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, 9 April 2013

Kidding the Kids about Climate Consensus: quick, before they see that Climate Crock is more applicable

While the scientific case for alarm over CO2 has never been a strong one, and is now is ruins thanks to observations contradicting crucial predictions from it, the zealots who found so much advantage in pushing it have not let up on recruiting the very young to bolster their cause.  The moral case for doing that has never been a strong one, and one day it too will lie in ruins as the zealotry becomes more and more exposed as shallow and pernicious opportunism.

From an article The Washington Examiner' (h/t Greenie Watch):

"New science curriculum standards for United States schools, expected to be unveiled this week, include an increased emphasis on man-made climate change from kindergarten through 12th grade. Climate change is already a part of many schools’ science curriculum, but the new guidelines significantly expand the topic and are expected to be adopted by 41 states.

The Next Generation Science Standards teach that “Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (‘global warming’),” according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute."
But, thank goodness, the journalist writing this, a Michal Conger, is no dupe like so many of her profession in this area.  She notes the recent reservations about including climate in UK curricula for under-14s, and goes on to write:
"What the Times fails to note is that man-made global warming is hardly a consensus theory among scientists. Several new studies show the earth hasn’t gotten any warmer in at least the last decade.
“It’s a shame that American school kids are being taught claims of certitude on an isse that continues to unravel before our eyes,” Marc Morano, communications director for Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, told The Washington Examiner. 
The U.K. newspaper The Daily Telegraph, German magazine Der Spiegel, and The Economist have all recently acknowledged the evidence suggesting global warming isn’t the catastrophe climate change advocates want school children to think it is."
It seems these new curriculum standards are not compulsory, but they may well be adopted by dozens of States.  I wonder if some of the children themselves might deal with them, as per Ian Plimer's vision of highly-informed pupils asking difficult questions?  (posts about Plimer's book on this site are here, here, here and  here).  Then the teachers, that most docile of professions as far as the content of their work is concerned, might start asking questions themselves.  Such as, 'Why should we push propaganda in our classes that even the children can see through?', or even, 'I wonder what harm we are doing to the young by presenting them with this ill-founded, poisonous, and destructive world-view?'


  1. The phraseological change from global warming to climate change, has shown in itself to be disingenuous.
    The planet has shown no warming for at least 17 years and the term GW has therfore fallen out of favour.
    Climate change however, is still the same old GW we know, and, love to refute. But the connotations of the word are less direct.
    Gov policies are still erred towards fighting CO2 emmissions and GW under the badge of catastrophic results if we do not cut back. The very fact that trillions of pounds are thrown at the GW/CC industry, seems, I'm afraid to say, have very little to do with emmissions or , dare I say, saving-the-planet, but mostly to do with bolstering a multi trillion pound industry, and, to do this for the future, you have to get-em-while-they're-young.
    Shame on education systems that pedal government policies in the classroom for future benfit of a very few. Especially as a consensus was never met, and, in the case of climate science never should be proclaimed as so.

  2. Thank you for commenting here. I do agree there has been an astonishing diversion of resources for the 'CC industry'. Far from saving the planet, this is harming us. The tragedies of avoidable starvation brought about by bio-fuels leading to increased food prices is the worst thing so far, but who can tell what other losses will emerge over time? Increased fuel poverty in the rich world, hampered development in the rest? More destruction of wildlands and precious vistas with windfarms? More indoctrination using scaremongering materials in schools? It is all such a waste of spirit as well. We have better things to be doing with our time than going crazy about a trace gas in the atmosphere. There are far more important problems to be tackled.

    1. I agree JS. The indoctrination in our schools is quite frankly disgraceful, as is the wind-turbine plague blighting every hillock in the UK.
      There are far more interesting ways of spending money, which, are also far more viable and valuable to the people who would benefit from them. Scaremongering of our climate on the scale we have witnessed over the past 3 decades is unprecedented and, very likely, unwarranted, and costly for those least able to afford it.