For an example of a school board president so entrenched in climate alarmism that he can neither discuss it rationally, nor with any courtesy, nor tolerate materials which are critical of them, I present: Michael Kundu, of Washington state.
The nature of the man was partially exposed by Jo Nova in 2009:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/06/school-president-censors-science/
Now he is in the news for making racially provocative remarks, and discovering the 'freedom of speech' he denied to others on climate. His constituency re-elected him last year despite his arrogance and ignorance on climate, but they may not be so forgiving this time. Some more details here:
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100621/NEWS01/706219953&news01ad=1
Extract: 'Board president Sherri Crenshaw said she hopes Kundu simply steps down. She said his comments on freedom of speech were an effort to excuse his poor judgement.'
Roll on the day when school boards will be at least as much scandalised by CO2 alarmism.
In the meantime, let me repeat Jo Nova's words from last year:
'For the record, so historians 300 years from now can soak in how deeply the exaggerated enhanced greenhouse gas theory was embedded in ‘popular culture’ and our education system. Here are the emails from Michael Kundu, Board President of Marysville District #25, which has around 11,000 students:'
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/michael-kundu-censors-science/
Monday, 21 June 2010
Friday, 18 June 2010
The new missionaries - evangelical alarmists from Britain spreading the faith to children in China
From the New York Times yesterday:
'Chinese colleges were ordered in February to sever all ties with Oxfam, which was accused by the education ministry of having a hidden political agenda.
But other groups are beginning to make some headway. The Jane Goodall Institute has its "Roots and Shoots" youth environmental education program operating in nine schools and clubs in Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin, and the British Council has been operating its "Climate Cool, Green Your School" teacher training program for three years now.
The program, which takes the climate change message into Chinese classrooms via training the teachers is going strong with the active support and participation of Chinese officials.
"I am not aware of any other NGO that is able to have the access that we do in China," a British Council spokesman told ClimateWire. "We have very good links with the Chinese government."
Annual workshops run by the Global Action Plan environmental charity on behalf of the British Council take several hundred Chinese secondary school teachers at a time and provide them with a combination of presentations and interactive participation sessions on complex climate issues. The teachers then take the messages and the Western teaching methods back into their schools and their classrooms.'
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/17/17climatewire-british-run-climate-projects-take-root-in-ch-65821.
Hat-tip: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
Would that the insight which led to them chucking out Oxfam, were extended asap to those other missionary groups mentioned.
'Chinese colleges were ordered in February to sever all ties with Oxfam, which was accused by the education ministry of having a hidden political agenda.
But other groups are beginning to make some headway. The Jane Goodall Institute has its "Roots and Shoots" youth environmental education program operating in nine schools and clubs in Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin, and the British Council has been operating its "Climate Cool, Green Your School" teacher training program for three years now.
The program, which takes the climate change message into Chinese classrooms via training the teachers is going strong with the active support and participation of Chinese officials.
"I am not aware of any other NGO that is able to have the access that we do in China," a British Council spokesman told ClimateWire. "We have very good links with the Chinese government."
Annual workshops run by the Global Action Plan environmental charity on behalf of the British Council take several hundred Chinese secondary school teachers at a time and provide them with a combination of presentations and interactive participation sessions on complex climate issues. The teachers then take the messages and the Western teaching methods back into their schools and their classrooms.'
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/06/17/17climatewire-british-run-climate-projects-take-root-in-ch-65821.
Hat-tip: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/
Would that the insight which led to them chucking out Oxfam, were extended asap to those other missionary groups mentioned.
Schools' Low Carbon Day - Hoax, Scam, Astroturf, or Genuine?
The lack of a telephone number, a street address, and people's names on the website promoting Schools' Low Carbon Day has got me unsettled. (http://www.lowcarbonday.com/)
They claim to be a 'group of concerned mothers', but do not identify themselves
They claim to have created a registered charity, but I was not able to find any registration for it in Britain.
The site is somewhat timeless, other than the 24th June date in the title, and also fails to include any news about what is happening other than a flier near the top of the homepage claiming 1,600 schools have registered. No details of when they did so, or where they are, or what they might be planning.
