'First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects observed in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial.'

Freeman Dyson,

in Foreword to http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

Thursday, 30 September 2010

Loaded climatology: what chance have the pupils if their teachers buy into this?

Corruption of schools by politicians and government agencies:

(1) NASA pushes alarmist projections based on woefully inadequate computer models for use by schools.  See how hot we'll be in 2060!!  A withering attack on this at C3 (http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/nasas-inaccurate-climate-model-technology-pushed-into-schools-classrooms-incompetence-101-or-propaga.html):

NASA's Inaccurate Climate Model Technology Pushed Into Schools' Classrooms: 'Incompetence 101' or 'Propaganda 101'?

Read here . Big government bureaucrats, whose entire careers are based on incompetence and wasting billions of tax dollars, have now decided that students should learn about the government's inaccurate, non-reliable, CO2-centric computer climate models.

Are they really unreliable and inaccurate? Well, the facts do speak for themselves. As everyone knows from real world day-to-day experience, weather computer models are notoriously inaccurate for weather projections out past a few days. Seasonal forecasts by weather/climate models are even worse, to the point that experts are no longer relying on them. It has become established scientific fact that the inaccuracy of computer model's increases exponentially over time, making them entirely useless as thermometer predictors for any future period.'

More on NASA's predictive skills on climate here: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/nasa-at-the-halfway-mark/

(2) US Representative, Sarbannes calls for deliberate indoctrination of schoolchildren to profit from the totalitarian strategy of using children for political pressure. (see: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/75645   via http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate  H/tip: thanks Dave)

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. John Sarbanes (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com at a “Sustainability Education Summit” hosted by the U.S. Education Department on Tuesday that environmental education in schools can “promote the agenda” of climate change and population growth through the influence it has on children.

“Like I keep saying over and over again, if you get young people invested in those ideas early on, that will result in those kinds of positive policy developments,” Sarbanes told CNSNews.com. “So, whether it’s climate change, whether it’s population growth, whether it’s all these factors that impact the health of our world, raising that awareness early among young people is only going to promote the agenda.”  '

(3) Here in the UK, there are websites pushing the climate dogma on to teachers, e.g. this one in Scotland  (http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/exploringclimatechange/index.asp ) where it says:

'Our climate is changing. The planet is warming faster than at any time in the last 10,000 years. Global average temperatures have risen by 0.8ºC since the late 19th century, and 0.2ºC per decade over the past 25 years. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions have caused, and continue to cause, most of the observed temperature rise since the mid 20th century. Millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases are produced every day by human activity. These constant emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere continue to drive global warming. '

Here are some things their pupils may find on the internet to infuriate any teacher taken in by the thrust of the above paragraph, i.e. that there is something unusual about recent climate, and that human activity is driving it.

The global temperature rises according to the UK Hadley Centre, a venue not noted for any anti-establishment position on global warming, have been occuring at much the same rate in the late 20th century as earlier in the 20th century with some cooling phases in between despite a sustained increase in CO2 levels in the late 20th century. If the pattern repeats, we can expect some cooling for the next 20 years or so:

Here is a plot based on temperature reconstructions over the last 2000 years.  Once again, nothing unusual about the 20thC:
(more context for this plot here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/#more-25461

And over the past 10,000 years or so of the Holocene, this plot shows nothing unusual in our bit of this pleasantly warm interglacial, but unfortunately with an overall cooling trend for the past 6,000 years as we approach the next glaciation of our ice age:

(more context and source for this plot here: http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm

(4) In Australia, the Australian Science Teachers Association endorse this insidious website with its game for 8 year-olds an up: http://www.footprintsgame.com.au/game.

'FootprintsTM is a challenging learning game for players aged 8 and over. It is specifically aimed at middle school students, encouraging them to learn more and act on saving our environment. FootprintsTM is about the greatest challenges facing humanity today... global warming and climate change.'

How will the children themselves deal with this if their teachers are overwhelmed by all this pressure and toe the line?  

Depression and dismay, a hatred of technology, a horror of the future?  Cannon fodder for eco-terrorists? Or will some of them when they are old enough, make use of the internet to expose the nonsense and embarrass their teachers?

Time will tell.  Perhaps some teachers will lead the way instead.  Although in so doing,  they will put their careers at risk in our current environment.  But perhaps that is preferable to risking those of any pupils who dare challenge the disgraceful and anti-scientific orthodoxy of alarmism which is being imposed upon them.

One day, and I hope it is soon, our schools will be free to encourage both realism and optimism about our environment, and show how our technological systems have brought so much benefit - coal-fired power stations included.  There is a great deal to be pleased and excited about, but the sickening flood of ill-founded alarmism about CO2 is poisoning the minds and spirits of a generation.

