Picture this: A mechanical engineer walks into a climate debate and claims 97% of climate scientists are wrong. Sounds like the setup to a joke. Unfortunately, it's a real story that continues to fool people worldwide.
In an era where information travels faster than verification, distinguishing credible climate science from well-packaged misinformation is increasingly challenging. Claims by Tom Harris—a mechanical engineer and lobbyist who leads the International Climate Science Coalition— receives attention in certain circles, prompting a closer examination of both the messenger and the message.
Understanding the Source
Tom Harris brings an engineering background to climate discussions, but his organizational affiliations raise important questions about potential conflicts of interest. The International Climate Science Coalition, which he leads, documented financial connections to the Heartland Institute, an organization with known fossil fuel industry backing. It doesn't automatically invalidate his arguments, but provides important context for evaluating his claims within the broader landscape of climate discourse.
Understanding funding sources and institutional affiliations has become essential when evaluating scientific claims, particularly in fields where economic interests may influence messaging.
Examining Key Claims Through Scientific Literature
The 97% Consensus Question
Harris challenged the widely cited figure that 97% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming. However, this consensus figure is already validated through multiple independent studies using different methodologies. NASA, NOAA, and peer-reviewed research consistently support this finding. When evaluating consensus claims, it's worth examining not just one study, but the convergence of evidence across multiple research approaches.
Global Temperature Measurement
The assertion that "global temperature doesn't exist" or cannot be meaningfully measured is addressed extensively by climate scientists. Temperature anomalies is akin to taking your body temperature to check if you have a fever. You know that don't need to know the exact temperature of every cell to confirm the fever.
Temperature anomalies—deviations from long-term averages—provide robust data for tracking climate trends. Multiple independent temperature datasets from different institutions (NASA GISS, NOAA, HadCRUT) show remarkable agreement in long-term warming trends.
Climate Model Performance
Claims about climate model failures deserve scrutiny given the models' track record. Climate models from the 1970s and 1980s proved remarkably accurate in their warming projections. While no model is perfect, the consistent pattern of warming predicted decades ago aligns closely with observed temperature increases.
CO2 and Ecosystem Complexity
The "CO2 is plant food argument oversimplifies complex ecological relationships. It is similar to saying sugar is food for humans, so unlimited sugar must be great for health.
While plants do use CO2 for photosynthesis, the broader impacts of increased atmospheric CO2—including temperature changes, precipitation patterns, and ocean acidification—create cascading effects throughout ecosystems that extend far beyond simple plant growth enhancement.
Day in the life (2025)
I was inspired to dig deeper into this topic after seeing a number of social media friends post about Tom Harris' claims. The posts tyoically consisted of a graphic with text overaly to give a sense of authority and expertise. Most of the time, there is no source(s) provided- simly that an engineer promoting debunked ideas. I further looked to see who else was posting about the related content that I am not connected to.
The Time Capsule That Proved Itself Right
Imagine it is 1977. Jimmy Carter is president, Star Wars just hit theaters, and deep in the research labs at ExxonMobil, a team of scientists hunched over computers the size of refrigerators, running calculations that would prove eerily prophetic.
Dr. Sarah Chen (let's call her) adjusts her thick-rimmed glasses as she reviews the latest climate model output. The numbers on the green-phosphor screen tell a clear story: if humanity keeps burning fossil fuels at current rates, global temperatures will rise by roughly 1 degree Celsius by 2020. Her colleague skeptically taps his pencil. "That seems aggressive, Sarah. Are we really that confident?"
"The math doesn't lie," she replies, pointing to columns of data. "Fourteen out of seventeen models we reviewed all point the same direction—up."
Meanwhile, across the country, newsrooms are fixated on a handful of studies suggesting aerosol cooling might trigger an ice age. The headlines write themselves: "The Coming Ice Age!" It's sexier, scarier, and sells more papers than the methodical warnings about gradual warming that 62% of climate scientists are publishing.
Fast-forward to 2023. Dr. Chen, now retired, opens her laptop and pulls up NASA's temperature records. She cross-references them with those dusty printouts she saved from 1977. Her hands tremble slightly—not from age, but from vindication mixed with dread. The projections were right. Eerily, remarkably right.
The average skill score? 72%. Better accuracy than most weather forecasts.
