Unfortunately, some misuse science. Some of their intentions, are far from benevolent. They see science as a mechanism for political power and control. There is great danger from those who would use science for political control over us.
How do they do this? They instill, and then continuously magnify, fear. Fear is the most effective instrument of totalitarian control.
J S Bach wrote some pretty good music! His Christmas Oratorio has added to the joy and beauty of this time of year.
Also a time of good cheer!
Here's to 2019. May it be a great year for the sharing of
rational analyses of climate variation, and may that lead to
better informed teachers and children everywhere.
This picture on the left was used as the lead image in a BBC news item reporting on key results from the COP24 meeting in Poland this month. It shows children roped-in to convey the latest 'only x time units left' climate alarm message. One of a long list, some of which are recalled in a recent article on WUWT.
But back to the BBC. Their author notes 'One of the most striking things about this conference of the parties was the presence of energised young people in far greater numbers than I have ever seen them at a COP before.', and goes on to conclude his piece with a photo and a quote from the troubled Swedish schoolgirl who has been presented as the leader of school 'strikes' to promote climate alarm. What I take to be an official blog/site for COP24 is also big on children: check out this video on how they were used in the opening ceremony:
Indeed,
there was a section of
the conference explicitly for getting children involved in producing
recommendations: 'This
Friday, December 14th, during the Climate Change Conference
COP24
in Katowice, young Polish delegates will take part in a discussion
panel
entitled “No climate for young generation…”, organized by
UNICEF
Poland
and The UNEP/GRID-Warsaw Centre.'
'Representatives
of the young generation from different regions
of
Poland will meet at the event of the Polish Presidency at the
COP24
to jointly debate issues related to climate change. 25
delegates,
supported by experts, will discuss the most
important
challenges in selected areas ...'
'...At
the end of the meeting young people will write recommendations
regarding
urgent actions in the field of climate protection... '
The
intellectual and/or moral poverty of climate alarm
campaigners
has been easy
to illustrate for
years. This
latest COP parade adds to the
pile. As more and more
adults are able to
tackle, refute, and object to the specious
and
hyperbolic claims of those seek to raise alarm over
our
impact on climate variation, it makes sense for
campaigners
to increase their already substantial attention
on children -
not only to brainwash them for
future use, but also to use
them now as levers
on political power.
How
about a conference on how to help children cope with
and
recover from the climate alarmism foisted upon them?
How
about recommendations to help adults who have been
harmed
by such alarm during their school years?
Let
us not forget that the case for alarm over our impact on
climate
is a frail and unsatisfactory one. It may have a place
in
academic discussions, but it does not have anything like
enough
substance to be used for important decision-making. Professor
Nir Shaviv summarised
this neatly the other day
in an address to
the German parliament (emboldening by me):
'Three
minutes is not a lot of time, so let me be brief. I’ll start with
something that might shock you. There
is no evidence that
CO2 has a large effect on climate.
'The
two arguments used
by the IPCC to so called “prove” that
humans are the main cause of global warming, and which
implies that climate sensitivity is high, are that: a)
20th century warming is unprecedented, and b)
there is nothing else to explain the warming. These
arguments are faulty.'
Note
added 19 Dec 2018. See the Shaviv link above for more
details
of his position. I would also recommend the NIPCC
reports
as
excellent sources of more information on rational rather than
ideological
perspectives on climate variation. The summary
version
of
their latest report is a good place to start.
Note
added 20 Dec 2018. The
Global Warming Policy Foundation
(GWPF) has just published
a note concerning
some of the shoddiness
in the recent IPCC report. Here are
the concluding paragraphs:
'The SR1.5 report represents a
very significant departure from
previous IPCC reports in the
direction of increased alarm regarding
global warming,
particularly as compared with the Fifth Assessment.
No
rigorous justification for this departure has been provided.
In
reality, since the Fifth Assessment considerable evidence
has
accumulated suggesting that global warming is more of a
long-term
threat than a planetary emergency.
This
evidence consists mainly of observational results suggesting
lower
climate sensitivity (i.e. less warming in response to any
given
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations) and results
indicating a
greater contribution from natural variability to
explaining observed
global temperature trends.
The
IPCC has not passed on this evidence to policymakers in its
SR1.5
report. The report has also not passed on to policymakers
some
very important information published by climate modellers
since
the last IPCC assessment report regarding the empirical tuning
of
climate models to achieve desired results.
The failure of
previous IPCC reports to document the models’ tuning
procedures
has been described by these modellers as a ‘lack of
transparency’.
The projections of future warming published by the
IPCC are
completely dependent on the reliability of these models.
In view
of these deficiencies, the SR1.5 report does not merit being
regarded
by policymakers as a scientifically rigorous document.
There
is much recent scientific evidence, not referred to in the report,
to
support a more considered mitigation strategy than the
extreme
measures proposed in the report. Meanwhile, the worthy
goals discussed
in the report, such as sustainable development,
poverty eradication
and reducing inequalities, should be pursued
on their own merits
and not made dependent on unsettled climate
science.'
The note was written by Prof J R Bates.
('
Professor J. Ray Bates is Adjunct Professor of Meteorology in the
Meteorology
and
Climate Centre at University College Dublin. He was formerly
Professor of
Meteorology
at the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, and a Senior
Scientist
at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Centre. In his early career he was
Head
of Research at the Irish Meteorological Service.)