Correcting the Climate Curriculum for Schools: accentuate the positive on CO2

The facile labelling of rising CO2 levels as an imminent threat to our wellbeing is the basis of a great deal of scaremongering, including in materials aimed at children.  The swing to alarmism has been dramatic and will be corrected in due course as the climate system continues to behave as if the rising CO2 does not matter very much.  Just as you might expect for a trace gas which is a minor contributor to the atmospheric heat engine as it occupies itself with transferring heat to the poles each day.

Here is a new campaign which does indeed look on the bright side as far as CO2 is concerned - the Carbon Positive Campaign (hat-tip Greenie Watch).

I must say this appeals to me as a powerful counter to the relentless alarmism that has contaminated our mass media, our political affairs, and indeed educational materials and events for children. 

The campaign comes from here: http://climateofsophistry.com/2013/02/12/carbon-positive-campaign/, and I will reproduce that post below.  As and when an outstanding curriculum on climate for schools is constructed, it will in my view include elements of this.

The Carbon Positive Campaign

Please join the fun, exciting, life-affirming, environment benefiting, life-creating campaign for carbon dioxide!

The Carbon Positive Campaign!

Within 50 years, in the time of our children and grand-children, we will have improved the environment and created a lush, green, productive, life-filled planet Earth with all of the beneficial green plant food carbon dioxide we are re-adding and giving back to the environment.

The carbon that is currently trapped in hydrocarbon fuels used to be life!  It used to be carbon circulating in the global biospheric process of life, and sustained a lush, green planet, that could support huge creatures like dinosaurs in the past.  Today, that carbon-based life has been trapped underground and has formed hydrocarbon fuels that humans can access.  Humans get to use that old carbon, which has turned into hydrocarbon fuel, for benefiting our standard of life and relieving poverty on a global scale, and enriching human livelihood in general with the energy it provides.  That hydrocarbon fuel has supported a tremendous and enriching transformation and development of human society in the last hundred years.

For the last few millions years, the carbon dioxide concentration in the air was getting so low that plant life was almost ready to stop being able to perform photosynthesis!  This would have spelled the extinction of almost all life on the planet, and this extinction would have been global and possibly permanent!  It was a very close call.  Luckily, by the grace of God, evolution, Gaia, or whatever you would like to believe – even convenient and lucky happenstance – humans came along at just the right geological time-period to return that trapped life, carbon, back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide where it can then turn back into plants and sustain new and more life.  Isn’t it amazing?

It is the most wonderful win-win situation that nature could have provided for us.  We get cheap, beneficial, life-enriching energy, and the environment gets back its own source of fuel.  It is exactly like how animals and humans breathe out carbon dioxide, and then plants turn around and breathe it in as food, and then produce oxygen for us to breath again.  The circle of life.  Except now, we’ve industrialized that process and are returning much more food back to the environment where it is supposed to be, and where it can do some good in creating new life.  We’re giving back the breathe of life by using hydrocarbons and giving carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere, and this new carbon dioxide can now go back into real, living life, in the present and future.

We can use this wealth supplied by hydrocarbons and the time it gives us to develop new, future-oriented sources of power such as advanced nuclear, fusion, and whatever power generation technology science might invent, because eventually hydrocarbon fuels may become too limited to provide the energy requirements we desire.  And when we get to that point, we will be able to always look back and think of all the good that we did for the environment by reinvigorating it with its own carbon dioxide – carbon that had been trapped away from its use in creating and being life.

Please help spread the word of this fantastic news and fantastic science!

The author of this is Joseph Postma, and he provides some background on his thinking in the About section of his blog.  Here is an extract:

 'I got interested in the climate science debate because I used to believe in anthropogenic global warming and climate change.  I naturally enjoy debate and independent learning and so I wanted to understand the science of global warming, so that I could communicate and debate against “deniers” more knowledgeably.  However, I experienced one of the greatest shocks and re-evaluations of my world-view when I discovered that the science which underlies global warming and anthropogenic climate change isn’t good science at all, but it is better described merely as the appearance of doing science.  Ultimately, I have scientifically concluded that global warming is an invented scheme for political control via manufactured politics using manufactured science, blaming everything on carbon dioxide which is actually the greenest and most environmentally-friendly gas there is.  My research on climate (pseudo) science has actually uncovered a very humorous irony: the true “deniers” and “flat earthers” in the climate change debate are the people who believe in the greenhouse effect!  They’re the people who deny that the climate changes naturally without humans, and that it changes at rates and magnitudes far greater than we are experiencing in modern times!  This has all been proven scientifically and all of the science actually proves that modern changes are rather benign and unimportant, but the alarmist and greenie ideologues continue to deny the science, and they have billions of dollars of charity money from oil companies and environmental organizations to continue to publicize their political reinterpretation (i.e. invention) of the actual scientific results.'

Climate Scaremongering: teach your children to ‘look and laugh at a’that’, with Robbie Burns

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-photo.html

'Ye see yon birkie, ca'd Al Gore, Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' thoosands worship at his lore,
He's but a coof for a' that:
For a' that, an' a' that,
His Nobel Prize, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.'

With apologies to R. Burns (http://www.robertburns.org/works/496.shtml)

Dramatic tales of doom are sure-fired ways of getting attention.  Until people see through them.  We have the perspective gained from many elapsed years since these resource-focused alarms were raised (compiled by David B Mustard) :

In 1865, Stanley Jevons (one of the most recognized 19th century economists) predicted that England would run out of coal by 1900, and that England’s factories would grind to a standstill.

