'Ladies and gentlemen, we call time on a 50-year-old scam, in which a small number of corrupt and politicized scientists, paid for by scientifically-illiterate governments panicked by questionable lobby-groups funded by dubious billionaires and foreign governments intent on doing down the West, and egged on by the inept and increasingly totalitarian news media, have conspired to perpetrate a single falsehood: that the science was settled.

Well, it wasn’t.'

Lord Monckton, https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2018/03/the-elementary-error-of-physics-that-caused-the-global-warming-scare/


Wednesday, 27 December 2017

Repairing the Damage to Children Caused by Climate Alarmists: a letter from Ken Haapala

Anyone on the look-out for materials, ideas, approaches that could help repair the emotional and intellectual damage caused to children (and vulnerable adults) by climate alarmists?  This letter from Ken Haapala of SEPP seems to me to be a good contribution in the right direction:

'Letter to Dr Singer from students in Denmark asking important questions:

We are starting a project next week and the topic is "change". We have chosen the subtopic "global warming"
Do you have the time to answer a few questions in writing?
1. What is behind global warming?
2. What can we do to prevent global warming?
3. If we don't do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants?
4. What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable?
5. How can we save Earth if it isn't too late?

RESPONSE

Dear Students:

Dr. Singer was not available to answer your questions. I have worked with him for the past seven years, and he approved this response to you.

You ask some very good questions, which require answers with some detail. Science advances by asking good questions, providing answers that may or may not be correct (guesses), then testing the guesses against all hard evidence, that may or may not support it. If the strongest evidence does not support the guess (the hypothesis), then the guess must be discarded or changed.

The climate has been warming and cooling for hundreds of millions of years. For over two million years, the globe has usually been cold, with long ice ages interrupted by short warm periods of 10 to 15 thousand years. We live in one such warm period of about 10,000 years. The longer periods of cooling (and shorter periods of warming) have been explained as resulting from a changing of the orbit and tilt of the globe in relation to the sun, known as the Milankovitch cycles.

Within the generally-warm past 10,000 years, there has been shorter periods of modest warming and cooling. During a warming period, agriculture began and with it, civilization. The most recent cooling period is known as the Little Ice Age. It occurred between about 1300 to 1850 and was very hard for those living in Northern Europe and China, where we have written records. In Europe, many died from starvation and associated diseases because crops did not ripen. The Nordic settlements in Greenland were wiped out. Great storms occurred in the North Sea, killing thousands of people living in the low countries. It is thought this cooling period was caused by a weaker intensity of the sun, which resulted in increasing cloudiness and corresponding cooling.

Understanding what is behind the current warming of the last century or so, requires a complete understanding of what created periods of warming and cooling over the past 10,000 years, which we do not have. The earth’s climate is extremely complex. It can be described as the result of two fluids in motion interacting with the land. The fluids move in response to the heat generated daily by the sun.

One of the fluids is the ocean, which transports heat on the surface from the tropics to the poles, where it escapes into the atmosphere and to space. A famous surface ocean flow is the Gulf Stream, which keeps Northern Europe much warmer than the corresponding latitudes of Canada. The other fluid is the atmosphere, which transports heat from the surface to the upper troposphere by convection, from which heat can escape to space by radiation. We simply do not understand the movements of fluids sufficiently well to explain exactly how these systems work.

Adding to the complexity is the rotation of the earth, which changes the intensity of solar energy hitting any specific location on the globe. That varies both daily and seasonally, which adds to the ever-changing motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. It may take hundreds of years before these complex motions are fully understood.

In answer to your question: What is behind global warming? We simply do not know in detail, but can guess, then look at the evidence.

Over 100 years ago, scientists wondered why the surface of the earth does not cool as rapidly at night, as many thought it should. An explanation, since then well tested, is that some gases in the atmosphere delay the transport of heat from the surface to space, keeping the earth warmer at night. These gases are called greenhouse gases, the most important of which is water vapor. Deserts, with low atmospheric water vapor, cool more rapidly at night than humid areas at comparable latitude.

A lesser greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide which humans emit by burning fossil fuels. But research by different laboratories have shown that adding carbon dioxide to today’s atmosphere will cause only a small warming, nothing to fear.

Prior to the time when satellite measurements began (1979), the surface thermometers that indicated warming were largely on land, mostly located in the US, Western Europe, and other Westernized areas. The coverage was not global. Surface temperatures may indicate what is occurring in the atmosphere, but are influenced by many other human activities such as building cities, land clearing, and farming. For over 38 years, we have had the benefit of accurate temperature measurements from satellites that cover nearly all the earth, including oceans.

