Good Advice for Teachers: 'Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.”'

An open letter that would grace any classroom wall:

'February 8, 2011

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:

In reply to “The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change”

On 28 January 2011, eighteen scientists sent a letter to members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate urging them to “take a fresh look at climate change.” Their intent, apparently, was to disparage the views of scientists who disagree with their contention that continued business-as-usual increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced from the burning of coal, gas, and oil will lead to a host of cataclysmic climate-related problems.
We, the undersigned, totally disagree with them and would like to take this opportunity to briefly state our side of the story.
The eighteen climate alarmists (as we refer to them, not derogatorily, but simply because they view themselves as “sounding the alarm” about so many things climatic) state that the people of the world “need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency,” as well as the “direct health impacts from heat waves” and “climate-sensitive infectious diseases,” among a number of other devastating phenomena. And they say that “no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate,” which is understood to mean their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate.
To these statements, however, we take great exception. It is the eighteen climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of “what is happening to our planet’s climate,” as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge.
For example, a lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.php). That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the “group of eighteen,” citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.
If the “group of eighteen” pleads ignorance of this information due to its very recent posting, then we call their attention to an even larger and more comprehensive report published in 2009, Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). That document has been posted for more than a year in its entirety at www.nipccreport.org.
These are just two recent compilations of scientific research among many we could cite. Do the 678 scientific studies referenced in the CO2 Science document, or the thousands of studies cited in the NIPCC report, provide real-world evidence (as opposed to theoretical climate model predictions) for global warming-induced increases in the worldwide number and severity of floods? No. In the global number and severity of droughts? No. In the number and severity of hurricanes and other storms? No.
Do they provide any real-world evidence of Earth’s seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.
Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.
In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather.
But don’t take our word for it. Read the two reports yourselves. And then make up your own minds about the matter. Don’t be intimidated by false claims of “scientific consensus” or “overwhelming proof.” These are not scientific arguments and they are simply not true.
Like the eighteen climate alarmists, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. We believe you will find that it is not the horrendous environmental threat they and others have made it out to be, and that they have consistently exaggerated the negative effects of global warming on the U.S. economy, national security, and public health, when such effects may well be small to negligible.
Signed by:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, University of Alaska1
Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania
James Barrante, Southern Connecticut State University1
Richard Becherer, University of Rochester
John Boring, University of Virginia
Roger Cohen, American Physical Society Fellow
David Douglass, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University1
Robert Essenhigh, The Ohio State University1
Martin Fricke, Senior Fellow, American Physical Society
Lee Gerhard, University of Kansas1
Ulrich Gerlach, The Ohio State University
Laurence Gould, University of Hartford
Bill Gray, Colorado State University1
Will Happer, Princeton University2
Howard Hayden, University of Connecticut1
Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, USDA, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory1
Richard Keen, University of Colorado
Doral Kemper, USDA, Agricultural Research Service1
Hugh Kendrick, Office of Nuclear Reactor Programs, DOE1
Richard Lindzen, Massachusetts Institute of Technology2
Anthony Lupo, University of Missouri
Patrick Michaels, Cato Institute
Donald Nielsen, University of California, Davis1
Al Pekarek, St. Cloud State University
John Rhoads, Midwestern State University1
Nicola Scafetta, Duke University
Gary Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
S. Fred Singer, University of Virginia1
Roy Spencer, University of Alabama
George Taylor, Past President, American Association of State Climatologists
Frank Tipler, Tulane University
Leonard Weinstein, National Institute of Aerospace Senior Research Fellow
Samuel Werner, University of Missouri1
Thomas Wolfram, University of Missouri1
1 – Emeritus or Retired
2 – Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Endorsed by:
Rodney Armstrong, Geophysicist
Edwin Berry, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Joseph Bevelacqua, Bevelacqua Resources
Carmen Catanese, American Physical Society Member
Roy Clark, Ventura Photonics
John Coleman, Meteorologist KUSI TV
Darrell Connelly, Geophysicist
Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Terry Donze, Geophysicist1
Mike Dubrasich, Western Institute for Study of the Environment
John Dunn, American Council on Science and Health of NYC
Dick Flygare, QEP Resources
Michael Fox, Nuclear industry/scientist
Gordon Fulks, Gordon Fulks and Associates
Ken Haapala, Science & Environmental Policy Project
Martin Hertzberg, Bureau of Mines1
Art Horn, Meteorologist
Keith Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Jay Lehr, The Heartland Institute
Robert Lerine, Industrial and Defense Research and Engineering1
Peter Link, Geologist
James Macdonald, Chief Meteorologist for the Travelers Weather Service1
Roger Matson, Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists
Tony Pann, Meteorologist WBAL TV
Ned Rasor, Consulting Physicist
James Rogers, Geologist1
Norman Rogers, National Association of Scholars
Thomas Sheahen, Western Technology Incorporated
Andrew Spurlock, Starfire Engineering and Technologies, Inc.
Leighton Steward, PlantsNeedCO2.org
Soames Summerhays, Summerhays Films, Inc.
Charles Touhill, Consulting Environmental Engineer
David Wojick, Climatechangedebate.org
1 – Emeritus or Retired'

