‘Pundits like Al Gore, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Bill Nye “the Science Guy” then further exaggerate what is reported. Next, public school teachers repeat all of the misinformation to their students, relying on textbooks written by poorly informed authors, many with only a superficial knowledge of science. Alarmist theories are presented as fact. Is it any wonder our young people grow up believing humans are destroying the Earth?’
Roy Spencer, ‘Global Warming Scepticism for Busy People’, 2018.
Monday, 19 December 2016
Thursday, 12 May 2016
The use of misleading experiments with glass boxes, jars or pop bottles in classrooms has been happening for a while: ' The experiment as presented by Al Gore and Bill Nye “the science guy” is a failure, and not representative of the greenhouse effect related to CO2 in our atmosphere. '
One correspondent to a Canadian web-based news magazine recently reacted to this sort of insidious nonsense with a powerful letter. Reproduced below from 'My Kawartha.com' :
Pop bottle science ‘grossly exaggerates’ CO2
Sunday, 8 May 2016
Thursday, 28 April 2016
|Source: Bishop Hill|
Readers here will enjoy the cartoon - another fine one by Josh (http://cartoonsbyjosh.com/)
It could also help your children realise what a one-sided view the mass media has been deliberately promoting (the BBC for example) , and that by itself could help them cope better with stress from the alarmism that has been pushed at them all their lives. And perhaps encourage some to look into it for themselves - the best way to reduce their anxiety.
Some backround reading:
From the latter:
In an interview with The New American after his presentation, Carter made a statement that supported the findings of the newly released “Greening of the Earth and Its Drivers” study: The CO added to the atmosphere in recent decades has been responsible for a tremendous greening of the planet. “That’s a huge environmental benefit,” he said, adding that much of the greening had occurred along arid areas such as the Sahara Desert. “If you talk to most scientists, they will acknowledge that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” explained Dr. Carter. “Indeed, it’s grotesque to call it a pollutant. It’s an abuse of logic, it’s an abuse of language, and it's an abuse of science.... Carbon dioxide is literally the stuff of life.”
Friday, 22 April 2016
|Cartoons by Josh|
It is time the indoctrination of our children was stopped.'
It is not difficult to spot the political campaigners who are coaching them in this nonsense. And a regional council is on-board too, claiming that it 'hopes the effort will make people think about the energy they use, where it comes from and the impact that has on the environment and climate change.'
(Source: Ross-Shire Journal)
Of course, the council and WWF are busy scheming to make that energy more expensive and less reliable thanks to the windfarms that are popping up in their territory to destroy wildlife, industrialise wild places, and discourage visitors and sensible industries from going anywhere near there. Meanwhile, it is quite disgraceful that wealthy, un-accountable, biased,scaremongering, self-serving schemers like WWF have been allowed such access and influence on those youngsters.'
'#1999 USA 'Shortly after Earth Day in 1997, for instance, a parent wrote a letter to the New York Times: "I have noticed a disturbing trend. With each passing school year, my children are more convinced that humans and technology are bad for the planet....While teachers are helping to insure a ‘greener’ future, I do not think they understand that children may infer a condemnation of humanity."'
Note added 10 May 2016: On the topic of windpower, some adults are making good progress in exposing the lunacies and reducing the damage: http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/09/major-blow-to-wind-power-bavarias-highest-court-upholds-10h-rule-shoots-industrialization-of-idyllic-landscape/ 'The ruling represents a major landmark victory for wind energy opponents, who have been increasingly shocked by the rampant destruction of Germany’s countryside and natural landscape. They greeted the ruling with loud cheers.'
Monday, 11 April 2016
Not as much as they might like. At least in the USA, according to a recently published survey from the Harvard Institute of Politics.
This was a survey of people 18 to 29 years old - in other words those who have spent their entire lives under the shadow of the CO2 Frenzy, and during almost all of whose lives, the overall global warming trend has been around a distinctly un-alarming 1 deg C per century, and sometimes with no rising trend at all for many years at a time.
The summarised responses to each question can be found here: http://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/IOPSpring15%20PollTopline.pdf
Four of them mention climate change, and these results are reproduced below:
20-24 Now thinking specifically about Barack Obama, do you approve or disapprove of the way he is handling:
20. Climate change.
Disapprove ..................................................... 48%
Decline to answer............................................. 2%
85. Government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth.
Strongly agree ................................................. 12%
Somewhat agree .............................................. 20%
Neither agree nor disagree .............................. 44%
Somewhat disagree ......................................... 12%
Strongly disagree ............................................. 11%
Decline to answer............................................... 1%
96. Hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ is a process used to more easily extract natural gas and oil by injecting a highly pressurized mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the ground. Supporters say that using this technique on American natural gas deposits can boost the country’s energy independence, can lower energy costs and create jobs. Opponents say that the technique can contaminate drinking water and air, can cause small earthquakes and contribute to climate change. Based on what you know at this time, do you support or oppose the use of fracking in America?
