Students Get Lobby Group Material From Chris de Freitas in Climate 101 Lectures

Tue, 2011-07-19 11:41Graham Readfearn
Graham Readfearn's picture

Students Get Lobby Group Material From Chris de Freitas in Climate 101 Lectures

Chris de Freitas

New Zealand-based academic and climate sceptic Dr Chris de Freitas has been caught using material from US lobby groups in lectures to first year university Geography students.

Students who listened to the “Geography 101” lectures on climate from Dr de Freitas, an associate professor at The University of Auckland’s School of Environment, admitted to being “quite convinced” that a scientific debate was still raging over the causes of global warming.

A report in the New Zealand Herald highlighted how Dr de Freitas had ignored key texts, ignored recent extreme weather events and argued that climate change was almost entirely down to natural variations.

In the lecture notes, published by author Gareth Renowden on his Hot Topic blog, one student wrote in the margins that “CO2 has a lot of beneficial effects… don’t believe the propaganda”.

Renowden pointed out:

De Freitas is presenting material prepared by US lobby groups and bloggers — stuff that’s been deliberately designed to confuse the issue, not provide educational material for use in university foundation courses.

Renowden discovered that Dr de Freitas was using material from retired meteorologist Joe D’Aleo and Christopher Monckton - both advisors to a number of climate denier think-tanks with links to fossil fuel funding.

Both are advisers to the Science and Public Policy Institute. Also an advisor to the SPPI is Dr David Legates, who was recently asked to step down as Delaware’s state climatologist.

Dr de Freitas came to prominence when the journal Climate Research, for which he was an editor, published a controversial paper in 2003 by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas which argued contemporary climate change was not happening.

Some 13 of the editors cited in the paper complained they had been misrepresented. The paper prompted the resignation of three members of the editorial board, including editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, who said the research was flawed.

Earlier this month, it was revealed that Dr Soon’s entire research income since 2002 had come from fossil fuel interests, including the American Petroleum Institute and Southern Company.

Comments

LionelA, I do not know what is wrong with Romm’s articles because I NEVER go there. Why go to a nasty, wrong headed, blog where comments are so highly edited or deleted to make them meaningless. Not so far from what we saw here for a very long time.

“Why go to a nasty, wrong headed, blog where comments are so highly edited or deleted to make them meaningless.”

They dont censor over there like they do on WUWT.

PhilM, says: “They dont censor over there like they do on WUWT.” Really?!? I guess you never made a comment that was less than supportive? Echo chambers are not constructive.

They have developed a strictly science only approach & as their “about” section states:

“The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science.”

So no, I doubt whether your usual “it’s over warmists” type crap will wash over there.

“”Echo chambers are not constructive.”

So your against WUWT?…….Good on ya. I knew you would come to your senses & see that WUWT is a conservative propaganda site run by a right wing fox news employee.

“… how else to label somebody who only pays attention to one side of this argument.”

Repeat: an honest scientist. There is no argument. There is the single reality of anthropogenic global warming. Accept the fact. Or remain an ostrich but then please do not whine when people take your nonsense to task - instead: thank them for their troubles.

Bring to fore real events? Sure. Like: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20? .

‘I do not know what is wrong with Romm’s articles because I NEVER go there.’

Well that is a part of the problem, maybe the dust that has blown across Phoenix has made it difficult for you to get your head out and see reality.

Here, I’ll help you out with some, reality that is:

<—extract—>

States hit hardest by heat wave cut or cancel programs to help poor people cool their homes

One of the most brutal heatwaves in recent memory has been met with denial by right-wingers (see “Limbaugh Calls Heat Index a Liberal Government Conspiracy“).

Now, the Washington Post reports that “Many states hit hardest by this week’s searing heat wave have drastically cut or entirely eliminated programs that help poor people pay their electric bills, forcing thousands to go without air conditioning when they need it most. Oklahoma ran out of money in just three days.” Hard to believe we’re the richest country in the world.

The U.S. is, in some sense, being slammed by two different heatwaves – a tropical heatwave with staggering humidity that is driving up the heat index to deadly levels and a ‘subtropical heatwave’ with staggering aridity that turns a drought into a Dust Bowl.

Of the tropical heat wave, meteorologist Dr. Jeff Masters writes:

Wunderground’s climate change blogger Dr. Ricky Rood in his latest post, [explains that] with hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland still inundated by flood waters, and soils saturated over much of the Upper Midwest, there has been plenty of water available to evaporate into the air and cause remarkably high humdities. This makes for a very dangerous situation, as the human body is not able to cool itself as efficiently when the humidity is high.

At the same time, it is a basic prediction of climate science that the subtropics will expand (see the Geophysical Research Letters paper “Cause of the widening of the tropical belt since 1958“). I used to call that desertification until some readers pointed out that some deserts are full of life, which isn’t where we’re headed. That’s why I now call it Dust-Bowlification.

Speaking of Dust Bowls, I noted last week that the Texas drought is now far, far worse than when Gov. Rick Perry issued a Proclamation calling on all Texans to pray for rain.
The latest U.S. Drought Monitor is out, and, incredibly, the Texas drought got even worse:

(US Drought Monitor graphic of Texas here)

Now a stunning 75% of the state is under “exceptional drought” and 91% is under “extreme drought.”

For those of you who think the weather of 2011 is somehow normal or that we’ve seen it before — say, in the 1930s – Weather Channel meteorologist Stu Ostro begs to differ in his piece, “The ridge, heat, humidity, drought, and Dust Bowl“:

What happened in the 1930s and other decades reinforces that there have always been extremes in weather, and there is always natural variability at play. What’s changing now is the nature of those extremes, and also what’s important is the context.This time, the extreme drought, heat, and wildfires are occurring along with U.S. extremes this year in rainfall, snowfall, flooding, and tornadoes, and many other stunning temperature and precipitation extremes elsewhere in the world in recent years as well as, as I posted on my TWC Facebook “fan” page, record-shattering 500 millibar heights in high latitudes. And all of this is happening while there’s an alarming drop in the amount of Arctic sea ice.

The nature and context of the extremes is the difference between the 1930s and now.

I also recommend a HuffPost piece by water and climate scientist Peter Gleick, “It’s Hotter Than It Used to Be; It’s Not as Hot as It’s Going to Be.”

Finally, Heidi Cullen, a scientist at Climate Central, and author of The Weather of the Future: Heat Waves, Extreme Storms, and Other Scenes From a Climate-Changed Planet, has a good NY Times op-ed, “Sizzle Factor for a Restless Climate“:

Drawing from methods used in epidemiology, a field of climate research called “detection and attribution” tests how human actions like burning fossil fuels affect climate and increase the odds of extreme weather events.Heat-trapping pollution at least doubled the likelihood of the infamous European heat wave that killed more than 30,000 people during the summer of 2003, according to a study in the journal Nature in 2004. And if we don’t ease our grip on the climate, summers like that one will likely happen every other year by 2040, the study warned. Human actions have warmed the climate on all seven continents, and as a result all weather is now occurring in an environment that bears humanity’s signature, with warmer air and seas and more moisture than there was just a few decades ago, resulting in more extreme weather.

The snapshots of climate history from NOAA can also provide a glimpse of what’s in store locally in the future. Using climate models, we can project what future Julys might look like. For example, by 2050, assuming we continue to pump heat-trapping pollution into our atmosphere at a rate similar to today’s, New Yorkers can expect the number of July days exceeding 90 degrees to double, and those exceeding 95 degrees to roughly triple. Sweltering days in excess of 100 degrees, rare now, will become a regular feature of the Big Apple’s climate in the 2050s.

In short, get used to it!

<—endextract—>

Open your b***** eyes a2.

Well yes, that long winded diatribe did capture what at least one of Romm’s problems is.

He is still citing random natural weather events as climate.

He is simply a bufoon.

I consider calling names always as a sign of full agreement. You have no arguments left apparently.

The dice are loaded. Get used to it.

Logic is poisonous, facts are taboo. And cRR is dissident. Anonymous2 at 13:29 just paid Climate Progress due respect. Great site to find quality science.

Yeah, because Reverend Fat Al Gore never made a penny off of gullible lib-tards. Well, if you don’t count is four mansions, the custom-built 100’ houseboat (with matching jet-skis), and his private jets.

Wow what a “scientific” argument that is. How convincing. NOT!

So, endlessly pissing and moaning about Fox News, etc., is a “scientific” argument?

Try again, cupcake.

Actually, it is the students who are complaining and who outed de Freitas…even they, humble undergrads, know BS (bad science and well, you know…) when they see it. Sad that “skeptics” think propaganda, distortion and misinformation equate to getting it right.

More details on how he misinformed and misled young minds (or at least tried to) here:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/de-freitas-feeds-his-students-sceptic-propaganda/

Students need to entertain the misguided thinking of flat earthers when they learn about the planet now do they flat earthers, nor do med students need to hear from people who claim that there is no link between HIV and AIDS.

de Freitas is an ideologue, plain and simple….and a second rate scientists to boot. de Freitas , like Tim Ball, has tried to mislead students and feed them BS and failed. Way to go students!

