So if the models are so hopelessly riddled with errors and uncertainty that an anthropogenic radiative forcing signal cannot be distinguished from noise, or if the total magnitude of the warming attributed to humans is one-tenth to one-hundredth of the error or uncertainty ranges, why are those who dare question the degree to which humans affect the Earth’s climate branded as “deniers” of science?

Kenneth Richard, http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/13/uncertainties-errors-in-radiative-forcing-estimates-10-100-times-larger-than-entire-radiative-effect-of-increasing-co2/


Monday, 4 October 2010

Terrorise the children, control the adults: - a behavioural change strategy at work



By those who want to reduce the levels of a trace gas vital for plantlife.

Why?  Superficially, because they believe that computer models designed to show a big effect of CO2 actually mean that CO2 has a big effect.

But deep down, it seems more likely that they just hate humanity.  Weird, or what?

One day, teachers will refuse to teach the junk 'science' of CO2 alarmism, and the junk geography, sociology,  and politics that drive it.  They will react with anger when 'sensitise the children', and 'behavioural change', and 'sustainable biodiversity', and 'carbon footprint', and all the other apparatus of indoctrination is pushed at them to push in their classes.

1 comment:

  1. I have my doubts about your last paragraph. They all seem too concerned with keeping their jobs and pensions to "rock the boat". I fear the days (that you and I remember) of independently minded teachers who spoke their own minds are long gone.

    I hope I'm wrong, but.....

    ReplyDelete