Pushing Climate Deception and Fear at Children - two US organisations carry on the despicable practice

EPA Video Contest Teaches Budding Child-Activists to Worry About 'Climate Change' 

This is the title of an article by Susan Solomon on the CNS News website (click the title to go there).

The article continues:

"(CNSNews.com) - The Environmental Protection Agency is co-sponsoring a "climate change video contest" that asks students, ages 11-14:" Why do you care about climate change?" And: "How are you reducing carbon pollution or preparing for the impacts of climate change?"

Students are advised to "be cool" and "be creative" in explaining "how climate change affects you, your family, friends, and community, now or in the future" -- and what they are doing to "prepare for a changing climate."

The Obama administration frequently uses video contests or "challenges" to advance its liberal viewpoint on a variety of issues, and this is no exception.

The climate-change videos may be up to two minutes long, and the top three winning entries will get prizes that can only be described as environmentally correct:

The first-place winner gets a solar-paneled backpack, which charges electronic devices; the second place prize is a "pulse jump rope" that generates enough energy to charge cell phones; and the third place prize is a "Soccket Soccer Ball," which turns kinetic energy from play into electrical energy that can be used to power small devices.

The prizes were selected and purchased by the National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF), which is co-sponsoring the video contest with the EPA.

NEEF says students should read its "facts" on climate change before getting started on their videos.

Those "facts" include the following statements:

-- The signs of climate change are all around us (higher temperatures, wilder weather, rising sea level, more droughts, changing rain and snow patterns).

-- The climate you will inherit as adults will be different from your parents’ and grandparents’ climate.

-- Reducing carbon pollution, and preparing for the changes that are already underway, is key to solving climate change and reducing the risks we face in the future.

-- A major way carbon pollution gets into the atmosphere is when people burn coal, oil, and natural gas for energy."

See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/epa-video-contest-teaches-budding-child-activists-worry-about-climate#sthash.ybnmpob4.dpuf

Let us take a look at the 'four facts' in turn.  For the multiple points in the first, we shall compare them with conclusions reached from an analysis of peer-reviewed scientific papers compiled in the 2013 NIPCC report, Global Warming Reconsidered II, and in other works published since.  The reader is directed to this report, free to download using the links provided, in order to see the detailed arguments, data, and references to the scientific literature which buttress the statements I will reproduce below.

(1) The signs of climate change are all around us (higher temperatures, wilder weather, rising sea level, more droughts, changing rain and snowfall patterns).    

higher temperatures: It is widely accepted that there has been no appreciable rise in global mean temperature for nearly two decades, more than the lifetimes of the children being targeted.  This was preceded by an overall gentle warming over some 150 years, and upon which the rising CO2 levels have made no clear impact. In the NIPCC Report Chapter 4 (Section 4.1) we read 'Hundreds of peer-reviewed papers have presented evidence indicating temperatures of the past several decades are not unusual, unnatural, or unprecedented on a hemispheric or global scale.'

Spencer

  The children being targeted by this latest in a line of odious initiatives, are in the United States where 'all around' them, they have been enduring one of the coldest winters for 35 years as shown in the plot on the left.

Notice also from that plot that there is also no obvious rising trend, certainly not one that anyone could notice




wilder weather  The NIPCC REPORT reviews observations of extreme weather in Chapter 7 (section 7.7) and concludes 'There has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of stormy weather in the modern era.'
A more recent paper in 2013  has in fact found evidence of a decrease in climate variability in modern times.  The rising financial costs of extreme weather events, on the other hand, is explained more by societal than by climate changes, as described in a new paper reported on here at WUWT.

rising sea level A general rise in sea level is reasonably well-established as a feature of the 20th century, but what is not remotely established is any link between sea-level rises in the 2nd half of that century and the rise of CO2 levels.  As the NIPCC report observes in Chapter 6, 'If the late 20th century global warming was as extreme as the IPCC claims it has been, why can it not be detected in sea-level data?'

more droughts   'Data presented in numerous peer-reviewed studies do not support the model-based claim [that] CO2-induced global warming is causing (or will cause) more frequent, more severe, and longer-lasting droughts.' Source: NIPCC Chapter 7, Section 7.4.1

changing rain and snow patterns 'General trends in precipitation are examined in Chapter 6 of this volume, where observational data indicate there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about recent precipitation events and trends in most regions.' Source: NIPCC Chapter 7, Section 7.6


(2) The climate you will inherit as adults will be different from your parents’ and grandparents’ climate.  This is a statement which has been true throughout our existence as a species.  It is a platitude.  It is of course being used here as a veiled threat to add to the sense of foreboding that the sponsoring organisations clearly wish to instil in the young.

(3) Reducing carbon pollution, and preparing for the changes that are already underway, is key to solving climate change and reducing the risks we face in the future. 
Well, it is of course not 'carbon pollution' they are mostly talking about here.  That term has been chosen because it makes for more effective propaganda that the correct term 'carbon dioxide'.  Would we refer to the release of water vapour to the air as 'hydrogen pollution'?  The water molecule is H2O.  The carbon dioxide molecule is CO2.  That piece of minor insidiousness aside, the idea that reducing CO2 levels is 'key to solving climate change' is nothing but fantasy.  The climate will change whether or not CO2 levels change.  Even if we had the ability to control CO2 levels - and it is far from obvious that we do - the idea that they provide a control-knob with which we select a climate of our choosing is absurd.  As for 'preparing for changes already underway'. it is also somewhat underhand.  Throughout our history we have sought to improve our ability to cope with climate variation, and we have actually become pretty good at it in the more industrialised countries.  

