Maths, Science, Ego - what are we doing re 'climate' in our schools?

Cartoon source: http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/23251

I think ego-building is a part of what is going on, but that is to be optimistic.  Telling children that they are to 'save the planet' is perhaps good for their egos.  But telling them, based pretty much on computer models that are not fit to be let out of the groves of academe, that the planet, which for the young means their family and friends and pets, is in imminent danger, is surely bad for their spirits.  And bad for their intellects too, since there is precious little good science behind CO2-alarmism and an awful lot of goal-motivated speculation.  What that goal, or goals are, is worthy of debate, but handing over more taxes and more power to governments seems an intrinsic part of it.  Destroying industrial progress seems another.  Mostly, though, it seems to feed on the joy of controlling others - what they eat, drink, and smoke; how they light, heat, and build their houses; what opinions they may hold on this that and the other; what transport systems they are allowed to use; and how far away their trading partners are permitted to be.  All based on fear.  Irrational, spirit-sapping, mind-numbing, truth-obscuring fear.  What a way to prepare the young for the future.  Let us hope that in China and in India, and in other powerhouses of the developing world, they will choose instead to pursue maths, and science, and independent thought, even as the US and Europe and other places wreck themselves and their young with dismal, pessimistic foolishness on a grand scale.  These Chinese and Indian and other children will not just take the 1st and 2nd places on such podia suggested by the cartoon above, but soon the 3rd and 4th and ... nth as well.  Good luck to them.  Our future generations may yet learn from them in turn.

Contempt for Parliament - an effect or an enabler of CO2 alarmism?

A Lord Marland disgraces the House of Lords with his blatant contempt for a fellow peer.  But it is a sign not merely of yobbishness on his part, but of the absurdity and indefensibility of the Climate Change Act.  It is out of the question that it can be complied with, and this particular exchange merely serves, as did the climategate revelations, to reveal the low calibre of some of those who create, or collaborate with, alarm about CO2 in the atmosphere.  This vacuity at government level is unsettling but not surprising - there being so little substance to the case for such alarm. An alarm that is now part of the curriculum in our schools.  

(Photo: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/about/lord_marland/lord_marland.aspx)

Extract from the proceedings of the House of Lords, 20th October 2010
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101020-0001.htm#10102041000398)

Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the chairman of the Government’s own Green Investment Bank commission has authoritatively stated that the cost of meeting our current carbon reduction commitments in this country is somewhere between £800 billion and £1 trillion? Does he not agree that, with the best will in the world, this mind-boggling cost cannot be justified except in the context of a binding global carbon reduction agreement? Therefore, in the absence of such an agreement being secured at Cancun, does he not agree that it is only commonsense to suspend the Climate Change Act until such time as a binding global agreement is secured?

Lord Marland: My Lords, when I bumped into my noble friend in the Corridor and he said that he was catching the train to York I was rather relieved. Sadly, he will be catching a slightly later train than I was hoping for. I have now forgotten entirely what his question was.

Hat-tip: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/10/21/lord-marland-shames-parliament.html

Food for thought: Lord Monckton on Canute, Communism, Climate, and Conspiracies

Greenpeace and communism.  Maurice Strong and world government. Climate scientists suborned and suborning.  And more.  Well worth an hour of your time, and if  you are a teacher or in educational administration or leadership, food for thought as you reflect on whether you want to be part of the deliberate scaring and misleading of the young about what we know and don't know about climate variation.


This is part 1 of a 5 part set of YouTube videos capturing an  interview/presentation with Lord Monckton published by Alex Jones on Prisonplanet.tv.  The links to the entire set are here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHyMYEzRyf8 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUUcb36a_4I 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA0xEM1KwG4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7o1S4m5mCw 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieC7HYC5cto

Hat-tip: Sailboi on Google Group 'Climate Science'.  http://groups.google.com/group/climate-science/browse_thread/thread/ab4cec19ffba20ac#

Further credits: http://www.infowars.com/

Now this broadcaster, Alex Jones and his site are new to me.  He seems to be attacked by the establishment as a  'right-wing conspiracy site', and of course as such any posting using his materials will risk being attacked as well.  Well, so be it.  My examination of his site suggests to me that he is democratic, libertarian, and a believer in the Constitution of the United States.  So far, that's good enough for me.