In 1885, the US Geological Survey announced that there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California.

In 1891, it said the same thing about Kansas and Texas. ..

In 1939 the US Department of the Interior said that American oil supplies would last only another 13 years.

[In] 1944 [a] federal government review predicted that by now the US would have exhausted its reserves of 21 of 41 commodities it examined. Among them were tin, nickel, zinc, lead and manganese.

In 1949 the Secretary of the Interior announced that the end of US oil was in sight.

Source: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/courses/e2200/pop.htm

(Hat-tip: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/)

We have some on climate from the early 1970s to chuckle at:

Claim Jan. 1970: "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life Magazine, January 1970. Life Magazine also noted that some people disagree, "but scientists have solid experimental and historical evidence to support each of the predictions."
Data: Air quality has actually improved since 1970. Studies find that sunlight reaching the Earth fell by somewhere between 3 and 5 percent over the period in question.

 

Claim April 1970: "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in Earth Day, 1970.
 Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1970.

 Claim 1970: "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Paul Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970.
[Data: gone fishin']

Claim 1972: "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
 Data: Ice coverage has fallen, though as of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
 

Claims 1974: "... when metereologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age. Telltale signs are everywhere--from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice int eh waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data fro the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadia Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round."
    Later in the article, "Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."
    Source: "Another Ice Age," Time Magazine, June 24, 1974. 

And here are some more recent ones:
Claim 1989: "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

Data: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.

 Claim: [1990] "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots ... [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michel Oppenheimer and Robert H. Boyle, Dead Heat, St. Martin's Press, 1990. Oppenheimer is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University. He is the Director of the Program in Science, Technology, and Environmental Policy at the Wilson School. He was formerly a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, the largest non-governmental organization in the U.S. that examines problems and solutions to greenhouse gases.

Claims: [2000]"Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives."
    "Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and ... are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters--which scientists are attributing to global climate change--produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries."
    "London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991." "Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community."
    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 "children just aren't going to know what snow is" and winter snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
    "David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow."
    See "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past." The Independent. March 20, 2000.
Data: "Coldest December Since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10 C bringing travel chaos across Britain." Mailonline. Dec. 18, 2010.

Source: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/courses/e2200/pop.htm

(Hat-tip: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/)

But what of our times?  We have an embarassment of riches when it comes to illustrating the arrogant and dangerous follies of modern alarmists.  The C3 website has been gathering links, very often to peer reviewed-literature, refuting or otherwise showing the incompetence of climate models and sundry claims designed to alarm us.  I have pulled out a couple of hundred topics from the list there.  The alarmists and their models have been shown to be wrong in their predictions for each of them.  Often several times over.

Abrupt Climate Changes, Aerosols, African Eco-Climate, African River Flows, Africa's Daily High Temps, Africa's Lake Victoria Basin's Climate, Africa's Mosquito Population, Alps Plant Species, Amazon and Higher CO2 Levels, Amazon Droughts/Floods, Amazon For The Last 7 Decades, Amazon Threats, Antarctic Ice, Antarctic Ice Melt, Antarctic Ozone Hole, Antarctic species and Ocean Acidification, Antarctic Warming, Arctic Climate, Arctic Ice, Arctic Melt Season Length, Arctic Species, Asian Precipitation, Asia's Rivers, Atlantic Ocean Circulation Slowdown, Atlantic Ocean Current and Greenland Ice, Atmosphere Temperatures, Atmospheric Methane, Atmospheric Water Vapour, Australia Great Barrier Reef, Australia Great Barrier Reef's Health, Australia Sea Level Increases, Australia Severe Cyclones, Australia Severe Weather, Australian Drought, Avalanches, Bangladesh Losing Land, Bering Sea Warming, Biodiversity and Warming, Bird Extinctions, Boiling Oceans, Canada Forest Fires In Ontario, Central Europe Temperatures, Central Siberian Forest Fires, China Extreme Rain Events, China Hail Storm Frequency, China Snow, Vegetation & Deserts, China Tropical Cyclones, China's Medieval Warming Period, Chinese Precipitation Variations, Climate Refugees, Cloud Coverage, Cloud Impact On Temperatures, Coastal Species and Warming, Coastal Swamping, Cooling of Major Ocean Areas, Cooling Since 1995, Coral Reefs and CO2,Coral Reefs and Warming, Crop Failure & Starvation, Crop Health, Current Climate Observations, Cyclone Activity, Death Rates and Warming, Desert Areas Expansion, Disaster Losses, Diurnal Trends, Droughts, El Niño/La Niña Phases, Europe Southern Rainfall Variability, European severe weather, European Snowfall, Extreme Climate Events Since 1970, Extreme Precipitation Events, Finland Floods and Droughts, Fish and Ocean Acidification, Flood frequencies, Flood Predictions, Florida Reefs Warming, Food Crop Prospects, Forest Fire Incidents, Frogs and Warming, German Flooding, Global Ocean Warming, Global Precipitation, Global Sea Level Rise, Global Snowpack Levels, Global Temperatures, Greenland and AMO Variability, Greenland Ice Sheet Stability, Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass, Greenland Modern Ice Loss, Greenland's Glaciers, Hay Fever & Asthma, Heavy Precipitation Events, High Wind Storms, Himalaya Severe Rainfall, Himalayan Glaciers, Hurricane Irene, Hurricane Landfall, Hurricane or Cyclone frequency, Hurricanes, Ice Sheets Collapse, Illnesses, Increased Mudslides, India past 135 Years of Rainfall, Indian Ocean levels, Indian Rainfall, Infectious Diseases, Infrared Radiation, Intensity of Hailstorms, Japan Precipitation, Malaria Incidence, Malaria Regions, Maldives & Other Reef Islands, Maldives Sea Levels, Marine Life & Diversity,Marine Life and Warming, Max/Min Daily Temperatures, Methane Gas "Tipping Point", Methane Levels, Minimum Temperatures, Mountain Rabbits, Mud & Debris Slides, Namib Desert Greatest Floods, New Zealand Cooling, Northern Hemisphere Snow, Northern Hemisphere's Wind Reduction, Ocean Acidification, Ocean Acidification & Marine Life, Ocean Conveyor Belt, Ocean Cooling, Ocean Heat Content, Ocean Temperatures, Ocean Warming, Ozone, Ozone In Wealthy Countries, Pacific Islands Disappearing , Pacific Ocean Variability, Peat Bogs, Permafrost Behaviour, Positive Feedback, Precipitation Trends, Rainfall, River Discharge Volumes, Sea 'Dead Zone’,Sea Ice Growth Over Decades, Sea Level Increase Rate, Sea Level Over Last Decade,Severe Droughts Over Last 40 years, Severe Floods, Severe Hurricane Incidents, Severe Storms, Severe Tropical Cyclones, Severe Weather, Severe Windstorms, Shellfish and CO2, Siberian High Climatic Condition, Siberian-Arctic Tundra, Snowfall and Warming,Southern Africa Rainfall, Southern Hemisphere Cyclones, Species Extinctions, Spread of Malaria, Tasmanian Ocean Reefs, Tornados, Tree Lines, Tropical Cyclones and Warming, Tropical Fish and Warming, Tropical Hotspot, Tundra, Tundra Greenhouse Gas, UK Thames River Barrier, USA  Cooling, USA California Mountain Snowfall, USA Canada Great Lakes' Water Levels, USA Canada Rocky Mountains Over Last 50+ Years, USA Cascade Mtns. Snowpack, USA Cooling, USA Droughts For Southwest, USA Droughts In Utah, USA Eastern Severe Winter Storms, USA Flooding, USA Eastern Flooding, USA Hawaii's Extreme Weather Events, USA Maple Syrup Industry, USA Mississippi River Floods, USA Temperatures Since 1900, USA Temps In 2008, USA Winter, Vegetation Growth, Water Vapour Feedback, Wildfires, Winter Precipitation, World's Plant Life

For more information, search here: http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictions-failed.html

May the Right Climate Stuff Team Drive the Wrong Climate Stuff from our Schools

The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group of more than 20 scientists and engineers who are primarily retired veterans of NASA's manned space programme.  Here is an interim report from their ongoing study into climate:.

1. The science that predicts the extent of Anthropogenic Global Warming is not settled science.

 2. There is no convincing physical evidence of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Most of the alarm regarding AGW results from output of unvalidated computer models. We understand scientific arguments regarding how doubling CO2 in the atmosphere over a hundred years or more (if possible) can have a small direct warming effect, but we question the accuracy of feedback simulations in current models computing climate system responses that amplify CO2 effects. Efforts to estimate climate sensitivity to CO2 based solely on physical data have large uncertainties because many factors affect global temperatures, and CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere after the earth warms due to other factors. While paleoclimate data clearly show CO2 levels rise and fall in the atmosphere hundreds of years after temperature rises and falls due to other causes, the evidence is very weak to support claims of a catastrophic rise in global temperatures caused by CO2 emissions related to human activity.

 3. Computer models need to be validated before being used in critical decision-making.

Our manned aerospace backgrounds in dealing with models of complex phenomena have convinced us that this rule must be followed to avoid decisions with serious unintended consequences.

 4. Because there is no immediate threat of global warming requiring swift corrective action, we have time to study global climate changes and improve our prediction accuracy.

While there are many benefits due to some global warming, the major threats appear to be associated with a net loss of Greenland and Antarctica ice sheet mass that would contribute to a gradual sea-level rise. The history, current trends, and specific causes of ice sheet melting and ice accumulation by precipitation must be better understood before determining how best to respond to threats of accelerated sea-level rise.

 5. Our US government is over-reacting to concerns about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

More CO2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial for forest and crop growth to support the earth's growing population, so control of CO2 emissions is not an obvious best solution to hyped-up concerns regarding AGW. Eventually the earth will run out of fossil fuels and alternative energy sources will be required. Market forces will (and should) play a big role in this transition to alternative energy sources. Government funding of promising research and development objectives for alternative fuels appears to be a better option at this time than expenditures of enormous resources to limit CO2 emissions.

 6. A wider range of solution options should be studied for global warming or cooling threats from any credible cause.

CO2 effectiveness in controlling global average temperatures or sea levels has not been established. More reliable and greater control authority may be available from engineering solutions that would accommodate the beneficial aspects of more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Source:  http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/SummaryPrelimReport.html

Hat-tip: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/team-of-ex-nasa-scientists-concludes-no-imminent-threat-from-man-made-co2/ 

 

These are the words of level-headed adults working with no ulterior motives to critically review the shoddy structures and ill-founded strictures of CO2 alarmism.  That same alarmism promoted for decades by a mix of decidedly un-level-headed adults and also sundry schemers with ulterior motives.  They have also promoted it to children, often with the use of scare-stories.  It will take a while to clear up the worst of that mess, but these ex-NASA folks are doing their bit to help.  Well done them!

 

Background: The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group of more than 20 scientists and engineers who are primarily retired veterans of our manned space program. We began our investigation into the controversial issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) in February 2012. We have reviewed, studied and debated available data and scientific reports regarding many factors that affect temperature variations of the earth's surface and atmosphere. We have also studied the well-documented beneficial, as well as potentially detrimental effects, of more CO2 in our atmosphere. This report provides a summary of findings that we have reached at this point into our investigation.

Note added 5 February 2013. An anonymous commenter (oh the irony) below has pointed out that most of the people involved in the Right Climate Stuff venture have not been named.  I can find only three names: Jim Peacock (Webmaster, NASA retired aerospace engineer),James Visentine (NASA Alumni League, Curator and Webmaster, TRCD Database), and Thomas Wysmuller (Meteorologist, former NASA employee).  It still looks plausibly genuine, especially given those three people were signatories of the open letters about climate by 49/50 ex NASA people last year, but readers may want to be careful about taking Right Climate Stuff too seriously until more becomes known about them.

Note added 12 March 2012.  More background on the Right Climate Stuff group here:  http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/03/12/retired-nasa-scientists-enter-climate-change-fray/

More of this please: helping children escape from climate scaremongering

Seen in a post by Ian Johnson at Climate Change Dispatch .

More Blunt cartoons linked to climate here: http://bluntbyknutz.wordpress.com/blunt-weather/

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all my readers!

I have not been able to keep up a regular flow of posts here, and I want to apologise for that to any regular readers.  But I hope that the links I provide to more active, and more important, sites (on the right hand side of this screen) will be convenient.  I also hope that some of the posts already made will still be of value for a bit longer, and that also the reference 'pages' I provide will prove helpful from time to time.

I have been building up notes for a series of posts I plan to make next month on the ongoing targeting of children to create activists driven by climate alarm, or to get to their parents to help sustain that alarm.  While the scientific case for such alarm continues to be exposed more widely as being a weak one, and while more politicians seem to making tentative first steps away from domination by environmentalism, there is in the background so to speak, a relentless pushing of alarm or some version of responsibility for doing something about it on to school children.  I suppose that will take decades to reverse and to repair some of the harm caused, and so a delayed posting on a very minor blog will not make a noticeable difference to that.

I am signing off now for Christmas.  I do not have any religious faith, but I do admire the Christian religion for its high ideals, and its open compassion and generosity to all.  I am quite content that they have taken over the pagan festival of this time of year - their music, their sentiments, their actions all enhance it as far as I have found.  Merry Christmas!

Next post some time early in January.  A good deal of progress was made in 2012 on pushing against the promotion of belief in CAGW.  That alarmism is still the 'establishment' view, but surely there are signs that this particular 'tide in the affairs of man' is on the turn.  The 'catastrophism' at least may be being tempered.  Let us hope so.  Happy New Year!
  
Note added 26 December 2012.  Here is a timely illustration of Christian compassion applied to all those who have harmed the world for decades past and no doubt decades to come with their irresponsible and sometimes ugly scaremongering over carbon dioxide:
'However vicious and cruel the true-believers in the global-warming fantasy have been to those few of us who have dared publicly to question their credo that has now been so thoroughly discredited by events, we should make sure that the rat-hole we dig for their escape from their lavish folly is as commodious as possible.'  Christopher Monckton

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/25/bethlehem-and-the-rat-hole-problem/

The BBC - just another brick in the wall of trace gas alarmism

On the Bishop Hill blog today, Don Kieller provides this powerful indictment of the BBC's complicity in climate campaigning in a letter he has just sent to his MP and to the BBC Trust:
 [I have added all the text enlargement, the italics and the emboldening for presentation purposes here]:

I am writing to you about a serious concern regarding the BBC’s reporting of climate change science and associated issues. 

From the detail emerging in the aftermath of Mr. Tony Newbery’s F.O.I case (EA/2009/0118) it is absolutely clear that the BBC is in breach of its Charter, which requires it to be impartial.  Furthermore it knowingly and wilfully breached its Charter in this regard and has since tried to hide this fact from the Public and license fee payers, at the Publics’ expense.

In June, 2007, the BBC Trust published a report entitled “From Seesaw to Wagon Wheel: Safeguarding impartiality in the 21st Century”. That report, which is fully endorsed by the BBC Trust, contains the following statement (page 40):

“The BBC has held a high‐level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus."

This statement forms the basis for the BBC’s decision to breach its Charter and abandon impartiality on the subject of climate change and instead provide a highly biased and alarmist presentation of the science of climate change, without any attempt at counterbalancing argument, let alone “equal space”.  Since then attempts have been made, via FOI requests, to find out the identities of the so-called “best scientific experts” who attended the “high level seminar” which thereby provided the justification for the BBC to abandon its principle of impartiality in this area. To my best knowledge, the BBC has not abandoned its impartiality in this way, even in wartime.

Tony Newbery, a pensioner, clearly felt the same way and has gone through a long series of FOI requests and processes, culminating, earlier this month, in a tribunal at the Central London Civil Justice Centre (case no. EA/2009/0118). The FOI request was for the identities of the “best scientific experts” who attended the seminar. In order to conceal this information, the BBC fielded a team of 6 lawyers, including barristers, at an estimated cost of £40,000 per day, to prevent the list of names from being published. Whilst they were successful, it was a pyrric victory, as it transpires that this information, that the BBC had tried so hard to conceal, had been in the Public domain for some time.

So who were these “best scientific experts”?

It turns out to be a motley collection of climate alarmists, activists, environmental advocates and those with vested financial interests:

Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia.

Not one of these could be described as “scientific”, let alone an expert.

The remainder:

Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge

are scientists, but were misleadingly described in court by Helen Boaden (of Jimmy Saville infamy), as “scientists with contrasting views”. In fact all are unashamedly alarmist. Pointedly, not one of these scientists deals with attribution science, or the atmospheric physics of global warming. 

So where are the real experts? Scientists from the Met Office, or the Hadley Centre, one of the foremost climate research centres in the world? Where are the names of Dr.Chris Landsea, World expert on hurricanes, or Dr. Nils‐Axel Mörner, World authority on sea level rises? Or Professors Richard Lindzen, or Murry Salby, World experts on atmospheric physics? Why are there no experts from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia?

It now crystal clear why the BBC went to such great lengths and expense to withhold the names of those attending. They are not the “best scientific experts” but rather a group overwhelmingly comprised of environmental activists and NGO’s, with no scientific training, whatsoever, or those with a vested interest, often financial, in keeping climate change alarmism firmly in the Public eye.

In conclusion I put it to the BBC Trust that:

1. The BBC and, by endorsing the report, the BBC Trust, have lied to the public that they organised and/or attended a seminar at BBC Television Centre involving the “best scientific experts” on climate change.
2. That its change of policy to no longer be impartial on the subject of climate change was not based on scientific evidence, or the views of the “best scientific experts”, but in fact was as a result of listening to the views, advice and lobbying from inappropriate and biased individuals, groups and organisations including Greenpeace, Tearfund, US Embassy, BP, IIED, IBT, AsRia, E3G etc.
3. That the BBC and the BBC Trust are in breach of the charter and acting unlawfully. The following quotations are taken from the website http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidelines-editorial-values-editorial-values/ :

1.2.1 Trust
Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.
1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy
We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.
1.2.3 Impartiality
Impartiality lies at the core of the BBC's commitment to its audiences. We will apply due impartiality to all our subject matter and will reflect a breadth and diversity of opinion across our output as a whole, over an appropriate period, so that no significant strand of thought is knowingly unreflected or under-represented. We will be fair and open-minded when examining evidence and weighing material facts.
1.2.4 Editorial Integrity and Independence
The BBC is independent of outside interests and arrangements that could undermine our editorial integrity. Our audiences should be confident that our decisions are not influenced by outside interests, political or commercial pressures, or any personal interests. 

Each and every one of these guidelines has been knowingly breached.

This is a scandal that is, in its own way, more disturbing than the one over the Jimmy Savile affair, as it has implications for the whole population. Interestingly the key players in this scandal, George Entwistle, Helen Boaden, Peter Rippon and Steve Mitchell, are also key players in the Savile affair. However whilst the Savile scandal is being looked into by a series of inquiries, this has been ignored.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course on this matter. Please also be advised that I have sent a copy of this letter to the Director of the BBC Trust.

Nov 21, 2012 at 12:41 PM | Don Keiller 

The BBC produces a lot of educational materials, and may even have deliberately injected climate perspectives into children's etnertainment programmes, and may well be seen as an authoritative source, along with such as the Royal Society and the IPCC, on matters to do with climate change.  Teachers should be on their guard about the outputs of each and every one of them on climate.

For more background.
A recent newspaper article on this topic has been published in the Daily Telegraph by Christopher Booker, and Andrew Orlowski has written a detailed overview in The Register.

Note added 3 December 2012: Further analysis of the supine behaviour of the BBC on climate, with chapter and verse on how they surrendered their souls to a handful of eco-activists:  http://biased-bbc.com/2012/12/carbon-footprints-and-dr-joe-smiths-fingerprints.html

Note added 7 December 2012.  An updated essay around this BBC seminar called 'The Propaganda Bureau' is available at Bishop Hill .  A few posts earlier, Don Keiller shares some correspondence with his MP on the topic of the BBC breaching its charter over climate matters.

A 28Gate Climate Crusader Coaching Children for The Cause.

One of the many somewhat curious choices of participant in the infamous climate-alarm lobbying seminar held by the BBC in January 2006 is 'Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University'.  She has since helped launch a programme aimed at turning children into political activists, driven presumably at least in part by her being seized with fear about the future thanks to rising CO2 levels. 

I had noticed that an executive from Children’s BBC was amongst those revealed by 28Gate  (Anne Gilchrist, Executive Editor Indies & Events, CBBC), and I wondered if she had been taken in by the crusaders.  I don’t know if she was or not – a study of the subsequent programmes would be required.  I hoped that someone might have the resources to do that one day soon, and gave the list no more thought.

But then my attention was drawn yesterday (hat-tip M) to some further research by Maurizio Morabito which led him to this extract from a Linked-In entry by Andreadis :

 “Experience

• Member of the Board SANI SA January 2008 – Present (4 years 11 months)
• Founder/Director Planet Agents January 2008 – Present (4 years 11 months)

Education

• Harvard University Masters in Public Policy, Environmental Policy, Government Strategy, Media 2004 – 2006
• University of Bath BSc in Management, Business 1996 – 2000”

SANI is a company which owns or at least runs a luxury hotel resort, and very impressive it looks to be.  Too expensive for me I suspect, but it sure looks like they are doing a grand job there, and that it would be a very pleasant place to visit.

PlanetAgents, however, is another kettle of fish altogether.