Letter in PDF form: TruthAboutClimateChangeOpenLetter

Thanks to: WUWT  


Note added later: Details of the 'Letter from the 18 alarmists' are given here, along with some powerful Fisking of them: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/04/pielke-sr-on-the-gang-of-18-letter-to-congress/

Fighting from the Bottom: a pupil strikes back against climate-cloaked indoctrination

A little flippant perhaps, but in this tiny act of defiance by what may be a 14-year old completing a 'climate questionnaire' I see a spark of hope:

 

Source: http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/02/clarkson-1-harrabin-black-shukman-0.html    

It would seem this was captured by someone while entering the children's responses into a computer.

For non-UK or non-TV viewers: Jeremy Clarkson is a charming free-thinker, decidedly averse to being told what to think by the PC brigade.  He leads an extremely popular tv-programme about cars (mostly).  He also writes articles for newspapers, such as this:

 

From The Sun, 29th January, 2011.  Hat-tip: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7124  

A little humour is not amiss in the face of the all-but-relentless propaganda in the media for the establishment's take on climate variability, and how it can be exploited by governments and corporations alike - such as the WWF for example, or Greenpeace, or Goldman-Sachs, or, while it lasted, Enron.

Rotting from the Top: government interference in UK geography classes

2007: 'Children will be put on the front line of the battle to save the planet under radical proposals to shake up the way that geography is taught in schools.

The plans, to be published on Monday, will ensure that, for the first time, issues such as climate change and global warming are at the heart of the school timetable. Pupils will also be taught to understand their responsibilities as consumers - and weigh up whether they should avoid travel by air to reduce CO2 emissions and shun food produce imported from the other side of the world because of its impact on pollution.'

'Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, said urgent action needed to be taken to avoid the worst-case scenarios and that educating children about the dangers of climate change was vital. "Children have a dual role as consumers and influencers," he said. "Educating them about the impact of getting an extra pair of trainers for fashion's sake is as important as the pressure they put on their parents not to buy a gas-guzzling family car."

The plans are part of a major review of the secondary school curriculum that will be unveiled by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the Government's exams watchdog, next week.'

2011: 'Children’s knowledge of capital cities, continents, world affairs and the environment is in sharp decline because of poor geography lessons, inspectors warned today. 

In a damning report, Ofsted said teaching in the subject was not good enough in more than half of English state schools.

Geography – traditionally a cornerstone of the curriculum – is often undermined by a lack of space in school timetables after being edged out by exam practice and other subjects such as citizenship.'

That didn't take very long.  I wonder how convincing Johnson's 'influencers' are when challenged by those who have learned some geography, some science, some logic, and some common sense?

See also: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/02/climate-education-in-schools-mess-of.html

Added 09 Feb: Previous UK government issued a massive amount of guidance to schools: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/education/labour-s-advice-to-teachers-was-the-length-of-two-bibles--$21386565.htm

Topical Storm Alert: 'Climate Week' has formed, and may be intensifying ahead of its expected UK landfall in March.

Climate Week, 21 - 27 March 2011

The National Association of Head Teachers is said to be supporting it, and so is Tesco, Kellogs, Aviva, EDF, and the Royal Bank of Scotland. And a great many others - a veritable roll call of the establishment.

This cyclone's energy is being raised and organised by a committee of a few seasoned organisers and a lot of fresh young ones.  They remind me just a bit of my own good self way back in the 70s, when Ehrlich and the Club of Rome were persuading us that we were doomed, would be lucky to see the year 2000, and even if we did, we'd not be having much fun, what with the starving, fighting, freezing, and choking and all.  Except, I don't think I looked nearly as good nor as cheerful as they do. But then I was an angry young man attacking the establishment's views, while they are supporting them.

The CEO is Kevin, who obviously is quick and light on his feet to complete this sort of manoeuvre - the leap across a change of government:
'From 2007 to 2009 Kevin sat on the Council on Social Action chaired by the Prime Minister, and on the government’s Talent and Enterprise Task Force. He chaired the Enterprise Campaign Coalition and was on the selection committee of the Queen’s Award for Enterprise Promotion. He currently sits on the steering group of the Big Society Network launched by the Prime Minister, David Cameron in July 2010.'

Phil is Head of Communications, and is clearly into green and good causes: 'Phil has worked on numerous award-winning campaigns for social and environmental causes, including Friends of the Earth’s Big Ask , WWF’s Earth Hour, and Orange RockCorps, an initiative uniting young people with their community through music. He helped launch eco blockbuster Age of Stupid with the greenest ever world premiere and organised the UK’s first prison gig at HM Pentonville to highlight the problem of young male suicide. He is a trustee of Dramatic Need, a groundbreaking arts charity supported by Oscar-winning director (and fellow trustee) Danny Boyle, which works with severely underprivileged children in South Africa and Rwanda.'

There are 16 more, several of whom seem to have held down more ordinary jobs, and several are just setting out on their journeys to help us all out, and get paid for it at the same time.  Not that money is important when you have a planet to save.  Actually, let me rephrase that: 'the hundreds of billions of dollars, pounds, and euros diverted into climate change good works of one kind or another, are as nothing compared to the losses they tell us we would see if we hadn't spent all that money on them'.  In particular, we might not have learned how to adjust the thermostat on our global warming system, to return climate to the idyllic past of, say the 19th century?  Or perhaps we'd choose the Little Ice Age which spanned the 18th century, or the Medieval Warm Period that preceded it.  Or perhaps even a return to the golden days of the Climatic Optimum, a few thousand years earlier in our beloved Holocene, when mean temperatures were several degrees higher than in industrial times and humanity thrived like never before.  Anyway, this is to daydream...let's get back to the Topical Storm now heading our way:

'Climate Week is a supercharged national occasion that offers an annual renewal of our ambition and confidence to combat climate change. It is for everyone wanting to do their bit to protect our planet and create a secure future.
Climate Week will shine a spotlight on the many positive steps already being taken in workplaces and communities across Britain. The power of these real, practical examples – the small improvements and the big innovations – will then inspire millions more people.
Thousands of businesses, charities, schools, councils and others will run events during Climate Week on 21-27 March 2011. They will show what can be achieved, share ideas and encourage thousands more to act during the rest of the year.
You can help create a massive movement for change by making Climate Week happen where you are. Ask an organisation or group you know, such as your workplace or local school, to run an event.'

Well, I wonder how many will?  Climategate was a bit of a bummer in late 2009, and the ice and snow and sundry political farces in and around Copenhagen that December can't have helped much.  The Met Office has given climate prediction for just a few weeks ahead a bit of a bad name in 2010, issuing secret forecasts of impressive vagueness at huge expense to poor old HMG, which ran out of cash in the cold weather funds before January 2011 got underway.  The public has been up to its ears in global warming of late, and hasn't liked it one little bit.

There may even be some who have been convinced that CO2 controls climate, and that we'd all be a nice bit warmer if only we could only get more of the stuff to stay up in the air.  Somehow I foresee that their projects and events and suggestions will not see the light of day as 'Climate Week' strikes, and we are deluged with the establishment's perspective instead.  But wait! Have the Met Office predicted such a deluge for late March?  If they have, perhaps there is yet still hope ...

Update 2nd March 2011: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/mar/02/climate-week-splitting-green-movement: the faithful of the Church of Global Warming grow fissiparous about Climate Week:

'But a section of the environmental movement that is concerned about the event's sponsors are mounting a counter-campaign which includes spoof entries for the awards and an anti-Climate Week Facebook group. Their objections centre around two areas. The first is that by focusing on "small, positive actions" you take the spotlight off the large-scale changes that really need to happen.
The second and far more contentious issue is that Climate Week is sponsored by the Royal Bank of Scotland, the company cited by groups like Platform, People and Planet, the UK Tar Sands Network and the World Development Movement as one of the worst environmental offenders in the UK. In 2009, several groups tried to take legal action over RBS investments, and last summer the bank was the Climate Camp target for the year.'


