Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?


Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Another climate website?

Why another web site on climate? As far as I can see, there is no web site in the UK for those concerned about inaccuracies, and harmful consequences, in alarmist materials reaching our schoolchildren. In particular, I am concerned over the possibility that some people will deliberately or accidentally frighten children about their future, and about their impact on climate.

In view of the zealotry which has led to so many errors and manipulations in the IPCC reports, the distribution of a seriously misleading DVD on climate to schools, and government propaganda on climate which the Advertising Standards Authority could not stomach, I think there are grounds for concern.

I hope that through this site, I will be able to learn more about materials being used in schools, or otherwise produced for schoolchildren on climate. I hope to collate links and papers on such materials, and gather commentary on them. If my concerns turn out to be justified, I hope this site will help and encourage the production of better materials. I hope also to give whatever publicity this modest effort can produce to good materials and events on climate, that is materials which seemed designed to inform rather than frighten, and which maintain high standards of scientific integrity.


  1. stan stendera [USA]3 June 2010 at 16:29

    The most insidious thing the warmists are doing is indoctrinating our children. They have no shame.

  2. Actually I think the indoctrination (and I agree it is happening!) is the Alarmists Achilles heel.

    Think what most kids do at some stage

    They rebel.

    Perhaps we see the fruits of this rebellion against spin and manipulation in the recent Oxford Union debate where economic growth won over tackling climate change.

    A heartening result that shows (I hope) that the next generation coming thro' are quite capable of smelling bullshit.

    What is important and where this blog and others of a true sceptical, true science base are vital is that children need to research and check the facts for themselves – so well done.

    Nobody likes to be deceived – and kids take no prisoners when the truth is clear to them.

  3. I've come here from Bishop Hill's blog. Very good subject matter - I'll come again. But is there any chance you could change your background? Reading text against these circles makes my head ache!

  4. Thank goodness both of my daughters have now left school thus escaping the insidious brainwashing that goes on there. Even maths questions were framed around AGW and how long it was going to take before the earth boiled!
    I showed both girls some websites where the other side of the AGW coin was explored, notably wattsupwiththat.com. Both girls soon realised that there was a lot more to the AGW topic than they were learning at school. They began to explore and read more and more not just about AGW but what constitutes the proper scientific method of discovery and hypothesis testing.
    At a Parent/Teachers meeting a year before my oldest left school I was taken aside by the Deputy Head and asked, quite forcefully, to stop teaching my children the 'lies' which questioned the orthodoxy of AGW as they taught it as both girls were influencing others in their respective classes and making the teaching of AGW difficult. They asked questions, they brought to school stuff which they had printed out on their computers at home and showed it to other pupils. Both girls were classed as 'disruptive' when it came to AGW.
    I thanked the Deputy Head for his concerns and informed him that I thought that both of my girls had exactly the right approach to education. They questioned what they were being told, they were not simply swallowing what they were told.
    I left him wringing his hand in anguish!

  5. Well done and well said Steve! – Done similar myself.

    Kids respond to honesty really rather well in my experience. The great thing about today is that rather than just having to follow the religious teachings as pupils did in the past, now they want to check things out for themselves.

    OK so wiki is a more than a joke/mess with Connolley and others spinning the web of deceit - but the truth will always out and my kids were aghast at the evidence presented to them about this deeply deceitful individuals manipulation of the truth so that what is published on wiki is a parody of reality.

    Even the younger teachers are now coming through with questions in their mind rather than dogma.

    My sons girlfriend recently got a 2.1 in Architecture and recently blasted one of her tutors for his insistence that student projects followed his left wing leanings and cited AGW as the fount of all the evil in the world.

    So what did this muppet tutor achieve?

    Exactly the opposite of what he wanted. His students ended up thinking he was a joke.

    He wanted clones of his own dogma.

    We have to give the kids the tools so that they can make their own mind up. They can be trusted to do that.

    That is why sites like this, BH, WUWT etc. are so important.

    Whilst the likes of Conelley reduce a great idea like Wiki to a dubious and mistrusted irrelevance.

  6. Isn't your focus a little narrow, and aren't you wasting an opportunity?

    Scaring kids is high on the list of the warmists’ social crimes, but it’s only one of many, and while there are plenty of excellent sceptic sites that cover the scientific malfeasances of the AGW team, I’m not aware of one that deals with the social aspects of climate alarmism. Wasted public funds, growth-thwarting legislation that will clutter the statute-books long after the scare has gone, because it will be too embarrassing to repeal it are just some aspects that need airing. Add to that the fascinating question of why “we” keep inventing bogeymen of increasing stature, and of how we can in future keep the reins of public policy out of the hands of that element that seems to exist in every generation that convinces itself that it will be the last to walk the face of the earth unless everybody listens up and obeys it. Why not extend the ambit of your new site to include all these social aspects of climate alarmism?

  7. Doug (Hampshire UK)4 June 2010 at 08:57

    Hi Tom
    Agree totally - Where we would differ is probably that kids do not "tend" to worry about where their tax £ or $ is spent as they do not pay taxes.

    What my kids and their friends were worried about was survival! - They had it drummed into them that life as they knew it was going to end!

    You could see the relief on their faces when they were taken through the alternative scenarios to the AGW=catastrophe/Inconvenient Truth dogma rammed down their throats at school.

    What does come across well from the sceptic sites is how balanced they are and how agreeing to disagree is the accepted norm. In marked contrast rabid warmist sites such as RC clearly filter out dissent and push AGW as a belief system.

    As I say I agree totally with what you say about the opportunity cost of governments taking the alarmists word as gospel (pun most certainly intended!) But I think most kids will warm (OK sorry! another pun) to this as time goes on and it is their tax$/£ wasted.

    If you have not come across it yet – anyone of any age – will grasp the concept of opportunity cost if introduced to Bjorn Lomborg. If you do not know of his work or your kids do not – worth the trouble to introduce it. His book The Sceptical Environmentalist outlines the true cost of pandering to only the AGW=Catastrophe scenario and ignoring other more pressing realities.

    Finally - good to talk to you in Sydney - were there in Oct/Nov last year - first visit - fantastic - nice to think we on opposite sides of the globe have so much in common.

  8. Hey - I can read it now! Thanks!

  9. Thank you very much for all these encouraging comments.

    Re the suggestion of widening the scope of this blog - I prefer to keep it relatively narrow in order to reduce the risk of being spread too thin over too many areas.

  10. Oh, the dots in the background. I don't care for them much either. I'll see if I can remove them.