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/


Thursday, 16 June 2011

Children recall what they have been taught about climate change: mostly nonsense










Passing though a Scottish village earlier this week, I bought the local newsletter.  I was, and remain, dismayed to find the above piece in amongst more worthy and more cheerful stuff about museum visits and celebrating the royal wedding.  The uncorrected English errors in this, and other pupil reports, suggest that perhaps neither teacher nor editor checked the texts before publication.  But I understand that it is not fashionable to point out such errors these days, and so I am inclined to think that the pieces were reviewed at least for factual accuracy before being submitted.  If so, the climate change report shown above is evidence that this phase of the war on children's minds may well have been won by those using CO2-alarm to gain political and financial advantages for their various causes.  The children, and their teachers, are the immediate casualties, and they have my sympathies.  But this propaganda war is not over while we still have the freedom and determination to comment, ask questions, criticise, and point out errors and misleading advice.  A lot more of such activity is clearly required.

[Note: 'P7' stands for Primary 7 - the final year of primary school, when pupils are typically 11 years old]