(4) A major way carbon pollution gets into the atmosphere is when people burn coal, oil, and natural gas for energy. 

When did 3 or 4 % of something become a 'major' part of it?  The general carbon cycle, which has CO2 as an important airborne carrier of carbon, is not particularly well-understood and measured.  The error bars on our estimates of various contributions and reservoirs in it are way larger than any plausible contribution from our industries.  That contribution is estimated as being about 3 or 4% of the total flux of carbon dioxide from all sources every year into the atmosphere.  In other words, a modest variation in emissions from the sea surface, or from tropical and subtropical vegetation could readily swamp our emissions in terms of magnitude. Once more, we see we are dealing with propagandists here.  The fact that our consumption of fossil fuels involves the release of CO2 to the atmosphere is not in doubt.  What is in doubt is how important that it compared with other contributions or sources of variation.  Some analysts argue that it is of negligible importance, attributing a more important role to sea-surface temperature variation.

This "climate change video contest" being sponsored in the USA by their EPA and NEEF organisations will serve no good purpose.  It is primarily a way for such organisations to judge the impact that their propaganda, and that of others intent on indoctrinating the young using climate scare materials, has had on this age group, 11-14 year olds.  What have the youngsters picked up on?  What has had most impact on them?  What new materials or spins would be most effective in increasing their fear and commitment, or rather those of the next waves of pupils?

It is not hard to refute or at least challenge the arrogant assurances of climate alarm campaigners.  Simple checks can do it, as shown above.  One day, perhaps it will be the pupils themselves who will do that in their own classrooms and homes, and thereby help put an end to the moral and intellectual abuse that they and their predecessors have been exposed to about climate and carbon dioxide.

Note added 07 Jan 2015.  In 2009: 'The Danish government in partnership with CNN just launched a new YouTube channel and a call for entries for individuals to "raise your voice" for climate change. The channel pulls together videos by celebrities, climate experts and concerned citizens. The best videos will be aired throughout the upcoming COP15 climate talks in Copenhagen this December.'

See: http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/computers/blogs/raise-your-voice-on-climate-change#ixzz3O80sjk8lHere is one such video shown in Copenhagen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkHfb2g7fMoDespicable or what? (hat-tip for reminding us of this piece of work: Climate Science )

Wind-Subsidy Farms Cause Loss to Society - one result of the ill-informed panic about rising CO2 levels in the air.

Source

This is a picture to look at alongside the one in the previous post.  Is this a mum the youngsters want to swear abuse at about her pension? I think she might struggle to make any kind of sense of their banner: 'MUM AND DAD DID YOU KNOW YOUR PENSION IS &%$#+#-UP MY FUTURE?'

Daniel Greenfield (hat-tip Greeniewatch) writes

'8,000 people die in the UK every year due to what is being called "Fuel Poverty". Fuel Poverty is a trendy term for those who can't afford to heat their home because all the solar panels and windmills, the coal bans and the wars on fracking have made it too expensive for people not to freeze to death..

The left, which never misses a chance to blame profiteering for the failure of its policies, is staging "Die-Ins" outside energy companies to protect the real "Die-Ins" that they caused. But the real "Die-Ins" don't involve bored university students lying down on the concrete and posting the results to Tumblr. They end with the generation that saved Europe from Hitler dying in their own homes.'

In Germany, Pierre Gosselin writes 'Energy poverty is defined by the number of households that must pay more than 10% of their net income on energy. All told 6.9 million German households (every 6th household) finds itself in energy poverty, Spiegel writes.  Much of the rapid increase in energy prices is owing to Germany’s growth in expensive wind and solar energy. Ironically, despite more than 20% of Germany’s energy now being supplied by renewables, CO2 emissions have been rising just the same.  Spiegel calls the energy poverty rate “alarming”. However, when it comes to finding the cause for the runaway increase, the German Greens are blaming all the misery on the rising costs of oil and gas, and even hint that just more expensive, unreliable green energy is all that’s needed to get the costs back in line.'

Meanwhile, back in the UK:

Photo: ALAMY

'Onshore wind farms are being paid £30 million a year to sit idle during the windiest weather.

The payments are made because the cables which transmit power from the turbines to the National Grid cannot cope with the amount of electricity they produce during stormy conditions.'

Whether their blades are turning or not, these wind-subsidy farms are devices for transferring money from the bulk of the population to the relatively rich handful of owners and operators.  In exchange, the people get higher electricity bills, defaced landscapes, and lost opportunities in a less economically competent society.

These are not the greatest of the harms caused so far by the pushers of climate alarm, but they are nevertheless appreciable and getting worse by the month.  And the further harm that the pushers, and the children of the climate scare could cause scarcely bears thinking about, but think about it we must.

