Unfortunately, some misuse science. Some of their intentions, are far from benevolent. They see science as a mechanism for political power and control. There is great danger from those who would use science for political control over us.

How do they do this? They instill, and then continuously magnify, fear. Fear is the most effective instrument of totalitarian control.

Chet Richards, physicist,

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/03/science_in_an_age_of_fear.html

Monday 17 June 2013

Background Briefing for Teachers of Climate Studies: 10 Reasons why Man-Made Global Warming is Wrong.

 Re-blogged from http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

Man-Made Global Warming WRONG - The Ten Reasons.

10 Reasons why Man-Made Global Warming is Wrong.

by COHENITE
1 Temperature

CO2 emissions by humans are supposed to increase the temperature; that is the basic point of man-made global warming [AGW]. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the hotter it should get. That is a basic AGW prediction. It is isn’t happening. Walter Brozek analyses the official temperature data from all the main sources including the satellites. Brozek uses 2 criteria; the first from NOAA to test for flatness or zero warming; the second from Dr Phil Jones to test for no statistical warming; the 2 criteria overlap with the second allowing for some slight warming and the first for even cooling. The first shows zero temperature for 15 years; the second for up to 23 years. The first is climatically significant by NOAA standards, the second by Dr Santer’s standards. This means the temperature is not being caused by AGW. The only line going up is CO2:

Link available HERE,

2 Models. 

AGW science is based on modelling which in turn is based on certain assumptions about the effect on climate of various factors such as CO2. This effect is expressed as a forcing and can be seen at the IPCC website. Note how the forcing expected from CO2 is nearly 20 times greater than from the sun. Predictions about how these forcings will determine temperature have been around for a long time and can therefore be checked. Roy Spencer has checked the model predictions against the temperature in the Troposphere: 

Roy Spencer Graph.

Some will say Roy’s comparison only shows the models can’t predict the Troposphere. But as Bob Tisdale shows the models also can’t predict sea surface temperatures,  land and sea surface temperatures, or precipitation. Nor can they, as Koutsoyiannis showed, predict the past.

3 The sun (1).

 AGW science says the sun has little effect on temperature compared with CO2 forcing. Dr Ka-Kit Tung disagrees and has compared the long-term solar record with the longest temperature record on the planet, the Central England Temperature [CET]. The final image in Tung’s slide presentation is revealing and shows a remarkable correlation between the CET record and Total Solar Irradiation [TSI]. This correlation between temperature and TSI has also been derived in 2 other studies. The first is by Glassman at Figure 1 where he uses global HADCRUT3 data. The second is by Stockwell at Figures 4-7 where all the major land-based temperature indices are shown to correlate with TSI using his model. Stockwell’s model is simply that temperature responds to TSI mean with the rate of temperature increase/decline determined by the movement away from the mean.

4 The sun (2). 

A new study from Spain, the home of solar power and national bankruptcy, shows how variations in solar radiation correlate well with temperature without any need for AGW. The increase is due to cloud variation. Of course Monckton was on top of the role of clouds and temperature when he debated Tim Lambert  - and Lambert sprung that infamous ambush about Pinker being a woman not a man. What was overlooked was the fact that Monckton was correct. Pinker et al had found that solar forcing through cloud variation was sufficient to explain all the temperature increase from the 1980’s onwards. This should come as no surprise really because it is exactly what the IPCC in TAR had found too.
5 The sun (3). 
Hood et al’s 2013 paper shows how slight variations in TSI have an amplified effect on the ocean, land and stratosphere. This amplification occurs or begins regionally and can produce seemingly contradictory results such as the ‘warming’ Arctic and a freezing Europe which the AGW supporters are saying is merely how AGW works. Of course this is the complete opposite of what the AGW supporters used to say. Who can forget Dr Viner predicting an end to winter snow in the Northern Hemisphere generally and particularly in England? NASA’s Drew Shindell noticed this solar amplification back in 2002; Shindell said:
“In our simulations, we find that the reduced brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum causes global average surface temperature changes of only a few tenths of a degree, in line with the small change in solar output. However, regional cooling over Europe and North America is 5-10 times larger due to a shift in atmospheric winds."
And:
“So a reduction in the amount of sunlight reaching the planet leads to a weaker equator-to-pole heating difference, and therefore slower winds. The effect on surface temperatures is particularly large in winter. Because the oceans are relatively warm during the winter due to their large heat storage, the diminished flow creates a cold-land/warm-ocean pattern (Figure 3) by reducing the transport of warm oceanic air to the continents, and vice-versa.”