Oops, correction to above:

“Students need to entertain the misguided thinking of flat earthers when they learn about the planet now do they flat earthers” should read:

“Do students need to entertain the misguided thinking of flat earthers when they learn about the planet, or do med students need to hear from people who claim that there is no link between HIV and AIDS?”

The answer is of course no. Same for climate science.

de Freitas and Soon et al. are the very antithesis of good scientists.

It’s the school boards and their advisers that are now aking for balance and reason to be taught (a opposed to alarmism). Please read these links before going off on another attack, thanks.

http://greenanswers.com/news/239802/california-high-school-required-teach-skeptical-views-global-warming http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/12/climate-change-curriculum-government-adviser

Of course, mathematics students should be taught some history of that science. Including the attempts of the quadrature of the circle, in fact attempts to ‘prove’ that Pi is a rational number.
Of course, students will also learn it is nonsense, although still some nut cases exist…

Likewise, students of geophysics, climatology et cetera should learn some things about AGW-denial. Especially its main principle, which states simply dat CO2 is no greenhouse gas. That will help students to distinguish within nanoseconds between scientists and, well, nut cases or liars like de Freitas.

What passes for ‘truth’ in “skeptic”, contrarian and denier circles is laughable and scary.

poor Julia Gillard….. She’s done.

Political experts believe the battle to sell the carbon tax to the Australian public has been lost and the Prime Minister can do nothing to change voters’ minds on the issue.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-price-battle-is-lost-say-experts-20110719-1hn0l.html

The Auzies are not stupid after all.

LOL.

“God forbid that his students would have to listen to both sides of an issue and think for themselves, right?” said Hank122s. Right. Like in mathematics we always study all sides of the issue, like: Pi is a whole number, Pi is a rational number, Pi is a trancendent number and, of course, we study Pi = zero, Pi = 1 and Pi = 7.56. Of course, college ends with discussion and a vote.

Then mathematics students are confronted with all sides of the Pythagoràs issue. First discussion is held as to whether a shape with four right angles is either a triangle or a circle. When it is decided it is neither this decision is tested by submerging the shape while shouting ‘Eureca’ (the correct spelling is taboo, of course). Finally, a vote is held and it is found the shape actually has five and a half right angles. So why couldn’t that be decreed in the first place?

All right. Chris de Freitas needs to be kicked out of The University of Auckland’s School of Environment, today, plain and simple. Liars should not be tolerated even a nanosecond in the academy.

Chris de Freitas should be given an award for having the balls to tell the truth in the face of the green establishment.

Their lies must be flushed out.

What “truths”? Again truth” seems to have some intriguing alternate meanings in the world of deniers of AGW and “skeptics”.

de Freitas should be given an award alright, the BS award. LOL.

www.skepticalscience.com/2010-Climate-BS-of-the-Year-Award.html

“Their lies must be flushed out.”

You are projecting. Yes, the lies and deception fabricated and perpetuated by “skeptics” like Monckton, Soon, Lindzen, de Freitas, Carter, Christy, and Michaels etc. must be flushed out. That is what we have sites like skepticalscience.com for.

Thanks deniers of AGW and so-called “skeptics” for showing just how truly ideological your beliefs are, and how wholly uninterested in real science you are.

Keep on digging anon drones.

Ok who wants to bet against Dr Chris de Freitas losing his teaching job within the next few months. He speaks blaspheme, his world is not flat like the world of the warmists who employ him.

I’m sure they will simply not renew his contract and tell him he is canned, decruited, “We’re going in another direction,” farmed out, “It’s not you, it’s us,” sent to the minors, given his walking papers, benched, sent packing, dismissed, released, terminated, dumped, sacked, outsourced, toast, walked out the door, outplaced, furloughed, cashiered, drummed out, escorted out.

If you knew anything about academia, your first question would be “Does he have tenure?”

Actually VJ comment is very relevat.
If he does have tenure, he “Should” be OK.
However, I suspect that because the climate alarmist industry is so powerful and corrupt he cold still be canned.

the climate community is not known for ethics or honesty, so they may indeed violate his rights for not sticking to the doctrines.

We shall see…. the result cold be very telling.

anonymous2 can’t handle the truth. I bet anonymous2 refuses to read http://www.realclimate.org/ as well, although that is the place to go for the climate science as presented by climate scientists.

“anonymous2 can’t handle the truth. I bet anonymous2 refuses to read http://www.realclimate.org/ as well, although that is the place to go for the climate science as presented by climate scientists.”

Please stay tuned for his standard response of “that is not a credible source”.

Only conservative misinformation blogs like WUWT are.

