'The environmentalism of my daughter’s preschool is a force-fed potpourri of myth, superstition, and ritual that has much in common with the least reputable varieties of religious Fundamentalism.'
Steven Landsberg, quoted in https://www.aei.org/publication/why-naive-environmentalism-is-like-religious-fundamentalism/
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Thursday, 18 November 2010
[note: KnowItAll replaced by ScareYouAll 21/11/10]
APOLOGIES: Gilbert and SullivanTITLE: I Am the Very Model of a Modern Climate-ScareYouAll
Lyrics[Pirates of the IPPC]I am the very model of a modern Climate-ScareYouAllI’ve information digital, quotable, pictorialI know the hacks of TV-land, and quote just like an oracleOn ‘News at Ten’ to ‘News at One’, on crises categorical.I’m sort of well acquainted, too, with matters computationalI’ve heard of those projections, both simple and dramaticalOn past and present temperatures I’m teeming with a lot o’newsTho short of cheerful facts about the Yamal trees we have to use.
I’m very good at scariness and all degrees of fearfulnessI know how children get those nightmares quite horribilisIn short, in matters terrible, fearful and excitableI am the very model of a modern Climate-ScareYouAll.
I know our media’s trickery, in Nature and the NYTI dish out press releases and they headline anything from meI quote in elegiacs all the flaws of Homo SapiensWith polemics I can dazzle almost any leftwing audience.
I can tell Trenberths and Santers from the Manns and even HoughtonsI know the Schmidts and Hansens from the Albert Gores and JonesesThen I can hum a fugue of which I've heard the music's din anewAnd whistle all the airs from that infernal M4GW.
I can write a laundry list in Hulmeian ObtusiformWhile forgetting every detail of those emails in ExCRUciformIn short, in matters terrible, fearful and excitableI am the very model of a modern Climate-ScareYouAll.
In fact, when I know what is meant by "lapse rate" and "stratiform"When I can tell at sight a timeplot from a tephigramWhen such affairs as hunches and guesses I'm more wary atAnd when I know precisely what is meant by "wet in an adiabat".
When I have learnt of progress made in methods so statisticalWhen I know more ANOVA than a novice in a nunneryIn short, when I've a smattering of elemental calculusYou'll say a better Climate-ScareYouAll has never been to see us.
For my scientific knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,Has only been brought down to the beginning of last centuryBut still, in matters terrible, fearful and excitableI am the very model of a modern Climate-ScareYouAll.
A singalong version, with the original words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYZM__VdEjk&feature=relatedI posted an earlier version of the above on WUWT yesterday as a comment, but a post there today made me dig it out to polish it up a bit. The post was about yet another agitated professor, this time a professor of astronomy, ranting away on climate, desperately trying to provoke his class. An unedited video of this class is here.
We have professors of many sorts, of various ‘ologies such as psychology, apparently so demented with fear that they make dreadful pronouncements well outside their professional competence. We have environmental/climate office holders in the media (not least in the BBC), and in all those organisations previously concerned with other things before they discovered meteorology such as the WWF, FoE, GreenPeace, and Oxfam telling us the end is nigh with much gusto. Not to mention those organisations previously concerned with meteorology before they discovered other things, such as the UK Met Office, NASA, and CSIRO.
We have had the 10:10 zealots scaring even their own followers with the PR disaster of their extremist movie ‘No Pressure'.
And of course, we have the IPCC itself, whose reports, leaders and followers like Albert Gore scatter the word ‘catastrophe’ around like confetti, happily winning plaudits and fortunes from those they have managed to convince.
Yet I don't find any of them convincing. Nor do many others. No doubt we should deepen our study of what the experts are telling us, but I can do without the emotional, scaremongering excursions into polemics from academics who ought to know better, from journalists who parrot their words, and from no end of political and financial interests finding advantage in the melee.
Any schools still free to do so, should actively and explicitly distance themselves from this unseemly arena of unsettled science and very settled politics, to concentrate instead on educating and building the confidence of their pupils as free agents, rather than scaring and 'mobilising' them to the tune of a very politicised drum.