6 The Moon. 

In Tom Cruise’s latest movie, Oblivion, aliens conquer the Earth by destroying the Moon and creating climatic havoc. Ian Wilson is probably entitled to a script credit. Wilson and his co-author, Nikolay Sidorenkov’s latest paper looks at how the Lunar cycles have major impacts on the Earth’s climate. This is intuitive since the Moon has such a pronounced effect on the oceans; it is reasonable to suppose it has an equal effect on the atmosphere. Jo’s analysis reduces Wilson and Sidorenkov’s complex paper to a satisfying layman’s level.

7 Aerosols. 

These minute particles can be part of volcanic eruptions and be produced by industrial processes. Their effect on climate is complex and suspected of causing both warming and cooling. Their most spectacular effect was on the Ozone layer which protects the Earth from the sun’s worst radiation. Now professor Qing-Bin Lu, former Newcastle university student has done a comprehensive analysis of the effect of aerosols on climate.
Lu’s paper analyses the relative contributions of CO2 and various other factors including cosmic rays (CRs), total solar irradiance, sunspot number, halogenated gases (CFCs, CCl4 and HCFCs) and total O3.  Lu uses comprehensive measured datasets of quantities of all the factors and concludes: “For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth's climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively.”
This is a remarkable repudiation of AGW. Equally remarkable was the response of leading AGW scientist David Karoly when interviewed on the ABC. It was plain Karoly had not even read the paper.

8 Water. 

Earth. Look at it. It’s all clouds, oceans and ice. In a neglected paper Ferguson and Veizer compared the water and CO2 cycle and found the CO2 cycle was a subordinate process. The AGW position is put by Lacis et al. who say that non-condensing gases, mainly CO2, are the Earth’s thermostat or “control knob”.  The reason for this is that CO2 stays longer in the atmosphere. This is a flawed view because CO2 is constrained by basic laws like Beer-Lambert which limit its radiative effect. In fact it is the condensation process which enables water to change its state from liquid/gas/ice which is the major contributor to atmospheric energy. A new paper by Makarieva et al finds this condensation process of water lowers atmospheric pressure. That atmospheric pressure should drop with condensation is contrary to AGW modelling. There are 2 issues flowing from this; the first is whether Makarieva is correct about condensation caused pressure drop and secondly whether that effect influences the impact of AGW. In respect of the first the issue is discussed between Makarieva and Stigter and Meesters. Useful discussions are also to be found at Jeff Condon and Jo Nova where the main protagonists, for and against, participate. Meesters main point is that is while condensation removes water from the vapor body the process of condensation heats the remaining vapor and causes a rise in pressure. This is wrong, as blogger voxUnius notes:
Condensation heats the air parcel and hence causes faster molecular motion, expansion of the air parcel, decreased density and a decrease in pressure. That's how convective clouds work. The air inside the cloud is hotter, hence less dense, hence has less pressure than the air at the same altitude immediately outside the cloud where condensation is not taking place. This causes the simple mechanics of atmospheric convection. So-called hot air rises.”
The significance of decreased pressure profoundly contradicts AGW; with decreased pressure there can be no THS, a vital prediction of AGW. The pressure drop also confirms that even if AGW exists it is a minor player of no consequence. The Lacis paper on behalf of AGW wants us to believe the non-condensing greenhouse gases control the earth’s temperature and disaster will occur because of a 3.7 W/m2 forcing over the next 100 years or so. But this minute forcing is dwarfed by evaporating/condensing water which generates energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV [equations 1 to 3] that well exceed 1000 W/m2 each and every day. Small variations in those fluxes, such as cloud cover or levels of humidity make AGW forcing, if it is right, insignificant.

9 Carbon Dioxide (CO2). 

The basic issue of whether humans are responsible for all the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been looked at before. If CO2 increase is not due to human emissions then it is irrelevant if the claimed effect of CO2 on climate is true or not. Professor Murray Salby has given a comprehensive presentation on why the increase in CO2 is most likely due to natural emissions. CO2 follows temperature and the sun has warmed the Earth from 1850 up to the end of the 20thC thus providing the temperature cause to a natural CO2 increase. Salby addresses the mass balance argument [MB] which supposedly proves the CO2 increase is due to human emissions because the increase in CO2 is less than the human emissions. The MB cannot be right because the highest concentrations of CO2 are in non-industrialised areas such as the Amazon, key elements of the MB such as natural sinks and emissions are unknown and the correlation between temperature [and therefore natural emissions] is very high while there is little correlation between CO2 increase and human emissions.

