Scientific papers (peer-reviewed and published) dealing with the real climate, and not the worship of GCMs and associated politicising.

Source: http://cartoonsbyjosh.com/

The Climate Science blog published a reminder today of the list of papers which have been collated at Popular Technology:

http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2010/11/800-peer-reviewed-scientific-papers.html

These are papers which do not pursue alarm about CO2.  They support a sceptical view of that alarm, as befits scientists of integrity.  One day, our school and college textbooks will give them the prominence they deserve, but a lot of troubled and turbulent political water  will have to pass under the bridge before that day arrives - such is the sorry state of modern climate science (and of modern politics).

The list has been edited and updated, and now includes a section of responses to criticisms of the earlier lists:

'The following papers support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 counted papers. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.

Criticisms: All criticisms of this list have been refuted or a change made to correct the issue. Please see the notes following the list for defenses of common criticisms. I make every attempt to defend the list where possible, in many cases my comments correcting the misinformation stated about the list are deleted and I am blocked from replying. Please email me if you have any questions or need me to address something, populartechnology (at) gmail (dot) com.'

Their rebuttals of criticisms:

'Failed attempts at "debunking" this list include,

- Lying about the paper counting method used. (Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, Responses and Submitted papers are not counted. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 800 papers. If they were counted the paper count would be +50 papers.)
- Lying about the list being debunked because certain papers on the list do not "refute" AGW theory. (All papers support either skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW.)
- Lying about peer-reviewed journals not being peer-reviewed. (Every journal listed is peer-reviewed.)
- Lying about the inclusion of a paper on this list as a representation of the personal position of it's author in regards to AGW theory. (It is explicitly stated in the disclaimer that "The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors".)
- Lying about all climate related papers not on this list endorsing AGW theory. (There are thousands of climate related papers but only a small percentage of these explicitly endorse AGW theory.)
- Lying that certain paper's age make them "outdated". (The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this logic all of science would become irrelevant after a certain amount of time, which is obviously ridiculous. This would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. There are over 650 papers published since 2000 on the list.)
- Lying that Blog posts, Wiki pages and YouTube videos "refute" peer-reviewed papers. (That is not how peer-reviewed papers are challenged. Any valid criticisms would follow the established peer-review process of submitting a comment for publication in the same journal, which allows the author of the original paper a chance to publish a rebuttal in defense of their paper.)
- Lying that broken links somehow invalidate the list. (Anyone with an elementary knowledge of the Internet knows that links can break at any time for a myriad of reasons. All broken links are fixed when notified or found. Regardless the full citation is provided so there is no excuse about not being able to locate the paper.)
- Lying that since some of the papers are mutually exclusive the list is falsified. (The purpose of the list is to provide a resource for the skeptical arguments being made in peer-reviewed journals and to demonstrate the existence of these papers. It is not supposed to be a single argument but rather a resource for all of them.)'

Link to the list: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Many of these will be largely inaccessible at school level, but surely no more so than those which have 'inspired' modern curricula of climate / CO2 alarm.  Variants of that cartoon by Josh could be produced many times over if these curricula were to be critically reviewed with this list to hand.

  

10-minute trainer: walk your class along a bar chart of the atmosphere's constituents

The levels of alarm about energy production, and the urging of children to hassle their parents into driving less etc in order to save the polar bears (which happen to be doing very well of late), avoiding temperature rises (which would be beneficial almost everywhere), and reducing CO2 emissions (ditto), and of course reducing the incidence of whatever horsemen of the apocalypse currently appeals to those driven nearly demented by their permanent state of alarm about 'the environment', can all be put into a calmer perspective by constructing a bar chart of atmospheric composition (a stacked barchart, in the jargon) in order to display how little CO2 there is in the air, how little the human contribution is, and how little the difference of even a total cessation in our CO2 production would make.