Note added 31 March 2011: hard to get data for an overview, but my impression is that Climate Week has been a low-key, low-profile, low-impact event.  Thank goodness.

Note added 15 March 2013: the ill-conceived piece of astro-turfing called Climate Week is still around, but reports suggest it is on its last-legs, e.g. http://www.thebreaker.co.uk/climate-week-a-flop-in-bournemouth-and-poole/  'Climate Week, which was set up last week by Bournemouth and Poole Borough Councils, was supposed to invite people to combat climate change by making simple sustainable life choices, but not many people came along to take part in the events and the carbon footprint remains high.'  Hat-tip Alex Cull on Bishop Hill Unthreaded (Mar 15, 2013 at 9:30 AM)  There was also this observation from Latimer Alder shortly after the one from Alex Cull:
'Was it Climate Week last week?
Oh dear.. I must have missed it. Tsk, tsk, now there's a thing....
Perhaps, like snow on the Copenhagen conference, the gods were trying to tell us something as they brought on the perishing cold weather..............'

Climate education in schools: a mess of potage, a porridge of propaganda?

Indoctrination in schools is illegal in the UK (e.g. section 406 of the Education Act of 1996).  Education ought to teach children about their world.  But there are those who see the young as so many potential footsoldiers for their cause, little Trojan horses to fill with propaganda to carry back into their homes and into their futures.  All to save the planet of course, so who can object to that?  Of course, they are not 'saving the planet'.  First of all, 'the planet' is not in danger, and secondly, crippling our economies physically, and our children mentally, are not pathways to robust societies ready to tackle whatever challenges the future may bring them, environmental and otherwise.  They are pathways to poverty and dependency.

A geologist surveys Redoubt Volcano in Alaska (Alaska Volcano Observatory/U.S. Geological Survey)

Geography is an obvious target for proselytising on 'climate change'.  It does not seem to be thriving as a subject in schools in the UK.

2009:

'In a speech at Charterhouse School, Surrey, Prof Woodhead cited the example of geography, where the curriculum has been focused on turning children into "global citizens" at the expense of an objective study of the earth.

"I think there is a difference between education on the one hand and propaganda on the other - and I think this is one of the main reasons why schools are starting to abandon GCSEs in such numbers," he said.

"Politicians seem to have this belief that schools and teachers can solve the evils of the world. Simply dump all the deeply intractable social problems on to the curriculum and let the schools sort it out. Schools should be teaching children what they don't know, not attempting to create citizens of the future who are active and responsible." '
Chris Woodhead, ex-chief inspector of schools


 2011: 
'Geography lessons 'not good enough in half of schools' 

Children’s knowledge of capital cities, continents, world affairs and the environment is in sharp decline because of poor geography lessons, inspectors warned today. 

In a damning report, Ofsted said teaching in the subject was not good enough in more than half of English state schools.

Geography – traditionally a cornerstone of the curriculum – is often undermined by a lack of space in school timetables after being edged out by exam practice and other subjects such as citizenship.

Many primary teachers lacked specialist geographical knowledge, the watchdog said, meaning classes often descended into a focus on superficial stereotypes. The subject had practically “disappeared” in one-in-10 primaries.

In secondary schools, classes were often merged with history to form generic “humanities” lessons that focused on vague skills instead of geographical understanding.

Ofsted said the decline severely reduced children’s ability at all ages to grasp key geographical issues, identify countries or capital cities and even read maps properly.'

Graeme Paton, Education Editor, Daily Telegraph

['Ofsted' is a government agency in the UK: 'Ofsted is the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills. We regulate and inspect to achieve excellence in the care of children and young people, and in education and skills for learners of all ages.']

How come so many teachers have apparently stopped teaching in order to become facilitators for producing ill-informed agitators?  The same malaise has also affected the BBC, an organisation turning into an international laughing stock because of its blinkered, biased approach on climate and its wish to campaign for 'the cause' rather than 'merely' broadcast news, information, and honest investigative journalism. 

The scientific case for alarm over CO2 is fragile and has been widely dismantled, not least by Nature herself refusing to follow the purposeful computer models equipped with magical powers for CO2.    The political case is also faltering, not least due to the absurdities of the IPCC leadership and publications, and to simple-minded bandwagoning by politicians in many countries running out of steam (see for example, the absence of 'climate change' in the recent State of the Union address in the USA, and several opinion polls showing the declining credibility of eco-alarmism).  So will the educational system be the final redoubt for this whole sorry business? 

