'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/

Monday, 6 May 2019

Christian Aid Wants to Deceive Children about Climate. Why?

'Someone sent me [Paul Homewood] this teachers study aid being circulated around schools by Christian Aid.

Far from being an educational aid, it is little more than insidious propaganda aimed at young kids.
It is so full of inaccuracies, exaggerations and significant omissions that it is hard to know where to start!'

For details of Paul's criticisms, see his post:


Why does Christian Aid stoop to this level? Is it a victim of infiltration  by radicals intent on using the organisation as a vehicle for their political ambitions?  That would explain it.  They would not be the first:   https://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/climate-curricula-school-curricula.html

Whatever the reason, the materials are unworthy of any organisation with aspirations to basic decency.  
Making Little Activists
Their Ideal School

Friday, 26 April 2019

Teachers are Scaring and Misleading Kids over Climate Change: Greta Thunberg For Example

A primary school teacher abused her position to scare Greta about climate change when she was around 8 years old: 'The most visible child climate change activist is Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg. She recently publicly admitted to having been indoctrinated into fearing climate change by elementary school teachers. In her words, “I first heard about
Picture source
this when I was 7, 8, or 9 years old. In school the teacher explained what climate change was and how it was caused and they showed us pictures of starving polar bears”. Elementary school teachers have a fixed and well defined curriculum of things like language, grammar, arithmetic, and so on. This curriculum does not include climate science and these teachers are not qualified to teach climate science.'


So, pictures of starving polar bears knocked poor Greta over the edge.  No-one near her was able, or perhaps even willing to help her.  A simple dose of the truth might have done the trick: 'Hey Greta, the polar bears are actually doing OK.'

Here's a telling post from Paul Homewood:

“Pictures Of Starving Polar Bears Convinced Me”

APRIL 24, 2019
By  Paul Homewood

h/t stewgreen

And where did she get this strange idea from? As she relates, her teachers at school told her, when she was about eight.'

It Is Time for Parents to Go on the Offensive

Propaganda is deep in the school systems in many places, almost always it would seem because of leftwing ideologues, and compliant teaching and administrative staff.  Climate variation is arguably of no real interest to them, but it appeals greatly as a vehicle to produce fear and in due course threaten society.  Here is a recent example of an extreme ideologue having been commissioned by a major published in the States to write a textbook on US history: 


It is now time for parents to study the textbooks given to their children, and to be ready to make strong complaints when they find blatant propaganda instead of educational content.  Why should anyone tolerate malevolent people targeting their children's minds with warped opinions from within the school system?

As Sarah Hoyt points out

'If you don’t read your kids’ textbooks, and don’t have other books and evidence ready to refute this sort of thing — and please note this stuff goes on in both public and private schools — you’re falling down on your job. You might have your reasons, but you should also be aware you’re failing your kids.'

I shall finish this post with another quote from the Thai blog from which the opening quote above was taken:
    'Rather than be the accusers of the fossil fuel industry as evil activists who are trying to keep elementary school teachers from teaching climate science to elementary school students, climate scientists should look in a mirror. There, they will see the evil of child abuse and child exploitation to further their activism against fossil fuels. The scary reality of climate change is that someday these charges and related lawsuits will be brought against the perpetrators of these crimes against children to shore up a failed case against fossil fuels that their own science is unable to defend.'

Further Reading.  Some suggestions from recent blog activity:
and still worth reading today, the 2014 report on climate brainwashing in UK schools: http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-control/
And to get a vivid notion of what we are up against, here is a heartfelt piece by an adult victim of the climate scaremongering:   https://www.brightonandhoveindependent.co.uk/news/opinion/it-s-time-to-talk-to-kids-about-climate-change-1-8905068
How best to help her, and her children?
Note added 27/4/2019  Here's something good: from a 16 year old who, unlike poor Greta, has avoided climate scare indoctrination:   https://quillette.com/2019/04/25/teenage-climate-change-protestors-have-no-idea-what-theyre-protesting/

Friday, 19 April 2019

Coming Soon to a School Near You: Attenbollocks the Movie?

School authorities in their shocking lack of wisdom decided to distribute Al Gore's junk movie to scare the kids with, so will they do the same with this new Horror Film featuring David Attenborough, sundry 'voices' and 'climate scientists'?

