Heroic teachers can get classroom cheers by telling the truth about climate

Climate Depot has added to an earlier compilation of scientific dissenters from the party line on climate, that shameful orthodoxy we have been force-fed by a largely docile or even collaborating media who can see their own advantage in it, be it sales ('fear' sells), or be it political patronage or even thinly-veiled campaigning for socialism (that creed which caused so much misery and suffering in the 20th century).

That's an important post, well worth keeping for reference, but I want to highlight 2 of the comments posted under a report on it at WUWT because they had me smiling with good cheer at my desk.  One of them reported their class cheering too as they heard their teacher dismantling the CAGW nonsense.  Here they are:

(1) Jenn Oates says:

December 8, 2010 at 10:27 pm

A few years ago I got an email from a furious parent because I told her daughter that AGW was a hoax and that it was all politics, not science. The parent lambasted me for my weather/climate unit, and told me that I ought to be ashamed of myself for trying to brainwash my students and start teaching science, and keep out of politics (I had mentioned our friend Al). I replied that she was wrong, AGW was not real, and that since I taught science I would not be perpetuating a scientific hoax in my classroom. It’d be like teaching that Piltdown Man was an actual human ancestor–not gonna do it.

Now that the hoax is finally falling apart to the point where even the masses are hearing about it, I’d sure like for her to apologize. :)

(2) Andy says:

December 9, 2010 at 12:02 am

Jenn Oates says:
December 8 2010 at 10:27pm

I’ve had a similar experience Jenn. I’m a maths teacher in a London secondary school (11-18 years). During one of my lessons a child mentioned AGW, so I decide to explain to the class why I thought the theory was complete rubbish and showed them some graphs (eg graphs that show MWP, logarithmic effect of CO2, etc) to explain why. I’m not exaggerating when I say the kids actually cheered!
Anyway, the next day the Head of Science came to see me in the staff room and told me to stop telling the kids about my ‘conspiracy theories’.
The graphs are now stuck on the wall of my classroom for all to see! ;)

Cartoons for the classroom: a little humour to reduce the sting of climate alarmism

If the curriculum is alarmist, a pupil who questions it may lose marks, and a teacher who questions it may lose their job.  I face neither of those risks, and I hope that somewhere there are teachers and schools where that is also the case.  There may be opportunities in most schools through debating societies and suchlike to share radical views about climate, radical only because the establishment position is so dogmatic, loaded, and anti-scientific.  But the 'radical' view really ought to be the ordinary, unremarkable one: climate varies, some of the variations give us severe problems on various space and time scales, our forecasting ability for climate is very modest, our computer models of it are laughable in the face of great complexity, and our observations of temperatures, ice, precipitation, hurricanes, sea levels, etc etc show nothing at all extraordinary has been happening in recent times to what we see and experience.

The cartoons by Josh on climate have both great charm, and great penetration into some of the issues and personalities involved, and could enhance discussions and presentations on climate in our schools.  Here are two recent ones:

For many more, and for background on each, see: http://cartoonsbyjosh.com/

Please note his conditions for use:

'The cartoons are my copyright but feel free to link to this page
or to post the cartoons on non-commercial blogs with attribution (cartoonsbyjosh.com).
If you want to use any of them in a printed or on-line journal, newspaper
or any other publication, or use them in connection with any for-profit business
or usage then please email me at josh at cartoonsbyjosh.com for higher res versions, permissions, rates and so on.'   

10-Minute Trainers: 129 of them on shoddy science, politicised institutions, and more!

There are now 129 'gates' in the list published at the 'No Tricks Zone' site.  If only we had not had to endure so many scientific, PR, and political tricks about climate and CO2 for the past 25 years or so!  Anyway, some of the awfulness is captured by this list, and each and every one could be developed into an informative '10-minute trainer' ready for use in the classroom at the drop of a hat (10-minute trainers were developed in Japanese manufacturing companies to make good use of any unscheduled downtime in production - teachers can use them to make good use of any unscheduled opportunities to step outside the indoctrination curricula on climate currently being imposed by diktat in many countries).

