Letter – What happened to freedom of speech?

I was happy to read that MP Viersen visited his constituents over the summer and that many of them complained that Liberal policies are making it hard for families to make ends meet.

I was even happier to read that Andrew Scheer will scrap the Trudeau carbon tax.

What I was not happy to learn is that Mr. Scheer will not let Ezra Levant and his Rebel Media reporters cover the upcoming Conservative convention in Halifax.

Ezra Levant’s Rebel Media is one of the few news outlets in Canada thatwill invite climate change realists, such as myself, on to discuss the science of climate change.

The Conservatives say they will scrap carbon taxes. Andrew Scheer is still talking about the importance of freedom of speech.

But the Conservatives don’t want to give Ezra Levant the freedom to walk around and cover the convention from what I would describe as a “conservative perspective.”

Is Andrew Scheer afraid of handling a few pointed questions from Ezra on his support for the Paris Climate Accord? Maybe Scheer doesn’t want the Rebel reporters to start asking MPs how they are going to scrap carbon taxes AND implement a comprehensive GHG emissions plan at the same time?

Sincerely,

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech.)
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

 

Share this post

14 thoughts on “Letter – What happened to freedom of speech?

  1. Tom Harris promotes the deregulation of coal and the use of it as an energy source. Meanwhile will Tom pay the health care costs caused by coal such as diseases of the Respiratory System, Cardiovascular System, and Nervous System which is still a threat even if it is “clean”coal. These are established facts.
    Tom needs to apologize to everyone for promoting something that is dangerous to our health.

    Reply
  2. Tom Harris claims to be nonpartisan but his writings are often partisan.

    During 2016, Mr. Harris demanded the GOP follow the candidate Donald Trump. Mr. Harris claimed if Republicans followed “Trump’s assertive approach to climate change” that “climate change could become the breakout issue for many Republicans campaigning across America.”
    https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/friendswood/opinion/article/HARRIS-GOP-must-follow-Trump-s-lead-on-climate-9893225.php
    https://canadafreepress.com/article/gop-must-follow-trumps-lead-on-climate-change
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-must-follow-trumps-lead-on-climate-change_2150903.html
    http://www.cfact.org/2016/12/09/conservatives-must-strongly-support-trump-on-climate-change/

    Reply
    1. Tom Harris wrote, “Trump needs to ‘Democrat-proof’ his agenda…” by withdrawing from international agreements on climate. (Source “Withdrawing from Paris Agreement is not enough” by Tom Harris May 15, 2017, Mourlie News)
      During the 2016 election campaign Mr. Harris demanded GOP leaders follow “Trump’s assertive approach to climate change.” (Source “HARRIS: GOP must follow Trump’s lead on climate change” by Tom Harris, August 24, 2016, Houston Chronicle)

      Mr. Harris opinion pieces show he is a partisan.

      Reply
  3. Tom Harris identifies himself as a “climate change realists” in fact his letters-to-the-editor show Mr. Harris pro-coal activist who rejects the scientific evidence of man-made climate change calling it a “hoax.”

    Reply
    1. You mean like the thousands of references in the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (www.climatechagereconsidered.org ) that either debunk or cast serious doubt on the climate scare?

      BTW, concerning Dave James, this Disqus profile – https://disqus.com/by/disqus_JzQ88MTX2I/following/ – shows that since March 31, 2016, Mr. James has made 1725 comments. Here is a sample of some of his many, many posts apparently trying to discredit my writings in online article comment sections: https://www.google.ca/search?site=&source=hp&q=%22Tom+Harris%22+%22Dave+James%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=nyGDWefuDavcjwSb-oK4DA . I already explained to Mr. James that many of his points are either wrong or misleading but he seems to just go to other Web sites and make the same assertions again. I will not waste any more time explaining this to him, unless other people bring up the same or similar questions.

      Reply
      1. Tom Harris is mistaken. It is not my comments which discredit Mr. Harris but his own writings.

        Mr. Harris endorses the Heartland Institute’s “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change” without disclosing without disclosing his role as a “Policy Advisor, Energy and Environment” for the Heartland Institute.

        Shill – \shil\
        noun

        1) A person who publicly gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
        2) An accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.
        3) A person who pretends to give an impartial endorsement of something in which they themselves have an interest.

      2. Tom, you know “Climate Change Reconsidered” is full of fake scientific information to support anti AGW rhetoric. That is why the “scientific” claims it makes are not supported by scientific peer reviewed case studies in scholarly journals. The people who “reviewed” it are connected to the fossil fuel industry funded Heartland Institute. To say it is “peer reviewed” which has been done, is an offence to all the researchers who have written legitimate peer reviewed case studies. Each time you refer to it exposes you as a fraud.

      3. Mr. Tom Harris asks if I was referring to reports by the Heartland Institute to show he is a pro-coal activist who rejects the scientific evidence of man-made climate change calling it a “hoax.” No, I was Mr. Harris’ statements in his opinion pieces.

        Mr. Harris is a pro-coal activist. Mr. Harris recently acknowledged he was a coal booster, “Yes, coal is a dependable, inexpensive, cheap energy source – hurrah for coal.” http://disq.us/p/1v3811e

        Mr. Harris has on history of advocating for coal:
        https://thetandd.com/opinion/columnist/cold-is-coal-reminder/article_ffd0bec2-1cdd-53c9-9a53-2fd8af16b834.html
        http://citizensjournal.us/coal-key-national-security-strategy/
        https://www.thespectrum.com/story/opinion/2018/01/13/coal-key-national-security-strategy/1031657001/
        https://townhall.com/columnists/tomharris/2018/01/12/cold-reminds-us-of-importance-of-dependable-energy-n2433573
        http://www.superiortelegram.com/opinion/4381642-climate-scare-must-be-debunked-coal-recover

        Last December, Mr. Tom Harris rejects a hundred years of climate science by asserting human-cause global warming is a “hoax” and a “plot” initiated in a U.S. Senate committee in 1988:

        According to Mr. Harris, “More than any other event, that single hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee publicly initiated the climate scare, the biggest deception in history. It created an unholy alliance between a bureaucrat and a politician, which was bolstered by the UN and the popular press leading to the hoax being accepted in governments, industry boardrooms, schools, and churches all across the world.” https://townhall.com/columnists/tomharris/2017/12/17/global-warming-fake-news-from-the-start-n2423586

        However, Mr. Harris can’t even keep his conspiracy theories straight. In June, Mr. Harris claimed “man-made carbon dioxide causing global warming” was a “myth” created by Maurice Strong. https://pjmedia.com/trending/312-billion-green-energy-makes-ontario-the-most-debt-ridden-province-on-earth/

        Mr. Harris writes my criticisms of opinion piece are some how “either wrong or misleading.” He supports his claims with vague assurances that he has answered my criticisms some where else at some other time. In contrast, I support my claims with direct quotes from Mr. Harris and links to read his quotes in context.

Post Comment