10 Angry summer. 

Some hot temperatures and some particular site records during the summer of 2012-2013 were hailed as proof of AGW. The defects of these claims has been looked at. One point remains to be made. The Bureau of Meteorology [BOM] temperature record was the basis of these claims of a record hot or “Angry summer”. The BOM’s record is ground based. A comparison of the satellite temperature record is instructive:


These facts speak for themselves and should be front page news. They are not. That fact should also be front page news. 
----------end of re-blogged article-------------------------------------
This article has also be re-blogged at The Hockey Schtick.  There are useful comments there, as well as on the original post by Cohenite at the No Carbon Tax Climate Skeptics Party of Australia blog.

The first graphic above is shown more vividly at the C3 blog, along with more useful commentary, e.g.

"Through a combination of yet barely identified and poorly understood earthly/solar/cosmic natural forces, via the newest research it is now becoming more appreciated by a growing legion of scientists that the climate responds in a non-linear and chaotic manner that simply overwhelms any CO2 trace gas influence during the short, medium and long-terms.
The IPCC et al. alarmists religiously deny the dominance of natural climate forces yet continue to mindlessly blame CO2 despite all objective evidence that at best, it has a weak, minor role in the world of climate outcomes."




Saturday 15 June 2013

Climate Curricula in Schools: education or indoctrination with 'allowed pre-approved thoughts'?

People's Cube
If state schools really are intent on injecting 'allowed pre-approved thoughts' into children on such topics as climate change, then homeschooling will be an important option for parents who would prefer their children to be educated, optimistic, well-informed, and able to think for themselves. 

 The 'thoughts' that would be of particular concern on this blog are of course the bog-standard, off-the-shelf, anti-humanity, pro-'the environment', fear-driven to win their attention, politics-driven to win their commitment, ones in and around climate variation and the attribution of a dominating influence to carbon dioxide.  Thereby giving it a role in the climate system which it does not seem to have ever had in the past.  As for the present, the climate system continues to behave just as it might if the additional CO2 was of negligible importance - and that is a 'business as usual' hypothesis which no observations of temperatures, of sea states, of ice, of storms, of missing tropospheric hotspots, etc etc etc etc have been found to refute.

The graphic is from an unusual site in the States, called 'The People's Cube' which describes itself as portraying 'America Through the Eyes of a Former Soviet Agitprop Artist'.

Homeschooling over there seems to be growing in popularity, e.g. 'According to a research by National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI) in 2010, homeschooling is growing at a rate of 2-8% every year making it the fastest among different forms of education.'  Source.

Thursday 13 June 2013

Climate Curricula: China might yet lead the way with real science while we endure Green 'science' in our schools

Will we find that China will do a better job of manufacturing climate curricula for schools than the West does?  Will we import a decent treatment of climate for children at school from them?  I daresay that could happen if the news below is true, and if the Chinese do insist on good science in schools, and if they do make good use of materials from those Heartland Conferences, and if the scandal about Green influence in our schools breaks so suddenly into the mass media that new curricula will be imported to save time. 

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/11/exclusive-China-rebuttal-climate-change

Monday 10 June 2013

Mad Men of Climate-Change Alarmism: you don't want their agitation anywhere near your children

These are alarmed men, obsessed with notions of impending doom thanks to rising levels of CO2.  There is neither observational nor theoretical evidence to warrant such alarm.  It is instead only supported by some computer models all but universally agreed to be woefully inadequate* in the face of the complexity of the climate system.  The emotive excesses of these men and of those who have been unduly influenced by them are not suitable for children.  Children should be protected from scaremongering in order that they may have a more carefree childhood.  

CartoonsByJosh.com
The above cartoon by Josh is a response to one entitled 'Mad Men of Climate-Change Denial' where these words are in the accompanying text 'At a time when the emergency warning light is flashing on climate change, these scoundrels help to confuse the issue, making it seem as though there is scientific debate where there is no significant scientific disagreement.'(Brodner)

Mad Men of Climate Denial
My comment to that post was not published, and was, from memory, approximately as follows:
"That climate changes, always has always will, is settled science.  That the CO2 molecule absorbs and emits infra-red radiation is settled science.  What is not at all settled is the relative importance of the latter on the former.  Here there is room for considerable debate, a debate in which the men in your cartoon have all made excellent contributions." 

