'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 September 2014
Saturday, 20 September 2014
Climate Cult Marches in New York and elsewhere on 21st September: the ill-informed and the ill-intentioned will call for more destruction
Notes added 22 September 2014 A sensible chap call Alex Epstein had his very own counterflow march in New York:
Here is an example of a child being used as a political weapon on the march in New York:
This pic and many more at: http://grist.org/climate-energy/meet-a-climate-marcher/
If you really want insight into just about anything at all, get a statistician to take a look at it. Here are some insights from Matt Briggs who took a look at the march in New York, and tried to engage with some of the marchers: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=13644 Basically, he found a lot of people who did not really know what they were supporting, but came along anyway.
For the hard-left (and billionaires) at the march, see: http://donsurber.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/commies-and-billionaires-march-against.html
A report on the London march, and the mess the marchers left behind them: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/22/Climate-March-London-Piles-of-Placards
Note added 24 September 2014 Report from the
and 'Children were encouraged to hang out in the protest’s kid-friendly zone, where they could draw their own signs promoting “revolution.”'
Friday, 19 September 2014
- As the product of infinitely wise design, omnipotent creation, and faithful sustaining (Genesis 1:1–31; 8:21–22), Earth is robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting. Although Earth and its subsystems, including the climate system, are susceptible to some damage by ignorant or malicious human action, God’s wise design and faithful sustaining make these natural systems more likely—as confirmed by widespread scientific observation—to respond in ways that suppress and correct that damage than magnify it catastrophically.
- Earth’s temperature naturally warms and cools cyclically throughout time, and warmer periods are typically more conducive to human thriving than colder periods.
- While human addition of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2), to the atmosphere may slightly raise atmospheric temperatures, observational studies indicate that the climate system responds more in ways that suppress than in ways that amplify CO2’s effect on temperature, implying a relatively small and benign rather than large and dangerous warming effect.
- Empirical studies indicate that natural cycles outweigh human influences in producing the cycles of global warming and cooling, not only in the distant past but also recently.
- Computer climate models, over 95% of which point toward greater warming than has been observed during the period of rapid CO2 increase, do not justify belief that human influences have come to outweigh natural influences, or fears that human-caused warming will be large and dangerous.
- Rising atmospheric CO2 benefits all life on Earth by improving plant growth and crop yields, making food more abundant and affordable, helping the poor most of all.
- Abundant, affordable, reliable energy, most of it now and in the foreseeable future provided by burning fossil fuels, which are the primary source of CO2 emissions, is indispensable to lifting and keeping people out of poverty.
- Mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions, pursued to prevent dangerous global warming, would have little or no discernible impact on global temperatures, but would greatly increase the price of energy and therefore of everything else. Such policies would put more people at greater risk than the warming they are intended to prevent, because they would slow, stop, or even reverse the economic growth that enables people to adapt to all climates. They would also harm the poor more than the wealthy, and would harm them more than the small amount of warming they might prevent.
- In developed countries, the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy than others, so rising energy prices, driven by mandated shifts from abundant, affordable, reliable fossil fuels to diffuse, expensive, intermittent “Green” energy, will in effect be regressive taxes—taxing the poor at higher rates than the rich.
- In developing countries, billions of the poor desperately need to replace dirty, inefficient cooking and heating fuels, pollution from which causes hundreds of millions of illnesses and about 4 million premature deaths every year, mostly among women and young children. To demand that they forgo the use of inexpensive fossil fuels and depend on expensive wind, solar, and other “Green” fuels to meet that need is to condemn them to more generations of poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it.
Here, on the other hand, is another Christian leader urging his flock to join the march in New York next week, a march intended to produce even more destructive and dreadful policies ostensibly based on overblown fears about our carbon dioxide: http://blog.archny.org/index.php/peoples-climate-march/comment-page-1/
So, it is not all good!
Thursday, 18 September 2014
Update 18 May 2015. Ross McKitrick undermines the '97%' nonsense even further by pointing to ignorance on the part of many of those classed in surveys as 'climate scientists': http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/climate-change-consensus-among-the-misinformed-is-not-worth-much
Update 19 February 2019
The tell-tale is still needed, still working, but this post has a neat rejoinder : http://www.cfact.org/2019/02/17/32717/
Wednesday, 17 September 2014
Climate Teachers, Concerned Parents – here is a new scientific society worthy of your support to raise standards in climate science, and improve public outreach.
'We welcome professionals, educators, students, and the general public/laymen who have an interest in open atmospheric science. There is a membership level to meet everyone's situation.'
Tuesday, 16 September 2014
Monday, 15 September 2014
The harm of telling children that industrial progress is going to kill them. The harm of telling children that carbon dioxide is a pollutant - a gas they produce and emit with every breath. The harm of telling children that 'climate science is settled' and they have to obey 'authorities' about what it means for their lives. The general harm of projecting vivid, scary, threatening scenarios to the young, and telling them they are certain to occur unless ... Unless the children do what they tell them to do. A generation of docile, cowed, submissive children would be ideal for anyone intent on controlling the lives of us all. No wonder the left is so keen on climate change campaigning.
Well, researchers are finding that some teachers* don't care for it. On Bishop Hill we learn of lamenting by climate campaign collaborators because:
[Researchers] found that the teachers did not consider it their role to try to solve today's major social or scientific problems. Instead, the science teachers said they preferred to 'maintain the integrity' of the science rather than to explore the social, economic or political implications.
That's good that they wish to protect the integrity of their subjects. Let us hope they succeed.
We might also hope that many teachers are determined to protect the integrity and well-being of their pupils as well. Let us hope they succeed.
*Footnote. But are such teachers in a minority? For indications of the possible scale of climate-linked indoctrination in schools in the UK, see the report 'Climate Control: Brainwashing in Schools'.
Wednesday, 3 September 2014
Note added 04 August, 2016. The £7 million eco-junk school is to be demolished: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/03/visionary-7m-eco-school-to-be-demolished-because-of-leaky-roof/