CO2 Alarm Virus epidemiology: identifying some vectors in the USA.

A very useful annotated summary of some educational initiatives in the US funded by federal agencies on climate:

'Nearly 100 ‘Climate Education Programs’ funded by NASA, NOAA, NSF & EPA'

The author introduces his study as follows:

'Four Federal agencies are funding at least 95 'Climate education programs'. These programs are specifically designed to influence students, teachers, and the public in general about climate change. Based on their summaries (which I will share) these programs are not intended to present information and let the public decide for themselves. Instead, they are designed for two goals. One, to influence the public to accept and take action on climate change. Two, to increase the future workforce involved in climate change fields. I will take each agency in turn, look at their stated goals, then look through some of the programs they have funded.
To be very clear, these programs do not further climate research. They are not studying the atmosphere or oceans. They are not studying clouds or albedo. We know nothing more about the state of our climate from these programs. Their sole purpose is education.
I'm going to explain my own view shortly. I do believe that the climate is changing, and that humans have had a minor role in this occurring. I do not believe that the future of the planet is in jeopardy. I object to these programs for multiple reasons, but one main contention is the fact that they all make the assumption that future climate change is overwhelmingly negative and that we absolutely must take serious action now. These programs all appear to assume catastrophic warming will occur unless action is taken. Enough of what I think. Look at the programs yourselves and see what you conclude.'


My comment appended to the above post:

'Excellent work to bring all this together and annotate it so wisely. In 2010, it seemed clear that the flimsy basis for alarm about rising CO2 had been so exposed, and that the unpleasant, self-seeking nature of the handful of individuals and organisations at the core of the alarmism was so visible, that this particular scare was over. But your work here helps show how deeply and widely the activists, acolytes and others have spread their scaremongering, enjoying their chunk of the billions of dollars diverted to this destructive, soul-destroying, and demented ’cause’. Well done! We still have a long, long way to go to get over this, and a lot of waste and societal loss is no doubt still to come as a result.'

Hat-tip:  http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/

CO2 alarmism is not a win-win game: here is the progress that it threatens

Hans Rosling shows just how much development there has been over the past 200 years in terms of life expectancy, and the correlated per capita income for the countries of the world.  The impact of WWI and the flu epidemic can be detected in the time sequence, and possibly WWII.  One has to wonder if the effect of CO2-reduction policies in industrialised countries will also be detectable in due course.  Overall, the most dramatic good news is the great progress of Latin American and Asian countries, not least India and China, both of which may gain some short-term but substantial benefit by selling products such as wind-turbines and solar panels to CO2-reduction countries, while burning as much coal as they need to get them through this phase of their industrial development.  But if more industrialised countries are damaged by expensive energy costs, not to mention demoralised, frightened people, then the overall effect could be harmful for everyone.
 
Hat-tip: http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/16497-200-years-of-global-development.html
 
Watch it here:

To Holt for TEE: transnational energy education, or is it more of 'scare the kids, control the adults'?

The dark spectre of 'behaviour change' may be stalking the quiet streets of Holt today, as various climate-related activists from Norway, Sweden, and England run a 'teach the teacher' programme in this small English town:

"The teacher training event at Holt brings together the very best international energy education practice to ensure teachers are well equipped to engage their pupils in learning about climate change and energy efficiency.
...
Teachers will also learn more about how to connect young people with the broader community, business and university partners to develop skills and action. "

Does that last part mean 'pressuring their parents to toe the party line on climate'?  If so, let us pause for a virtual two minute silence for 'Philip and Tracy', symbolically slaughtered using explosives in the 10:10 movie for the crime of having parents who were insufficiently convinced by said party line. (see the movie here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSTLDel-G9k&feature=player_embedded ; see the strategy espoused via here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2010/10/terrorise-children-control-adults.html )

Civil servant Jonathan Thompson, Environment Planning Team Leader from the Environment Agency, is reported as saying ‘We are proud to be supporting this event with it's focus on developing international understanding and sharing of knowledge and experiences. Climate change is an international issue we all need to address. Education is critical if we are going to act and adapt to climate change and make the significant changes in behaviour needed.’  (my emphasis added).

I hope we can find out more in due course as to what they are getting up to in Holt this week.  Perhaps they are genuinely concerned to help teachers teach wisely and well about climate.  Hope springs eternal.

This event has been flagged on Bishop Hill a couple of days ago, with a hat-tip to Dave W.  As is often the case, the Bishop's post has an interesting set of comments, not least on the culpability, vulnerability, and competence of local authorities such as the one supporting the Holt event.