Yes they don’t like people to know which websites have good information and which are just smear and jeer sites.

No, I read RC, but no longer comment. Too many edits and moderating into never land. why is it believer blogs have the most restrictive commenting policies?

Denialist blogs just kick out the realists. Happens just once per realist, so no-one sees the censorship there. On WUWT one gets kicked off simply for using the first word in my post here :)

Denialists really need a lot of moderation. For them it is sooooo hard to understand the difference between a debate about physical reality and an ad hominem shouting contest. So you should be very happy with the work of e.g. RC on that.

cRRk, in response to my question re: why do believer b logs use heave moderation? says this: “So you should be very happy with the work of e.g. RC on that.”

But ignores Tammy, Climate Progress, Deltoid, LGF (especially on the AGW threads), and even DeSmog Blog (for quite some time), and there are many more liberal, liberal/AGW sites.

The good sites are those that allow a free (or at least relatively free) flow of commentary. If you don’t believe that compare the various rates of comment growth, hits and links. They are for the most part publicly available.

This thread has gone way too far from the subject, so G’day to y’all.

“This thread has gone way too far from the subject, so G’day to y’all.” - I don’t think so. You’re one of the big off topicers here so you’ll just have to hear us out until we say you can go :)

So RC chooses a different, not so very liberal moderation politic. So what? Without exception all denialist sites are nonliberal to the extreme. Adress that, please. E.g. at least every other remark I made in this thread would get censored into oblivion on WUWT. Including the remark you are reading now (for repeated violation of the D-Word).

General rule on denialist blogs: denialists are more than free to ad hominem attack bona fide contributors; bona fide contributors are never allowed payback instead they are to slave to answer the same lies (no, they are not just dumb questions) again and again and again till exhaustion…
Recently my free speech in Holland was erased by this slick fellow:
http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/2009/03/labohm-again-sigh.html .
(yep: EIKE = CFACT = Exxon of course… but don’t mention it -> http://jules-klimaat.blogspot.com/search/label/Hans%20Labohm?updated-max=2009-08-06T01%3A28%3A00%2B02%3A00&max-results=20 ).

cRRK, PhilM, LionelA, ET AL there is an interesting analysis of RC comment deletions/snippings at WUWT. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/22/further-down-the-bore-hole/#more-43861

Maybe next they will compare Climate Progress.

Are you concerned about making a scientific point at WUWT or even other blogs, or are you more interested in sticking pointed objects into their eyes? If “at least every other remark I made in this thread would get censored into oblivion on WUWT. Including the remark you are reading now (for repeated violation of the D-Word).” then stop using the “D” word. Why continue to break a commenting policy? Seems kinda childish and unnecessarily argumentative.

“Are you concerned about making a scientific point at WUWT

WUWT is not a scientific blog. It’s a conservative front group & opinion blog. It’s only about the science when they want to change the subject & not talk about themselves.

WUWT is a highly politicized blog & you know it. Scroll through the pages of WUWT & you will find attack posts on progressives on every single page. Whether it’s the democrats, greens, labor,greenpeace, the wilderness society or the all time favourite Al Gore.

Whereas on Real Climate you can scroll through dozens of pages & find nothing on the politics. It’s entirely about the science there & like I’ve said , if you go posting there about the politics & conspiracy theories like you do here, they will delete your posts. It’s stated quite plainly.

WUWT on the other hand not only censors on it’s own blog, but he tries to censor OUTSIDE of his own blog. The censorship on WUWT has experienced by myself & many others over the years, here’s mine before I left:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/18010/

Quote: “I have deleted posts of yours in their entirety and will continue to do so should you continue on your current course of attacking Willis’s qualifications or your mistaken belief that trying to obtain information in order to verify and replicate scientific studies is somehow a form of harassment. You are on notice. Hitting the trash link is far less work than writing these replies. Wear your censored status proudly. Go running to your friends elsewhere and complain about how you were oppressed and victimized here. ~ charles the moderator]”

Several times I asked simple questions of Eschenbasch & Watts, plus provided links showing the evidence was that WUWT, McIntyre & Eschenbach harassed Jones when there was no need & was either snipped or deleted each time. Perhaps one in 5 of my posts made it through. The kind of things you & your mate anonymous mention almost daily on this blog without censorship. Seems they don’t like their readers knowing certain things over at WTFUWT.

“(for repeated violation of the D-Word).” then stop using the “D” word.”

Seems they have double standards over there at WUWT. The terms warmists, warmologists, catastrophists, socialists, communists etc are all acceptable if not encouraged for readers to use at their leisure. But its…oh no….don’t call us names….that’s unfair & we will cry if the words denier is used. It’s pathetic.