Meanwhile, computer models, known as General Circulation Models, have been used with relatively little success. Built into them is the assumption that the slight warming caused by CO2 will be amplified into a much greater warming due to water vapor. The principles of the scientific method demand that real data from observations be used, and for a computer model to be valid, it must reproduce the observed data. Any warming caused by increased greenhouse gases will be stronger in the atmosphere than on the surface.

Satellite measurements of temperature trends in the atmosphere have been studied intensely, including even tiny corrections for drifting orbits. Furthermore, the temperature trends are double-checked by using four different sets of atmospheric temperature measurements, taken with different instruments, carried by weather balloons; and all closely agree. Now stretching over 38 years, these show a modest warming trend.

From this evidence, we can conclude that: unless compelling evidence indicates otherwise, the warming influence of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, has been greatly overestimated; efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will not prevent global warming; carbon dioxide-caused warming will be modest; and the Earth will not become unlivable from carbon dioxide warming. Life began on this planet when the atmosphere was far richer in carbon dioxide, and far poorer in oxygen, than it is today.

Starting in 1972, Landsat satellites have been taking images of the earth. They show that the earth is greening with increasing carbon dioxide, becoming richer for life. Thousands of experiments show food crops grow better in atmospheres richer in carbon dioxide than the atmosphere today. Indoor plant nurseries routinely increase the carbon dioxide concentration of their air to three to four times that of today’s atmosphere.

Through the wonder of photosynthesis, using energy from the sun, green plants convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and carbohydrates (food). All plants and complex animals depend on this food. We should praise carbon dioxide, not fear it.

To directly answer your questions:

  1. What is behind global warming? We don’t know exactly, but based on evidence, greenhouse gases are not the main cause.

  1. What can we do to prevent global warming? Nothing. The main cause is natural variation, which we cannot prevent.

  1. If we don't do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants? You and your descendants will live in a world richer in carbon dioxide, which is a benefit to plants, the environment, and humanity.

  1. What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable? Life began on earth with the atmosphere many times richer in carbon dioxide than today. The earth will not become unlivable from carbon dioxide-caused warming.

  1. How can we save Earth if it isn't too late? The earth does not need saving, but it needs good stewards. You can help by not polluting with trash, not wasting energy, and living healthy lives.

Best wishes,

Kenneth Haapala, President
Science and Environmental Policy Project
December 22, 2017'




Source: http://sable.madmimi.com/c/16467?id=468806.21087.1.702e167e90d3764e59f9302489c6a55f

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Farewell

I have not been able to post much here for what seems like a long time.  I had been hoping to change that, but I have not managed to.  Now I've decided to stop altogether for a long break.  I'll leave the blog up and available for readers, and I may update the reference Pages now and then.

Sunday, 30 April 2017

CO2 Scaremongering Climate Junk Claims Antidote: just look at the data

The seemingly endless streams of junk science, junk assertions, and portentous pontifications about climate based on CO2 Scaremongering are generally best, and most readily, dealt with merely by looking at relevant data.

Photo: http://www.flowers-magzine.com/Reviving_Wilted_Roses
That UK National Treasure of a web site 'Not A Lot of People Know That' has seen a great many posts refuting the silly claims of both victims and perpetrators of the Scaremongering.  The most recent is in response to a report just published by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS).  It turns out that that Society has burdened itself by employing someone as a 'climate scientist'.  Said 'scientist' naturally wants to be seen to earn her keep by producing something to justify her employment.  That 'something' has been generously hyped by the BBC.  That of course is not a good thing, since the BBC is little better than a cesspit of eco-junk  known to be severely and deliberately biased when it comes to environmental matters, not least climate.  This RHS report and the BBC reporting on it, as Paul Homewood deftly demonstrates, provide more exhibits for the prosecution on the these charges.

Parents, other family members, and teachers would do well to bookmark Homewood's site, and search it from time to time as and when climate spins pushed by victims, perpetrators, and collaborators in the CO2 Scaremongering come their way, or more importantly, in the way of their children.

Read his latest post to see his method at work:  https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/bbc-peddle-rhs-climate-lies/

BBC Peddle RHS Climate Lies

APRIL 30, 2017

Monday, 10 April 2017

US Science Teaching Union Responds to Reason on Climate with Three Lies

The Heartland organisation recently sent out to US schools 25,000 copies of its excellent booklet entitled 'Why Scientists Disagree About Climate Change' (follow my link to get your copy and see for yourself).