Children of the Climate Scare Growing Up Badly

See how some of them are begging their parents, with a childish and offensive banner, to help rescue them from bad things:

The Guardian

These young people could have had climate scare talk directed at them in the nursery, at primary and secondary school, from the BBC and The Guardian and The Independent, and when they got to Oxford they met with climate scare evangelist Myles Allen (see his words at their site ).

Meanwhile, throughout their education so far, there has been no global warming of the kind used to launch this particular climate scare.  Remember Wirth’s hot meeting room in 1988?  Hansen’s hot testimony there? Gore’s stepladder?  The flood of books and websites for children and teachers pointing to rising global mean temperature as if that was irrefutable proof of a man-made catastrophe?   

There has been no upward movement of that particular measure for some 17 years (cue the invention of alternatives by the evangelists such as heat disappearing into oceans which had previously only been used by alarmists for hyping sea-level rises rather than for gobbling up infra-red from CO2 and keeping it out of the atmosphere by some magic yet to be elucidated).

What chance had these Children of the Scare? They seem to have little science (check out their 'Team'), and what they do have may have been distorted by the glib assurances and simple-minded notions about the so-called greenhouse effect and the relative importance of CO2 in the climate system pushed by climate campaigners.  In their world, for example, it is obvious, and needs no data, that hurricanes must get more frequent and more fierce. Trenberth after all, contrived a press conference to that effect to take advantage of a lively hurricane season in the USA*. Meanwhile, genuine experts in hurricanes pointed out that no such effect had been found (see Chap. 26 of The Delinquent Teenager for example).  Not so good for headlines, not so good for vivid tales in school books.  I wonder if many Children of the Scare have any notion of such reservations by experts?  Or that they can be found for each and every one of the various planks of the case for alarm?  I suspect not.

 As for urging investments into such as wind-subsidy farms, solar-subsidy farms, and associated manufacturing industries, my previous post illustrates some of the risks involved there.  The long string of green bankruptices in the States and elsewhere would seem to make the pursuit of such investments by pension funds a peculiar, and grossly irresponsible thing to do.

* That was 2004.  It seems he is still getting up to such tricks ten years later:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/19/comment-on-kevin-trenberths-interview-on-february-17-2014-an-example-of-misrepresenting-climate-science/

Note added 06 April 2014.  The launch event for this nasty escapade is described here: http://st-hughsmcr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/launch-event-of-push-your-parents.html?showComment=1393543747300

What Happens When Irresponsible Scientists Scare Innumerate Policy Makers into Panic Actions

Germany’s much ballyhooed Energiewende (transition to renewable energy) was supposed to show the whole world how switching over to green energy sources could reduce CO2 emissions, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, provide cheap electricity to citizens, and heroically rescue the planet.

Ten years later, the very opposite has happened: Germany’s CO2 emissions have been increasing, electricity prices have skyrocketed, the green jobs bubble has popped, and tens of thousands of jobs have disappeared. Worse: tens of billions are being redistributed from the poor to the rich. 

P. Gosselin , at No Tricks Zone

Follow the link for more details of the German experience, and of how the Australian government is taking note of it.  I want to finish my post here though by making some more general points.

Teachers and students of the various climate scares of recent decades should note that lesson from Germany when people say 'Why, even if we are wrong about climate catastrophe being driven by our CO2, we are going to do good things in response to our fears.'

The basic answer to such sophistry  is 'Oh no, you are not. You have already caused a great deal of avoidable misery and starvation by increasing basic food prices thanks to diverting farmland to produce bio-fuels.  You have threatened the economic development of both rich and poor countries by seeking to ban coal-fired power stations.  You have despoiled beautiful countryside with your solar panels and windfarms, and each has harmed wildlife, increased energy costs, and polluted the environment during manufacturing. You have scared children, and other vulnerable groups, with your talk of doom and disaster.  You have dismissed and downgraded the wonderful achievements of industry, and have provided in your carbon-schemes new financial opportunities for those who seek profit without contributing anything useful to society.  You have empowered bureaucracies such as the EPA in the States and the EU Commission in Europe to pursue eco-regulations at the expense of humanity.  The damage caused by the recent floods in southern England being but a recent instance of the harm that can be caused when the supposed protection of the environment takes precedence over human welfare and opportunities for development.'  

Paying for the Davids tackling the Goliaths of CAGW

My previous post noted that sums in excess of $22 billion a year are being spent on climate matters by federal agencies and sub-agencies in the United States, and every single one liable to have a vested interest in continued widespread alarm, at the very least within politics and mass media circles.  Monster agencies.  Goliaths in the game.  But, as the legend goes, a Goliath can be brought down by a boy with a well-aimed catapult.  Some do not even need to be brought down, merely calmed down.  Outside of government, if not outside of government funding, can be found wealthy corporations such as the WWF with a clear financial interest in stirring up fear to maintain their high profile and encourage donations, or the British Broadcasting Corporation which has chosen to promote climate alarm and hinder criticism of it.  These too are Goliaths.