Note added 10 June 2013   A YouTube video revealing Alex Jones as an unhinged oaf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgBq6q4x8Fw

Wikipedia stalls one CO2-agitated editor, giving hope of a broader treatment of climate debates

'William M. Connolley topic-banned (R3)

5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

[snip]....

It has become clear, during the case itself, that the topic area has become too personalized and polarized around a number of editors who are, frankly, incapable of working together. While I may not agree that all editors involved have the same severity of misbehavior, I can appreciate that a forcible fresh start is probably going to help — with gradual return on merit as the editors involve themselves in other areas of the project. — 

[snip]....

Sad, reluctant support. I dislike intensely the idea of separating a knowledgeable editor from editing in the field of his expertise. My instincts impel me to say that I would, if possible, prefer a more carefully tailored, nuanced sanction or set of sanctions that could preserve the value of William M. Connolley's editing while addressing the problems that exist with it. (This is an observation I've made about some of the other editors who are being topic-banned as well.) We have also acknowledged that some of the specific assertions made about him previously were inaccurate or taken out of context. However, the "enough is enough" consensus of the committee is clear, and given the entire record here I can hardly say that the overall structure and outcome of the final decision is an outlandish one. Given the result, I hope that William M. Connolley can refocus his dedication to the project in other ways, while addressing the concerns that have been expressed so that he can return to this topic area in due course.'

See full announcement here, with supporting references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned_.28R3.29

Hat-tip: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/10/14/going.html


A step forward, but so many years of misleading innocent readers will not be so readily corrected.  Wikipedia, like other utopian ventures, has always been vulnerable to those with few scruples about pursuing their own self-interest with ruthlessness.  Even if we see no more Kyoto-style over-reaction to CO2 such as that captured in legislation in the UK (and that seems over-optimistic given the huge momentum of interested parties wanting more of it), there remains the damage to the standing of science and to the practice of both politics and education.  I suspect that an oppressive burden of gloom has been imposed on wave after wave of children passing through their school years, with a diet of alarmism based, ultimately, on the speculations of a handful of climate modellers.  Speculations that have been contradicted by many observational and theoretical studies, but which nevertheless survive and are vigorously promoted by those for whom they are like a dream come true.

If Wikipedia may be at least pausing its own part that promotional effort, and if even the BBC and the Royal Society have recently indicated at least a tiny embarrassment at their part in it, I like to think, in my optimistic way, that progress is being made.

But meanwhile, in schools and other organisations aimed at children throughout the world, the deliverables of this narrow,  'science is settled', doom-laden agitation about CO2 are pushed at the young.   A dream come true for some, a nightmare for others, not least the children.

10-minute trainers on climate nonsense: materials for at least 94 of them

Pierre Gosselin's list of climate nonsenses reached 94 in August.  I suppose at least one '10-minute trainer' could be produced from each and every one of them.  But who has the freedom to make use of them in a classroom?  Will a group of dissident teachers/schools emerge, or must we wait for government approval?

'No science produces more controversy, exaggerations, distortions, follies, and falsehoods than climate science does. In this new list we’ve got

94 climate-gates total
28 new gates
145 links to reports with details.

The new gates on the list are designated with “NEW!” to make them easy to spot. Thanks to a number of readers who have given me tips.'

The first 10:

1. Acceleration of sea level rise-gate 
Claims of accelerating sea level rise are misleading.
2. African agriculture claim-gate
IPCC wrongly claims that in some African countries yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
3. AIT-gate and British High Court
35 errors or gross exaggerations are found in Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentaryAn Inconvenient Truth.
4. NEW! Alaskan glaciers-gate
Loss of glaciers in Alaska was grossly exaggerated.
5. Amazon rainforest-gate and  here (NEW!) and here (NEW!) 
IPCC cites “robust” source: green activist organisation WWF. WWF’s source was merely an anonymous brief on forest fire risks posted in 1999 and taken down four years later.
6. Antarctic sea ice-gate
Antarctic sea ice underestimated by 50%.
7. NEW! Authoritarian science-gate
The science says… Science is increasingly used as an instrument of authority to impose public policy.
8. NEW! Australia-gate Australia temperature adjusted upwards to show more warming.
9. Bangladesh-gate
IPCC inflates Bangladesh doomsday forecasts in 2007 4AR.
10. NEW! Biofuel-gate
Efforts to save the planet by using bio-fuels are in fact rapidly destroying it.

Link to them all: 

http://notrickszone.com/2010/08/03/climate-scandals-list-of-94-climate-gates/