A leader of the National Science Teachers Association responded with three lies and no cogent criticism. Here are the lies:

"First, scientists don't disagree about climate change or its causes," David Evans, the executive director of NSTA, wrote in a letter to members earlier this week. "Second, labeling propaganda as science does not make it so. Third, science teachers are the critical bastion in the war against reason. And the special interests know it."

Why are they lies?

First, it is a platitude that scientists disagree about climate change and its causes.  The booklet gives chapter and verse on that.

Second the booklet is not 'propaganda labelled as science'.  In fact it is a reasoned counterstroke to exactly that phenomenon, a phenomenon which often proceeds by omission and by hyperbole to make the case for panic over CO2.  

Third, teachers have been docile vehicles for state propaganda for generations.  The socialists in Germany for example, regarded them as no obstacle at all in their promotion of the Third Reich, and they have been no less a pushover when it came to one eco-scare after another in recent decades. 

In particular she notes that the NSTA report no errors in the Heartland booklet, and that is why they resorted to a squeeling distortion of reality as their response.

I hope most readers will download the booklet and pass it on to all the teachers they know.



Note added later. I see from the Heartland site that they plan to send
 out a total of 200,000 copies to schools and colleges. Good news:

'The summary below is taken from the book's concluding chapter. You can read it for free at the PDF link above, or buy a hard copy from the Heartland Store. A collection of reviews is here, and a page with even more information about the book has been created here.

In 2017, The Heartland Institute is mailing some 200,000 copies of the second edition of this book to K-12 and college science teachers across America. Read the cover letter of that mailing here.'



Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Help the Children of the CO2 Scaremongering Scam

A big effort is called for to help all the victims of the CO2 scaremongering of recent decades, scaremongering which has reached nursery, primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education and of course can be found embedded in much of the mass media - not least the BBC.

I am hoping to see more and more books, articles, videos, and maybe even tv programmes one day, that will help with this work.  Here is the most recent example I have come across:  It is an article in the online Quadrant magazine:

A Handy Primer for Deluded Warmists

We all have them, friends who believe the planet is on a CO2-fuelled collision course with a catastrophe that can only be averted by directing large sums to rent-seeking wind farmers and the like. If you know someone like that, here's a simple, handy guide to the climate scam

Friday, 24 March 2017

Read this Classic Post before talking about Earth Hour with your family and friends

Earth Hour: A Dissent by Ross McKitrick 

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.


Ross McKitrick
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph

Source: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/earthhour.pdf

This could become an annual post here:  http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/children-asking-about-earth-hour-give.html

Wednesday, 22 March 2017

The New York Times goes full Duranty on CO2 Scaremongering

What makes a newspaper take it upon itself to foist propaganda on to children?

This recent article in the New York Times contains lesson-plan instructions on how to indoctrinate youngsters in Climate Alarm Orthodoxy:


A Lesson Plan About Climate Change and the People Already Harmed by It


It hardly needs Fisking, the bias is so blatant, the intention so obvious:


When will it ever end?

As a partial antidote, here is word of a calm, scholarly appraisal of recent climate variation: https://cliscep.com/2017/03/22/a-calm-overview-of-recent-climate-variation/

Note added 23 March.  Very pleased to see this post taken up by Climate Depot, and by Greenie Watch (albeit without attribution there), both high readership sites.  Welcome all who come here from there!  At Greenie Watch, John J Ray has a comment on the NYT article from Lubus Motl: "In the 1980s, we thought that some of our Communist-era education was biased and manipulative. But it has never reached more than 1% of what these two individuals propose - which is a full Orwell 1984. It's just incredible if Trump is paying teachers who are actually willing to do things like that. They should hear "You're Fired" within minutes"
Later: welcome also to visitors from Theo Spark, Long Room, and Climate Realists

Saturday, 18 March 2017

An End to Brainwashing of Children by the EPA?

Senator James Inhofe adds to the pressure on the EPA, as reported on the NewsMax site:

'The Republican Oklahoma senator, and supporter of current Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt, made the comments to anchor Poppy Harlow during an appearance on CNN's "New Day."
"We are going to take all this stuff that comes out of the EPA that is brainwashing our kids, that is propaganda, things that aren't true, allegations," Inhofe said, though at the time he did not point to any specific examples.
Inhofe, a frequent climate change skeptic, made similar comments to conservative talk show host Eric Metaxas after the senator said that one of his grandchildren asked why he was a climate change denier, according to Newsweek.
"You know, our kids are being brainwashed? I never forget because I was the first one back in 2002 to tell the truth about the global warming stuff and all of that," Inhofe said.
"And my own granddaughter came home one day and said, … 'Popi, why is it you don't understand global warming?' I did some checking, and Eric, the stuff that they teach our kids nowadays, you have to un-brainwash them when they get out." '

Let's wish him well on this mission.  And it is just not just kids who need to be 'un-brainwashed', but the adults who have been through the educational system at all levels in recent decades, from nursery through to university.  Some pastoral care could help them a lot, reducing anxiety, reducing stress, and encouraging a more optimistic and reality-grounded outlook with regard to climate variation.