I have done a little, inconclusive, digging on the web, and have put the results below, inspired by Kipling's verse:
I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
What: The site states 'Our vision is to set aside a morning to teach children all over the country about climate change, to focus children on their own energy consumption and to inspire children and their families to cut their carbon footprint.'. Teaching plans are offered, as is advice for parent and pupils on how they can change their energy consumption, and other actions claimed to be good for the climate. All stuff that could readily be garnered from the many sites pushing it.
Why: Four possibilities occur to me.
1. Hoax. Someone or some group assembled the site to see what would happen
2. Scam. Someone or some group wants to entice payments from schools and parents.
3. Astroturf. Someone or somegroup wants to give the impression of 'grass-roots' support for climate alarmism.
4. Genuine. There really is a group of 'concerned mothers' who want to help save the planet.
Of these, I currently find 2. and 3. the most plausible. The site is very slick, and well put together. Too slick, and too lifeless, for 4. Too much work for 1.
When: The Day is scheduled to be Thursday, 24th June 2010. It is not clear when the initiative began, but right at the foot of their website pages, there is a copyright claim dated 2009 for 'Mothers Against Climate Change'.
How: The website invites schools and parents to register their interest, and receive packs of some kind. The site also provides lists of things they could do on the day, and of habits they should cultivate to be good (walk to school, eat less meat, switch off lights, and so on).
Where: Presumably the UK. But this is not made explicit. They refer to 'cars' rather than 'automobiles', and the school categories offered on the registration form are 'State' and 'Independent' - both terms used in the UK, but not, for example, in the States.
Who: No information on the site, other than the talk of 'concerned mothers' and 'a registered charity', and a copyright notice at the foot of the homepage for 'Mothers Against Climate Change'.
I think the charity may be called 'Cooling the World' or 'Cool the World', but I could find no reference to in on the Charities Commission site for England and Wales (http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk), nor in the equivalent office in Scotland (http://www.oscr.org.uk/). Same null results for 'Mothers Against Climate Change'.
I also found reference to a Facebook group called 'Moms Against Climate Change':
http://www.facebook.com/MomsAgainstClimateChange, which seems to be based in Canada, and which has produced an apparently oleaginous promotional video (http://www.earthfeed.com/the-trouble-with-the-climate-change-movement). I do not belong to Facebook, and so I have not looked at this further.
More Googling led to the name 'Erica Robb', said to be a founder of 'Cool the World', and a promoter of low carbon day here: http://www.healthypages.co.uk/newsitem.php?news=6265
This link names an 'Erica Charles' as the founder of 'Cool the World': http://naturalmatters.net/news-view.asp?news=4151
I found an intriguing FOI request asking if the UK Department for Education had paid any money to a charity called 'Cooling the World' - they denied having done so (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_cool_the_world_2 )
They have a sidebar with quotes in it. There are only four: 2 from politicians (Ed Balls, Greg Clark ), 1 from Sir John Houghton, and 1 from a Juliet Davenport who runs a company selling 'green power' (http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/)
There are links to marketing sites for carbon trading and 'green-tariff'; electricity suppliers (see: http://www.lowcarbonday.com/low_carbon_day.php, and scroll down to 'Offsetting emissions')
Anyway, enough of this amateur sleuthing. Perhaps others may be able to dig more deeply into this.
In the meantime, I will complete my notes challenging their claims about climate, whoever they are, and hope to publish these here today or tomorrow.
Note added 28 Oct 2017 Julia Davenport is still making a nuisance of herself:
https://twitter.com/telstarnotuber/status/923847348203216896
They claim to be a 'group of concerned mothers', but do not identify themselves
They claim to have created a registered charity, but I was not able to find any registration for it in Britain.
The site is somewhat timeless, other than the 24th June date in the title, and also fails to include any news about what is happening other than a flier near the top of the homepage claiming 1,600 schools have registered. No details of when they did so, or where they are, or what they might be planning.
I have done a little, inconclusive, digging on the web, and have put the results below, inspired by Kipling's verse:
I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
What: The site states 'Our vision is to set aside a morning to teach children all over the country about climate change, to focus children on their own energy consumption and to inspire children and their families to cut their carbon footprint.'. Teaching plans are offered, as is advice for parent and pupils on how they can change their energy consumption, and other actions claimed to be good for the climate. All stuff that could readily be garnered from the many sites pushing it.
Why: Four possibilities occur to me.
1. Hoax. Someone or some group assembled the site to see what would happen
2. Scam. Someone or some group wants to entice payments from schools and parents.
3. Astroturf. Someone or somegroup wants to give the impression of 'grass-roots' support for climate alarmism.
4. Genuine. There really is a group of 'concerned mothers' who want to help save the planet.
Of these, I currently find 2. and 3. the most plausible. The site is very slick, and well put together. Too slick, and too lifeless, for 4. Too much work for 1.
When: The Day is scheduled to be Thursday, 24th June 2010. It is not clear when the initiative began, but right at the foot of their website pages, there is a copyright claim dated 2009 for 'Mothers Against Climate Change'.
How: The website invites schools and parents to register their interest, and receive packs of some kind. The site also provides lists of things they could do on the day, and of habits they should cultivate to be good (walk to school, eat less meat, switch off lights, and so on).
Where: Presumably the UK. But this is not made explicit. They refer to 'cars' rather than 'automobiles', and the school categories offered on the registration form are 'State' and 'Independent' - both terms used in the UK, but not, for example, in the States.
Who: No information on the site, other than the talk of 'concerned mothers' and 'a registered charity', and a copyright notice at the foot of the homepage for 'Mothers Against Climate Change'.
I think the charity may be called 'Cooling the World' or 'Cool the World', but I could find no reference to in on the Charities Commission site for England and Wales (http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk), nor in the equivalent office in Scotland (http://www.oscr.org.uk/). Same null results for 'Mothers Against Climate Change'.
I also found reference to a Facebook group called 'Moms Against Climate Change':
http://www.facebook.com/MomsAgainstClimateChange, which seems to be based in Canada, and which has produced an apparently oleaginous promotional video (http://www.earthfeed.com/the-trouble-with-the-climate-change-movement). I do not belong to Facebook, and so I have not looked at this further.
More Googling led to the name 'Erica Robb', said to be a founder of 'Cool the World', and a promoter of low carbon day here: http://www.healthypages.co.uk/newsitem.php?news=6265
This link names an 'Erica Charles' as the founder of 'Cool the World': http://naturalmatters.net/news-view.asp?news=4151
I found an intriguing FOI request asking if the UK Department for Education had paid any money to a charity called 'Cooling the World' - they denied having done so (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_cool_the_world_2 )
They have a sidebar with quotes in it. There are only four: 2 from politicians (Ed Balls, Greg Clark ), 1 from Sir John Houghton, and 1 from a Juliet Davenport who runs a company selling 'green power' (http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/)
There are links to marketing sites for carbon trading and 'green-tariff'; electricity suppliers (see: http://www.lowcarbonday.com/low_carbon_day.php, and scroll down to 'Offsetting emissions')
Anyway, enough of this amateur sleuthing. Perhaps others may be able to dig more deeply into this.
In the meantime, I will complete my notes challenging their claims about climate, whoever they are, and hope to publish these here today or tomorrow.
Note added 28 Oct 2017 Julia Davenport is still making a nuisance of herself:
https://twitter.com/telstarnotuber/status/923847348203216896
Progress in the USA: an alarmist book and video withdrawn from schools
'Millard Public Schools will stop using a children's book about global warming -- but only until the district can obtain copies with a factual error corrected.
A review committee, convened after parents complained, concluded that author Laurie David's book, "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming," contained "a major factual error" in a graphic about rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.
Mark Feldhausen, associate superintendent for educational services, this week sent a letter to parents who complained, including the wife of U.S. Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, outlining the committee's findings.
"Although the authors have pledged to correct the graph in subsequent editions, the committee recommends that this correction be made to all MPS-owned texts before using it with students in the future," Feldhausen wrote.
Corrected versions will continue to be used in Millard's sixth-grade language arts curriculum, he wrote.
However, the district will cease to use a companion video about global warming, narrated by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, he wrote.
The committee found the video "without merit" and recommended that it not be used.'
Source: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100617/NEWS01/100619733
Hat tip: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/children-are-the-future/
Via: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/
Note added 28 April 2017. Unhinged author Laurie David: http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/28/climate-activist-laurie-david-quits-retirement-after-trump-win-after-the-election-it-took-me-two-weeks-to-just-stop-crying/
A review committee, convened after parents complained, concluded that author Laurie David's book, "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming," contained "a major factual error" in a graphic about rising temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.
Mark Feldhausen, associate superintendent for educational services, this week sent a letter to parents who complained, including the wife of U.S. Rep. Lee Terry of Nebraska, outlining the committee's findings.
"Although the authors have pledged to correct the graph in subsequent editions, the committee recommends that this correction be made to all MPS-owned texts before using it with students in the future," Feldhausen wrote.
Corrected versions will continue to be used in Millard's sixth-grade language arts curriculum, he wrote.
However, the district will cease to use a companion video about global warming, narrated by actor Leonardo DiCaprio, he wrote.
The committee found the video "without merit" and recommended that it not be used.'
Source: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100617/NEWS01/100619733
Hat tip: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/children-are-the-future/
Via: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/
Note added 28 April 2017. Unhinged author Laurie David: http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/04/28/climate-activist-laurie-david-quits-retirement-after-trump-win-after-the-election-it-took-me-two-weeks-to-just-stop-crying/
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Schools' Low Carbon Day - 'concerned mothers' want their kids to worry too
The remarkable spread of alarm about climate is worthy of much study. How did it take place? What led so many people to get so exercised when the case for alarm is so thin, being based as it is on the output of computer models preset to produce dramatic results linked to CO2 but requiring the insertion of a positive feedback mechanism never observed in practice, nor even likely to exist since it would presuppose a climate more unstable than is credible given the historical reconstructions we have.
These reconstructions include periods of far higher CO2 levels, major variations in solar input, dramatic transformations of the earth's surface, and extended periods of substantial volcanic activity. Over more recent periods, we have evidence that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were at least as warm, and possibly warmer, than the late 20th century climate, and that rates of temperature rise in the Central England Temperatures (the longest instrument record we have) have been higher than anything we have seen recently. The slow rises of global mean temperatures in the 19th and in the 20th centuries were both at about the same rates (0.6 to 0.7C per century) despite substantial differences in ambient CO2 levels between the two. In summary, nothing particularly unusual has been observed in our climate in recent times. We have a variable climate system, on a very large range of space and time scales, and we would be wise to resist over-reacting to the various cooling and warming cycles we have seen over the past few hundred years. (Especially if that over-reaction leads to reducing our energy supplies and our wealth, both of which increase our ability to cope with these inescapable cycles.)
The specious analogy, much touted by alarmists, with greenhouses being driven by differential radiative effects falls at the first hurdle, since that is not how they work. They work by suppressing convective and wind-driven mixing with the outside air, and these two processes of convection and wind, coupled with the transport and phase changes of water, are also the dominant movers of heat within the lower atmosphere in which we live.
Yet read the following extract (I have put it italics) from the website promoting Low Carbon Day for schools in the United Kingdom, and try to imagine what you would feel if you believed these words:
'Few scientists now doubt that due to human activity – burning fossil fuels and deforestation - the climate is changing. Without very significant action, temperature changes of at least 2°C, and possibly 3°C or 4°C are expected to happen by the end of this century. Hundreds of millions of people may not have enough water. Floods, heat waves and droughts may affect millions more. The ensuing migration could make the world a very unstable place. And that's not to mention the 30% of species at risk of extinction. The effects of climate change are already being felt in Asia and Africa.
The truth is the worst will probably not happen in our lifetime. But it will happen in our children's lifetime. And it will happen big time during their children's lifetimes. Children born today will not be in a position of influence for 40 years, and by then it will be too late. The inertia in the climate system means that without action from us, by the time they can change the world, catastrophic warming will almost certainly be factored into the system.
And so we believe as adults we have a duty to change the world for them.’
Source: http://www.cooltheworld.co.uk/about_us.php
If you were as convinced as them, perhaps you would be stirred to political action, or even lifestyle changes. But would you want to push the same message into schools? Is this not a totalitarian impulse you might wish to resist? Even as a believer, would you not want your children to have a more carefree time, allowing them to concentrate on their basic education rather than imposing adult anxieties and responsibilites on them? I guess some of us would, and some of us wouldn't. But right now, I am concerned that we are not being given the choice.