There is some discussion of both of these cartoons at WUWT, along with these links with further information on some of the doings of the characters in Josh's cartoon:
'References to names:
Al Carbon Billionaire Gore: Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire – UK Telegraph, Nov 3, 2009
Gavin Real Climate Disappoints Schmidt: One could even ask whether the effort that we have put into RealClimate has been in vain. The legend of the Titanic – RealClimate, 3 May 2012
James Death Train Hansen: Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains.” – UK Guardian, 14 February 2009
Mikey One Tree Hockey Stick Mann: Climategate reveals ‘the most influential tree in the world’ -UK Telegraph, 05 Dec 2009
Stephan It’s a conspiracy Lewandowsky: 10 conspiracy theorists makes a moon landing paper for Stephan Lewandowsky JoNova, September 6th, 2012
Peter The Thief Gleick: Breaking, Gleick Confesses, WUWT, Feb 20, 2012
Eric The Red Antarctic Steig: O’Donnell et al 2010 Refutes Steig et al 2009, ClimateAudit, Dec 2, 2010
Scott Super Mandia: Climate Craziness of the Week: Supermandia, WUWT, October 31, 2011
Kevin It’s a travesty there’s no wamin’ Trenberth: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. Climategate Emails, Wed, 14 Oct 2009'

Note added later on 10 June 2013 Here is another picture with more of the 'Climate Change Mad Men' in it (h/t Paul Matthews) and this is presumably what the Brodner one above was responding to:

Tuesday 4 June 2013

'Facts, Not Fear': talking with children about the prospect of a warmer planet.



Amazon
The book ‘Facts, Not Fear’ covers many eco-alarms, and shows in each case how the sting may be removed from them by the simple expedient of noting contrary evidence and the informed views of subject-matter experts who are not alarmed.  


Chapter 13, entitled ‘A Hotter Planet?’ addresses the global warming scare, using the same structure deployed for the other alarms.  I will try to convey that structure here, using extracts from Chapter 13.
 

The authors lead-in with quotes illustrative of the alarm.  This sets the scene, and starts from where most readers are likely to be, given the extent to which such views have been promoted in recent decades.  Here is an example they use from the magazine Maclean’s in 1995:

“Imagine a world of relentlessly rising temperatures, where farmlands are scorched into desert and inland waters like the Great Lakes shrink in the heat.  As global warming intensifies, the polar ice caps dissolve and ocean levels rise by more than 100 feet, swamping low-lying islands and coastal areas. Vancouver, Halifax, New York City, Amsterdam, Shanghai and other port cities are inundated.  As the global floodwaters rise, more than a quarter of the world’s population is displaced.”

They take a closer look at some of the claims
‘It is true that over the past 100 years, the Earth has become slightly warmer, but only by about half a degree Celsius or 1 degree Fahrenheit. ‘
‘… most of the warming occurred before most of the greenhouse gases were put in the atmosphere’
‘As for the future, scientists do not know if the Earth will continue to get warmer.  If it does, the increase may be so slight as to be hardly noticeable.’
‘Recent studies have predicted a possible rise in sea level of six to forty inches, not feet.’
‘Temperature predictions, too, have moderated.’
‘..measurements of temperature taken by satellites (rather than measurements close to the ground) showed no warming between 1979 and mid-1996 …In fact there was a slight cooling trend..’

They take a closer look at some of the science
‘Some years ago, scientists decided to see what would happen if they assumed CO2 had doubled, as they thought it would by the end of the twenty-first century.  The result: significantly higher temperatures, higher by between 2 and 5 degrees Celsius.  The projections looked scientific. But scientists know that these computer models of the world’s climate have strengths and weaknesses … they miss entirely the effects of mountains such as the Rockies, the Sierra Nevadas and the Cascades.  According to these models, the climate of heavily forested Oregon and the climate of the Nevada desert would be about the same…Another problem is that scientists are really guessing about how different aspects of the climate affect one another.  For example:
# Water vapour is far more important than carbon dioxide in trapping heat.  Carbon dioxide will increase temperatures significantly only if water vapour increases significantly.  But will it?
# Clouds (composed of water vapour that has condensed into droplets) may increase if carbon dioxide goes up.  Some clouds increase the warming effect and others decrease it by reflecting sunlight back into space
# Oceans and vegetation absorb CO2, but how much, how fast, and for how long?  No one knows.
..Another problem is that the pattern of warming does not follow the rise in CO2 …’