If so, get ready to shred it.  You'll find plenty in it that will scare the children, so how about turning that into dismay at adult foolishness, ignorance, and irresponsibility instead? 

Some ammunition will be found at the following links, but surely readers here will readily find more:

Paul Homewood has done some Fisking:
'One of the features of the programme is the insertion of personalised, emotional film sequences – bats dying from heat in Australia, father and son escaping from wildfire in California, and the Isle de Jean Charles.
They are clearly designed to bring home to people the real effects of climate change, and make them feel guilty. At one point, the interviewee even says “we have got to do something”.
Unfortunately, the facts don’t agree. Maybe the programme would better have been called “Climate Change – The Myths”'

James Delingpole writes with his customary understated flair:
'Even by the BBC’s abysmal standards, this programme was a disgrace: an insult to the intelligence, a betrayal of the Reithian principles on which the BBC was founded, and a shameless piece of propaganda on behalf of the watermelons who would destroy our civilisation. As for Sir David Attenborough, it’s time this whispery voiced, gorilla hugging, walrus scaring Malthusian was recognised for what he is: not as a national treasure but as a national embarrassment long, long past his sell-by date.'

Anthony Watts is not impressed:
'Well, there you have it, done in timing with “Extinction Rebellion” protesters who are nothing more than the paid rabble of eco-NGO’s. And of course, we’ve heard these end-of-the-world scenarios time and time again from whacked-out doomsters. They didn’t come true, and we are still here.
Josh wasn’t impressed, neither am I.'

Notes added 20/4/2019.  An article by Ross Clark in the Spectator pins down some of the deliberate deceptions in the disgraceful Attenborough agitprop, but ends quite gently with these words: 'It is little wonder that terrified kids are skipping school to protest against climate change. Never mind climate change denial, a worse problem is the constant exaggeration of the subject. I had thought David Attenborough would be above resorting to the subtle propaganda which others have been propagating, linking every adverse weather event to climate change. But apparently not.'

Cliscep has several posts by Jaime Jessop with insightful criticism of the Attenborough fiasco of a 'documentary':

Note added 22/4/2019  Part 3 from Jaime.  Well worth your time.  This is an example of a brain at work seeking to make things clearer, more accurate, more reliable.  In utter contrast to the brains that worked on Attenborough's Disgrace.

Note added 23/4/2019  Another timely post at CliScep, and one at Bishophill:

Notes added 26/4/2019  The GWPF have made a formal complaint to the BBC over their part in promoting, and publishing Attenborough's Disgrace.  It is their disgrace too, and therefore one more item on their long rap sheet as climate scaremongers and propagandists.

Jaime publishes part 4 of her detailed examination of the Disgrace.  Just having her talk to to camera with a few charts and diagrams would have produced a far better documentary, one that would have been of benefit rather than of harm to the viewers.

Note added 27/4/2019.   Jaime publishes her fifth and final post on the Disgrace:  https://cliscep.com/2019/04/27/climate-change-the-lies-propaganda-misinformation-disinformation-and-emotional-blackmail-part-v/

Thursday, 18 April 2019

Is Your Child in a Climate Change Cult?

'Climate Change and the Ten Warning Signs for Cults'

(hat-tip: GWPF Newsletter 18/04/19)

Rick Ross, described as an 'expert consultant and intervention specialist', has published this list of 10 warming signs:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

  1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
  2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
  3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.
  4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.
  5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
  6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.
  7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.
  8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".
  9. The group/leader is always right.
  10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

Pic: Childhood Cult
A writer named 'Will' has worked through this list to see to what extent they might apply to what he calls the 'climate change movement'.  See his article for more details on how this movement conforms to every item on the list.  For example, here are the first two:
'1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.
The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses. Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.
Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers. Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.
The authority of Climate Change leaders is entirely unmerited and absolute, yet no one is permitted to hold them accountable for their ignorance, inexperience, or brazen lies. Thus, the Climate Change movement clearly meets the first warning sign for unsafe groups.
2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
The conclusions of the Climate Change movement may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. Those who dare scrutinize the conclusions, methodology, or prescriptions of “climate scientists” are categorically dismissed as a “Climate Denier”, an excommunicated untouchable whose opinion is no longer valid on any subject.
Questions and critical inquiry aren’t merely dismissed or refuted. The unfortunate heretic immediately experiences a relentless ad hominem onslaught of scorn and hatred from the political and media left, and is often subjected to accusations of outright murder. Simply question the effectiveness of a “carbon tax” and you may find yourself tied to a stake.
There is no tolerance for questioning the Climate Change movement, and thus it clearly meets the second warning sign for unsafe groups.'
I'm sure many readers of this blog will have more examples of their own to show a good match to these two, and the others on the list.  Here are Will's concluding paragraphs:

'The Verdict: It’s a cult

According to the established, scientific guidelines developed by cult experts, the Climate Change movement fits the bill for a potentially unsafe group.
When I looked up these established warning signs, I honestly expected Climate Changeists to meet two or three of them, NOT TEN! The disturbingly religious nature of this supposedly “scientific” movement should alarm any thinking human being, especially since the movement now openly seeks to nationalize the entire economy.
It’s time for conservatives to realize what they are dealing with, and act accordingly. Rather than debating Climate Change activists, it may be time to start staging interventions.
If someone you know is a member of the Climate Change Movement, and you are interested in intervention strategies, please visit https://culteducation.com/prep_faq.html.'
Now this is of great interest here, since finding ways to help the victims of climate scaremongering is a preoccupation of the blog.  The Cult Education link leads to this immediate advice;
'How should family and friends act when they suspect that someone is involved with a potentially destructive group/leader?
REMAIN CALM. You may be wrong. Don't be confrontational or jump to
conclusions. Instead, investigate thoroughly and discretely discover as 
much information as possible. First, check the Internet, library and public 
records for specifics about the group/leader. You might also make quiet
inquiries with local clergy, police, social services and public safety in the 
community where the group/leader is located. Organize a file for notes, 
articles and other information that you may gather.
  • How should family and friends react to someone when they know that person is involved with a potentially destructive group/leader?
Be nurturing, loving and attentive, which may contrast with the treatment 
they receive from the group/leader. Don't rush to judgment. Remember that 
doing nothing is always an option. It is also crucial to maintain meaningful
 and positive communication and seek support from family and friends. 
Don't be negative and critical and remember, when in doubt, don't act. 
If you are not sure, seek out and gather more information.

Staging an intervention with a professional is another possible option, 
but be sure to make a carefully considered and informed decision 
before taking any action. Always focus on the facts and your own 
specific situation. You can also simply wait and see, or possibly discuss 
your concerns at a friendly meeting if and when the person involved
 raises some doubts about the group/leader and/or when their involvement
 raises increasingly serious issues. However, waiting may allow the 
group/leader time to increase control, which will make an intervention 
more difficult.'

Interesting stuff.  The professional intervention is an 
expensive route, with illustrative fees at $100 per hour, 
but at this stage who knows what will be required in
some cases?  We are dealing here with 'deprogramming',
that is helping people discard what seem to be deeply held
beliefs pushed into them by others.  
Care is obviously required. 

Note added 18/4/2019.  The Medium article has now been re-posted 
at WUWT where no doubt there will be some discussion of it in due 
course in the comments. 

Friday, 5 April 2019

Fatuous Forecasting Confidence re Climate - bad for us all

Our knowledge of the climate system precludes reliable forecasting of climate.  Our knowledge of climate forecasting precludes responsible adults from pushing doom-laden prophesies based on it.  Unfortunately some deeply irresponsible ones have been doing just that, and that they were trained in science adds to their disgrace in my eyes.  Schneider, Houghton, and Hansen, and a few dozen close associates have much to answer for.  Their doomsaying caught the attention of influential people who had long been intent on dismantling industrial civilisation, most notably Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome, and they dramatically made the most of through their influence on bodies such as UNEP and the IPCC.  Ostensibly investigating 'climate change', the IPCC blatantly ignored or downplayed natural causes and became instead a lobbyist for the reduction of CO2 emissions, asserted as being the primary cause of concern.  PR wheezes such as talk of 90% confidence, of 2,500 scientists taking part, of massive consensus - these all disintegrated under investigation: the '90%' is an invented, not computed, number; the participating scientists who were looking at causes of climate change were a few dozen at most; and the 'consensus' notion was added in by editors, perhaps most notoriously, Santer, choosing to completely disregard dissenting voices.  The clever wheeze of preparing summary reports for policy makers, and getting these published before the main reports of substance was also a success - they knew what would matter most was what would be read by journalists and politicians!