Strongly support............................................. 9%
Somewhat support........................................ 31%
Somewhat oppose ....................................... 35%
Strongly oppose ........................................... 23%
Decline to answer........................................... 2%
97. Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view?
The United States should take action to address climate change, regardless of whether or not other nations have agreed to it....... 67%
The United States should only take action to address climate change if most other nations agree to take action as well............ 31%
Decline to answer............................. 2%
What are we to make of this? Well, once again 'climate change' in the survey is not adequately defined, and this may well be deliberate. The term is, after all, a neutral one when taken at face value. But we know that CO2 Alarm campaigners do not use it that way - they use it as short-hand for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (cagw). How different might the responses have been if this had been used instead, especially if preceded by 'the conjecture of'?
So we must take the results with a large pinch of salt since they will depend on just how the ostensibly neutral and un-alarming phrase 'climate change' was interpreted.
But what is clear, is that opinion (about something called 'climate change') is very divided indeed. Some 48% don't approve of President Obama's approach (and he bigs it up big-time as a planetary crisis). Some 57% fail to even just 'somewhat agree' that 'government should do more to curb climate change', whatever it was taken to be. 40% support or strongly support fracking, an activity widely detested by CO2 Alarmers. These alarmers might well be pleased, however, that about two-thirds of the survey respondents think that the United States should 'take action' to address whatever it is. But since that could include wanting the government to encourage more fossil-fuel power stations to help citizens cope with climate variation, it is not by any means conclusive!
The full-time Alarm campaigners will be pleased that there is still work for them to do, still a need to jet around the world to exotic places for glamorous conferences, still plenty need to make portentous speeches about the end of the world, still a need to raise funds for their chosen way of life. But others may be pleased that the brainwashing does not seem to have overwhelmed young people, and that this is encouraging.
Now to help develop a scientifically appropriate view on all of this, I commend the following words from Richard Lindzen, whom I regard as the world's most distinguished climate scientist:
'The implausibility or even outright silliness through which global warming became global warming catastrophism is so extensive that one hardly knows where to begin. It is crucial to emphasise catastrophism because the situation is made even more incoherent by the intentional conflation of simple basic results that are widely agreed upon, but which have no catastrophic implications, with catastrophism itself. Currently, there really is quite a lot of basic agreement within the climate science world:
• climate change exists
• there has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around the beginning of the 19th century (well before emissions are regarded as contributing significantly)
• human emissions can contribute to climate change
• levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been increasing.
None of this is controversial and none of this actually implies alarm.'
This is from a lecture given in 2015. The text is here, and well worth reading in full: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/03/Lindzen.pdf
In fact, why not print it out and give copies to any 18 to 29 year-olds of your acquaintance?
Thursday, 7 April 2016
Saturday, 19 March 2016
In 2009 I was asked by a journalist for my thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour. Here is my response.
I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity. Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading. Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water. Many of the world's poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases. Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that's how the west developed.
The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonises electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity. People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.
I don't want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in "nature" meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.
Here in Ontario, through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s, despite the expansion of industry and the power supply. If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations. No thanks. I like visiting nature but I don't want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilisation with all its trade-offs is something to be ashamed of.
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph
Note added 20 March 2016. The advice in the title would be better to have been 'Read this before talking with them about it again.' Since the text is likely to be hard for young children.
Note added 23 March 2016. Here is an excellent essay on Earth Hour: http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-dangerous-narcissism-of-earth-hour/18165 'No, the problem with Earth Hour is that it makes a villain out of electricity provision, the very thing that’s allowed humanity to rise out of abject poverty and reach the standard of living we enjoy today. So, since you probably won’t hear it anywhere else, here are just a few of the tremendous benefits of cheap, reliable electricity: ...'
Thursday, 10 March 2016
|Photo: Clayton Aldern|
It is long since past time that I got this blog up and running with posts again.
This disturbing news item will spur me to do just that.
The harm that such campaigners have already helped bring to children includes starvation, energy poverty, suppressed economic development, and of course a terrible fear of the future.
Meanwhile, the climate system continues to act just as it might if the rising CO2 levels, from whatever source, were of little consequence. Where these increasing levels have had a noticeable impact, however, has been in helping increase food supplies by virtue of boosting plant growth.
Note added 22 March 2016. More on this shameful business here: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/03/09/us-youth-take-climate-fight-to-oregon-courthouse/
Note added 12 April 2016. A judge has ruled that the case can go ahead: