Targeting Children for the Cause of Acute Climate Alarm over CO2 - will the zealots ever stop?

Two new pieces in the Yale Climate Media Forum were announced yesterday.

Parenting in an Age of Climate Change:Communicating the Tough Truths to Children
by Allison Guerette & John Wihbey

Climate Change Included in Science Teaching Guidelines
by Lisa Palmer








(The editor, Bud Ward, is not a neutral observer of the climate change fiasco. For example, he is one of the jurors for something called the Schneider Award, and they unanimously gave it to James Hansen last year.  I wonder if it is awarded to whoever was deemed to be the best at creating Schneiderian Scenarios - 'scary', 'simplified', 'dramatic' - with which to engage our attention?  Hansen would surely be a frequent contender if so.)

There is a lot to be studied in these two articles, and I hope to get back to them next week.  In the meantime, Tom Nelson has picked up on one point, and I have spotted another.  Here they are:

 (1) Inoculating children against ideas disturbing to the zealotry

Tom Nelson 
 Good question: How can left-wing teachers "inoculate" children so that they don't believe it when their parents tell them that CO2 doesn't cause bad weather?

From 'Parenting in an Age of Climate Change: Communicating the Tough Truths to Children | The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media':

"In a 2010 address to the National Science Teachers Association, Lynne Cherry, author and director of the Young Voices on Climate Change films, put forward the following prescription for dealing with climate change issues and the sometimes-pernicious influence of media:

How we can respond to the current onslaught against climate change in the media? We can “inoculate” kids by having them not just learning about climate science but actually going outdoors and doing climate science."

(2) On a 'steadily-rolling disaster' calling into question 'the very way we live'
The text in quotes is taken from the second paragraph of the article by Guerette & Wihbey linked to earlier.  I have submitted a comment on it.  If past experience is anything to go by, it will not appear*.  So here it is, with italics and emboldening added:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

April 24, 2013 at 3:23 am

 

Quote “Climate change offers a unique parenting challenge: a steadily-rolling disaster to which we all contribute, punctuated by periodic events and mounting scientific evidence. It calls into question the very way we live and the world we will leave for our children.”

Well, the absence of warming over most of the past two decades does not look to me like a ‘steadily-rolling disaster’, nor does the drop in hurricane activity, nor does the absence of anything extraordinary happening anywhere in weather, ice extents, or sea levels and temperatures.

We most assuredly will face climate-linked challenges in the years to come – we always have and we always will. But I rather think we would be better prepared to deal with them by doing more of the most successful ‘way to live’ the world has ever seen.

I think you would all do better to leave the children out of this squabble, and try your best to protect their childhood from political interference.

*Note added 25 April 2013  Hurray I was wrong! The comment has appeared, and a response to it.  Hope springs eternal.  Pushed for time at the moment but will try to get a reply in before the end of today, after which I will have no chance to do so for several days.

Note added later on 25 April.  Here is my reply:

'Thank you for responding, Leiran.  I followed the link you gave, but I found nothing there to disabuse me of my ‘facts’. I saw the charts showing changes, but since climate always changes I would expect to see such charts. If we could contrive this by some magic, at just about any period in our atmosphere's history, we would find such charts.  Depending on the space and time scale you choose to focus on, we are typically warming or cooling, seeing ice extents vary, and so on, over days, decades, and centuries. On the grander scale of millions of years, we can see that generally the planet has been warmer than now, and  that over thousands of years, that we are in an overall cooling trend within our relatively warm phase, the Holocene interglacial, of the current ice age.

I do not see an indication of a ‘dramatic global temperature increase’ following the industrial revolution.  I do see a gentle one since the end of the Little Ice Age, say from about 1850 onwards.  And within that, I see nothing to convince me that the remarkable rise in ambient CO2 levels since the 1970s has had any discernible effect – the rises in the first part of the 20th century being somewhat similar in rate and size as those which occurred later under higher CO2 levels.  Nor, in my innocence, would I expect CO2 to have a major influence.  It is a trace gas whose contribution to the brief delaying of heat loss from the Earth’s surface to space is very modest compared with the contributions of airborne water in all its phases.  It also does not seem to contribute much at all to the great heat engine of the climate system – the daily transfer of heat from the tropics towards the poles, a system which dominates our weather and in which water plays a very important role. 