And what an impact they have had!  The idea that human activity is both causing serious and harmful climate change, and that we can control climate by reducing emissions, have become the established, taken-for-granted, view.  Yet neither is credible, and neither is supported by observations.  Indeed the predictions of the computer models which have provided the primary vehicle for the 'scientific' side of this alarmism, have been widely shown to be refuted by observations whenever applicable, and have even been disowned by their inventors, including within IPCC publications, as being unfit for forecasting.  The UK Met Office has tried using such models for seasonal forecasting, to such dire effect that they publicly withdrew from such an obviously verifiably absurd activity. 

Here is an example taken from a website aimed at supporting teachers with useful materials and guidance on many subjects.  It happens to be in Scotland, but I suspect there are dozens, possibly hundreds, of sites very much like it around the world.

Here is the text from this screenshot:

Climate change is widely seen as the most serious threat facing our planet in the 21st century.

Scientists have developed sophisticated climate models as they attempt to accurately predict how the Earth’s climate will change this century. A key question is ‘how much will the sea level rise?’ In Scotland we are warmed by the Gulf Stream but what happens if the Great Ocean Conveyor shuts down?

Our actions will decide the future of the Earth’s climate. By taking action, conserving energy and using green technologies we can help to reduce our impact on the planet.

As responsible global citizens we have to try to make informed choices and decisions. Scotland is a small country in a world of over 6 billion people but we have an important role to play in tackling climate change.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), representing the views of thousands of scientists across the world, produced its authoritative Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 which summarised the huge amount of research taking place on climate change.

Scotland: [http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/exploringclimatechange/predictions/ipclimatechange.asp  no longer links to climate materials ]

Let us look into this further.  First , does the IPCC make 'predictions'?

'A simple single word definition of science is the ability to predict. It is rejected by the IPCC yet they present their work as scientific. Media and the public generally believe the IPCC is making predictions and that is clearly the assumption for government policies. Members of the IPCC do nothing to dissuade the public from that view. All previous projections have been incorrect.'

Tim Ball (2008, http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_Computer%20Climate%20Models.pdf)

Some summaries of temperature predictions/projections (not all from the alarmists) can be found here:

Here is one from someone not taken in by the IPCC hype:
'Don Easterbrook (geologist at Western Washington University) made predictions in 2001 as to the future global (and northern hemisphere) temperatures to the year 2100. (His web page is [http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/index.htm dead link])  {try this one instead: http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/ }

“In 2001, I put my reputation on the line and published my predictions for entering a global cooling cycle about 2007 (plus or minus 3-5 years), based on past glacial, ice core, and other data. As right now, my prediction seems to be right on target and what we would expect from the past climatic record, but the IPCC prediction is getting farther and farther off the mark. With the apparent solar cooling cycle upon us, we have a ready explanation for global warming and cooling. If the present cooling trend continues, the IPCC reports will have been the biggest farce in the history of science.” [http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/glocool_summary.pdf dead link]  {try this one instead: https://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783 }

Here is one by people very much taken in by the IPCC hype, in a report submitted to the EU:
'1992: Climate Scientists Tell EU “Billions To Die By 2030″

More forecasts of this ill-founded ilk can be found here: http://joannenova.com.au/tag/predictions-that-went-wrong/

Including that made by the hapless Dr Viner, reported thus in the year 2000:
'According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.'
[he was unambiguous - not a good strategy when basing your forecasts on the thin ice of computer models!]

