'According to Wrightstone, we should be communicating to young people that life is better than it’s ever been before. Earth is thriving, prospering, greening and benefiting from that growth. We have longer life expectancies; our food production is outpacing population growth. Air is getting cleaner. Our water is cleaner. Droughts and fires are in decline. Humanity and the earth are thriving and prospering which is in contrast to what we are being told and we just don’t see it. There’s an unrelenting barrage day after day of incorrect information that fits political ideologies and narratives, but it just isn’t correct science.'
Sunday, 24 October 2010
I have put a partial listing of such sites on this blog. It can be found as a 'Page', and can be reached via the link near the top right corner of the homepage. Dave W has provided further information on some of these sites, and I am most grateful for his help.
If anyone out there would like to help with this, please email me (JSclimatelessonsatgmaildotcom) with the name of the site you plan to check out, so that we may reduce the chances of people working on the same one at the same time.
Please also email me with any errors or omissions you come across on the Page. Thanks!
I think ego-building is a part of what is going on, but that is to be optimistic. Telling children that they are to 'save the planet' is perhaps good for their egos. But telling them, based pretty much on computer models that are not fit to be let out of the groves of academe, that the planet, which for the young means their family and friends and pets, is in imminent danger, is surely bad for their spirits. And bad for their intellects too, since there is precious little good science behind CO2-alarmism and an awful lot of goal-motivated speculation. What that goal, or goals are, is worthy of debate, but handing over more taxes and more power to governments seems an intrinsic part of it. Destroying industrial progress seems another. Mostly, though, it seems to feed on the joy of controlling others - what they eat, drink, and smoke; how they light, heat, and build their houses; what opinions they may hold on this that and the other; what transport systems they are allowed to use; and how far away their trading partners are permitted to be. All based on fear. Irrational, spirit-sapping, mind-numbing, truth-obscuring fear. What a way to prepare the young for the future. Let us hope that in China and in India, and in other powerhouses of the developing world, they will choose instead to pursue maths, and science, and independent thought, even as the US and Europe and other places wreck themselves and their young with dismal, pessimistic foolishness on a grand scale. These Chinese and Indian and other children will not just take the 1st and 2nd places on such podia suggested by the cartoon above, but soon the 3rd and 4th and ... nth as well. Good luck to them. Our future generations may yet learn from them in turn.
Thursday, 21 October 2010
Extract from the proceedings of the House of Lords, 20th October 2010
Monday, 18 October 2010
This is part 1 of a 5 part set of YouTube videos capturing an interview/presentation with Lord Monckton published by Alex Jones on Prisonplanet.tv. The links to the entire set are here:
Note added 10 June 2013 A YouTube video revealing Alex Jones as an unhinged oaf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgBq6q4x8Fw
Friday, 15 October 2010
'William M. Connolley topic-banned (R3)
- It has become clear, during the case itself, that the topic area has become too personalized and polarized around a number of editors who are, frankly, incapable of working together. While I may not agree that all editors involved have the same severity of misbehavior, I can appreciate that a forcible fresh start is probably going to help — with gradual return on merit as the editors involve themselves in other areas of the project. —
- Sad, reluctant support. I dislike intensely the idea of separating a knowledgeable editor from editing in the field of his expertise. My instincts impel me to say that I would, if possible, prefer a more carefully tailored, nuanced sanction or set of sanctions that could preserve the value of William M. Connolley's editing while addressing the problems that exist with it. (This is an observation I've made about some of the other editors who are being topic-banned as well.) We have also acknowledged that some of the specific assertions made about him previously were inaccurate or taken out of context. However, the "enough is enough" consensus of the committee is clear, and given the entire record here I can hardly say that the overall structure and outcome of the final decision is an outlandish one. Given the result, I hope that William M. Connolley can refocus his dedication to the project in other ways, while addressing the concerns that have been expressed so that he can return to this topic area in due course.'
A step forward, but so many years of misleading innocent readers will not be so readily corrected. Wikipedia, like other utopian ventures, has always been vulnerable to those with few scruples about pursuing their own self-interest with ruthlessness. Even if we see no more Kyoto-style over-reaction to CO2 such as that captured in legislation in the UK (and that seems over-optimistic given the huge momentum of interested parties wanting more of it), there remains the damage to the standing of science and to the practice of both politics and education. I suspect that an oppressive burden of gloom has been imposed on wave after wave of children passing through their school years, with a diet of alarmism based, ultimately, on the speculations of a handful of climate modellers. Speculations that have been contradicted by many observational and theoretical studies, but which nevertheless survive and are vigorously promoted by those for whom they are like a dream come true.
If Wikipedia may be at least pausing its own part that promotional effort, and if even the BBC and the Royal Society have recently indicated at least a tiny embarrassment at their part in it, I like to think, in my optimistic way, that progress is being made.
But meanwhile, in schools and other organisations aimed at children throughout the world, the deliverables of this narrow, 'science is settled', doom-laden agitation about CO2 are pushed at the young. A dream come true for some, a nightmare for others, not least the children.
Monday, 11 October 2010
'No science produces more controversy, exaggerations, distortions, follies, and falsehoods than climate science does. In this new list we’ve got
Sunday, 10 October 2010
It served to give us insight into their attitudes, and for that we may be grateful.
Delingpole has a bitter-edged post on suggested actions for today, the 10th of October, 2010:
'Hey kids, the big day’s here. It’s 10/10/10 and that if you’ve been following the campaign of Franny Armstrong, Richard Curtis, Eugenie and all their other nicely-spoken, privately-educated, Daddy-funded, Guardian-reading trustafarian chums at 10:10, you’ll know that means just one thing: Climate Action.'
The first comment I saw posted under that piece, by 'scientificanomaly' is the inspiration for the title of this one:
'This post is in loving memory of the young martyrs Phillip and Tracy. May they rest in peace. They shall never be forgotten, we shall honour their memory by re-doubling our efforts to consign the AGW climate scam to the dustbin of history and by driving all the deranged eco-bullies out of positions of influence.'
Saturday, 9 October 2010
'Democrat Representative John Sarbanes of Maryland wants public schools to "get young people invested" in "climate change" and "population growth" in order to "[raise] awareness early" and "promote the agenda." That would be the agenda of junk science alarmism.
Monday, 4 October 2010
We could readily build a set of them for teachers willing to engage classes on the realities of climate and/or of pressure groups and their mentors. The recent splattergate movie from 10:10 is a reminder of how zealotry, and the ignoring of real data, can so easily lead to ruthless fanaticism. Using simple data sets can be enough to expose, bit by bit, step by step, the emptiness of the fanatics' approach, and at the same time encourage youngsters to discuss, differ, and think for themselves in a civilised manner.
Steven Goddard's blog has some suitable material today which could readily be built-up into a '10-minute trainer', looking at a doom-laden prediction about sea levels around New York city - a prediction made by leading CO2-agitator, James Hansen in 1988 for the year 2008: (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/correlating-new-york-sea-level-rise-with-co2/):
(1) The predictions (source:http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/index.html) :
'While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, "If what you're saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?" He looked for a while and was quiet and didn't say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, "Well, there will be more traffic." I, of course, didn't think he heard the question right. Then he explained, "The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won't be there. The trees in the median strip will change." Then he said, "There will be more police cars." Why? "Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up." '
(2) The data (source: http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/50yr.shtml?stnid=8518750&name=The+Battery&state=New+York): a scatterplot of the rate of sea-level rise (in mm per year) against CO2 concentration
Now class, what can we learn from this? What other data from New York or elsewhere do you think would be helpful to improve our discussion of these predictions? How far would you be willing to extrapolate from a such a scatterplot using higher levels of CO2? Do you think CO2 levels could ever be a reliable predictor of sea level changes? What would a naive extrapolation of the plot predict for the rate of sea level rise today given that CO2 levels have risen further over the past few years? What relevance would rainfall levels or storms have to our discussion? And so on.
Note Added 5 November 2012 Last year, Hansen claimed he never made the forecast for 20 years out, but rather 40 years and the journalist misheard him. An update on the WUWT 2009 post has been made, and shows that even adding another 20 years to the alarming forecast, it still does not look at all plausible.
More analysis on Hansen's alarmism here: http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/james-hansen-1986-within-15-years-temps-will-be-hotter-than-past-100000-years/
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.
Friday, 1 October 2010
KILL! KILL! KILL THE UNBELIEVERS!
The luvvies in and behind this despicable film are so convinced of the dangers of CO2 in the atmosphere that they wish to kill those who disagree with them, including children. The film ends with gore from an explosion sliding down the screen. The film begins with a schoolteacher calmly blowing up two pupils in her class who decline to give in to her political requests , leaving blood over all the others in the classroom.
Now this is at a time when there is not a single piece of observational evidence that anything at all unusual is happening to climate. The increase in a trace gas is so small that it remains a trace gas. The role of it in the climate system is far from 'settled', with deeply qualified scientists estimating its effect ranging from a small cooling, through negligible to a modest warming. A handful of scientists and programmers have created computer models of climate which include an additional hypothesis of postive feedback involving water vapour. Then and only then do we get more scary scenarios of warming. We also see in the model outputs a remarkable and pronounced hotter zone in the upper troposphere - one that has not been observed. Ordinarily, the scientific method would say - 'model prediction not confirmed by observation, model not good enough'. Some models also predict a hot spot over Antarctica - one that should be clearly detectable by now, but it is not there. None of the models predicted the break in the warming since around 1998 to the present day. None of the models include the fact that many weather station records show no overall warming at all in the past century. The models are not good. They are not fit for prediction. Yet there is nothing else that deserves an alarmed reaction. Nothing. The luvvies want to kill and destroy based on the output of computer models of demonstrably poor quality, in a field where there are substantially different theories about the impact of CO2 on climate. Only those theories which predict a modest to negligible impact have been supported by observations of the real atmosphere.
Note added 8 Nov 2011. I regret the term 'eco-blackshirts' in the title. Although I think such people could readily be recruited, the filmakers themselves did not actually apply real violence to those they deem to be so evil that they, or their children, must be blown up by terrorists acting for the climate cause. They merely promoted such violence.
Note added 3 Dec 2011. Prof Jones of UEA, the notorious climate schemer as revealed by CG1 and CG2, put his department into the 10:10 campaign less than a year before the ugly video was released:
'I am a lot more free to push my environmental interests without ongoing critique of my motives and supposed misguidedness - I've signed my department up to 10:10 campaign and have a taskforce of staff and students involved in it...' (29 October 2009, source: http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/1625.txt)
I wonder if they are still part of it?
Note added 18 Jan 2012. More examples of eco-fascism exposed here: http://toryaardvark.com/2012/01/18/green-environmentalist-wants-eco-gulags-for-climate-change-deniers/
Note added 21 Mar 2012. Essay on eco-fascism here: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/03/eco-fascists-don-their-jackboots.php
Note added 10 April 2012. More writing published in Germany on the links between National Socialism and Green political activists: http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/10/news-magazine-focus-writes-on-the-german-green-movements-very-brown-roots/
Note added 28 April 2012: Violent imagery used by out-of-control EPA bureaucrat: cruxifixion.
'A recently surfaced video of an EPA official's rant confirms what many of us already knew about the Obama Administration: they imagine themselves to be the rulers of conquered territories populated by restless barbarians who must be subjugated at any cost, complete with indiscriminate and severe exemplary punishments.'
Note added 05 May 2012. Donna Laframboise has noted copies of 'No Pressure' disappearing from YouTube. She has created a Webcite link to the video, and here is another YouTube copy which is currently working: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sE3g0i2rz4w&feature=related
Note added 17 April 2014. The close relationship of eco-fanaticism with National Socialism in Hitler's Germany is illustrated by this quotation: '"We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."
(hat-tip: commenter esmiff, Apr 16, 2014 at http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/4/15/climate-control-in-the-scottish-express.html#comments )