims that human activity is having a significant impact on climate. Harris recently addressed the annual meeting of the CFFO-Lambton District, hosted by Zekvelds Garden Market, near Wyoming, Ontario.
Currently the executive director of International Climate Science Coalition-Canada, Harris lectured on climate science at Ottawa’s Carleton University. His courses included the history of earth climate, geological causes of climate variability and how rapid climate change impacts the earth’s life forms. When someone with his credentials addresses the reality of ever-changing climate, the derogatory label of “climate denier” doesn’t fit well.
Ironically, Tom Harris admits that in his earlier years he was one of the climate doomsday cultists that he now calls out for their unfounded belief system. But after studying observable climatic realities, Harris now says climate frenzy is a lucrative, multi-billion dollar business that is not based on reliable science. And, sharing alternative energy’s appetite for government subsidies, it earns the label of being a welfare industry.
Harris contends that temperature variations shown by long-term data are naturally occurring events, thus they will not be mitigated by human efforts like reducing emissions of CO2 and other gases. Climate reality, he says, is composed of hundreds of factors.
Furthermore, he points out that the staggering, human cost of reducing emissions from the use of hydrocarbon fuels (commonly named ‘fossil fuels’) is completely ignored by climate activists. If the lowered targets of petroleum products usage — such as oil, gas or nitrogen fertilizer — were actually achieved, the negative global impact would be devastating. People will suffer and die.
For example, Harris states that the government goal is to eliminate inorganic nitrogen fertilizers. To illustrate what happens when fertilizer is eliminated, Harris points to Sri Lanka where hunger, rebellion and riots broke out because of food shortages.
According to the U.N. World Food Program, Sri Lankan food production plummeted when their government banned fertilizer application for crops. Not long before the shortages turned deadly, Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa gave a speech to the U.N. Climate Change Conference glorifying his country’s shift toward “sustainable agriculture.” Within months, he fled the country in fear for his life when hunger-fueled rebellion broke out and toppled his government.
If we may take a lesson from the failed Sri Lankan experiment, it is this: any steps farmers take to reduce CO2, methane or nitrous oxide emissions will never be enough to satisfy government demands, Harris says. The next reduction targets are already planned and will be imposed on the agriculture sector, creating a constantly shifting target. And while current reduction goals are voluntary, don’t expect it to stay that way. Future directives will be much more restrictive and injurious, he says, without achieving cooler temperatures.
The correlation between essential CO2 levels and plant growth is indisputable; higher levels result in greater growth. This is why greenhouse operators supplement CO2 levels in their greenhouses and plant life flourishes as a result. Harris points out that the earth’s current CO2 levels are not much higher than the minimum required for sustaining plant life. Lower levels would impede plant development.
While climate doomsayers rely on computer models for predicting a climate apocalypse, these “have a solid track record of failure,” Harris points out. Numerous sources report that climate scientists predicted around 33 major, Atlantic storm events for the U.S. during this year’s hurricane season. So far, there have been five in the period which begins June 1 and ends in November.
Worldwide, there are notable changes in the climate-change debate. The prestigious, French daily newspaper, Le Monde, reports that Sweden, once the darling of climate change saviors, has recently reversed course, abandoning the carbon-reduction goals set by preceding left-wing governments. Other European countries are finding out the hard way that relying on so-called renewable energy is leaving them in the cold and dark.
Harris’ generally upbeat message took a darker turn when he stated what he says is the real agenda for attempts to end the world’s reliance on hydrocarbon fuels. Rather than being a noble struggle to “save the planet,” it is a subversive attempt to replace our democracy with a technocracy — people with vested interests making the rules. Already, many decision-makers, which impact our everyday lives, are not elected. They are unseen operatives schooled in U.N. or World Economic Forum ideology and have infiltrated nearly every level of government, Harris says, adding that if they succeed in imposing their “progressive” agenda, our lifestyle will perish.
Will the world burn up just because your truck needs gas or your cows released some? Tom Harris’ cheerful message is that it’s okay to drive to town, have that steak, while Greta Thunberg sputters in the background “How dare you?”
For more information on responsible climate policy, visit sensiblechange.ca.