A 2010 paper contradicts the IPCC-hyped forecasts of more hurricane activity:


A great many links here to climate predictions:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hil6ZBd8BfwJ:c3headlines.typepad.com/my_weblog/page/2/+predictions&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk dead link]
{try this one instead: http://climatechangepredictions.org/ }

And here: [http://theresilientearth.com/?q=search/node/predictions  dead link]
{try these instead:  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/      https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

But what should we do?  We surely need to try to forecast in order to plan.  Yes, and we can use simpler methods than rigged computer models to do so.  And at all costs, we must be wary of excessive confidence and so fail to plan for the inevitable variability.  Here is one such contribution:
and here with more details:

The irresponsible 'experts' who wished to scare us with the outputs of the computer models they set up to scare us, and apparently themselves will not be here to be ridiculed for their grand finale scenarios in the 22nd century.  But some of them have made the PR mistake of making more readily verifiable forecasts, or 'projections', and others, given their claim of a dominant impact of CO2, can be extrapolated backwards with some plausibility to get an idea of what we ought, on average, to be seeing now or in the near future.  Nature has not been kind to them - the Himalayan Glaciers Fiasco will take a while to fade away from vivid memory.  On top of giving them immature and excitable personalities, Mother Nature has given us a display of weather events that suggests she doesn't care very much for the alarmists and wishes to mock them at every turn.  The humour of this, a kind of Universal Gore Effect, is soured more that a little by the harm these people have caused, especially to poorer people everywhere, and the damage they are doing to the young with their scaremongering.

That resources site for teachers in Scotland would do well to think again about accepting the IPCC at its own evaluation of itself.  This is a dangerously naive view of an organisation which has already caused a great deal of harm to society, and which has played an integral part in the most astonishingly successful corruption of science we have ever seen.

Note added 5/4/19: More evidence that the alarmists are giving CO2 a role it has never displayed in the past - 'no causal link for CO2 during deglaciation':

Second note added 5/4/19: adding the above note somehow led to this post being republished as a new one.  I can't see how to reverse that and return it to its original date (8 or 9 years ago?).  So, here it is again!  Still reads ok, albeit a bit wordy, I think.  Sadly, some of the links no longer work - I'll highlight them above, and try to find alternatives.  I've now also changed the title of the post.  Previously it highlighted shoddy materials offered to teachers in Scottish schools on climate, but the key link for that no longer works.
Some useful links here: https://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

Note added 6/4/19: I think now that this post may have been in my small set of draft posts, and had not been published before because I had deemed it not yet worthy.  I currently have another 9 draft posts, and I have resolved to take more care of them in future!

Saturday, 30 March 2019

Abhor Earth Hour - because it is an abomination

'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.'
Ross McKitrick, 2009.

The above quote is just part of the first paragraph of a memorable response by Professor McKitrick to a request for his thoughts about Earth Hour.  It can be downloaded as a pdf from here.

The inhumanity of the multinational corporation now known as WWF is becoming better known.  Earth Hour was one of its inventions, and about as far away from being a 'grass roots' initiative as you can get.

Here is a satellite picture showing how North Korea endures an 'Earth Hour' all year long:

Why does the WWF not have its corporate headquarters there?

Note.  Previous posts on Earth Hour on this blog:

Note added 11 Apr 2019.  WWF now abusing poor old David Attenborough by setting him up with more climate junk science in his new Netflix project:  http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2019/4/11/on-walruses.html

Monday, 18 March 2019

Greta and the Two Degrees: can they help calm this climate-troubled teenager?

Josh as ever is on the ball, and so is WUWT:   https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/18/monday-mirthiness-gretas-two-degrees/

The chart the kindly chappie is waving in the cartoon was published on WUWT in a very recent post by the maestro data-sleuth, Willis Eschenbach.  The 2C is of course widely touted by climate scaremongers as a jump that would be such a shock to what they like to believe is such a delicate Earth climate system that it would be a dreaded 'tipping point'.  Eschenbach pointed out that at least for the continent of Europe, a 2C jump has already taken place according to some records over the last 120 years or so:

'We’ve done the 2°C experiment … so where are the climate catastrophes?
Seriously, folks, we’re supposed to be seeing all kinds of bad stuff. But none of it has happened. No cities gone underwater. No increase in heat waves or cold waves. No islands sinking into the ocean. No increase in hurricanes. No millions of climate refugees. The tragedies being pushed by the failed serial doomcasters for the last 30 years simply haven’t come to pass.'
Now that temperature history of course is only for Europe, but it is a pretty big area.  The pioneering climatologist Hubert Lamb, for example, thought it could provide insight into global climate variation.
It may also be worth pointing out that according to other records, the Earth climate system experiences an average surface temperature jolt of about 4C or so every year between January and July (and again, of course, between July and January in the other direction).  The 20th century average for January being 12.0C, and for July 15.8C according to these folks at NOAA.  Those being averages, we can speculate that some years see even larger jumps than 3.8C.
Now none of this is conclusive.  First of all, the 2C jump was just in Europe (as so far determined), and secondly the annual cycle means we change gradually from month to month, and do not linger at a particular temperature for long.  But they certainly don't suggest we are dealing with a terribly fragile system, ready to 'tip' at a modest provocation of say a 2C change in average surface temperature.  
These insights might just encourage Greta and her followers to pause for thought.
Note July is warmer than January even though we are closest to the Sun in January each year.  This is because there is a relatively large area of land pointing more directly at the Sun during the northern summer, and land heats up more readily in sunlight than does the ocean.