Here are the first 12, to whet appetites anywhere where free thinkers are thinking:

1. NEW! 1010-gate (aka Splatter-gate) NoTricksZone and media silence (NoTricksZone) and Pachauri sensitize children (NoTricksZone and media bias (WUWT). Hate, intolerance, and violence are embedded in the psyche of the environmental movement, as the following promo video illustrates.


2. Acceleration of sea level rise-gate (Appinsys) and here (Ecotretas)
Claims of accelerating sea level rise are misleading.
3. African agriculture claim-gate (WUWT)
IPCC wrongly claims that in some African countries yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
4. AIT-gate (SPPI) and British High Court (Telegraph)
35 errors or gross exaggerations are found in Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
5. Alaskan glaciers-gate (Science Daily)
Loss of glaciers in Alaska was grossly exaggerated.
6. Amazon rainforest-gate (WUWT) and here (eureferendum) and here (C. Booker)
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.
7. NEW! American Physical Society-gate (GWPF) and Hal Lewis resigns (WUWT).
Distinguished physicist Hal Lewis resigns from APS due to it’s departure from science and adoption of dogma.
8. Antarctic sea ice-gate (WUWT)
Antarctic sea ice underestimated by 50%.
9. Authoritarian science-gate (American.com)
The science says… Science is increasingly used as an instrument of authority to impose public policy.
10.Australia-gate Jo Nova and here (climategate.com) and here (WUWT)
Australia temperature adjusted upwards to show more warming.
11. NEW! Australia brushfire-gate (SMH) and here (greenwatchamerica blog).
Green restrictions, not global warming, caused 300 deaths in Australian 2009 bushfires.
12. Bangladeshgate (AFP)
IPCC inflates Bangladesh doomsday forecasts in 2007 4AR.

See them all here: http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/07/climate-science-scandals-list-of-gates-balloons-to-129/

10-minute trainer: IPCC spin exposed very clearly. Again.

The remarkable success of the IPCC is due in some part to the simple, emphatic messages it imparts to the media, and seeks to incoporate in 'summaries for policy makers'.  These gloss over, ignore, or even contradict the reservations expressed even by those scientists who participate in the various working groups.  Thus, the scientists hang on to some integrity, where their papers recognise uncertainties, or distinguish between observational data, and the output of speculative computer models. Meanwhile, the political activists get what they want - dramatic headlines, and a headlong rush to push policy-making at breakneck speeds.

Donna Lamframboise has reported on one recent instance of this, captured by a writer from the New York Times, a famously leftwing paper not at all hostile to the IPCC, exposing the blatant error in this UN press release:

'UN press release makes the same mistake Revkin talks about

Andrew Revkin, who blogs about climate change for the New York Times, is doing what an experienced beat reporter is supposed to: he’s paying close attention. In a post filed from the Cancun climate summit, Revkin notes that a draft document currently being circulated by the United Nations contains a mistake.
The document lists some basic, agreed-upon climate change facts on page four. The third point, Revkin reports, currently says that the document

3. Recognizes that warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal, as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change [IPCC] in its Fourth Assessment Report;

Revkin correctly points out that this statement is false. In his words:

The only major conclusion of the climate panel that is described as “unequivocal” is that the climate has warmed.'

A nice illustration for any class discussion on the nature and intentions of the IPCC.  This is by no means the only instance of this sort of thing.  It supports the contention that the de facto role of the IPCC is to generate severe alarm about human influence on climate, largely via the implausible hypothesis that CO2 is a major driver of climate.  Yet many might have reasonably have assumed that the role was to critically review and summarise what is known about the causes and consequences of climate variation.  No such luck!

