Climate Teachers: a quiz to pass around the staffroom

If your colleagues mostly read The Guardian and excoriate The Mail on Sunday and Daily Mail, then they are likely to a) be seriously mis-informed about climate change and b) unlikely to have seen this quiz.

10 questions out of hundreds that could be constructed on similar lines are not too many to put someone intent on their coffee off trying them.  The two Tory opportunists in the picture may even provide motivation for them to have a go since I suppose a Guardian-reader will automatically be incensed by them.  In this case, for once, they would be right in their prejudice.

As a bonus poke in the eye, let them see the rest of the page carrying the quiz, but only after they have been softened up by it! 


Hat-tip: Fang Tentmate (email), and for the image, Not A Lot of People Know That.

50 to 1 Project: still in with a chance of proceeding

 One thing we shall need for years to come is good quality materials to help repair the damage done in politics and in education by the past decades of overblown alarmism about CO2.  This video project promises to provide exactly that, and may yet manage to go ahead on a reduced budget.  Here is the latest update:



Donations by credit-card or PayPal can be made here: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change

Note added 30 May 2013.  Good news - the project is going ahead!  Details here:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change?c=activity

Note added 29 July 2013.  It looks like all the interviews and the studio-work  has been completed, and they are going flat-out on animation with a target release date of 'around about' 25th August.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIsBMM0m9Vc&feature=youtu.be

Carter Shreds the Climate Propaganda Pumped Out to Children for Decades

Prof Bob Carter shreds the case for alarm over CO2 and climate in this lecture from 2011, recently put on toYouTube. It is a public lecture on "Climate Context as a basis for Better Policy",
given at the University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, June 2011  (h/t http://spielclimate.blogspot.co.uk/ and through them https://twitter.com/Climate_con/statuses/336167271582035968)


This deserves the 'must-see' label!  Not only does he expose the shoddy science, he also exposes the shoddy policies and shoddy politicking and shoddy PR efforts that have thrived upon it.

This should be recommended viewing for every teacher in the world.

I also think there are seeds in this video for ideas that could be used as and when the 'authorities' get round to creating a decent curriculum on climate for schools.  That might have to precede publishers willing to risk new books aimed at the young, and suitable for schools, with a more realistic and optimistic view of our climate system and our impact on it.

That might include the fact that we have never been in a stronger position than we are now to cope with climate variations.  So parents might like to take the initiative and tell their children that.  There will be troubles ahead from climate, just as there have been in the past.  But we are more ready than ever before to handle them.  Our abundant supplies of affordable energy are part of that.

‘Fifty to One’ sounds like it would make a good resource about climate policy for use in schools

As someone who has not been convinced that recent increases in CO2 are an important or dominating driver of the climate system, I find the speculations about temperature changes as promoted by the IPCC quite hard to get excited about.  However that is not the case with many influential or powerful people – they are very excited indeed, and want us all to put a stop to world development in a dramatic fashion.  Dramatic reductions in fossil-fuel consumption along with dramatic increases in the use of inefficient generation technology such as windturbines, will in my view increase the cost of energy supplies and thus make it harder to cope with climate variation in years to come.

The discussion of climate change is now so heated, and polarised, that it will take remarkable efforts for one side to get through to the other.  This proposed video, 50 to 1, is one such effort, or so it seems to me.  Remarkable because it will take the IPCC methods and use them to demonstrate that the actions proposed to ‘stop climate change’ are many times more expensive than those that would be involved in adapting to it.  About fifty time more, according to some!

The appeal has not reached the halfway mark in sums promised, and we are at the halfway mark of the appeal’s planned duration.  I hope all readers will consider donating.  Lots of small donations might inspire a few huge ones.

Donations by credit-card or PayPal can be made here: http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change

They will only be taken up if a sufficiently large sum is reached to enable the project to proceed.

Note added 30 May 2013.  Good news - the project is going ahead!  Details here:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/50-to-1-project-the-true-cost-of-action-on-climate-change?c=activity

Children and Carbon Dioxide: don't let the zealots terrorise one by demonising the other.

'Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonisation of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.'

Extract from a Wall Street Journal piece by Harrison H. Schmidt and William Happer, 8th May, 2013.

'Mr. Schmitt, an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico. Mr. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.'

 

Note added 18 May 2013 Here is a video clip showing Happer participating in a tv discussion triggered by the above letter (h/t Bishop Hill): 

Colorado Climate Nightmare: the recruiting and training of young children to indoctrinate even younger ones in schools

 This gruesome display of young victims performing an absurd and inappropriate  anti-fracking rap to a group of even younger children in Colorado is shocking.  The youngsters in the audience may well shrug it off as a largely incomprehensible diversion from schoolwork, but what of the two performers?



They are victims of an organisation called 'Earth Guardians, which describes itself in these words:

The Earth Guardians are committed to standing up and protecting the Earth, the Water, the Air and the Atmosphere so that our generation, and those to follow, will inherit a healthy, sustainable and habitable planet.

What we have here is a set of adults who have decided that children make good political levers, and who have not hesitated to exploit them for campaigning purposes.

The 'mentors' are here: http://earthguardians.org/team.shtml
The 'council of advisors' is here: http://earthguardians.org/council.shtml

These are irresponsible and ruthless people.  

A news site in Colorado is on to the story, which it currently highlights as 'developing' (hat tip Tom Nelson):

Students receive anti-frack rap at Evergreen Middle school

Let us hope it 'develops' into a major scandal, and that the victims of these self-styled Earth Guardians get more protection, more help, and kept out of other schools. 

 Update added 10 May 2013: From the update at the above link: 

'Lynn Setzer, Communications Director for Jefferson County Schools explained to The Blaze.com that the students in question had been invited to the school for a different purpose, and that the fracking portion of the presentation “wasn’t specifically planned.”

According to The Blaze, “Setzer said the school is sending a letter of apology to parents, along with a list of resources for both sides of the issue for families to discuss. The school will also put in place a procedure to vet guest speakers.” According to letters reviewed by CompleteColorado.com, a vetting procedure to vet guest speakers is precisely what some parents were asking from the district in light of this assembly.'

It looks like the timely and sensible response of the school authorities may well defuse the issue, and so dash my hopes of more attention being given to this event.

Note added 29 May 2013  Pail Driessen provides more details of this shocking event in a Colorado school, and takes a very critical look at the Earth Guardians.  Extract 'But the Earth Guardians still deliver outright falsehoods about fracking, by children to children, in public schools funded by taxpayer dollars. Perhaps this goes on because teachers and school administrators fail to recognize the potential harm, or are themselves devoted to promoting extreme environmentalist ideologies. Certainly they failed to exercise their responsibility and authority as educators to provide a balanced curriculum and avoid being used by groups with political agendas, to inculcate a new generation of Americans in perverse Hard Green dogmas that are harmful to wildlife, people and the environment.'
 http://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2013/05/27/mindless-green-indoctrination-of-children-n1606861/page/full
(also here: http://www.eco-imperialism.com/mindless-green-indoctrination-of-children/ )

Climate Teachers: don't add to the rotten legacy of the environmental movement

Environmentalism has a rotten legacy.  The climate scaremongering is part of it.

(1) Have you checked for yourself  the materials you use to teach about climate?

Teaching children that they face climate catastrophe, or even serious and imminent threats, due to rising levels of carbon dioxide is such a momentous decision that surely any conscientious teacher will at some stage do some checking of his or her own as to the credibility of such assertions.  The journalist Melanie Phillips did just that, and she was not impressed with what she found. 

This article appeared today in Greenie Watch attributed to Melanie Phillips but without a source-link.  It looks like it could be her work to me, and so I am tentatively reproducing it as such here:

I have not yet found the article at source, but the above image as published has this i.dailymail link:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/05/07/article-2320940-19AB0B18000005DC-854_634x407.jpg
Note added later same day: I have tracked the above article down.  It appears without any explanation in this article, which though very moving and important, is not about climate.  I presume it is included because it is in the book just published by Phillips.  A recent article by her on climate is here.

(2) Meanwhile, the campaign continues at high levels and low:

(2.1) Outrageous scaremongering (aka 'climate diplomacy') this month at the UN:

   Note added 12 May 2013.   Collectors of examples of over-the-top alarmism will appreciate this one from 1881: linking up telegraph wires around the globe will cause catastrophe.  Description and commentary here and here.

(2.2) More subtle (but note the scary 'quadrillion') school outreach by the UEA last year (hat-tip Dave W)

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

(3) And for what?  To contribute to the already rotten legacy of environmentalism? 