The Davids of resistance to these Goliaths can be found on the blogosphere, and many, possibly, all are operating on budgets in the range between zero through shoestring to relatively modest. What would happen if those of us who admire their work were to make a bigger effort to make regular payments for it?  £5 a month  subscription from a thousand people would surely make quite a difference to many a solitary blogger with a great deal to contribute but also with a need to take care of themselves and their families.   It would also help to encourage larger organisations by providing tangible evidence of support.

So, readers of this blog, what can you afford to spend, month after month in a reliable fashion, for what you admire and think important in the climate saga?  Not all of us have the time, nor feel we have the talent, to write, to analyse, and to study the science or the policies involved in climate alarmism, but we can surely name many people who can to good effect.  Maybe we can chip in from time to time with comments and the odd donation, but maybe we could also tax ourselves to make regular payments?  I’ve worked out a percentage of my quite modest retirement income to spend, and will be looking into the setting up of standing orders to get this established as a routine, regular event.  I hope tens of thousands of others will do the same.  See the links on the rhs of this page for possible beneficiaries. Beneficiaries in the sense that writers of books are beneficiaries of those who buy them, and journalists are beneficiaries of those who buy their newspapers.

Jo Nova, in a comment  in response to Bob Tisdale’s recent announcement of his temporary retirement from full-time blogging because of a shortage of money, has suggested a more organised approach which looks very promising if suitable expertise and administrators can be found.  Her idea is to set up a fund to which people could make tax-deductible contributions, and which would support independent researchers: 

‘Bob, no, you know, I’m not satisfied with this. Not at all! How much would it take to keep you going? If we got 10,000 people to donate $10 a year, would that be enough? What if we made it $1 a month?($120k pa) 

There must be a better way to do this, and we grown-ups need to get serious. It’s crazy that we rely on government-sausage-machine-science, and dutifully pay our taxes of thousands every year but we can’t independently create say 20 full time jobs for people checking and critiquing the government output.

Yes, I’m as bonkers as you and none of us want to ask for money, but in the end we don’t survive on thanks and praise alone. It’s time to be smart. Science needs truly independent researchers. And those truly independent researchers deserve remuneration that means they can send their kids to decent schools, afford health care, fix the bathroom, and go on the odd holiday. At the moment, they’re self-funding — they raise the money through other work and shares

If anyone out there knows how to set up tax deductible non-profits (or understands the feasibility of it – is it worth doing?) you could make a big difference by pointing out where we ought to be aiming, and the short-cuts to get there… the independent real science sector would so appreciate legal and accounting advice.

Greenpeace and WWF can do it. Why are we willing to accept that sceptical scientists can’t?’

I hope something comes of that as well.  Jo Nova can be reached via her own blog:  http://joannenova.com.au/

Big Climate USA: a voracious monster scaring the children, and threatening the land and its people

 Monsters used to be part of mythology, but we can see them reappearing in modern forms to frighten children into conforming with the views and the demands of climate campaigners.  Where do they come from?  Who is paying for them?  Some answers for the States at least have surfaced recently.

A letter from the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives was sent in October 2013 to the director of the Office of Management and Budget to get an update ‘regarding climate change activities being carried out across the federal government’.  They appended a chart from 2011 listing ‘over 40 federal agencies and sub-agencies’ and asked if it was still accurate.  I daresay it may need enlarging now, but in the meantime here it is, a partial anatomy of a federal monster which is now gobbling up cash at the rate of at least $22 billion dollars per year:

The threat of man-made global warming is obviously quite expensive to study and promote, and it must seem even more so as record cold temperatures spread across the USA.  Record cold temperatures which of course were never part of the settled science of global warming, except of course in retrospect.

Modern Press Release

The latest wheeze of those promoting this scare in the States is to blame the cold spell on global warming via its presumed effect on a new piece of jargon for the general public, the polar vortex.  This is another sorry example of shoot-from-the-hip junk science designed to promote headlines and save face in the mass media.  It has already been discredited.  Like so many other examples of this in recent years, the speed of rebuttal is remarkable.  More and more informed people, I surmise, have lost patience with the charlatans who presume to speak in the name of Science when in fact they are merely crafters of press releases to suit the political needs of the moment.
See http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/record-cold-due-to-global-warming.html for a compilation of some relevant papers and articles on this particular piece of PR.
[P.S. Climate Depot has also assembled a  list of materials on the polar vortex spin]
[P.P.S Paul Homewood present more analysis in support of his concluding sentence 'More junk science from John Holdren. ']

But back to our monster.  Peter Wilson, writing in the American Thinker, published the above chart this month, and provides many interesting comments that are very relevant to the child-scaring propensities of the monster it reveals.  Namely the so-called educational initiatives (I have added the bolding):

 “A recent Wall Street Journal article expressed concern about low math and science standards in the Common Core curriculum, despite President Obama's frequent speechifying about the importance of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education.

There are many possible explanations for this sorry state of affairs, but one factor that doesn't add anything positive is the politicization of education, a culmination of fifty years of a "long march through the institutions" by leftists. Humanities and social sciences have been most corrupted, but STEM disciplines are being assaulted by a new agenda promoting "climate education" or "climate literacy."