Background reading - helping us, and our discussions, stay civil on climate

I will not be able to do much on this blog for about another month or so, but in the meantime I hope to keep things ticking over by relaying pieces from other sources.  The essay below is by Donna Lamframboise, and although I have much sympathy for Tim Ball's reaction to the provocations of those pushing alarm about CO2, I think Donna has provided good guidance here:

---

Appalling Rhetoric from a Climate Skeptic

November 26, 2010

I’ve never met Tim Ball, a retired climatology professor and vocal climate change skeptic. I think he comes across well in this video, and I’ve heard others say he’s a good and decent man. I must confess, though, that I stopped reading his regular posts at Canada Free Press some time ago because I consider his rhetoric over-the-top.
If scientists don’t choose their words carefully when they make social and political arguments, it causes me to worry that they haven’t been as rigorous as they should be when arriving at their scientific judgments. In my view, way too many scientists (and others) have taken up hardline positions on either side of the climate change line. From there they hurl insults at each another. Sense and virtue can only be found on their side. Those people over there are deliberate liars. They’re stupid, corrupt, fraudulent, deceptive, manipulative, and self-interested.
In some respects, I’m a typical member of the public. I didn’t take any university-level science courses. Therefore, if someone stands up at the front of the room and points at graphs, refers to scientific theorems, and jots down formulas, my head begins to swim. I’m not equipped to follow the conversation. I don’t speak that language. Everything sounds plausible to me. Which means – and I know this is going to be distressing for some people to hear – I cannot be persuaded solely by a discussion of the science.
I, like many people, decide who I believe based on the strength of their logic, on their demeanor, on how they respond when challenged. Do they behave professionally – or do they lash out with venom and contempt? The individuals whom I find persuasive act like grownups – not not like adolescents intent on scoring meaningless points in a video game.
Freeman Dyson, who is a gifted writer as well as an eminent physicist, describes science as “a mosaic of partial and conflicting visions” (page 3). That makes a lot of sense to me. There are numerous scientific disciplines, numerous ways of looking at the physical world. Two scientists from different disciplines might well examine the same question and come to conflicting conclusions. I’m OK with the notion that they both might be partially right.
So when an ethics professor at Penn State U argued last month that corporations that advance skeptical climate arguments are guilty of crimes against humanity I was deeply offended. And when climate skeptic Ball argued yesterday that proponents of human-caused climate change theory are similarly guilty of crimes against humanity I was equally appalled.
Crimes against humanity are nothing to joke about. Mass graves, intentionally inflicted famine, gas chambers, barbarous violence – those horrors should not be spoken of lightly. If everything is a crime against humanity, then nothing is.
Climate change is a complex matter – and no one knows what the future holds. If the proponents of human-caused catastrophic climate change are right, climate skeptics may indeed have blood on our hands because we may well have impeded effective responses. (I don’t really believe this since I’ve yet to be persuaded that emissions reduction would actually accomplish anything. But for the sake of argument, I’m willing to grant this possibility.)
If climate skeptics are correct, however, and emissions reduction seriously undermines the well-being of national economies then far more people will lead pinched, restricted, poverty-stricken lives. Infant mortality will rise. Food (which is grown with fossil-fueled farm equipment and transported in fossil-fueled trucks) will become more expensive. There is no way, given the current state of our technology, to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions while still keeping the hospitals running, the schools heated, and anywhere near the same number of people employed. The math simply doesn’t work. Environmental activist George Monbiot isn’t kidding when he says:

The campaign against climate change is an odd one. Unlike almost all the public protests which have preceded it, it is a campaign not for abundance but for austerity. It is a campaign not for more freedom but for less. [bold added, p. 215]

Because the climate change debate is so important, because so many lives (not to mention trillions of dollars) hang in the balance, we need open, vigorous debate. We need to hear all perspectives.
I want the proponents of AGW to make their case. I want the skeptics to make theirs. I want the lukewarmers and those occupying the agnostic middle ground to have their say. Only from this symphony of discussion, from this multitude of perspectives, will trustworthy knowledge emerge and genuine understanding evolve.
But this free and open discourse cannot happen when both sides are trying to shut down the debate by labeling other people’s views criminal.