Note added 19 Mar 2019.  Poor Greta, what chance did she have when the mighty Climate Alarm Industry plotted to exploit children for destructive political ends before she even started high school:   https://climatelitigationwatch.org/genesis-of-a-shakedown-new-records-expose-childrens-marches-as-long-planned-component-of-litigation-campaign/
(hat-tip Climate Science )
And what chance do vulnerable/gullible children in the UK have when the BBC as well as some of their teachers are 'cheer-leading' this shameful silliness of 'striking about climate':   https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/03/19/how-the-bbc-cheerleads-for-kids-climate-strike/
'The French urologist and book author describes Ms. Thunberg as “a shamefully manipulated victim” who needs to be protected, but says her radical ideas “must be attacked relentlessly”.
Criminal child abuse?
The tragedy of Greta Thunberg, Alexandre comments, is that “the child is all the more manipulable as her parents have made her disability public (which is irresponsible on their part)” and that as a doctor he believes that “revealing the neuropsychiatric state of minor children to the media should be a crime!”
He concludes:
We have known since Hans Asperger’s description of the syndrome in 1941 that Asperger’s children are sometimes brilliant but always fragile; instrumentalizing them is a moral fault.”


Sunday, 17 March 2019

Child Victims of the Climate Scaremongering become Political Pawns

Image: http://www.v5.bearskinrug.co.uk
The day of children demonstrating about the climate scare took place last Friday.  It was sickening evidence of how successfully some people have managed to frighten children, and then recruit them as political pawns.

Tim Ball has a thoughtful article at WUWT about the children's panic, and the propensity to panic in general:
'They are taken in by the false claim that a minute amount of human-produced CO2 is effectively controlling the entire atmospheric system since 1950 and causing environmental collapse through global warming. They don’t know that there is an upper limit to the amount that CO2 can increase temperature. They don’t know that the average level of CO2 over the last 250 million years is 1200 ppm. They don’t know that every projection of temperature by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1990 was wrong. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, how did so few, fool so many, to such an extent, for so long?
Similar situations occur throughout history of people fooling the world, although this is undoubtedly the largest in terms of its acceptance, impact, and cost. It is tempting to point the finger at the IPCC, but the speed with which the story took hold, spread, and deceived so many people requires better explanation. It likely won’t stop it occurring in the future because it speaks to the nature of human beings and our inordinate and pandemic fear that the sky might fall. However, we might stop the current insanity.'

Mark Morano has put up many links on the children's climate demonstrations.  In one he reports on tweets from the GreenPeace co-founder Patrick Moore:

'Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore condemned the climate school striking kids. “This is a fascist tactic. You are using innocent children for your own ends, and this is child abuse of a psychological nature,” Moore wrote on March 15.
“It’s normally called brainwashing, and you are guilty of participating in it. Mao would be proud,” Moore added.
Moore continued, ripping the adult promoters of the kids protest ...

“You are clearly projecting your own psychosis on the children. Self-loathing is a heavy burden. Why don’t you express it through adults rather than abusing innocents?” Moore asked.'