They articulate a calmer perspective
‘Children’s textbooks, reflecting the popular view, discuss only the negative impacts of warming.  But some scientists note that if the world gets warmer, that would not be all bad.
# “In fact,” says Andrew Solow, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, “there is some irony in the description of global warming as problematic, since it is not unreasonable to view human history as a struggle to stay warm.”
# Thomas Gale Moore, a prominent economist at the Hoover Institution, has even concluded that warmer weather would reduce deaths from heart disease and respiratory illness.  Cold temperatures lead to death more often than hot ones.
# More carbon dioxide in the air will benefit many plants.  It causes more luxuriant plant growth, larger flowers, and great crop yield.  Some scientists think that rising levels of CO2 in the air have already contributed to the Green Revolution, that is, to the remarkable increases in food production of the past few decades.”

The chapter finishes with two headings that are used in each of the specific-topic chapters: ‘Talking to Your Children’ and ‘Activities for Parents and Children’.  Here are extracts from these:

‘Talking to Your Children’
‘It is little wonder that our children are frightened.  We would be, too, if we read the textbooks our children do.  But now you can give your children a more balanced picture.
# Is the world going to get hotter?
   No one really knows.  Carbon dioxide keeps heat from being emitted into space and, because carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere, temperatures may get warmer.  However, the warming may be so small as not be noticeable by the average person.
# Are human activities causing global warming?
  Perhaps.  By burning fossil fuel, humans add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and more carbon dioxide should keep more heat in the Earth’s atmosphere.  But the increase in warmth may be very small since many, many factors affect climate. Until recently, some scientists were more worried about a coming Ice Age than too much warming.
# Has the world been getting hotter?
  Yes, a little.  Scientists think that the Earth’s average temperatures have increased by between three- and six-tenths of a degree Celsius or between one-half and one degrees Fahrenheit over the past one hundred years.  But the increases have been irregular, not steady, and it may simply reflect natural variation in temperatures over time.
# Is carbon dioxide harmful?
  No.  In fact, it is a beneficial part of the atmosphere.  It provides food for plants.  More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should increase plant growth.  This will increase the amount of oxygen from plants through photosynthesis.’

 ‘Activities for Parents and Children’
The authors give three suggestions for helping ‘reassure your children that the world is not “out of control”’:
i) Visit a library and study books about dinosaurs, and note that in that era: ‘the Earth has an atmosphere that contained carbon dioxide levels that were five to ten times greater than now …The Earth was warmer and wetter, not burning up or drying out. (At other times, however, high carbon dioxide levels coexisted with cold temperatures).  The point is that the image of global warming that many people hold may be unnecessarily grim.’
ii) Visit a commercial greenhouse.  You can explain that the way they work is nothing like the so-called greenhouse effect. 
‘Ask the greenhouse manager to explain how conditions in the greenhouse are controlled to help plants grow.  Does this greenhouse add carbon dioxide?  Why or why not?’
iii) Another trip to the library.  ‘Doomsday predictions of climate change are nothing new.  Your children may not be aware that in the mid-1970s many people worried about the coming Ice Age’.  Suggestions are then given for articles and books to look up.


My take
That is a very appealing structure and style.  It would be easy to find even more melodramatic quotes to kick it off, and easy to find more criticisms* of the case for climate alarm.  But they could easily result in a much harsher or more strident tone, and be less suited for the intended use of helping children.   I think the gentle, but purposeful and highly-focused approach taken by the authors of this book has much to commend it.  It would be counter-productive to try to be too comprehensive or too hard-hitting.  Any such book will not be the last word on any of these issues, but a book such as this one could well be the inspiration for some children at least to do a lot more reading of other sources.  And it may just be sufficient for most of them to take the sting out of the alarming materials that are so readily encountered about human influence on the climate system.

* Note added 05 June 2013  A recent listing of failings of this case is presented here: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/agw_theory_has_failed_all_tests_so_alarmists_return_to_the_consensus_hoax/

Monday 3 June 2013

'Facts, Not Fear': helping parents drive out fears of global catastrophe from children misled by their schools.



Amazon
Facts, Not Fear is inevitably out of date, so why promote it here? 

Since it was published in 1996 and 1999, the harm caused by environmental alarmism has arguably increased.  For example, in the UK we have seen a Labour government actively engage in promoting climate alarmism in schools, and the impact of diverting farmland to produce bio-fuels has been tragic on a large scale for the world's poorest people.  At the same time, the case for alarm over carbon dioxide has gone from weak to even weaker.  For example, global mean temperature has doggedly refuse to rise along with the continued rise in carbon dioxide levels, and the computer modellers have had to revise their talk, and their projections, to admit a lower ‘climate sensitivity’.