Commenter 'Pharos' tracked down some relevant links:
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/126979.aspx  and  http://www.answerproject.eu/
There may be many such events going on.  And why not, given the large funds available to support alarm about climate?  More background here: http://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/campaign/index_en.htm

Many universities are in on this gravytrain, here is one outfit with the disarmingly honest acronym of SAUCE:
http://www.schools-at-university.eu/project/index.html :
"The European project “Schools at University for Climate & Energy (SAUCE)” offers a series of one-week on-campus education programmes for pupils ages 10-13 on the topics of energy efficient behaviour, renewable energies and climate change. The SAUCE programmes are held at all partner universities from 2009 until 2011."
(German, Dutch, Danish, and Latvian universities in this little earner, or should I say siphon for taxpayers money under the control of the EU)

Here is one constructed by a group based in the University of Sussex, tapping into UN funds:
http://www.childreninachangingclimate.org/

Here is another, apparently a registered charity in England and Wales: http://www.se-ed.org.uk/index.html, with a contact address in London, c/o 'Global Action Plan'.  'Global Action Plan' seems to be into tapping UN cash: http://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/about-us .  Founded by green insider Trewin Restorick .  That in turn led me to DEFRA sites, and to a sinking feeling about just far into the political fabric the CO2 alarm virus has spread.  But that is another story.

Note added 21 Jan 2012.  Here is an example from the States of using the children to get to the parents, by a teacher called Visco who has, thank goodness, now retired: 'For Visco's class, that meant teaching his students that small changes could have a large impact on the planet. "I had lots of students who would come in and say, 'My parents hate you. I'm driving them nuts, making them recycle and turn heat down and change lightbulbs,'" he recalled.
In many cases, by teaching his students he was also teaching their parents, something that Yale's Leiserowitz has also found. "Do parents influence kids, or do kids influence parents? Evidence suggests that it works both ways."
"I definitely saw changes in my students, and I definitely saw parents that softened," said Visco

Climate propaganda: humour and a history lesson.

Under the previous government of the UK, this skit would have been very 'close to the bone'.  Let us hope the new government will keep away from such madness.  Mind you, in Canada when they went in for mass-indoctrination about climate dynamics back in 2002, something interesting happened:

'By 2002, McIntyre was in comfortable semi-retirement in Toronto ....every home in Canada was sent a leaflet about the risks of global warming.  When McIntyre read his copy....'

The rest is history, ably documented in the book from which the above quote was taken, 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusion-Climategate-Corruption-Science-Independent/dp/1906768358 ).

Climate Scaremongering Antidote: mankind is making progress, doomsayers are low-credibility distractions

Picture: http://kabiza.com/images/buga25.jpg

Pierre Gosselin reports on a recent article in a German publication which points out just how much progress has been made over the last century or so, and how the doomladen forecasts of such as Paul Ehrlich have been refuted time and time again.  Such facile, highly articulate but profoundly stupid, doomsayers will no doubt always be with us, but must we take them so seriously?  Perhaps the spectacle of the IPCC disappearing in the quagmire of its own making will help this along.  Anyway, back to the article which is reported on here: http://notrickszone.com/2011/01/26/german-focus-magazine-facts-show-planet-much-better-today/

Extracts below are in italics, other words are by Gosselin:

'Human prosperity

   " The world’s population has grown 6-fold since 1800, and at the same time life expectancy has doubled. Between 1955 and 2005 inflation-adjusted average personal income has tripled for the average person on the globe.”

Many of the poor indeed have gotten much richer.

Agriculture

How often do we hear about the threats of industrial agriculture devouring land to feed the exploding masses of people? Guess what? Modern agriculture protects wildlife and forests.

    "With the crop yields of 1961, farmers would have needed 32 million square km of cropland to have fed the 6 billion persons on the globe in 2000. Instead they have been able to harvest the necessary amount of crops on just 15 million acres. That means an area almost the size of South America was spared the plow. Forests and savannahs were thus saved."

All thanks to modern agricultural technology, which today continues to develop nicely. Yet, today, many greens are busily bemoaning the very agriculture that has rescued millions of sq km of forests and wildlife from primitive manaul agricultural practices. Worse, they also want us to fuel our cars with bio-diesel, which would require the extra deforestation of millions of sq km.'