I first started on a serious study of the climate system in the mid 1970s, and after a gap of some decades, I am getting back to it now.  So please be assured my remarks are not casual, nor are they intended to be provocative.  I have not been convinced that there is sufficient reason to be alarmed about CO2, and I have looked on with bemusement at the strange mix of severely damaging policy proposals and actions passed with great assurance by some while the climate really does go on behaving pretty much as if the additional CO2 doesn’t really matter very much.  Just like Prof Lindzen expected it to.  Let me commend this report of a talk by him from 1989 to you: http://www.fortfreedom.org/s46.htm

My bemusement turns to horror, dismay and sometimes anger when I see the same sort of assurance bringing scare stories to the young about climate threats attributed to mankind’s influence.   That seems to me to be an abandonment of a basic adult responsibility to protect children from terrifying beliefs about their world when the grounds for such beliefs are so flimsy. '

Note added 5 May: the reply did not get past the moderator!  But a good couple of comments from Barry Woods did - see comments below.
Note added 8 May: I just tried again to post a comment, using only the first two paragraphs of the one above in case a shorter comment has more chance of success.

Hold Fast, South Dakota – keep facile and destructive climate alarmism out of your schools!

An informative article in South Dakota's Argus Leader presents the dilemma facing education administrators in that State as they prepare to debate and decide on whether to adopt 'The Next Generation Science Standards' as released earlier this month..

The Argus Leader article notes

"A core idea in the standards is that “human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming).”

“That idea is not controversial among the 41 scientists and educators who wrote the standards. But many politicians consider man’s influence on global climate change to be unresolved.”

And goes on to note:

“Three years ago, the South Dakota Legislature passed a nonbinding resolution that urged public schools to take a “balanced approach” when teaching climate change. It asserted the science on the subject is unsettled, open to interpretation and prejudiced by politics.”

There is wisdom here.  But it is under threat from the new curriculum being offered to all States.  It may or may not be adopted in South Dakota:

"Mary Stadick Smith, deputy secretary for the Department of Education, said there is no timeline for the agency’s review of the standards.“We need to review them carefully and we’re going to move forward cautiously to make sure these are the right things for our students,” she said."

 She is being reasonable.

The simple-minded view that human contributions in particular, and rising CO2 levels in general, are major drivers of ‘global warming’ has received criticism for decades from scientists, and Mother Nature has helped them along by refusing to cooperate with the dramatically rising temperature plots produced, after a great deal of pampering, by global climate models (GCMs), and widely promoted by such as the IPCC.

Two reports published this month in Europe add yet more weight to the case for admitting the complexity of the climate system and the importance of many other factors influencing it.  Factors which by and large the IPCC claims little knowledge of, and which the GCMs can’t handle at all or can’t handle at all well. 

Here are the key points recently presented by 4 professors from universities in Belgium:

“The authors of this contribution were recently been granted the honour of presenting their point of view as climate sceptics at the Royal Academy of Belgium. During a series of six well-attended lectures we showed, among other things, that:

1. The climate has always changed. This was true during ancient times and it has also been true since the beginning of the modern era. These climate changes have always been, and still are, independent of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere;
2. During Roman times and the Middle Ages temperatures were observed well in excess of those currently experienced. From the 16th till the 19th century a cold period referred to as the “Little Ice Age” predominated. All these changes took place without mankind being held responsible. We believe that the increase in temperatures that occurred during a certain part of the 20th century is the result of a recovery from this cold period. These various events can be explained by a combination of warm and cold cycles of different magnitudes and duration. Why and how this happens is not yet fully understood, but some plausible explanations can be put forward;
3. The so-called “abnormally rapid” increase in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 is not unusual at all. There have in fact been several such periods in the past, during which temperatures rose in a similar manner and at comparable rates, even though fossil fuels were not yet in use;
4. Temperature measurements do not necessarily correlate with a building up or a decrease in heat since heat variations are energy changes subject to thermal inertia. Apart from heat many other parameters have an influence on temperature. Moreover the measurement of temperatures is subject to numerous large errors. When the magnitude and plurality of these measurement errors are taken into account, the reported increase in temperatures is no longer statistically significant;
5. The famous “Hockey-stick” curve, known as the Mann’s curve and presented six times by the IPCC in its penultimate report, is the result among other things of a mistake in the statistical calculations and an incorrect choice of temperature indicators, i.e. proxies. This lack of scientific rigour has totally discredited the curve and it was withdrawn, without any explanation, from subsequent IPCC reports;
6. Even though they look formidably complex, the theoretical models employed by the climate modellers are simplified to the extreme. In fact there are far too many (known and unknown) parameters that influence climate change. At the moment it is impossible to take them all into account. The climate system is extremely complex, containing not only chaotic components but also numerous positive and negative feedback loops operating according to various different time scales. Which is why the IPCC wrote in its reports that: “…long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (page 774, Third report). This is very true. To this day all the climate predictions based upon these models have turned out to be totally incorrect. Strangely, nobody seems to care;
7. The relationship between CO2 and temperature, obtained from the Vostok ice cores, shows that a building up of CO2 occurs 800 to 1000 years after an increase in temperature is observed. Hence the increase in the concentration of CO2 is a consequence of the warming of the climate, not its cause;
8. But the coup de grâce to the “warmists’ theory” – certainly not yet visible in the French and Belgian media – comes from the observation that for the past fifteen years or so the global temperature of the Earth has remained constant. During the same period CO2 emissions have increased by far more than in the past, reaching an unparalleled record this year. Honest climate scientists admit that this observation is an embarrassing inconvenience for their theory. However, attempts to make us believe that the Earth is continuing to warm up persist. Will we have to wait for another twenty, twenty-five or thirty years for the global warming advocates to finally admit that there is no unambiguous correlation between the global temperature of the Earth and human-generated CO2 emissions?
9. The claim that Hurricane Sandy is due to human CO2 emissions is totally unfounded and has been vigorously contested by numerous meteorologists. This regrettable distortion of the facts has been denounced in an open letter, addressed to the General Secretary of the UN and signed by more than 130 world-renowned scientists, including one of the present authors;
10. Finally the “abnormal” melting of the Arctic Sea ice, that made the headlines of numerous journals during this summer, was also observed during previous decades. Amazingly the record high increase in Antarctic Sea ice that occurred at exactly the same time has been completely ignored by the very same media. Moreover, no mention has been made of the current, particularly rapid, regeneration of the Arctic Sea ice.

These ten statements are facts. We would be ready to accept that they could be wrong, if evidence were presented to scientifically disprove them. In the meantime, and in view of the lack of coherence and unreliability associated with the numerous predictions made by the IPCC, it is time to set the record straight. The public and politicians must be informed about the hypothetical character of the predominant ‘consensus’ on climate change, which has been uncritically disseminated in the media for more than ten years. If it ever existed, this so-called “climate change consensus” has now been totally undermined by the facts."

Source: http://www.thegwpf.org/belgian-scientists-double-standards-climate-change/

Also this month, from further north in Europe, from Norway comes another report full of trenchant and well-supported criticisms of the simple-minded view of the climate system which has so exercised decent people as well as political and financial opportunists of many kinds over recent decades:

“To illustrate the way that scientific, political and ethical concerns are mixed in the debate on Anthropogenic Global Warming this report used the by now famous quote from Gro Harlem Brundtland, that ”doubt has been eliminated”, and that it is ”irresponsible, reckless and deeply immoral to question the seriousness of the situation” as a point of departure. 

The goal of the report was to enter this debate and “battlefield” of arguments and take stock of the debate about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Based on the present review of this debate there are several conclusions to be drawn. The first and simplest one is that considered as an empirical statement, the assertion that “doubt has been eliminated” on AGW is plainly false.“

Source: http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071,%20Consensus%20and%20Controversy.pdf

Hat tip for the two reports: Global Warming Policy Foundation.


Hat tip for the newspaper report from Dakota: Tom Nelson