Geoff Chambers at Climate Scepticism looks for explanations of why the children's demos happened this year, since they could have occurred anytime during the decades of climate panic indoctrination.  He starts off on a much earlier panic involving children:
'It started as a quasi-religious movement, led by a few persuasive individuals who created an atmosphere of mass hysteria which infected the uneducated and intellectuals alike; then it became an intergovernmental affair, organised at the supranational level; but due to international rivalries and the failure to agree on objectives, it petered out. Its final manifestation was as a mass movement of children (egged on by adults) which ended in slavery or death by starvation for most of the participants.
I’m talking about the Crusades of course, of which the Children’s Crusade of 1212 was one of the last manifestations. '
Even in staid old Switzerland they are beginning to notice:
'In the interview Köppel called the climate movement a “political mass trance that that is currently rolling over us” and that children have been prompted to skip school and protest an “infantilization” of politics ... Köppel notes that the planet has warmed “only one degree since 1860” and that this increase is nothing unusual in a historical context.'
In still occasionally blunt-spoken Australia, some are not at all impressed:
'But Dr. Kevin Donnelly, a conservative commentator and senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University, claimed the movement was the product of “biased” academics and failings in 'education.
“I’ve just been on the Strike 4 Climate webpage, where you’ve got seven or eight-year-old kids barely out of nappies being involved in a strike,” he told ABC Radio Adelaide.
“A lot of these students are barely literate or numerate.
“I think it’s absurd.” '

It is absurd, but it is also shameful and tragic.  These kids need help.

Paul Homewood has the compassion:
'What on earth are we doing to these youngsters? Do we really want them growing up so indoctrinated and unable to use their own faculties that they cannot even check the facts for themselves? Do we really want them to grow up so neurotic that they are scared of the weather?
Are we happy to see them marching around like a bunch of zombies, full of meaningless slogans about topics that they don’t have the slightest understanding about?
It is a sort of mass hysteria that has unfortunately been all too common during human history. It used to be a matter of burning witches, or human sacrifices by the Aztecs. Now it is demonising CO2.'

Thursday, 14 March 2019

Children Scared by the Climate Panic have been ' carefully taught to hate and fear'

The evidence of systematic, widespread eco-scaremongering in schools is now accumulating rapidly with the onset of 'strikes' and 'demonstrations' by children during school hours.  Our GWPF report in 2014 called for an official enquiry into the extent of this abuse in schools in the UK, and it is by now surely obvious to all that our suspicions and concerns were well-founded, and that our illustrative examples were no isolated anomalies.  

Back in 1949, the songwriters of the musical 'South Pacific' were on to this type of problem in a different context (that of racism):

You've got to be taught to hate and fear
You've got to be taught from year to year
It's got to be drummed in your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught

This is highly relevant to the climate-alarm based scaremongering in schools around the world today.  This awful phenomenon brings shame on our institutions, and our political leaders, for their generally supine gullibility over decades of absurdly hyped climate alarm.  That is bad enough by itself, but the deliberate recruitment, by frightening them, of young children to be vehicles for putting pressure on their parents, and on politicians is particularly disgraceful.  
Moral outrage is surely the perspective of those of us who find the case for any level of alarm over CO2 to be an unconvincing one.  But even those who believe that some alarm is in order can be appalled by the harm being done to children by eco-zealots of one kind or another.  The statistician and economist Bjorn Lomborg is one such.  Below are some extract from an article he published today with this headline:

'Decades of climate-change exaggeration in the West have produced frightened children, febrile headlines, and unrealistic political promises'

Extract 1
'Although the students’ passion is admirable, their focus is misguided. This is largely the fault of adults, who must take responsibility for frightening children unnecessarily about climate change. It is little wonder that kids are scared when grown-ups paint such a horrific picture of global warming.'

Extract 2
'And some prominent politicians, as well as many activists, have taken the latest reportfrom the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to suggest the world will come to an end in just 12 years.
This normalization of extreme language reflects decades of climate-change alarmism. The most famous clip from Al Gore’s 2006 film An Inconvenient Truth showed how a 20-foot rise in sea level would flood Florida, New York, the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and Shanghai – omitting the fact that this was seven times worse than the worst-case scenario.
A separate report that year described how such alarmism “might even become secretly thrilling – effectively a form of ‘climate porn.’” And in 2007, The Washington Post reported that “for many children and young adults, global warming is the atomic bomb of today.”
When the language stops being scary, it gets ramped up again. British environmental campaigner George Monbiot, for example, has suggested that the term “climate change” is no longer adequate and should be replaced by “catastrophic climate breakdown.”
Educational materials often don’t help, either. One officially endorsed geography textbook in the United Kingdom suggests that global warming will be worse than famine, plague, or nuclear war, while Education Scotland has recommended The Day After Tomorrow as suitable for climate-change education. This is the film, remember, in which climate change leads to a global freeze and a 50-foot wall of water flooding New York, man-eating wolves escape from the zoo, and – spoiler alert – Queen Elizabeth II’s frozen helicopter falls from the sky.'