Saturday, 18 September 2010

Naive climatology: what chance have the teachers when the Government Science Advisor holds such views?

Naive climatology in high places.  Sir John Beddington, UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Government Office for Science, has produced some web pages to elaborate his position (http://www.bis.gov.uk/go-science/climatescience).  His covering letter begins thus:

'The science of climate change

'Few areas of science have such profound implications for public policy and society as the study of climate change.
As one consequence, scientists who may have begun their careers in relative backwaters of research now find themselves thrown into the limelight.
Scientific points, and occasional errors, have become the subject of emotive debate and strong media interest. Frequently this has generated more heat than light, with polarised and ill-informed debates across the blogosphere - and indeed at times in the mainstream media.
My aim in developing these web pages is to set out what I believe to be key aspects of the scientific evidence on climate change. In a field so broad the material is necessarily selective, but I hope it presents in a clear and scientific manner an overview of some of the most important areas of study.
The evidence is compelling that climate change is happening, that human activities are the major driver for this and that the future risks are substantial. This evidence includes wide-ranging, long term and robust observations of changes that are taking place, and projections of possible future changes that are based on basic physical laws.'
I want to examine the last paragraph quoted, phrase by phrase:
'The evidence is compelling that climate change is happening'   
         Agreed.  The climate has never stopped changing.  Ever.  This is a platitude, used I suspect to deploy the phrase 'the evidence is compelling' in the hope that the naive reader will assume that applies to human influence as well.  Only the artificially contrived hockey-stick temperature plot showed little change (in temperature) until the 20th century, but it has now been exposed as an artifice involving peculiar choices in a particular statistical analysis of a noisy and complex set of data (1).
'that human activities are the major driver for this'
         No.  There is no compelling evidence for this - it is a theoretical speculation, enshrined as an added effect in computer models of climate, and that is all.  Of course human activities affect both climate and weather - the debate is about how much and in which direction.  Nothing extraordinary has been seen recently in any of the climate measures such as temperatures, ice extents, storm frequencies and intensities, rainfall, sea levels, etc.  The climate remains within bounds, but within these bounds there is a great deal of variation.   Attempts to match CO2 levels with climate measurements have been particularly disappointing for those alarmed by this possibility.  The warming and cooling cycles of the past 150 years or so, superimposed on a slowly rising (beneficially so, I would add) global temperatures (as 'averaged' in various ways - none of which are immune from problems) do not link convincingly to the rising CO2 level as a cause.  The last ten years or so have seen another break in this long-term rise in global 'average' temperature, and it is quite plausible that we are now in a cooling cycle that could last at least another 20 years.  With regard to CO2, there are massive natural fluxes in and out of the air, such that the human-caused emissions (whose magnitude is only crudely guestimated) amount to a few percent (some say c. 3%).  That alone makes the qualifier 'major'  subject to doubt.  Distinguished scientists are on record with their strong reservations e.g. (2), (3).
'and that the future risks are substantial'
             Of course.  Another platitude given that we are probably near the end of a mild inter-glacial period, and if so, a return of permanent ice cover to the UK and elsewhere is inevitable.  There are substantial challenges from cooling, arguably far more challenging than from the more credible end of the range of warming projections promoted by the IPCC.  The response by some to the threat of warming has been to call for a crippling of our primary sources of reliable energy - coal, gas, oil, and even nuclear, and for a burden of new taxes to be added to other industries. This kind of self-harm does not seem a sensible thing to do when in fact more energy means more scope for dealing with climate challenges, as does more economic growth, not least in the poorer countries.

'This evidence includes wide-ranging, long term and robust observations of changes that are taking place,'
            This is presumably referring to rising CO2 levels.  Or is it another attempt to piggy-back on ordinary climate variation in order to bolster a weak case?  There is evidence that rising temperatures cause increases in atmospheric CO2 on short and on geological timescales, the very reverse of the IPCC position, e.g. (4).

'and projections of possible future changes that are based on basic physical laws.'
              Not exactly.  This would have been more accurate: 'based on deliberately set parameters in global climate models whose own developers admit are not fit for making predictions'.  Hence the term 'projections'.  

The physical laws bit deserves further elucidation.  I think the alarmists have now conceded that the optical properties of glass (specifically the ability to transmit visible light far more readily than infra-red) are not important for real greenhouses getting hot - their high temperatures are due to the dramatic reduction in mixing with outside air, and not from any 'trapping of infra-red'.  How many school textbooks recognise this?  It was established by experiment about 100 years ago.  