Watts also tried to censor Peter Sinclair OUTSIDE of his blog & failed:

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610?blend=1&ob=5#p/c/029130BFDC78FA33/45/dcxVwEfq4bM

Monckton also called on WUWT readers to apply for censorship of John Abraham to shut him down & prevent him from exposing Moncktons lies….they obliged & they failed.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton-tries-to-censor-John-Abraham.html

You can’t complain about censorship at real climate when the majority of the posts they probably get is “it’s over ya socialist warmists”.

PhilM, makes some interesting claims about politics and censoring at WUWT compared to RC. Here’s one example: “Whereas on Real Climate you can scroll through dozens of pages & find nothing on the politics. It’s entirely about the science there & like I’ve said , if you go posting there about the politics & conspiracy theories like you do here, they will delete your posts.”

So I took the challenge and scrolled the first page of RC and found this page 1 hit piece:
1) How Soon is now?
— gavin @ 7 July 2011

In it he says: “Recently, there has been a renewed focus on how much money Willie Soon has taken from fossil fuel companies for his ‘research’ (over a $1 million dollars).” A baseless implication unless we can also say scientists taking Govt money are also supporting Govt policies. Nah, they wouldn’t support carbon tax legislation?

“So I took the challenge and scrolled the first page of RC and found this page 1 hit piece:
1) How Soon is now?
— gavin @ 7 July 2011 ”

Willie Soon is a politician or a member of a political party?

It was attacking the science & affiliation of a scientist.

Here is what I said:

“Scroll through the pages of WUWT & you will find attack posts on progressives on every single page. Whether it’s the democrats, greens, labor,greenpeace, the wilderness society or the all time favourite Al Gore.

Whereas on Real Climate you can scroll through dozens of pages & find nothing on the politics.”

Lets do 10 pages on WUWT:

Page 1: Clinton’s solution for the jobs crisis – painters
Page 2: Oh, that’s gotta hurt, Al
Page 2: “Climate Reality” is Al Gore’s Gettysburg
Page 3: Give this lady an Order of Australia medal
Page 3: Lipstick on a pig: Gore rebrands climate outfit
Page 4: “Carbon Sunday” – The madness in Australia over the Carbon Tax
Page 4: A mini-movie in blackboard form – Why The Left’s Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong
Page 5: Climate and electoral success
Page 6: The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace
Page 7: Snow job: Al Gore doesn’t know how to use the Internet
Page 7: Gorefail: The state of the global green movement is “shambolic”
Page 8: Al Gore branches out into population control theory
Page 9: Greenpeace in our time
Page 10: Obama’s SmartGrid plans

Still not seeing a running theme there? Or the fact that the host works for fox news? No disproportionate focus on Al Gore?

WUWT also likes to use a tried & test psychological trick that slave traders or the KKK used to use against black folk. Put puppies into a dark bag & beat it, then open the bag so that the first thing they see is a black person. Thus conditioning hatred.

In the case of WUWT, it show it’s readers Al Gore frequently ( even though he left politics years ago) to condition it’s readers to direct their hatred & opposition at the left.

Even though there are plenty of conservative governed countries that have a carbon tax or ETS…….let’s not talk about that eh?

WUWT readers are conditioned to believe AGW is entirely a concoction of the left.

Please take the 10 page challenge on RC & post the political titles.

Heh heh…

Phil says WUWT is not a scientific site. (on a smear opinion blog)

WUWT just happened to win the aware for best science blog on the internet./ Hmmmmmm

But liars, ignorant bigots and freepers get to vote, so the real quality sites don’t win such votes. No one who is paying attentions respects WUWT.

WUWT just happened to win the aware for best science blog on the internet./’

Well thousands of ‘scientists’ are purported to have signed some petition. Similar malarkey my sparky.

Some explanations (some others offered elsewhere on this blog),

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/02/18/207555/bizarro-world-bloggies-finalist-for-best-science-blog-is-anti-science-website-wattsupwiththat/

and

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/05/31/232060/the-worlds-most-viewed-climate-website/

and

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/08/01/206515/wattsupwiththat-anthony-watts-steven-goddard/

so Watts cannot be honest about his own blog let alone any of the science, not that you find any of that up at the Wishful Thinking farm, i.e., where braying animals hang out.

If North Korea is a mature state, then I really do prefer Kindergarten.

Pages

[x]

Before members of Congress departed Washington, D.C. for their month-long August recess, senators attempted one final vote on a resolution that did nothing more than state that the Senate accepts the science on climate change.  Noted science-denying Republican James Inhofe blocked the resolution, which required a...

read more