A report titled "Climate Literacy," signed by President Obama's science czar John Holdren, declares that "Climate Science Literacy is part of Science [STEM] Literacy." The usual arguments are presented: 1) recent global warming "represents an extraordinary rapid rate of change compared to changes in the previous 10,000 years." 2) Rising temperatures will lead to "rising global sea level and increasing frequency and intensity of heat waves, droughts, and floods." 3) "human activities are now the primary cause of most of the ongoing increase in Earth's globally averaged surface temperature."

Many climate scientists disagree with these three propositions; at very least, they are partisan viewpoints with political implications that have no place in public education.

This campaign is being advanced by local, state and federal governments, by universities and various non-profits, and is aimed at K-16 -- kindergarten through college.”

An Inflatable Monster

This is an image of an inflatable monster.  

You can inflate a lot of monsters with $22 billion a year. Here's one at NOAA for example.

An informed public will see them for what they are, and more and more are joining in the sport of pricking them.  

Every one they burst, is one less to scare the kids with.  

Go Citizens, Go!

Note added 31 January 2014.  Mark Morano has compiled some links to informative materials on 'Big Climate': http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/30/prof-roger-pielke-jr-rips-big-climate-for-having-similarities-with-big-tobacco-big-nfl-pielke-jr-specifically-linked-un-i/

Note added 07 February 2014.  WUWT has an amusing clip on the deviousness behind one of the charts used by Holdren in the above propaganda broadcast: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/07/friday-funny-two-guys-with-a-ruler-blow-up-the-white-house-global-warming-video-claims/

Scaring Children about Climate - some good news, and some bad news at the end of 2013.

As can be seen in numerous posts and pages on this site, there are people willing to do horrible things in order to bolster their own political and/or financial prospects, or to flatter their egos as saviours of the world, or to damage industrialised economies or to suppress development opportunities in the less-industrialised ones.  I refer in particular to the deliberate intention of frightening children with horror stories about climate.  The frail notion that rising levels of CO2 are dominating the climate system to the imminent danger of life on Earth is the intellectual underpinning that seems to be required for such inhumane behaviour.  The good news is that there have been many scientific papers published in the past year which could help undermine the glib assurance of those who enjoy and benefit from standing on or around this dreadful platform.

The Good News

The good news which I want to feature here is the many setbacks this year in the scientific underpinnings for alarm over human impact on climate.  When the threadbare nature of the scientific case for such alarm, and the inevitable scaremongering which it encourages, are more widely exposed for what they are, the political support will surely weaken further, and then in due course our schools may become freer to concentrate on the education and on the pastoral care of their pupils and be less vulnerable to those who view them as potential recruits for sundry political causes such as ‘sustainable development’ and ‘carbon reduction’.  

There are a great many papers to choose from.  To provide an illustrative selection, I have chosen one for each month from just one blog, a blog which published dozens of reports every month, usually with a direct link to a scientific paper, or to a meta-analysis based on scientific papers.  Readers might like to take a look themselves by scrolling through the archives there:  THE HOCKEY SCHTICK             .

January: ‘Inconvenient truth: Sea level rise is decelerating’  

February: ‘Clouds/aerosols control the climate, not man-made CO2’   

March: ‘Analysis finds warming leads to less extreme storms’  

April: ‘New paper demonstrates temperature drives CO2 levels, not man-made CO2’  

May: ‘Global warming caused by CFCs, not carbon dioxide, study says’  

June: ‘New paper predicts a decrease in tropical cyclones in the future’   

July: ‘New paper finds climate change over decades primarily determined by the oceans'  

August:  ‘The skeptics were right: Climate changes naturally & these natural changes outweigh any man-made influences’  

September:  ‘New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate’   

November: ’ New paper finds evidence of Svensmark's cosmic ray theory of climate on a regional scale’

December: ‘Observations show IPCC exaggerates anthropogenic global warming by a factor of 7’ 

 

These are a somewhat arbitrary selection from the dozens of relevant posts in each of these months at that blog.  I make no claims that this selection includes the best papers, nor even that the source blog is the best or only place to find such links.  It is an encouraging aspect of the disparate resistance to scaremongering over climate that there are a great many sites and blogs around which can provide entries into the scientific literature, and often helpful summaries and commentaries as well.  

A major contribution of the year was, in my view 'Climate Change Reconsidered II', and I will say a little more about it at the end of this post.  (I helped it along in one of the most modest of ways one can contribute to such a venture:  by reviewing one of the chapters ahead of publication.).

The Bad News

The bad news is, in essence, that the production of materials and the creation of initiatives to win children over to causes underpinned by climate-scaremongering continues  The pressure on children remains relentless and widespread.  Some may be due to hard-hearted activists, some may be due to decent people duped by the relentless propaganda they themselves have been subjected to, in some cases all their lives.  Here are a few recent examples:

UNICEF:  they have a new campaign, and a new catchphrase ‘A Climate Fit for Children’   In the UK, they run a schools network pushing children into political actions, and it wants to get into this new campaign as well:  ‘Children and young people have a powerful voice and it’s one our decision-makers should be listening to.’