The Rotten Legacy of Environmentalism 

Under each of these sections taken from the site Bread and Butter Science (created by James A. Marusek) can be found links to examples of harm:

Prolonged Psychological Fear Based on Unfounded/Distorted Claims

Needless Death of over 30 Million Innocent Young Children

Loss of a Dependable Electrical Infrastructure

Dependency on Foreign Oil and Higher Fuel Prices

Endangered Species Act

Starvation

The Agents of Fear

Development of the "Precautionary Principle" into a Fear Distortion Tool

Taking of Property without Just Compensation (Private Lands)

Tying National Security Up in Knots 

Eliminating or Weakening Flood Prevention Systems (Dams, Levies)

Depriving Workers of Their Livelihood

The Law of Unintended Consequences

The Destruction of Credible Science by Promoting Junk Science

The Destruction of Scientist who disagree with the Environmental Agenda

Promoting a Small Utopian World for the Elite through a Population Control Agenda (Isn't this called Genocide?)

Sponsor of Terrorism in the Name of the Environment

School Indoctrination: Driving Fear into the Hearts of Our Children
 and here are the first few links in this last category:

• The Child-Manipulators
• Facts, Not Fear
  • Chapter 1
  • Chapter 2
  • Chapter 3
• The Greening of America's Youth
• Educational Indoctrination, Environmental Style
• PeTA's Propaganda: A Part of the Curriculum!
• Science vs. Propaganda
• School Reverses on Showing of Al Gore Climate Change Film
• Al Gore told there are Nine Inconvenient Truths in his Film
• Students Thrown Climate Life Preserver
• Too Much Fear, Too Few Facts
• Climate Change Scenarios Scare, and Motivate, Kids

 There are dozens more, including a couple to Climate Lessons posts I'm pleased to say.

So, next time you hear the apologist refrain about it doesn't matter if the theory is wrong, it is leading to good things anyway, you might want to dig out this list and share it around.

It makes for a rotten legacy, does it not? 

Climate Education: a chance to sponsor a promising video

 An experienced film-maker is seeking to raise $130,000 to fund the creation of a short (7 minute) video about the notional costs of 'stopping' climate change according to IPCC methods and materials.  Apart from the fatuousness of trying to stop climate change, the notion is also an extremely extravagant one since the costs involved far exceed the expected costs of adapting to the projected conditions that this odious organisation promotes as our likely fate without such expenditure.  Fifty times more according to the calculations of Lord Monckton who is supporting this very worthwhile venture.  I think this video could well be very useable within schools, and so I have made a donation towards the costs.  Watch the promotional video below, and perhaps you will too:



Hat-tip: Bishop Hill
More background information on the proposed video can be found at WUWT:

This video, website and interview combination is a game-changer and could radically shift the climate debate.  But it will only have an impact if a large number of people watch the video.  The video needs to be so fun, fast paced and visually engaging that people will not only watch it, but also pass it on for their friends to watch.  7 minutes is an ideal length because it’s short enough to keep people’s attention, whilst being long enough for us to pack in all the information required to understand the maths and economics behind 50 to 1.  It’s effectively a short film which mixes the presentation of the maths and formulae with animations to illustrate every step along the way AND snippets of interviews with internationally respected experts lending the weight of their professional opinions to the subject.
President Vaclav Klaus, Professor Henry Ergas, Professor Fred Singer, Anthony Watts, Professor David Evans, Christopher Essex, and Joanne Nova have all agreed to be interviewed and we are still waiting to hear back from a few others.  Traveling with a production crew (to North America and Europe and back as well as around Australia) to get the interviews, as well as studio filming, editing, animating, colour grading and audio sweetening costs money.  That’s why I need your help.

Sounds good to me.   I hope he gets all the money he needs.

Contributions can be made by credit-card here, and a PayPal option may also become available.

Note added 6 May 2013.  Payment by PayPal is now available.
Note added 7 May 2013.  An update video clip.  It contains the good news that Donna Laframboise has been added to the list of interviewees.
 

Climate Classroom Library: copy and paste this post to make a bookmark, then buy the book!

Climate Book-Burners












Origin of the picture.

