'A Ph.D in education is "a valid marker" of left wing ideology in education these days. Anyone wishing to educate children rather than indoctrinate them and kibosh their chances in life should steer clear of any state validated educational qualification as the left has a stranglehold on content and delivery.'
'Teacher’, commenting at the Spectator in 2014.
Wednesday, 28 November 2018
One example is the Cartoons by Josh. His work highlights the conceits, the arrogance, the foolishness and worse of the climate scaremongerers, and it does so with huge amounts of charm, and even compassion for these destructive and ill-informed people.
Josh's Calendar for 2019 is now shipping. When the climate madness subsides into some kind of academic obscurity, and if there is a big effort to understand the collective madness of the CO2 Scare, then these cartoons will be, as they say, collectors' items. I'm certainly going to keep all my copies of past and future calendars as a kind of poor man's collection, one which I hope will be of interest to show just how the whole costly charade was seen through by some as it happened. We were not all duped. We did not all jump on the bandwagon be it for fame or for fortune or merely to get a glow from 'saving the planet'. Plus the cartoons are also just plain funny. Raising a smile or even a laugh in the midst of the madness is quite an achievement. Thank you, Josh.
Monday, 23 July 2018
But a puzzle well-described is a puzzle more likely to be solved. On the science sides of the puzzle, the role of the so-called climate scientists has been evocatively captured by a chap called Smolin looking at another field that shares with climate studies a severe shortage of good or adequate data*. Here are his observations as presented by the oceanographer Carl Munsch (hat-tip Judith Curry):
Monday, 2 April 2018
Warmism 2 is upon us - a new wave of scaremongering around CO2 to sustain the 'golden shower of research grant money'
I have not seen any explicit comment on this but it seems that there has been a large change over the years in what Warmists try to scare us with. There has been a Warmism 1 and a Warmism 2.
Warmism 1 is the Warmism of Al Gore, with sea level rises of 20 feet drowning most coastal cities. That was certainly scary and warranting of urgent action. But it was most implausible. 96% of the earth's glacial ice is in Antarctica and even at the continental margins the temperature there is many degrees below zero. So a few degrees of temperature rise might melt some sea ice but nothing more would happen. Melting sea ice cannot raise the sea level. So where was the required great volume of water going to come from? Mars?
Warmism 1 had another fault as well. It assumed a most implausible effect of clouds. It said that warming would be gradual until the cloud cover became much more extensive than it now is. And there is no doubt that a warmer world WOULD have more clouds as more water evaporated off the oceans.
But Warmism 1 at that point made two great theoretical leaps. They said that the increased cloud cover would warm the earth when clouds in fact normally cool the earth by blocking out the sun. But let's glide over that point and accept their assumption that clouds would warm us. The Warmist at that point makes another great leap. He says that at some point a "tipping point" would be reached so that warming would suddenly accelerate and we would really roast.
Normally, when scientists try to predict the future they make a straight line extrapolation from existing trends. But Warmism 1 aborts that. Because of the tipping point, the past is no longer a guide to the future. Things will get a lot hotter very suddenly. They will get much hotter than they would under a normal extrapolation from the past. So while scientific prediction of the future is possible in some instances -- by looking carefully at the past -- Warmism 1 abandons that and makes a prophecy based purely on speculation.
I have tried to tell the story of Warmism 1 as straight as I can but I think its implausibilities are nonetheless obviously gross. And, although it has never been formally abandoned by anyone, it has quietly faded away from most Warmist discourse. It is, for example, years since I have heard anything of the tipping point.
So Warmism 1 has been replaced by Warmism 2.
Warmism 2 is much less fantastical. It has reverted to the normal scientific method of predicting the future by extrapolations from the past. There is no Deus ex machina that causes warming to suddenly leap. It hypothesizes a steady process of warming at some specified rate. But finding that rate is the issue. Vast guesses about what CO2 does are used to get a rate.
Different authors assume different rates and the actuality always seems to be less than any predicted rate. So the accepted rate of warming has trended steadily down in the face of all the predictive failures. So under Warmism 2 we will have a temperature rise of only about 2 degrees Celsius and a consequent rise in sea levels of inches, not the yards predicted by Al Gore.
But that is rather boring. It is hard to frighten people with just a few inches of sea level rise so a whole new industry has arisen which says that the few degrees of predicted warming will lead to catastrophic weather events -- hurricanes etc. But even that is a dead end as dramatic weather events considered overall do not seem to be increasing and may even be decreasing.
So Warmism has in a way disappeared up its own back passage. It no longer has any pretence of science behind its warnings of doom. It is merely an example of telling a big enough lie often enough so that less informed people will believe it. And while it continues to give scientists a golden shower of research grant money, the myth will be maintained -- JR.'