In a comment on Maurizio’s recent post linked to above, ‘geoffchambers’ (who has his own blog here) notes that:

“Planet Agents’ site is in Greek, but there’s a PDF in English with a Mission Statement:

• To empower children aged 7-12 to take action on environmental issues.
To revolutionize the role children play in the environmental movement, empowering
them to become a real force for change in their home, school and community.
To achieve this by…
• By enabling children to harness their power in bringing about positive environmental action.
• By making saving the planet a game and social activity, offering kids the chance to take on the role of Planet Agents and undertake fun “Top Secret Missions” to green their home, school and wider community.

• By getting kids to educate and motivate their parents to change their behavior on ten key planet environmental threats.”

[I have added the bold and italics]

Planet Agents http://www.planetagents.org/

I have looked at the Planet Agents site using machine translations by Google .

It is all wrapped up in the honey of protecting the planet, and doing congenial things like having a vegetable garden, with talk of ‘freshness and humor’ in their approach.  But it is all so politicised.  The children are to take on the adults via 'missions' and to organise themselves to ‘get changes in their immediate environment’, e.g.

'Each individual mission supported by appropriate educational material to propose practical solutions to environmental management issues, such as a vegetable garden at the school, eliminating plastic in the school canteen or composting at home, where children enrich and apply. Apart from its training, each mission encourages children to take their future into their own hands, to propose their own solutions, as well as to communicate what they have learned to the rest of the school.'

Please leave them alone, Elena.  They have a childhood to enjoy and do not need to share your fears of the future, nor your ambitions to manipulate their parents.  Adults have done a pretty impressive job of improving living standards, improving health, improving the environment, and making use of cost-effective ways of mass-producing electricity.  They will continue to do so, and looking out for the wellbeing of their own and other people’s children will be an important part of it.  Perhaps if people like Elena, no doubt as well-intentioned as anyone could be in wanting to 'protect the planet', would engage more with adults and try to persuade them directly of her concerns it would be better than trying to do so via their children.

Why do they do it?
A pyschotherapist speculated  last year about reasons why people might target children in this way:
'But the deeper question is – why are adults so keen to focus on children? Why concentrate on the weakest, least influential members of society and ask them to act? The answer I think lies in the process psychoanalysis calls projection where unwanted feelings or parts of the self are split off and attributed to somebody else. “I’m not angry/selfish/mean/neglectful – you are/he is/she is/they are.”

Climate change makes most adults working on it feel powerless. We compare the actions we are capable of with the scale of the problem and feel weak. We look at the extent of our influence and feel helpless. We struggle to combat our contrary desires to consume and feel shame. We feel like children. Children – who are actually socially and politically powerless – are an ideal receptacle for the projection of these uncomfortable and unacceptable feelings.

By focusing on the weakest members of society and influencing them, the not-very-powerful adults make themselves feel better at the expense of the absolutely-not-powerful children. By making them act, we prove that we are not as powerless as we feel .’

Alternative explanations include 'noble cause corruption', or just the plain self-righteousness and arrogance of the zealot.  More research into this area of climate alarmism would be very welcome. 

Some other posts relevant to this:
(1) Creating 'little climate activists' in UK schools

http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/02/classroom-climate-conditioning-at-work.html     

(2) Something similar in Canada

http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/03/canadian-climate-campaigners-how-to.html 

(3) Why do they pick on children?  Some thoughts here:  

http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2011/04/not-just-another-brick-in-wall-hey.html

Climate campaigning corruptions to exclude from the classroom: greenhouses and '97%'

Misleading ideas and interpretations of published results are well-suited to the promotion of CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) in the classroom.

The very term 'greenhouse effect' is an example.  It has been established for more than 100 years that greenhouses do not heat up by 'trapping' infra-red, they heat up because their enclosed structure dramatically reduces mixing with cooler outside air.  But what a godsend the phrase is for alarming anyone who has ever been in a hot greenhouse.

Another example is the use of some variant of the phrase '97% of climate scientists believe in CAGW'.  This is a shoddy statistic.  It was derived from a poorly formulated, poorly conducted, and poorly analysed survey by an MSc student for her thesis, and, were it not for the obvious propaganda value, it would normally never have seen the light of day outside of her department.

The So-Called Greenhouse Effect

In 1909, a distingushed American physicist called R W Wood reported (Phil. Mag. vol 17, p319-320) on his experiments which showed that 'trapping' of infra-red by greenhouse glass was of no consequence as a cause of warming in the greenhouse.  He speculated that infra-red radiation was likely to be of little consequence in heating the atmosphere as well.

The work of Wood has been made widely known through a paper on the history of the greenhouse effect by Jones and Henderson-Sellers (1990).  From their abstract:

'One such misconception is that greenhouse research is a recent phenomenon; another is that glasshouses are warmed by the same mechanism as lies at the heart of the greenhouse effect.'

For a recent confirmation of Woods 1909 experiment see Nahle (2011).  He concludes:

'The greenhouse effect inside greenhouses is due to the blockage of convective heat transfer with the environment and it is not related, neither obeys, to any kind of “trapped” radiation. Therefore, the greenhouse effect does not exist as it is described in many didactic books and articles.

The experiment performed by Prof. Robert W. Wood in 1909 is absolutely valid and systematically repeatable.'