A great many people, the UK political class included, seem intent on capturing the hearts and minds of the young, and turning them into eco-worriers (what have I done wrong, what am I doing wrong?) and eco-agitators (I must make sure my parents and others do the right things). This seems to be the intention of this 'group of concerned mothers':
'Schools Low Carbon Day 24.06.10 is being organised by a registered charity set up by a group of mothers concerned about climate change. Schools Low Carbon Day is about educating children about climate change and inspiring children and their families to change their behaviour to reduce carbon emissions.'
Source: http://www.cooltheworld.co.uk/about_us.php
I have concerns over every single sentence in those paragraphs shown in italics. I will post more comments on them tomorrow.
These reconstructions include periods of far higher CO2 levels, major variations in solar input, dramatic transformations of the earth's surface, and extended periods of substantial volcanic activity. Over more recent periods, we have evidence that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were at least as warm, and possibly warmer, than the late 20th century climate, and that rates of temperature rise in the Central England Temperatures (the longest instrument record we have) have been higher than anything we have seen recently. The slow rises of global mean temperatures in the 19th and in the 20th centuries were both at about the same rates (0.6 to 0.7C per century) despite substantial differences in ambient CO2 levels between the two. In summary, nothing particularly unusual has been observed in our climate in recent times. We have a variable climate system, on a very large range of space and time scales, and we would be wise to resist over-reacting to the various cooling and warming cycles we have seen over the past few hundred years. (Especially if that over-reaction leads to reducing our energy supplies and our wealth, both of which increase our ability to cope with these inescapable cycles.)
The specious analogy, much touted by alarmists, with greenhouses being driven by differential radiative effects falls at the first hurdle, since that is not how they work. They work by suppressing convective and wind-driven mixing with the outside air, and these two processes of convection and wind, coupled with the transport and phase changes of water, are also the dominant movers of heat within the lower atmosphere in which we live.
Yet read the following extract (I have put it italics) from the website promoting Low Carbon Day for schools in the United Kingdom, and try to imagine what you would feel if you believed these words:
'Few scientists now doubt that due to human activity – burning fossil fuels and deforestation - the climate is changing. Without very significant action, temperature changes of at least 2°C, and possibly 3°C or 4°C are expected to happen by the end of this century. Hundreds of millions of people may not have enough water. Floods, heat waves and droughts may affect millions more. The ensuing migration could make the world a very unstable place. And that's not to mention the 30% of species at risk of extinction. The effects of climate change are already being felt in Asia and Africa.
The truth is the worst will probably not happen in our lifetime. But it will happen in our children's lifetime. And it will happen big time during their children's lifetimes. Children born today will not be in a position of influence for 40 years, and by then it will be too late. The inertia in the climate system means that without action from us, by the time they can change the world, catastrophic warming will almost certainly be factored into the system.
And so we believe as adults we have a duty to change the world for them.’
Source: http://www.cooltheworld.co.uk/about_us.php
If you were as convinced as them, perhaps you would be stirred to political action, or even lifestyle changes. But would you want to push the same message into schools? Is this not a totalitarian impulse you might wish to resist? Even as a believer, would you not want your children to have a more carefree time, allowing them to concentrate on their basic education rather than imposing adult anxieties and responsibilites on them? I guess some of us would, and some of us wouldn't. But right now, I am concerned that we are not being given the choice.
A great many people, the UK political class included, seem intent on capturing the hearts and minds of the young, and turning them into eco-worriers (what have I done wrong, what am I doing wrong?) and eco-agitators (I must make sure my parents and others do the right things). This seems to be the intention of this 'group of concerned mothers':
'Schools Low Carbon Day 24.06.10 is being organised by a registered charity set up by a group of mothers concerned about climate change. Schools Low Carbon Day is about educating children about climate change and inspiring children and their families to change their behaviour to reduce carbon emissions.'
Source: http://www.cooltheworld.co.uk/about_us.php
I have concerns over every single sentence in those paragraphs shown in italics. I will post more comments on them tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)