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, 23 November 2010

A straw in the wind - are UK teachers revolting against the teaching of global warming propaganda?

Here is a comment on a thread published recently on WUWT :

"JohnOfEnfield says:
I am very heartened by recent feedback from within my circle of family, friends and colleagues.
Apparently the teaching profession in the UK is beginning to revolt against teaching global warming, which they see as mere propaganda.
The BBC is also being seen as a propaganda tool right across the board. Their active support for AGW is seen in this light and therefore the standing of AGW is suffering badly.
All good signs, if not an open revolt yet."

Is this true?  Is it even plausible?  Hope springs eternal.  May I ask all who read this to please forward a link to this post to any and all of their contacts in teaching.  If you have none, how about forwarding it to some local schools, e.g. geography or science head teachers?
If a spark of sense is smouldering in JohnofEnfield's circles, perhaps it can be found elsewhere, and encouraged to turn into a blaze of fury that will help see the curriculum cleansed of odious alarmism.


  1. Maybe more than a straw in the wind - see here for a teacher's comment that appeared in response to a Telegraph article on 'scientists call for WWII-style rationing':


  2. Thanks, DR. I have now posted on this to add my 2-cents worth of publicity to it. It is encouraging.