Nevertheless, as revealed for example by 'Tallbloke' very recently, experiments with shining lamps on to upturned glass jars containing thermometers are promoted for classroom demonstrations to convince pupils of the reality of an atmospheric 'greenhouse effect'.  The title of this blogpost by Dr Roy Spencer sums it up nicely:  http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/10/hey-school-teachers-those-greenhouse-effect-experiments-are-junk/

The So-Called 97% 

The complete absence of convincing evidence of a suitably dramatic effect of man-made CO2 on the climate system has forced propagandists to look elsewhere.  Notably by 'appealing to authority'.  

One device is to pretend that the output of computer models provides that evidence.  They of course merely provide illustrations of the ideas and methods of the programmers, and they do not even model CO2 directly - including it instead by its presumed impact as a 'forcing'. 

Another is to declare that many thousands of scientists producing IPCC reports believe in it, when in fact almost all of them are focused on, and qualified to study, the effects of climate change rather than the causes.  Since climate always changes, such studies could be undertaken for any era in earth's history.  

A third is to assert that '97% of climate scientists' believe in it.   Let me quote from an informative blog post on this published two days ago by Tom Harris, with my bolding and italicising:

' It’s a “fact” asserted by political leaders, media and activists worldwide. Important public policy and corporate decisions are based on it. Researchers and public opinion survey coordinators take it as a given. School children and college and university students are assured it is true.
It is the idea that scientists agree that we are causing climate catastrophe. It is perhaps best summed up by the following statement, one heard often over the past three years:

“97% of climate experts agree that humanity is causing dangerous global warming and other problematic climate change because of our greenhouse gas emissions.”

No poll of experts has actually shown this. There has never been a reputable worldwide survey of climate scientists that has even asked the question. In fact, it has never even been demonstrated that there is any “global scientific consensus about the climate crisis”, as Al Gore continually assures us that there is.'

The post goes on a little later to say:

'Two pieces of evidence are most often cited to support the 97%/consensus argument:

1. A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) by Anderegg et al.
2. A poll conducted in April 2008 by Professor Peter Doran and then-graduate student Margaret R. K. Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago. The survey results were summarized in a paper published in January 2009 in the science journal EOS.

Contrary to popular belief, the Anderegg et al study did not poll any experts at all. Instead, the paper’s authors merely evaluated the publication record of scientists they chose to represent two sides in the global warming debate. This study has been roundly condemned as worse than useless by several authors and, because I was personally involved in assembling some of the lists of experts cited by the researchers and so understand the limitations of those lists, I will explain in a future FCPP blog posting why the Anderegg et al study is not a meaningful indicator of expert opinion about this topic.
The Doran/Zimmerman study, which did poll experts, has also been thoroughly debunked by many writers and so there is little point in repeating their criticisms in this blog posting. However, there are two problems with the study that have received little or no coverage to date. Both of these problems destroy the poll’s credibility as a reliable measure of the stance of climate scientists on the supposed climate crisis.'

Harris quotes some of the comments made by some of the scientists who were asked to complete the survey.  He points out how these raise so many problems with the questions deployed that it is obvious that the survey should have been re-designed.  It was not of course.  It was, after all, 'just' a student project.  One sadly destined to be shouted from the rooftops in support of alarmism.

Barry Woods also published more details of this shoddy piece of survey earlier this year.  He provides references to previously published criticisms:

'The Doran paper  has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with. Lawrence Soloman made one of many critiques of the Doran Paper here and offers a very good summary, some other reviews here, here and here.'

Woods also provides criticism and further references on deliberate deceptions using the  Anderegg et al. study. He relays this quote from Paul Matthews which sums that nicely in response to an egregious claim:

'Worse still, he misrepresents the claims of that paper (he implies the 97% believe CO2 will cause major climate change in the coming decades, while Anderegg et al say 97% agree that most of the warming of the 20th C was very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases – two very different statements).'

Let us hope these 'two very different statements' are not confounded in the minds of teachers across the world, nor may they contain the emotive notion that the earth is warming like a greenhouse.

Calming the Climate Curriculum - rejoinders and 'Did you know?'s

There is an organisation called the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow - CFACT.  It is actually optimistic about the possibilities for further progress without buying into the 'climate catastrophe due to man' cult.  How radical is that?  Imagine if that became the dominant leitmotif of curricula in schools!  Imagine the financial crisis facing fear-based fundraisers if cheerfulness and rationality broke out!

CFACT has just published (hat-tip NoTricksZone) a set of brief counter-arguments to some of the kinds of remarks that can trip off the tongues of those still convinced by the case for alarm over CO2.  Some examples:

'CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it has been rising steadily. How can you deny global warming?'

'Haven’t the past few years shown global warming to be worse than we thought?'

'How can you ignore thousands of scientists who say manmade global warming is a serious threat?'

'97% of scientists say manmade climate change is real. How can you go against them?'

'Don’t graphs show that current temperatures are the highest in 1,000 years?'
There are 8 pages in a pdf file of these questions and answers here: http://www.cfact.org/pdf/Climate-Change-Q&A-Truth-File-2012.pdf

When the exams are over, or if the mark schemes are tolerant of dissent, or if the pupils are otherwise not to be judged on their conformance to climate cult dogma, then this document could provide material for many displays for the classroom wall.  These could be used to encourage fact-checking and further investigations by pupils into these or any other remarks or assertions they may have encountered from those who want to scare them, and the rest of us, into thinking and doing what they want us to.