University of Leeds (and others):  they think it a wheeze to rope children into preparing feel-good propaganda about a low-carbon future by getting them to work with deep greens such as Derrick Jensen to produce cartoons for the cause.  (I wonder how they cover the suffering and waste due that cause) 

The product of this cartooning is a graphic novel which ‘is being circulated to schools and museums throughout the UK, as well as selected comics shops.’

Greenpeace plays the Santa card.  Every year it seems some eco-loon or other spots this opportunity. Suzuki has tried it for example.  Now the bourgeois hooligans of Greenpeace have had a shot at it: Santa under threat from disappearing ice.  A miserable effort from miserable people determined to darken all our lives. It won them a Bah Humbug Award from ACM, but it really deserves deeper contempt than that conveys.

ColdPlay soundtrack for a junk video aimed at kids.  A video described on the rtcc site as having had the support of the Foreign Office (something I hope someone will investigate).  The video contains a doom-laden future thanks to 'climate change' - the classic CAGW stuff.  Designed to keep children awake at night.  Awake and screaming for help perhaps.[6 Jan: Climate Science has highlighted the Foreign Office connection]

‘Common Core’  in the USA. That’s the official name for sweeping changes proposed in developing a national curriculum in the States. It doesn’t look good for the children.  For example, in Colorado ‘Fifth grade students at Fremont Elementary School in Colorado were assigned a reading passage that describes global warming as a dangerous, man-made phenomenon that will destroy civilization in a few hundred years.'  Everyone wants to do their bit to disturb the young, even teachers of English it would seem.  Another report entitles this 'Students Receive Doomsday Climate Propaganda' and that seems about right.

UNESCO deep in planning for ESD next year.      (ESD = Education for Sustainable Development.)  By which they mean 'suppressed development', and which of course is driven by the usual set of climate fears, and buttressed by any other eco-scare you care to mention.  The banner of sustainable development is the big vehicle for the political and financial ambitions for many taking advantage of the climate scaremongering.  Who could possibly be against 'sustainable' they must suppose.  Anyone who has given it more than a moment's thought would be my response.  Anyway, there is to be an ESD conference in Japan in November, 2014.  I'd like to think it will be cancelled for lack of interest, but that would require a lot of wishful thinking to be sustainable for very long, sad to say.

[Note added 12 Oct 2017:  Good news. USA to quit UNESCO in 2018.  Not before time.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/12/u-s-withdraws-from-unesco-the-u-n-s-cultural-organization-citing-anti-israel-bias/?utm_term=.d79a39b9fdb2]

Looking Ahead

The hapless shipload of climateers currently stuck in the Antarctic ice provides a fittingly allegorical end to 2013 for the CAGW movement as captured by Josh (hat-tip: Bishop Hill):

http://cartoonsbyjosh.com

Let us hope that they are all brought to safety in due course, but let us also hope that their cause continues to be morally and intellectually and economically and politically in trouble next year as well, and in every successive year until it is dismissed forever as an awful aberration.  One that nevertheless caused a great deal of harm while it lasted.  

Loss of respect for science may well be one of the longer-lasting effects, but it will take more and more scientists to lift their attention from their own studies and devote some serious attention to what has been done in their name if this aberration is to end sooner rather than later.  The Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change has been doing sterling work in building up a body of research .  Its report 'Climate Change Reconsidered II' was for me one of the most important events in 2013, not least because this report could be of value for years to come for scientists intent on getting more information about what we know and don't know about the climate system, and who have realised that they cannot trust the IPCC, nor those who embellish and exaggerate what it has chosen to publish..  I hope that more and more teachers, educational leaders and administrators, and interested politicians will come to the same realisation sooner rather than later.

[hat-tip: Dave W for some of the links used in this post, and for general encouragement]

A Merry Christmas to all my readers!

Not being blessed, if you like, with religion myself I still find a great deal to admire in Christianity: the compassion, and generosity to be found in the texts and amongst so many of its followers, and the beauty-that-can-make-you-gasp to be found in some of its buildings, large and small, and also in some of the music.  The above singing and the building it is taking place in, are fine examples of this.  

More usual posts will resume before the New Year - I have a bit of a backlog of ideas and notes, but most of them are about matters that invoke the opposite of the cheerful spirit of this coming week in much of the world.  So I'll leave them to one side for a few more days.  

Cringing Teacher, Bold Pupils - Australian youngsters strike a blow against climate dogma in their classroom

Jo Nova has an inspiring report up on her blog:

A reader Russell writes in to tell me his Year 9 son Jordan and his friend, Tom, took on their teacher’s sacred belief in man-made global warming. Given no warning, and called insulting names in front of the class, they took up the challenge with gusto and stayed up til 1am that night to put the presentation together. Not surprisingly the teacher tried to pull out the next day, but the class would not let her.

Jo continues:

From reader Russell:

The other week at school my eldest son (15) was challenged by his teacher to present to the class why he is a ”climate change denier”. He had to do this presentation the next day.

At the start of his class the next day he advised the teacher he was ready.  She told him she wasn’t interested now, maybe another day. His classmates started heckling her saying ”You Chicken Miss”. She eventually agreed and got another teacher to sit in as well. Before my son spoke she showed the class the promo to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. After his presentation the class gave him a standing ovation. There is a lot more to this story, the above overview sort of explains what occurred.