Even though the case for alarm may soon become widely recognised as inadequate as a basis for policy-making, or indeed most anything else, there will remain the task of cleaning up school curricula tainted by it, and doing something to help children disturbed by it.  This book provides an excellent starting point for both.  I hope the book will be updated and re-published, and it seems all but inevitable that it would be even more effective, relevant, and convincing if it were to be.

I shall do some more posts based on the book, and encourage readers to buy it pending that hoped-for new edition.

The book covers a lot of ground.  Here are the titles of the chapters and the appendices:

1.      A letter to parents. 
2.      Trendy schools.
3.      Last chance to save the planet.
4.      At odds with science.
5.      What are the costs?
6.      World population – will billions starve?
7.      Natural resources – on the way out?
8.      Canadian forests – a wasteland?
9.      The rain forest – one hundred acres a minute?
10.  North American wildlife – on the edge?
11.  Where have all the species gone?
12.  The air we breathe?
13.  A hotter planet?
14.  Sorting out ozone. 
15.  Acid rain. 
16.  Not a drop to drink? 
17.  Don’t eat that apple?
18.  A garbage crisis? 
19.  The recycling myth. 
20.  What we can do. 

A. Textbooks reviewed.
B. Environmental books for children
C. Books for a well-stocked environmental library
D. Academic and Scientific Advisory Panel

The primary authors are Michael Sanera, qualified in political science, and Jane S. Shaw, qualified in economics.  Two researchers at the Fraser Institute provided the customisation for the Canadian edition: Liv Fredricksen and Laura Jones.  Appendix D lists dozens of subject-matter experts who reviewed issue-specific chapters 6 to 19.

To give you an idea of the intentions and style of the authors, here are the last few paragraphs of Chapter 1, A Letter to Parents:  

'How can you give your children a more balanced view of environmental problems?  One way is gently to supply the information that is missing in their classrooms.  This book will give you the facts and insight into scientific controversies that are not covered in the textbooks.


Simply learning that reputable scientists often disagree with the claims of imminent catastrophe will keep your children from blindly fearing the future.  Such information will also help your children see that environmental science is a discipline that reflects scientific uncertainty and is open to continual discovery.  Your children can learn about environmental issues and develop their critical thinking skills at the same time.  As scientists do, they can collect the facts and see whether the theories that have been advanced actually fit the facts.


With this greater objectivity, students can also begin to think critically about the causes of environmental problems, and develop their understanding of human nature.  They won’t be so quick to accept the simplistic claims of catastrophic global destruction.  Your children will probably stop pestering you to take up the cause of the day, or at least they will be willing to consider that their crusade may not be for everyone.


Each chapter concludes with a few questions and answers that will help you summarise the information for your children.  Each also has activities that you and your children might like to read and perhaps try out.  The activities offer concrete evidence that supports the information in the chapter.  However, the activities are merely suggestions that make a richer experience out of a trip to the lumberyard, say, or the supermarket.  We recognise that you are a busy parent, with many goals other than teaching your children environmental science.


Unlike the authors of some environmental books for kids, we don’t expect you or your children to picket a fast-food restaurant or write a protest letter to your local politician.  We think your children should have a chance to learn about the environment rather than be mobilised into trendy campaigns.  This book will help them.’

I think it could.

Sunday 2 June 2013

'Facts, Not Fear': an excellent book for helping you to help your children deal with climate-scaremongering and other eco-propaganda.





Aimed at parents and teachers, this excellent book shows the way to take the sting out of the facile alarmism pushed at the young on climate and other fashionable eco-topics.  First published in 1996 in the States, 'Facts, Not Fear' is bristling not only with counter-arguments to defuse alarm, but also with a structure which could be readily adapted and built-upon for use elsewhere. 

Dozens of copies are available on Abebooks.

 

In 1999, an edition customised for use in Canada was published with lots of local examples to help readers engage with young people and encourage them to take a wider view than those typically presented by zealots promoting alarm for their cause of the day.  This edition is shown on the left and can be obtained via Amazon from various dealers.










I intend to share extracts from this book in further posts.

Note added 03/10/14:   The first three chapters are reproduced on line here:
 http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/books/facts_not_fear/