Note added a few hours after original post: more Gilbert & Sullivan adapted for the modern climate here:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/4/9/the-modern-climatologist.html (good verses in the comments as well).
Note added 30 April 2013. Here is yet another version: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/a-modern-climatologist/
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
It may not be on climate, but the lesson is clear enough. Children can ask good questions!
(and later seen here as well: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/ )
As insight into the real science of climate, as opposed to computer models programmed to give CO2 a dramatic effect, and into the proper analysis and reporting of climate data (as opposed to cherry-picking for dramatic effect - be it from PCA, trees, weather stations, satellites, or media headlines), spreads wider and wider, there is surely hope that some children at least will be able to stir things up in the classroom.
Perhaps children will have the courage to do what teachers may be afraid of, or prevented from, doing: digging in behind the facade of CO2 scaremongering. Given the awful onslaught of climate-related-indoctrination for political purposes, this would indeed be an affirmation of the human spirit.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Scientific papers (peer-reviewed and published) dealing with the real climate, and not the worship of GCMs and associated politicising.
The Climate Science blog published a reminder today of the list of papers which have been collated at Popular Technology:
These are papers which do not pursue alarm about CO2. They support a sceptical view of that alarm, as befits scientists of integrity. One day, our school and college textbooks will give them the prominence they deserve, but a lot of troubled and turbulent political water will have to pass under the bridge before that day arrives - such is the sorry state of modern climate science (and of modern politics).
The list has been edited and updated, and now includes a section of responses to criticisms of the earlier lists:
'The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 counted papers. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
Criticisms: All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms. I make every attempt to defend the list where possible, in many cases my comments correcting the misinformation stated about the list are deleted and I am blocked from replying. Please email me if you have any questions or need me to address something, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com.'
- Lying about the list being debunked because certain papers on the list do not "refute" AGW theory. (All papers support either skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.)
- Lying about peer-reviewed journals not being peer-reviewed. (Every journal listed is peer-reviewed.)
- Lying about the inclusion of a paper on this list as a representation of the personal position of it's author in regards to AGW theory. (It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that "The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors".)
- Lying about all climate related papers not on this list endorsing AGW theory. (There are thousands of climate related papers but only a small percentage of these explicitly endorse AGW theory.)
- Lying that certain paper's age make them "outdated". (The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. There are over 650 papers published since 2000 on the list.)
- Lying that Blog posts, Wiki pages and YouTube videos "refute" peer-reviewed papers. (That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper.)
- Lying that broken links somehow invalidate the list. (Anyone with an elementary knowledge of the Internet knows that links can break at any time for a myriad of reasons. All broken links are fixed when notified or found. Regardless the full citation is provided so there is no excuse about not being able to locate the paper.)
- Lying that since some of the papers are mutually exclusive the list is falsified. (The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.)'
Thursday, 11 November 2010
To make it even more vivid, here is an appealing idea from a poster called 'Wendy', who put this up on a comment thread on Jo Nova's site (comment 64, http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/mystery-solved-why-the-pr-hacks-exploded-their-credibility/#comments), where I have added some boldening at the end:
'Imagine one kilometre of atmosphere that you want to clean up. For the sake of the discussion, imagine you could walk along it.
Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
This is a veritable moral swamp that needs to be drained. Standing at the edges of it, we can see unpleasantness, scaremongering, arrogance, ignorance, intolerance, brutality, destructiveness, and terrorism. Quite a result to follow from the speculative insertion of a dramatic effect for CO2 into computer models of the climate! Fortunately the real climate has displayed no such role for this beneficial gas. In our world, the dramatic role for CO2 is found in its impact on plant growth.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
By any other name would be more discreet
And thus by stratagem we may play our part
And let our children Bill Nye to meet.
In England a court of law found that
The Inconvenient Truth has many lies
And must be shown with caution
Lest it mislead about our skies.
In the New World some teachers have decided
That Gore is not good news
But they found a ready substitute
To promulgate his views.
Extract (I put it in italics, and bolded one paragraph) from a post by Jeff Wiita on the site Minnesotans for Global Warming :
'My daughter's 8th grade Earth Science teacher showed her class a video on man-made global warming by Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and kids consider him a science guru; thanks to PBS.