To start his talk he read out five quotes from the ”US Senate Minority Report” below, then his power point. She made him stop the Prof Carter video 3min into it, the Prof Ball podcast about 5min in and let the class watch the other 10min video all the way through.

'May there be a thousand young rebels following in their footsteps', says Jo.

Amen to that! 

See Jo's post for more details: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/two-high-school-students-take-on-teacher-over-climate-and-win-standing-ovation/





Footnote 1.  The presentation which the pupils only had a few h ours to put together, begins with this statement signed by Edward Teller, one of the world's most distinguished physicists:

Footnote 2. WUWT has an informative report on how one mass media outlet in the States chose to obscure  Teller's signature in a broadcast featuring the 'Oregon Petition', and he notes there another extremely distinguished physicist had also signed the same statement: Freeman Dyson -

Indoctrination in Suppressed Development in New Zealand Schools

“The indoctrination of high school students as a directive of the UN’s Agenda 21 and common core global education standards has shown up in New Zealand exam papers.”

 Thus writes Ian Wishart* in an article published last week on the NZ website Investigate Daily.  He continues:

“Two exam papers from different students in the 2008 year are clearly wrong on the facts, but nonetheless gained “Excellence” in New Zealand’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exams and are paraded on the Ministry of Education website as “exemplars” to measure up to.

The two exams show children were brainwashed with inaccurate information on New Zealand history, and caricatures of modern worldviews reflecting curriculum bias.

You can read the offending exam papers here exemplar-3-2008-exam”

One of the questions required the pupil to compare and contrast ‘capitalist’ with ‘indigenous’ world views.  A caricature of each seems to have been taught to the pupils, and these caricatures are admired in the examples. 

Now, given that capitalism has led to the most dramatic improvements ever in the quality of life of people (e.g. with respect to air, water, food, and shelter quality), of domesticated animals (modern husbandry practices), and indeed to great strides forward in helping conserve wild animals and wild lands, and that primitive lifestyles have made no such progress, you would be astonished to learn that remarks such as the following seem to have received high marks in these New Zealand exams:

Source

‘[The capitalist world view] is that the economy, society and the environment are in no way connected and therefore not affecting one another.”

‘[The indigenous world view is that] the environment, society and economy are linked and each individually important and highly significant to the other.’.

‘Culturally the capitalists behaviour is to live in the present, with little reverence of interest in their ancestory [sic] and their traditions are selectively upheld.’

‘The indigenous people place a lot of emphasise [sic] on tradition and pass it on orally through generations so their history is ‘alive’.  This benefits these later generations significantly as they can learn skills such as hunting, fishing and harvesting.’

 ‘The capitalists practise exploitation against [sic] the environment.  They are production and resource based.  They use the natural resources of the land to turn a profit..  When the resources in that particular area are used up they simply move on, destroying that land for future generations.’

 ‘The indigenous people work in harmony with the land.  They act as stewards of the land, without enforcing their power over it as they are spiritually connected to it.  They practise subsistence production, taking enough and no more from the land.’

See the exam papers for more examples: http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf

Now this simplistic romanticisation of ‘indigenous’ societies and equally simplistic demonisation of ‘capitalist’ societies is so widespread, that the poor teachers and pupils can scarcely be blamed for replicating it.  Yet where is the success?  Where are people healthier, better fed, better sheltered, and so on?  Where do people live longer?  Where are slash and burn agricultural practices most discouraged?  Where is air quality, indoors and out, higher? Where is environmental improvement and conservation more strongly supported?  

The gross simplifications are of course part and parcel of the promotion of 'sustainable development' - a notion that would be more informatively described as 'suppressed development'.

It would be better if both pupils and teachers were less dogmatic here.  Capitalism is at heart, the simple matter of free trading amongst individuals and communities, and the accumulation of surpluses with which to try for more and better things.  As Adam Smith pointed out long ago, the pursuit of individual self-interest that this seems to imply is highly conducive to societal improvement.  Others have noted that this also thrives best under conditions of intellectual and political freedom.  To merely disparage one caricature, and look at the other through rose-tinted spectacles is not good for education.  Good for indoctrination though.  Perhaps essential for that.

*Ian WIshart has just published a book called ‘Totalitaria’:

‘An explosive new book says the United Nations has rolled out a global education policy designed to indoctrinate children to accept a planned world government regime.

Revelations are made in the new book “Totalitaria: What If The Enemy Is The State?” by award-winning investigative journalist and bestselling author Ian Wishart.

The book reveals the policy is part of Agenda 21 and also the UN’s world education curriculum, and it has been implemented in New Zealand as part of NCEA national standards and will underpin the controversial “Common Core” education standards in the USA.

Journalist Ian Wishart says the agenda actually stretches back almost to the inception of the United Nations:

“Back in the 1950s the top officials in the United Nations came up with a very long term plan to change the world to accept a global ruler. They felt the only way to bring world peace was to bring in some form of global government based on new spiritual values of peace and love. In the book I quote the UN officials and their documents on this.