The report on the article ends as follows:

' The future
So what lies in the future now that we have seen that every apocalyptic warning heard earlier in history has ended up being just fly-crap in the wind? The business of apocalypse is a big industry and involves lots of money – so don’t expect the end-of-world-charlatans to go away. There’s more money in it today than ever.

Being wrong every time isn’t going to deter today’s modern charlatans. They have a whole new line-up of catastrophes in their bag of tricks: climate change, biodiversity, ocean acidification, species extinction, to name some. And, there are plenty of malcontents out there who want to hear more, more, more.

But I suspect, like the earlier scares of the past, we’ll soon be able to put those on the list of seriously endangered species as well. Here today, extinct tomorrow.'

 
Schoolteachers should not be forced to show such travesties of truth and decency as 'An Inconvenient Truth', full as it is of doomladen prophesies based on errors of various kinds, including the error of forgetting that the truth will out in the end, and that people are not so dumb as Al and those behind him suppose.  But while teachers may be required by their curricula to propagate ill-founded scares around CO2, they may also have the freedom to inform their charges of all the amazing progress we have made in modern times. Reports such as the one linked to above will help with examples, as will books such as Matt Ridley's 'The Rational Optimist'.  

Climate Scaremongering Antidote: look at the quality of the scaremongerers

IPCC Nobel Laureates Lack Scientific Credibility

' IPCC insiders say many of those who shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize have weak scientific credentials. They were chosen because they are of the right gender or come from the right country.'

Here is some good quality journalism - researched, penetrating, well-expressed, and giving a real sense of an independent, thinking mind at work and looking for clarity and insight.  Refreshing.  Three cheers for Donna Laframboise!    Shocked by an article which casually described an Argentinian scientist as a 'Nobel prize winner', she put that in the right perspective (he was merely part of the IPCC which was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science one) and then she dug through the IAC report and summarised some of the comments from IPCC insiders about their coworkers, e.g.

'Many scientists are [selected] by their political position and not by their competence. (p. 373)

'The most important problem of the IPCC is the nomination and selection of authors and Bureau Members. Some experts are included or excluded because of their political allegiance rather than their academic quality. Sometimes, the “right” authors are put in key positions with generous government grants to support their IPCC work, while the “wrong” authors are sidelined to draft irrelevant chapters and sections without any support. (p. 542)

'The whole process… [is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific. (p.554)

'I tried very hard to engage my [Working Group 2] bureau…only one out of six was really helpful. Two others meant well, but didn’t know the science well enough to be constructive, and the other three were simply unprepared to help in any meaningful way. (p. 587)'

This has been picked up on Bishop Hill, where there is some further discussion of the quality of scientists in the climatology area.  Haunting the Library also has it, and highlights this quote:

'…two [lead authors] on our chapter (one from a developing country and one European) never wrote a word or contributed much to discussions– nevertheless they remained credited. I felt this was unfair on those that actually wrote the text. (p. 35)'

It is not just the IPCC that gives grounds for concern.  I do get the impression that the more strident alarmist scientists are less impressive in several ways that those who are calling for a calmer approach, but that may be because I expect that to be the case.  I think there are also grounds for believing many of the leaders in the CO2 alarm movement are also not of the best that we poor mortals can find amongst us.  I stumbled upon a site the other day which captured quotes from Al Gore, mostly from over 10 years ago around the US presidential election in the year 2000.  Here it is: http://www.gargaro.com/algore.html. One of the links given is to an essay here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=12838 which is particularly trenchant, e.g. commenting on his performance in a TV debate:

'Gore also seems to have a very shaky hold on reality. He keeps stretching it, undoing it, remaking it. His exaggerations, lies, made-up stories, suggest that he ought to be a novelist rather than a politician.

'He is robotic in his loud, assertive campaign slogans, which are supposed to pass for serious argument. The monotonous repetition of the same words and phrases are supposed to leave in the minds of the audience indelible impressions that will make people vote for him.'

And this:

'I believe we saw the real Al Gore in the third debate. Eleanor Clift, unhappy over Gore's performance in the first two debates, told her colleagues on the McLaughlin Group, "Let Gore be Gore." And that's what he was in the third debate. He was sanctimonious, unctuous, overbearing, rude, monotonous, repetitive, smug, belligerent, wooden and unbelievable. He constantly broke the rules of the debate by interrupting Bush. The trouble is that no one can trust Gore's figures or assertions because the label of liar hangs over his head. And yet, many millions will vote for him.