Thursday, 9 February 2017

Tell Your Children: 'sustainable development' means 'suppressed development'. Resist it.

One of the wretchedly successful eco-themes of the past few decades is the notion of 'sustainable development'., and it has been boosted by the CO2 Scare.  It may be even more insidious since it is superficially so appealing, and it has received widespread promotion or even adoption in universities, schools, and in businesses and governments.  Yet it is, like the CO2 Scare itself, a destructive, ill-thought-out, over-hyped, over-emoted piece of propagandising which boils down to wanting to deliberately damage, weaken, or even destroy our advanced civilisation, and deny something like to the developing world.

Paul Driessen, author of the excellent study 'Green Power, Black Death', has just published a new essay on WUWT pointing out many absurdities and harms associated with 'sustainability'.  An extract is given below, but see the original for a great deal more.  Anyone concerned with protecting children from the excesses of eco-fanatics ought to read it.  Some may choose to specialise in this area.  I hope.

"As President Trump downgrades the relevance of Obama era climate change and anti-fossil fuel policies, many environmentalists are directing attention to “sustainable development.”

Like “dangerous manmade climate change,” sustainability reflects poor understanding of basic energy, economic, resource extraction and manufacturing principles – and a tendency to emphasize tautologies and theoretical models as an alternative to readily observable evidence in the Real World. It also involves well-intended but ill-informed people being led by ill-intended but well-informed activists who use the concept to gain greater government control over people’s lives, livelihoods and living standards.
The most common definition is that we may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Sustainability thus reflects the assertion that we are rapidly depleting finite resources, and must reduce current needs and wants so as to save raw materials for future generations.
At first blush, it sounds logical and even ethical. But it requires impossible clairvoyance.
In 1887, when the Hearthstone House became the world’s first home lit via hydroelectric power, no one did or could foresee that electricity would dominate, enhance and safeguard our lives in the myriad ways it does today. Decades later, no one anticipated pure silica fiber optic cables replacing copper wires.
No one predicted tiny cellular phones with superb digital cameras and more computing power than a 1990 desktop computer or 3-D printing or thousands of wind turbines across our fruited plains – or cadmium, rare earth metals and other raw materials suddenly required to manufacture these technological wonders.
Mankind advanced at a snail’s pace for thousands of years. As the modern fossil-fuel industrial era found its footing, progress picked up at an increasingly breathtaking pace. Today, change is exponential. As we moved from flint to copper, to bronze, iron, steel and beyond, we didn’t do so because mankind had exhausted Earth’s supplies of flint, copper, tin and so on. We did it because we innovated – invented something better, more efficient or practical. Each advance required different raw materials.
Who today can foresee what technologies future generations will have 25, 50 or 200 years from now? What raw materials they will need? How we are supposed to ensure that those families meet their needs?
Why then would we even think of empowering government to regulate today’s activities today based on the wholly unpredictable technologies, lifestyles, needs, and resource demands of distant generations? Why would we ignore or compromise the needs of current generations, to meet those totally unpredictable future needs – including the needs of today’s most impoverished, energy-deprived, malnourished people, who desperately want to improve their lives?
Moreover, we are not going to run out of resources anytime soon. A 1-kilometer fiber optic cable made from 45 pounds of silica (Earth’s most abundant element) carries thousands of times more information than an equally long RG-6 cable made from 3,600 pounds of copper, reducing demand for copper.
In 1947, the world’s proven oil reserves totaled 47 billion barrels. Over the next 70 years, we consumed hundreds of billions of barrels – and yet, in 2016 we still had at least 2,800 billion barrels of oil reserves, including oil sands, oil shales and other unconventional deposits: at least a century’s worth, plus abundant natural gas. Constantly improving technologies now let us find and produce oil and natural gas from deposits that we could not even detect, much less tap into, just a couple decades ago.
Sustainability dogma also revolves around hatred of fossil fuels, and a determination to rid the world of them, regardless of any social, economic or environmental costs of doing so. And we frequently find that supposedly green, eco-friendly and sustainable alternatives are frequently anything but."

Wednesday, 8 February 2017

CO2 Frightens Children and Adults thanks to Propaganda - why not help resist it?