“They figured out the most strategic way to force this change was to build up public fear about different world problems, so that eventually people would practically beg for global government – which, of course, the UN was perfectly placed to provide.”

Among the crisis opportunities they seized on was climate change.’

More details here: http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/4657/climate-change-and-global-governance-linked-to-green-religion/

Looks very promising... 

Kindle edition available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Totalitaria-What-Enemy-State-ebook/dp/B00GAN74WS

[Note added later: I've skimmed through the Kindle edition, and I must warn readers that it is a rather frantic, lively account of Lucifer-worshipping people of influence in the UN and elsewhere.  That makes it a bit hard to take seriously, but it does contain a lot of information as well as provocative comments.]

More on the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers: multiple retreats disguised and spun for PR at the expense of science

Leading authors from the NIPCC have reviewed the IPCC’s  ‘Summary for Policy Makers’.   They were not impressed.  Who would be?  It is a mix of tawdry spin and feeble science.  Here are some extracts from their review, with the review headings shown in bold:

Introduction

The IPCC has retreated from at least 11 alarmist claims promulgated in its previous reports or by scientists prominently associated with the IPCC.  The SPM also contains at least 13 misleading or untrue statements, and 11 further statements that are phrased in such a way that they mislead readers or misrepresent important aspects of the science.

…

1. IPCC Retreats

Eleven statements made in the 2013 SPM apparently retreat from more alarmist positions struck in earlier Assessment Reports or in related research literature. These repositionings are to be welcomed when they move the IPCC’s commentary closer to scientific reality.

[see the full review, linked to above, for details of each of these 11 retreats – none of which are recognised as such in the IPCC materials.]

…

2. Misleading or Untrue Statements

The following 13 statements by the IPCC are written in such a way that although they may be technically true, or nearly true, they are misleading of the actual state of affairs.

[see the full review, linked to above, for details of each of these 13 statements – all presumably spun to assist the political wishes of those driving the IPCC, wishes which require there to be a climate crisis caused by industrial development.]

…

3. Deceptive Language that Misrepresents the Science

The following 11 statements by the IPCC create an unjustifiable impression of either scientific certainty or false alarm, or appear to have been chosen to evade conclusions that run counter to the IPCC’s belief in dangerous human-caused warming.

[see the full review, linked to above, for details of each of these 11 statements – once again all presumably spun to assist the political wishes of those driving the IPCC]

…

4. Advice for Policymakers

Between 1988 and 2001 (the span of preparation of its first three Assessment Reports), the United Nation’s IPCC was the sole international body able to provide advice to governments on the global warming issue. With the formation of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) in 2003, a second and independent team of scientific assessors began to emerge.

Now, with the release of new 2013 reports by both the IPCC and NIPCC, due-diligence analysis, such as that contained in this briefing paper, is finally possible. The IPCC’s “Green Team” scientific advice can now be weighed against the views of a “Red Team” of independent scholars.

With the same set of peer-reviewed scientific papers available to them, the scientists of the IPCC and NIPCC have come to diametrically opposing conclusions. IPCC scientists remain alarmist about the threat of human-caused global warming, even while they admit observations increasingly invalidate their model-based predictions. They are reluctant to acknowledge past errors and new research that challenge their hypothesis of human-caused dangerous climate change.

In stark contrast, NIPCC scientists find no hard evidence for a dangerous human-caused

warming. They find the null hypothesis – that observed changes in climate are due to natural causes only – cannot be rejected. NIPCC scientists remain open to new discoveries and further debate.

In 2013, any engaged policymaker or commentator has a responsibility to be fully familiar with the arguments and conclusions adduced by both of these teams of climate advisors. Towards this end, we present the primary conclusions of NIPCC’s latest report as they are stated in its Summary for Policymakers:

1. We conclude neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.  Furthermore, solar forcings of temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful.

2. We conclude no unambiguous evidence exists for adverse changes to the global environment caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme

meteorological events; and an increased release of methane into the atmosphere from

permafrost or sub-seabed gas hydrates is unlikely.

3. We conclude the current generation of global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100 year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation until they have been validated and shown to have predictive value.

[this final section has been reproduced here, above, in full, but with italics and bold added].

Any parents or teachers or other responsible adults wishing to tackle the hyperbole, the assurance, and the deceptions of those intent on misleading children about our impact on climate have to do their own studies to highlight what is going on, and to be in a position to argue for reform.  This might seem an impossible task for non-specialists, but that need not be the case.  Many people around the world are working to expose this scandal and bring it to a wider audience.  See the list of blogs on the right-hand side of the screen for examples.  Amateurs and professionals are involved.  Subject-matter specialists are too, as are many who bring general analytical and/or communication skills to the task in hand.  There is little by way of organisation. This is more of a spontaneous, scattered uprising against an establishment of vested or political interests whose policy and other interventions have already caused great harm.  Most of us will have something to contribute to help replace the exaggerations and other excesses of that establishment with calmer, more soundly-based perspectives about what is going on and what may happen in the future.  The NIPCC reports, to which I have recently contributed in a very modest way as a pre-publication reviewer, are at the more technical end, but even there, there is much that is readily accessible.