'The dictionary defines a psychopath as "a person suffering from a mental disorder," and it defines hysteria as "a psychiatric condition variously characterized by emotional excitability, excessive anxiety, sensory and motor disturbances." If you observed Gore in the first debate, you saw a man contorting his face, reflecting emotional excitability of an extreme kind. His body language reflected excessive anxiety about his ability to win the debate. His psychopathic behavior indicates that he does suffer from a mental disorder. He is unable to adhere to the truth, to reality. His behavior suggests an obsessive personality, so determined to become President that he is willing to say anything, and perhaps do anything, that will get him there. He does not have the temperament required of a President. Because his word can never be trusted, he is disqualified from the job. '

Now is this genuine insight, or merely vicious snark from a biased commentator during a close-fought election campaign?  More research needed.

But I do note that Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' has been distributed to schools throughout the UK, in England by government fiat, in Scotland by an energy company.  I note further that a court in England ruled that the film was so political, that to avoid prosecution under a law against political indoctrination in schools, a list of cautions and examples of major errors had to be provided at every viewing (http://www.newparty.co.uk/articles/inaccuracies-gore.html).

One of Gore's catchphrases is 'the science is settled'.  It seems to me that the science is settled only in the sense that we know we know nothing like enough about the climate system to make useful forecasts over tens and hundreds of years ahead.  Our computer models are puny in the face of a great complexity, and serve only to provide illustrations of how crude models behave when programmed this way and that.  In my own deservedly humble opinion, the scientific case for alarm is not at all convincing.  It follows for me that the wave of political action and alarums around climate is driven by other factors, not least the personalities and inclinations of the leading players.  This is an area which I hope will receive deep and prolonged study, if only to make society more 'resilient' (to borrow a catchword).  In other words, spending some time on personalities is not a distraction, not a search for cheap jibes, but rather is one of the crucial areas for investigation.  As the IPCC sinks in its own quagmire of deceit and manipulation, we want to learn as much as we can about how and why it has been so influential for so long.  Some theories for that are given here, largely asserting that successful propagandising is the key: http://intelligentessays.blogspot.com/2008/03/anthropogenic-global-warming-propaganda.html

In the midst of this swirl of agitation, propaganda, and assertions, schools and educational leaders generally would surely be wiser if they concentrated on basic science, on observations, and on calm reason, rather than thoughtlessly going with the flow and adding to the consternation and confusion, not to mention the fear and destructiveness, by pushing such travesties as 'An Inconvenient Truth' on to the young.  The moral, and the scientific high ground has been occupied by those who see no evidence to justify acute alarm about manmade CO2 in the atmosphere.  Would that the political and educational systems moved there as well.

Note added 23 Mar 2012.  More on sociopaths/psychopaths in politics here and here.

Climate Scaremongering Antidote: turn green-grim into Grimm-fun

The Australian Climate Madness site has created a new fairy-tale character, the Green Climate Monster:

Now children, thanks to Mr Grimm and others, have long enjoyed scary fairy tales, and these can give them skills which help them spot fairy tales a mile off.  Now General Circulation Models (GCMs) are rather expensive and elaborate devices for producing scary tales for adults.  Maybe the skills of the kids can help those scared adults get a grip of themselves: it's just a fairy tale, Mum, Dad!

Back to ACM on GCMs:

'Anyway, I'd like to introduce this little fella to you (see photo). After many minutes of painstaking research, Australian Climate Madness has decreed that all unusual or severe weather events of whatever nature, anywhere in the world, are solely the mischievous work of the Green Climate Monster (he gets bored easily). The GCM is responsible for the shrinking Arctic ice sheet, the growing Antarctic Ice sheet, advancing glaciers, retreating glaciers, heatwaves, cold spells, mountains of snow, absence of snow, droughts, floods, hurricanes, absence of hurricanes, very windy days, calm days, sunny days, cloudy days, foggy days, El Niño and his twin sister, the seasons, thunderstorms, absence of thunderstorms, excess rainfall, less rainfall, extinction of frogs, discovery of new frogs, fewer polar bears, more polar bears, everything else listed at the Warmlist, and plenty more besides.'

I could see this in a current affairs class - just keep a picture of the Monster on the wall, and stick press-cuttings all around it as the pupils bring them in every month on whatever weather, or other, event is being blamed on 'human-caused global warming', or 'climate change' as it seems to be known for short in the media.  Class discussions could serve to identify the most ludicrous of each crop.