 “The burning of a book is a sad,
sad sight, for even though a book
is nothing but ink and paper, it feels
as if the ideas contained in the book
are disappearing as the pages turn to
ashes and the cover and binding--
which is the term for the stitching and
glue that holds the pages together--
blacken and curl as the flames do their
wicked work. When someone is burning
a book, they are showing utter contempt
for all of the thinking that produced its
ideas, all of the labor that went into its
words and sentences, and all of the
trouble that befell the author . . .”
― Lemony Snicket, The Penultimate Peril

 “Torch every book.
Burn every page.
Char every word to ash.
Ideas are incombustible.
And therein lies your real fear.”
― Ellen Hopkins


 http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/censorship


-----------Cut along here to make your very own bookmark-----------------------------------------------


The book in the picture is called 'The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism', and is by Steve Goreham.
Here is some of his most recent writing republished at WUWT:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/03/the-tragedy-of-climatism-resource-misuse-on-a-global-scale/ . 

His book can be bought on Amazon.

It is a lively book, designed and presented to be highly accessible and dipped into anywhere for insights and very quotable observations.  There are lots of photographs, cartoons, charts, and diagrams. It would be a useful resource for any pupil pursuing a project on climate change and/or the associated agitation and panic it has induced in policymakers.

Note added later on 3 May 2013.  It is not just climate blogs that have noticed.  For example, with bold added here:
'Sad but true, mock book burnings appear to be acceptable behavior of professors at San Jose State University.
In this case, Dr. Alison Bridger is doing the honors. She is proudly assisted by SJSU assistant professor Dr. Craig Clements. They disagree with the text’s content.
Drs. Bridger and Clements are currently featured on the front April entry on San Jose State University’s Department of Meteorology and Climate Science web page. They may mysteriously disappear before you read this.
Most certainly they thought what they did was hilarious. Apparently, so did the whole department.
Lousy texts get tossed in the trash every day at universities around the world. But when you make a public statement of it, as San Jose State did, you cross a line. You tarnish any legitimate climate research that institution ever does.
Unfortunately, all they proved is how politics has stained the pristine world of science.'
 http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/book-burning-is-alive-and-well/

Note added 5 May 2013.  More of the same:  http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/05/04/san-jose-state-burns-books/

Climate Classroom Wall: use this image to help your pupils get windfarms in perspective

A nuclear industry expert and publisher has had enough of the 'heartwarming images of wind farms' so widely promoted in response to the conjecture that humans are having a dramatic effect on the climate system, and to the political and financial opportunities this conjecture has provided thanks in large part to spin and propaganda. She is Andrea Jennetta, described on her blog as 'the owner and president of International Nuclear Associates, Inc., the publisher of Fuel Cycle Week. She has 25 years working in the nuclear fuel cycle.'  (hat tip: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2013/05/01/where-do-wind-turbines-come-from/)

 Here are some of her words to go with the picture.  The rest are here.

'Environmentalists love wind turbines, right? They’re so healthy and good for the environment, so pretty, innocent, clean. Environmentalists love peddling heartwarming images of wind farms basking under sunny blue skies and nestled in the bucolic embrace of verdant hills. People picnic under them, children skip and shout for joy at the sight of them!

But what environmentalists don’t show you is how wind turbines are made. So I will. Here goes: wind turbines are predominantly made of steel, and steel is predominantly made of iron. Manufacturing wind turbines requires extensive mining of iron ore, which means mountains and valleys get ripped to shreds. Not to mention all the other metals such as copper, nickel and  titanium that have to be dug out of ground to build every wind turbine displayed in those heartwarming images.

How do you feel about those pretty wind turbines now? Are they still clean? Are they still green? Are they still heartwarming and bucolic? Hardly. (I could also show you images of carbon-spewing cement factories that produce the cement bases for offshore wind turbines, or steel factories that actually turn iron ore into steel but I’ll save that for another occasion.)

My point isn’t that iron mining is dangerous, toxic or a threat to human civilization. My point is that when anti-uranium zealots bemoan the evils of mining and then make genuflections to a wind turbine, they’re not being straight with you. The fact is that pretty much everything we use in modern life — including every form of renewable energy you can think of — requires the extensive mining of raw materials from the earth. And mining isn’t pretty. But that doesn’t mean it’s unsafe or a threat to your existence. That’s why we have science, technology and smart engineers.'

Note added 29 May 2013  More illustrations of the impact of windfarms : 'In reality, wind energy may well be the least sustainable and least eco-friendly of all electricity options. Its shortcomings are legion, but the biggest ones can be grouped into eight categories.'
See: 'http://www.challengingclimate.org/story/4210/4331/Our-least-sustainable-energy-option