Note added 3 April 2018. For useful background on the gestation of part of Warmism 2, see: http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/04/climate-change-trial/
Friday, 23 March 2018
Celebrate 'Human Achievement Hour' instead: https://cei.org/humanachievementhour
Or, how about 'Energy Hour': https://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/earth-hour-is-phoney-energy-hour-is.html
And the 'must-read': https://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/i-abhor-earth-hour-abundant-cheap.html
Note added 24 March. Jo Nova calls for 'Power Hour': http://joannenova.com.au/2018/03/fight-the-forces-of-darkness-celebrate-powerhour-tonight/
'It’s your chance to show your commitment to fighting the forces of darkness.'
Note added 25 March. Mark Morano's site provides more links to sensible responses to the 'Earth Hour' lunacy: http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/03/24/star-treks-william-shatner-promotes-earth-hour-darkness-but-he-is-rebuked-by-forces-of-light/
Wednesday, 21 February 2018
All it takes is to check, don'tcha know
For their claims are so unsound.
Monday, 19 February 2018
This blog will continue to report on people and materials that can help those who wish to repair such damage over the coming decades.
Here are a couple of types of people who will get in the way of such efforts: nolans and baizuos.
Monday, 8 January 2018
Repairing the Damage to Children Caused by Climate Alarmists: letters from Ross McKitrick and Richard Lindzen
Five questions from students about climate change
Ross McKitrick January 2018
'In late 2017 I was contacted by a group of students at a high school in Europe asking if I would answer some questions on climate change for a project they were working on. Here are the questions they asked, and the answers I gave them.
1. What is behind global warming? Over the last 150 years there have been influences due to strengthening solar output, land-use changes, increased greenhouse gases and natural variability, among other things. The dominant school of thought in climatology is that rising greenhouse gas levels explain most of the overall warming trend since the 1950s. There are good reasons to support this, although the climate system is too complex to assume the matter is settled. The mechanisms by which the sun affects the climate are not well understood, nor are the mechanisms behind clouds, ocean-atmosphere interactions and other basic processes. The relative lack of warming in the tropical troposphere and over the South Pole are not easily explained under the theory that greenhouse gas levels dominate the climate system.
2. What can we do to prevent global warming? If it is a natural process, nothing. If it is mainly due to rising greenhouse gas levels we need to ask instead whether we would want to prevent it. It would require complete cessation of fossil fuel use, which would cause intolerable economic and social costs and would only yield small changes in the time path of global warming for the next century or more. Even large-scale emission reductions (such as under the Paris and Kyoto treaties) would only cause a small slowdown in the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100, so any benefits from such policies are likewise tiny, yet the costs would be enormous. The small warming that took place since the early 20th century was largely beneficial, and the astonishing social and economic benefits associated with cheap fossil energy far outweighed any problems it might have created. It is likely that this will be true over the next century as well.
3. If we don't do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants? Humans flourish in every climate on earth from the tropics to the polar regions. We are very adaptable. The only issue is whether changes take place so quickly that we cannot adapt, but history shows this to be a rare situation. Climate processes are slow, and if the climate models are correct, the changes are gradual and predictable. People can adapt to warming conditions more easily than to cooling conditions. The IPCC predicted that over the next hundred years, changes in economies and technology will have a much larger effect on peoples' lives than changes in climate.
4. What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable? There is no chance that greenhouse gases will make the Earth unlivable. If an asteroid hits, or another ice age begins, or something like that, then we face catastrophe. But the question essentially asks, what happens if we all die? The answer is, we all die.
5. How can we save Earth if it isn't too late? To ask the question is to reveal that you greatly overestimate your size in relation to the Earth. We could not ruin the Earth even if we tried, nor could we save it if it faced ruin. Our planet is a remarkably adaptable and robust home. We don't live in a giant china shop where everything is fragile and breakable, it's more like a playground where everything is made to withstand considerable wear and tear. Over the Earth's history the amount of CO2 in the air has typically been 2-10 times higher than at present yet the plants, animals and oceans flourished. Much of the past half million years have been ice age conditions which wiped out life on the northern continents, yet it always came back as soon as the ice retreated. If you take the view that the ordinary human pursuit of prosperity and happiness will somehow destroy the planet you will end up adopting an anti-human outlook. This is both a scientific and an ethical error. Set your sights on a more modest scale, by trying to be a good citizen and be helpful to the people around you, and you will make much better decisions than if you are thinking in terms of faraway abstract categories like saving the Earth.
Good luck with your studies.'
Downloadable from here: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/5questions.pdf
Unfortunately, the Lindzen reply is behind a paywall, here:
Hat-tip for both to SEPP: http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2018/TWTW%201-6-18.pdf