The idea that just adding more CO2 must mean higher temperatures is also naive.  Physicists, notably in Germany (5) (6), and from Hungary (7) and Russia (8), are arguing that if anything, it could lead to a small cooling (due to slightly increasing the density of air, and due to increasing the radiation of infrared into space higher up in the atmosphere).  There are other arguments, in particular the saturation effect, the logarithmic rather than linear response of the radiative effect of CO2 in a chamber of gas - so providing less thermal impact for each additional ppm of CO2 (9), and a broad one of negative feedback stability that is, I think, a bit more plausible than any positive feedback.  Core features of the 'greenhouse effect' modeling in the atmosphere have also been challenged (10), (11).  Here is an example of a scientifically sceptical overview of the alarmist approach to climate science: (12).

The statements and position adopted by Professor Beddington are surely going to be influential.  Any education authority or teacher wishing to take a broader, dare I say 'more inclusive', view of climate has to be ready to challenge such authority, and its ex-cathedra announcements.  What are the chances of that happening soon?  Low I guess, although I am convinced that it will happen eventually, as and when sound science, observation, and reasoning push speculative computer models back to where they belong - which is hidden away from the public gaze and from vulnerable and/or opportunistic politicians and environment campaigners.
(10) http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0883  (link to a paper by Kramm and Dlugi)
(12) Overview of the case for human-caused warming being worthy of alarm: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/  

Tuesday, 14 September 2010

'...pint-size eco-spy in every home ....a library full of green tracts in every school'

Heartfelt essay by Rob Lyons on the amoral methods of Greenpeace, trying a tack on pension funds and intent on exploiting children by scaring them to scare their parents:

'This fomenting of division between parents and children is bad enough, but it is also a desperate waste of the idealism of youth. Young people may see the world in black-and-white rather than shades of grey, but that energy and desire just to go out and bulldoze through the conservatism of mum and dad can be an extremely useful way of stirring society up and encouraging change. But green politics takes that idealism and cynically exploits it for the most misanthropic ends. Whether it’s pensions, polar bears or children in peril, green campaigners demand that we should have a conscience about what we’re doing to the planet – but they don’t seem to have much in the way of a conscience when it comes to scaring adults or manipulating children.'

Monday, 6 September 2010

Why would you believe this? (8 of 8): 'And so we believe as adults we have a duty to change the world for them'

The final phrase of the statement of position published on the now-defunct website for 'Schools' Low Carbon Day'.  This statement was the justification for their alarmism about climate, and their wish to alarm children in turn.  I regard the phrase with considerable foreboding:

 'And so we believe as adults we have a duty to change the world for them.'

We have seen that there is no scientific nor observational justification for their alarmism about climate.  

We have seen they will not hesitate to frighten children to win them to their cause.

We have seen that they are willing to manipulate children into political and economic activity (not least pressuring their families to sign up for so-called green electricity supplies via companies set up to exploit ludicrous and lucrative government subsidies).

And now we see they wish to feel a duty to 'change the world for them'.

Now if that change were merely to win customers for 'green electricity' suppliers that would merely be a somewhat ruthless commercial scam.

But the green movement is more sinister than that.  It may be not be apparent to the creators of Schools' Low Carbon Day, but they were playing with political fire.  The green extremists are a decidedly unsavoury lot, and they are not wackos way off in the sidelines.  Instead they have played a part in designing and launching the IPCC, and other UN and US initiatives, and their EU and UK offshoots.

A post today by Alan Caruba (http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2010/09/nazi-dreams-were-green-dreams.html) captures some of the evidence for this:

'Just as America is passing through a period of economic stress, the Nazis in the 1930s sought to tap into the German psyche and a “return to nature” myth was seen as a unifying measure. The same regime that would later create the means to systematically kill Europe’s Jews shared a lot in common with any number of present-day environmentalist leaders and academics.

Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University, is on record saying, “Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the United Nations Environmental Program, said, “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our duty to bring that about?” When you contemplate the many measures taken by the U.S. government against the mining of coal, the drilling for oil, and even the shutdown of a nuclear waste repository, is it not obvious that denying America the energy it requires is one way to destroy its economy?

In one chilling way in particular, the hatred of the human race, does the environmental movement reflect the Nazi’s merciless destruction, not only of Jews, but of millions of others consigned to its concentration camps and the relentless killing wherever they sought conquest.

This is why the Club of Rome could say, “The earth has a cancer and the cancer is Man.” How does this differ from Hitler’s many expressions of hatred for Jews and others, Africans and Asians that he deemed to be “sub-human”?

This is the naked face of environmentalism. 