A promising initiative is also underway led by Anthony Watts at WUWT.  He has invited suggestions for 'Did you know X' tidbits that he could use in a forthcming presentations, as he explains:


'The concept is simple and revolves around the question “Did you know?” and climate science.
Here’s how it works.  
Every one of us has some little tidbit of information they learned about climate science that isn’t being told by the MSM and doesn’t fit the narrative. I’m looking for a series of “Did you know?” tidbits to use in an upcoming presentation.  For example:
==============================================================
Did you know?
The infrared response of Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere is curved (logarithmic) rather than straight (linear) as is often portrayed in science stories?'

Several hundred suggestions have been made in the comments, and not all of them of course are sensible or plausible.  But presumably in due course, Watts will winnow the wheat from the chaff and may produce something of interest for use in the classroom.

Supplement added shortly after posting 
 A Cambridgeshire councillor has attracted a great deal of very informed support for his sceptical position on CO2 alarmism.  One commenter provided him with a very interesting list of quotes, comments, and apercus from scientists who share that view.  The details are on Nick Clarke's blog here: http://nickclarkeconservative.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/climate-some-comments-from-scientists/

(hat-tip: Climate Science)

These also look like a very rich resource for classroom use. 

Tracking sources of climate alarmism in school curricula - Tallbloke on the trail of the lonesome pine

'Tallbloke' has recently published extracts from a document 'from a UK 'science based' agency' obviously intended to provide guidance for school teachers in the UK. In a series of 3 posts, he has highlighted the existence of this document, promised to critically review it, and published several sections.  Here are parts of one of them from his first post:

'Scientific experts from around the world agree that, whatever we do now, significant climate change is now unavoidable.

It will take decades to reduce the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Even then, because natural systems take time to readjust, global warming is a phenomenon that will figure prominently throughout the lives of children presently at school. This assumes that a concerted international effort will help reduce the effects of climate change. Early signs are not encouraging! If we do nothing, timescales will be reduced and the detrimental effects will be magnified. Sea levels may continue rising for centuries.

 ...

Consequences – general
Climate change will seriously disrupt our lives. While, on average, the globe will get warmer and receive more precipitation, individual regions will experience different climatic changes, with different consequences for the local environment. Among the most severe are:

• a faster rise in sea level;
• more heat-waves and droughts, resulting in more and more conflicts over water resources;
• more extreme weather events, producing floods and property destruction;
• a greater potential for heat-related illnesses and deaths, as well as the wider spread of infectious diseases carried by insects and rodents into areas previously free from them.

If climatic trends continue unabated, global warming will threaten our health, cities, farms and forests, beaches and wetlands, and other natural habitats.'

Here is another extract, clearly revealing activism and alarmism in a few sentences:

'Be part of the solution
Clearly, global warming is a grave problem. It will take everyone – governments, industry, communities, and individuals – working together to make a real difference. These are solutions that will help reduce global warming, and you can be a part of them.

But
• ‘Americans are driving more in less-efficient vehicles. Sales of sports utility vehicles and pick-up trucks have been amazingly strong considering the recession, and low pump prices are keeping people on the roads’ – Mike Lucky, analyst for John S Herold Inc, December 2001
• ‘One person flying in an airplane for one hour is responsible for the same greenhouse gas emissions as a typical Bangladeshi in a whole year.’ – Beatrice Schell, European Federation for Transport and Environment, November 2001
• ‘The Greenland ice sheet is likely to be eliminated [within 50 years] unless much more substantial reductions in emissions are made than those envisaged’ – Jonathan Gregory, climatologist at the University of Reading, April 2004, commenting on the fact that, upon melting, the world’s second largest icecap could raise sea levels by seven metres, flooding most coastal regions. Plot this on an OS Map of your nearest coastal area.'

Here is part of another extract from his second post:

' We are learning to …
Understand what climate change is and how it can be prevented.

Phase 1 Overview
Assess the children’s prior knowledge by asking the following questions:
• What is climate change?
• Why is it sometimes called ‘The Greenhouse Effect’/‘Global warming’?
• How can we prevent it?'

 And part of one from his third post:

' Place the two thermometers beneath a sun lamp or in the sun. Wait three minutes for the temperature to adjust, then record it on the paper. Turn the jar upside down and place one of the thermometers inside. Use the stopwatch to measure the temperature on each thermometer every minute for ten minutes. Record the measurements on the paper.
The air around the exposed thermometer is constantly changing, being replaced with cooler air throughout the experiment. The air surrounding the other thermometer, however, is trapped and becomes warmer and warmer. This is similar to what happens on the earth’s surface. The sunlight passes through the atmosphere and warms the earth’s surface. The heat radiating from the surface is trapped by greenhouse gases.'

Tallbloke has suggested readers contribute comments on these posts, and notes that  'the whole thing needs a thorough debunking, which we’ll undertake over a series of posts. When we’ve completed it, with references to scientific papers and the on the record statements of scientists, we’ll deliver this to the agency involved and report their response.'

Good.  If this shoddy material can be stopped in its tracks, that would be something very worthwhile.

Note added 8 November 2012.  A commenter at the Tallbloke site gives a link to the document on an educational site run by the Royal Meteorological Society (http://www.metlink.org/pdf/science_weather/climatechange.pdf).  The document is suspiciously anonymous - no dates, no names of authors on it for example.  I'm hoping it got planted there unofficially and that it will be removed in due course.  Josh has some informative cartoons from a conference held jointly by the RMS yesterday (http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/8/rmets-communicating-climate-science-cartoon-notes-by-josh.html).

Note added 20 November 2012.  Even alarmists are embarassed by some of the 'science experiments' used in schools to explain the so-called greenhouse effect: http://climatechangeeducation.org/hands-on/difficulties/heating_greenhouse_gases/ 


")