The decades of propaganda about a modest, beneficial increase in estimated global mean temperature portrayed as a threat, sometimes as a catastrophic one, has taken its toll of politicians, teachers, and children.  The associated assertion that this increase is mainly due to our emissions of CO2 has allowed campaigners to threaten not just our mental health, but also our physical well-being.

Yet the case for alarm is a flimsy one.

A long road lies ahead of us who want to help the victims of the scaremongering, and help them and those who exploit them gain a more reasonable, calmer view of climate variation and its multiple causes.  Anyone who wants to do this needs to get well-informed about the climate system, and no doubt this seems like an impossible task to many.  But non-specialists can get informed enough to raise good questions, recognise decent replies, and discuss policy implications.

Just published on WUWT is an excellent essay triggered by yet another book on the climate scare written by victims of it.  The essay has many valuable insights and many useful links to help the reader investigate further.  I commend it to all those who come this way and want to get better informed.  Here are a couple of extracts from the essay to whet your appetites:

(Extract 1) "I served in the Air Force as a weather officer from 1953–1957, earned my Ph.D. in meteorology from Florida State University, joined the National Hurricane Center in 1961, where I served for 25 years and was Director from 1974–1987 (the longest term of any Director), then served as chief meteorologist for the CBS TV affiliate in Houston until my retirement in 2008—a retirement during which I have continued and even expanded my studies of global climate change.

I have been following the global warming debate for almost 25 years. During that time I have metamorphosed from a mild believer in the 1980s and 1990s to a very strong skeptic. My journey is typical of a number of skeptics."

(Extract 2) "What can we conclude? The relationship between CO2 and the earth’s temperature is poor on all time scales from ice ages (100,000 years) to interglacial periods (10,000 years) to short periods of a few centuries or even decades.
Another way we can evaluate the impact CO2 has on the earth’s temperature is to examine the forecasts produced by climate models. All of the climate models have a built-in relation between CO2 and the earth’s temperature that was determined by the observations made in the 1980s–1990s. During that time, the earth’s temperature was rising and the CO2 levels were accelerating upward. Since the CO2 levels were correctly projected to continue upward in the future (see the table above), and since the modelers’ underlying theory was that the rise in CO2 had driven the rise in temperature, it is not surprising that the models forecast continued warming.
If the CO2/temperature relation built into the models is correct, then the models should make accurate forecasts. Numerous tests of the models have been conducted. In one test of over 100 model runs, every one failed. In every case the temperatures forecast by the models were much too warm. Dr. John Christy (who in addition to being a prominent climate scientist is, like Paul Douglas, an evangelical Christian), testified on Feb. 2, 2015, before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and technology that on average “the models overwarm by a factor of 2.5.” "

(Extract 3) "Those promoting manmade global warming:
  1. Controlled the meteorology and climatology journals in the U.S.;
  2. Controlled non-meteorological science publication (NatureScience, etc.);
  3. Controlled Wikipedia;
  4. Manipulated data;
  5. Demonized skeptics.
Papers by skeptics were blackballed and not published in U.S. professional journals. In contrast, Kenneth Richard has documented over 1,000 peer-reviewed papers published in Europe and Asia in 20142015, and 2016 that challenge the hypothesis that CO2 has been the primary driver of recent global warming (and other aspects of the bogus “consensus”) and support solar, oceanic, and other natural cycles as the primary causes of global warming, but they are not found in the U.S. publications.
Let me introduce you to a number of credible skeptics. In 2013 Forbes Magazine surveyedover 1077 earth scientists and found 64% believed global warming was from natural causes.
In 2013, 49 retired astronauts and senior NASA scientists wrote a scathing letter to the Administrator of NASA challenging NASA’s position on global warming.
In recent years a growing number of global warming believers have become skeptics."

Not long after pressing the Publish button for the above, I came across another highly accessible, and brief, essay about the climate system and CO2: https://defyccc.com/brief-summary-of-science-for-the-climate-debate/
I hope readers will study the essays at these links, and conclude that they too can, if they so wish, begin to get to grips with this issue, and thereby become less vulnerable to CO2-alarm propaganda themselves, and feel able to get to a position where they can help those who are victims of it.
Note added 09 Feb 2017.  Yesterday I came across yet another accessible and powerful essay by a Dutch science writer who has been studying the climate scene for many years.  This essay is another 'keeper', wide-ranging and full of penetrating insights and supporting links.  One key conclusion of his: 'Keep a cool head – there is time to think.'
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/08/dutch-expert-with-trump-in-office-now-safe-to-expose-the-many-myths-of-climate-alarmism/