Journalists are Taking Notice.  
Here is a headline from the Washington Times online yesterday:

'Motivated or manipulated? Rise of youth climate activism fuels alarm over exploitation'
The article draws attention to the deliberate plotting that has been going on to make use of children:

'Kids are fast becoming the face of the climate change movement as teenagers, ‘tweens and even younger children file lawsuits, stage walkouts and lobby lawmakers. But newly released documents have raised questions about whether the students are being motivated or manipulated.
A cache of emails released Wednesday on Climate Litigation Watch showed that top climate activists at the 2012 La Jolla strategy session sought to involve children in a legal and civil offensive against the fossil fuel industry, which would include worldwide marches from the “youth climate movement.”
Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Christopher C. Horner, who obtained the emails via an open-records request with the University of Oregon, said the presentation contained in the email is more evidence that students have been used as props.
“It turns out that the frenzied street theater of children’s marches and schoolkids’ strikes was laid out behind closed doors years ago, at the organizational meeting of what became a climate litigation industry,” Mr. Horner said in an email.'
See the Washington Times link for more details.  See also this WUWT piece from yesterday.
Candles in the Gloom.Suggestions on how people can, and ought, to help these children, and adults who have been through the education system in the last 30 years or so will be the focus for more posts on this blog in the near future.  But in the meantime here are three good efforts already in place.  The first is a video produced by Friends of Science, and is directly aimed at children involved in the climate protests:

(YouTube video, hat-tip: https://cliscep.com/2019/03/08/educating-greta/#comment-34676 )

The second is from the Climate Conversation Group, and is in the form of an open letter, and is a bit more pointed.  It begins with these words:

'...You currently ignore reason, evidence and science and the global political system is on the brink of a catastrophe. The devastating effects of your ignorance are felt by millions of people around the globe for we are far from reaching a common understanding of the climate. Yet this can change.

Young people make up more than half the global population. Your generation have never known global warming, which has barely occurred since the late 1990s.
Almost nobody is included in the local or global decision-making process. That is the nature of democracy and the reason we elect a representative.
We will no longer tolerate your failure to learn how the world works. We demand you pay attention to science, for there is no evidence of a climate crisis. '
The thirdis at that most excellent blog, Climate Scepticism.  Richard Drake has sympathetically raised the prospect of 'Educating Greta', the adolescent who has recently been the focus of much publicity on climate alarm.  Here's a taster:
'Since 17th February I’ve been thinking about how I would educate Greta. Finally, I think I do have something to say. There are four stages in her possible enlightenment for me now:
  1. The Guenier
  2. The Gates
  3. The Drake
  4. The Ring
As you’ll see these are going to be sketchy and category-based, to get the precocious youngster to think. And I hope the materials I point to in the process may even stimulate the grey cells of other readers.'
Tomorrow we can expect to accumulate more evidence of the impact of those who want children to be frightened to serve their political ambitions.  It will be neither a pretty nor an edifying sight.  But it is where we are today.

Note added 15 March 2019.  Here is a fourth good effort, re-published today at WUWT.  Also in the form of an open letter:

'By Brian Dingwall, New Zealand
Hi Kids,
Many of you will be marching today, demonstrating for an issue you believe to be very important.
Many years ago, I was young, well informed, and absolutely convinced I knew enough to make good decisions for the future of the world, and couldn’t understand just how obtuse all the oldies were, how they just didn’t know the stuff I had just learned.'
He goes to make many excellent points, e.g.
'The world has many historic consensuses that have turned out to not be so. So far, I don’t mind sharing with you, I have yet to be persuaded.
My background is in science, with a smattering of economics, and statistics and I well understand the case for catastrophic climate change. I find it unconvincing.
As do a raft of well qualified experts in many fields, even Nobel prize winners, and I urge you to find out who they are, and why they have reservations.
There are two sides to this debate, but only one is well resourced, so you have to work a bit harder to find the arguments of the sceptical scientists.'