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.

Chet Richards, physicist,


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/

Note added 20/82019  The exploitation and abuse of poor Greta Thunberg gets worse.  Here is a summary of some of the accusations: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/33183-green-machine-child-climate-activist-a-tool-of-an-gore-esque-corporate-con
Meanwhile, she is a passenger on an extremely expensive, extremely uncomfortable, extremely high carbon yacht crossing the Atlantic in order to use up far more 'carbon' than if the poor lassie had just taken a commercial flight.  This is because some of the crew are going to fly back to Europe. and more crew will be flying to New York to bring the boat back later.  There is even talk of there being a diesel-powered boat following the yacht to take movies of it and be a back-up.

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/

Note added 03/9/2019.  Walruses falling off cliffs seems to be a relatively unsurprising event:  
'US Fish and Wildlife officials in 1994 explain walruses falling to their deaths from a cliff at Cape Pierce in the southern Bering Sea (a haulout for adult males during the ice-free season). Explanation? Overcrowding (too many walruses)!'

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!