She thinks about all those ExxonMobil executives who saw these same numbers, year after year, as the company's internal studies continued to nail the predictions through the 1980s and 1990s. They knew. The science worked. The models were solid.
The tragedy isn't that the 1970s scientists got it wrong—it's that they got it so devastatingly right, and we spent decades pretending they didn't.
Wait, if you saw a doctor's credentials were paid for by tobacco companies, wouldn't you ask a few follow-up questions?
The Importance of Source Evaluation
When encountering climate information, please consider these evaluation criteria:
- Expertise alignment: Does the speaker's background match the scientific domain they're discussing?
- Peer review: Are claims supported by peer-reviewed research published in reputable scientific journals?
- Institutional transparency: Are funding sources and organizational affiliations clearly disclosed?
- Scientific consensus: How do individual claims align with the broader body of scientific evidence?
Moving Forward Constructively
The next time someone shares that 'climate scientists disagree' article, you'll be armed with the tools to dig deeper. Our world is drowning in information. Critical thinking isn't just helpful—it's essential for our futu
Rather than simply dismissing opposing viewpoints, productive climate discourse requires engaging with the strongest versions of different arguments while maintaining rigorous standards for evidence evaluation. The stakes of climate policy decisions—for both economic and environmental outcomes—demand this level of careful analysis.
The challenge isn't only identifying misinformation, but building public understanding of how scientific knowledge develops through peer review, replication, and the gradual accumulation of evidence across multiple research groups and methodologies.
Climate science, like all scientific disciplines, benefits from legitimate scrutiny and debate. However, this scrutiny is most valuable when it comes from within the scientific community, follows established research protocols, and contributes to our collective understanding rather than sowing confusion.
As we navigate these complex issues, the goal should be fostering informed public discourse that can support evidence-based policy decisions—regardless of where that evidence ultimately leads.
For readers interested in developing stronger skills in evaluating scientific claims, resources like the David Suzuki Foundation's guide to identifying climate misinformation and NASA's climate science documentation provide excellent starting points for deeper exploration.
🌡️ Climate Information Reality Check
Print this out or bookmark it—use before sharing or believing climate claims
🔍 CHECK THE SOURCE
- [ ] What are the author's credentials? (Look for climate science PhD, not just "engineer" or "expert")
- [ ] Who funds their organization?
- [ ] Do they disclose conflicts of interest?
- [ ] Are they affiliated with fossil fuel companies or advocacy groups?
📚 CHECK THE SCIENCE
- [ ] Is this published in a peer-reviewed journal?
- [ ] Do multiple independent studies support this claim?
- [ ] Does this align with the scientific consensus? (97% of climate scientists agree on human-caused warming)
- [ ] Are they cherry-picking data or using the full dataset?
🚩 RED FLAGS TO WATCH FOR
- [ ] Claims that "CO2 is just plant food" (oversimplifies complex systems)
- [ ] "Global temperature doesn't exist" (ignores temperature anomaly science)
- [ ] "Models are always wrong" (ignores their 70%+ accuracy rate since the 1970s)
- [ ] "There's no consensus" (contradicts multiple independent studies)
- [ ] "It's all natural cycles" (ignores human fingerprints in data)
✅ TRUST THESE SOURCES
- [ ] NASA Climate Change
- [ ] NOAA Climate.gov
- [ ] IPCC Reports
- [ ] Peer-reviewed journals (Nature, Science, Journal of Climate)
- [ ] University climate departments
⚠️ BE SKEPTICAL OF
- [ ] Think tanks with undisclosed funding
- [ ] Blogs without citations
- [ ] Social media posts without sources
- [ ] "Documentaries" that don't feature working climate scientists
- [ ] Anyone who won't debate actual climate scientists
Bottom Line: If it sounds too good to be true (like "climate change is fake") or too scary to be real (like "we're all doomed tomorrow"), dig deeper. The real science is sobering but actionable.
Share this checklist—critical thinking is contagious!
Sources and Additional Reading:
- Analysis of “Deceptive temperature record claims
- Tom Harris – hypocritical peddler of deceitful climate change editorials (corrected)
- Tom Harris's campaign of climate change confusion debunked
- NASA's climate change site on the topic of Scientific Consensus
- Debunking 97% Climate Consensus Denial
- Absolute temperatures and relative anomalies
-
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
-
Exxon predicted global warming with remarkable accuracy years ago
-
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
-
Computer models have been accurately predicting climate change for 50 years