Remember, too, this did not happen a long time ago. The “greatest generation”, some of whom still live, fought the Nazi regime a scant seventy years ago.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic warns that “it should be clear by now to everyone that environmental activism is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a ‘noble’ idea.”

Couple that with a torrent of falsified “science” and you have the modern environmental movement.

The single greatest threat to freedom in America is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s current efforts to acquire the authority to regulate a gas that is responsible along with oxygen for all life on Earth, carbon dioxide (CO2). 

If the EPA gets that control, it will be able to determine every aspect of life in America because it is the use of electricity, industrial and all other machine-based technology that generates carbon dioxide. 

And it is the Big Lie that CO2 is causing global warming that is being used to justify the agency’s quest. There is no global warming. The Earth is in a natural cooling cycle.

The Nazi regime was made up of animal rights advocates, environmentalists, and vegetarians, of which Hitler was all three. 

And it led ultimately to mass murder.'

So, I do not trust their wish to 'change the world'.  I think that they mean to harm our society, and that damaging our children is one of their strategies.  I do not believe that such people should be allowed into schools to spread their poison to the young.

Friday, 3 September 2010

Sick Kids: Greenpeace and child abuse - the video from 2007

While the horrible example of the effect of climate alarmism on a weak personality has been displayed in the sorry case of James Lee, here is a zombie-like child, hooded and almost monotonic, coached to push extreme alarmism, and apparently promoted by Greenpeace:

[Note added 7 Sep.  This is indeed a Greenpeace product.  Here it is on the site of this multinational corporation which treats children, and normal social and political procedures, with such contempt: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/multimedia/videos/Angry-Kid-/]

How many like him could be produced from our schools?  The fanatical youth movements of the 1920s and 30s in Germany and Russia come to mind.  Let us hope this kid, and others like him, gets help and better guidance before too long.

More commentary on the video and other actions by Greenpeace here: http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/03/greenpeace-violence-is-escalating-the-lines-are-drawn/

Hat tip: http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/09/should-fanatical-environmental-literature-be-used-in-us-public-school-system-.html

This current attention is due to a commenter on WUWT posting the video: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/02/stop-the-hysteria/

Has this video been used in any of our schools?  The video was published in February, 2007.  Where is that youngster now, and what does he think of it?

Note added 24 October 2013. Donna Laframboise has Fisked the script of this odious Greenpeace product, and she is not impressed by it, nor by the whole venture: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/10/24/greenpeaces-menacing-angry-kid/
She finishes her post with these words:
'Does Greenpeace now think it’s cool to fan inter-generational war? To threaten and bully older people? To make videos featuring noxious young men dressed, let us be honest, in clothing that is associated with violent gangs?
Greenpeace. Where, exactly, is the “peace” in this video?'

'...the philosophy that is taught every day to our children in their schools: the world is fragile; human beings are a blot on the landscape...'

Delingpole in the Daily Telegraph Blogs has some accurate reflections to share, triggered by the recent death of eco-activist James Lee:

'What’s really depressing is that the philosophy expressed in James Lee’s (and the Unabomber’s) manifesto – which is also, incidentally, the philosophy expressed in Al Gore’s The Earth In Balance – is also the philosophy that is taught every day to our children in their schools: the world is fragile; human beings are a blot on the landscape; through our greed and selfishness we make everything worse; really it would be better if we vanished altogether and let all the lovely pure noble animals take over.
Not only do our schools teach our children this misanthropic – and deeply ahistoric – rot, but so also do broadcasters like the Discovery Channel. Their sister station, Animal Planet, for example, broadcasts a series called Whale Wars celebrating the real-life adventures of animal rights extremist Paul Watson. (H/T: MSher)
It’s time we woke up to the threat posed by this mass brainwashing of the younger generation. We worry, rightly, about those Muslim children who are being indoctrinated with the extreme Wahaabist version of their faith. Yet we seem astonishingly complacent that every day, in schools of every kind throughout the Western world, our children are being taught by well-meaning teachers to view their world and culture through exactly the same anti-capitalist, anti-human, anti-growth eyes as James Lee and the Unabomber.'

Thursday, 2 September 2010

Al Gore's film - poisoning the children's minds

'I can't begin to count the number of people who have contacted me regarding how their children have been frightened to the core by Gore's film.  I have a stack of communiqués from parents describing the nightmares their kids have experienced regarding floods, hurricanes, sea-level rise, polar bears drowning-all caused by cars, air-conditioning and fireplaces, and all supported with junk science, clever writing, and slick Hollywood graphics.'

Brian Sussman is a former television meteorologist and the author of Climategate: a veteran meteorologist exposes the global warming scam.