To make it even more vivid, here is an appealing idea from a poster called 'Wendy', who put this up on a comment thread on Jo Nova's site (comment 64, http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/mystery-solved-why-the-pr-hacks-exploded-their-credibility/#comments), where I have added some boldening at the end:

'Imagine one kilometre of atmosphere that you want to clean up. For the sake of the discussion, imagine you could walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. Just 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. Just 10 metres left to go.

9 metres are argon. 1 metre left out of 1 kilometre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.

A bit over one foot.

97% is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural. It has always been in the atmosphere otherwise plants couldn’t grow.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.

So in every kilometre of atmosphere, complete with green-house gases regulating the climate – in every kilometre reflecting back and retaining the sun’s heat on earth, just .18 of one millimetre is contributed by Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions.

Now Julia Gillard’s Great Green Tax, the Emissions Trading Scheme is designed to reduce Australia’s contribution by 5%. That’s what it’s designed to do. Gillard wants to reduce our [point] .18 of one millimetre by 5%.

That’s what all the pain is about.

It is simply madness. It’s not based on science. It’s a tax. Finally, a tax on the air we breathe.'

Now that's clearly referring to Australia,  but it would be easy to customise this for each of our own countries, and thus provide an excellent '10-minute trainer' to have up our sleeves to use when opportunities arise.

Some niggles arise over the specific numbers to use, not least because of the huge variability of water vapour levels.  If I take, for example, the Wikipedia estimates of the composition of the dry atmosphere, and add in their estimated overall average of 0.4% for water vapour by adjusting all the other constituents in proportion to their quantities, and then round the figures again for simplicity, I get the following values:

N2                    778 metres 

O2                    209

Ar                         9

H20 vapour            358 cm

Trace gases             42 cm   (of which CO2 is 39cm)

So, be prepared to define and defend your own computations and assumptions.  The numbers used by Wendy assume 1m for water vapour, and this may be more typical for the troposphere ( the estimates given in the Wikipedia link today: 'Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%'; elsewhere it states levels vary between 1% and 4% near the surface, with an overall value of 0.4%).  The Wikipedia data is imperfect in other ways too, for example there is an excess of something like 57ppm when you add up all the constituent ppms for the dry atmosphere.  I suspect someone merely bumped up the CO2 component to 390ppm from a value of around 333ppm in an earlier table without bothering to make any other adjustments.

A simpler alternative would be to do the example for the dry atmosphere, thereby sidestepping the troublesome water:

N2                    780.8 metres 

O2                    209.46

Ar                         9.32         (adjusted down by 0.02 by me to allow overall total to be 1000)

Trace gases             42 cm   (of which CO2 is 39cm)

Lest one be accused of trying to downplay CO2 by even a tiny amount, perhaps the best way is to start with the current estimate of the global ppm for CO2, and adjust the rest of the constituent ppms in due proportion to make up the totals for either the dry, or the 'average' atmosphere.  In any event, it doesn't really matter for the impact of this 10-minute trainer - the important thing is to know the assumptions or source of  your arithmetic.

Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth  

More Gore in the Classroom - Australian Educators Pushing Propaganda

Bob Carter exposes a sorry development in Australian education:

'AL Gore's flawed climate change film is to be included in the new English curriculum.

IN 2006, former US vice-president Al Gore made a movie and companion book about global warming called An Inconvenient Truth. Gore undertook many speaking tours to publicise his film, and his PowerPoint slide show has been shown by thousands of his acolytes spreading a relentless message of warming alarmism across the globe.

But while audiences reacted positively and emotionally to the film's message - which was that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming - some independent scientists pointed out that An Inconvenient Truth represented well-made propaganda for the warming cause and presented an unreliable, biased account of climate science.

For nowhere in his film does Gore say that the phenomena he describes falls within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.

In early February 2007, the Department for Education and Skills in Britain, apparently ignorant that the film was scientifically defective, announced that all secondary schools were to be provided with a climate change information pack that contained a copy of Gore's by then notorious film. Many parents were scandalised at this attempt to propagandise their children on such an important environmental issue.

One parent, school governor Stuart Dimmock who had two sons at a state school in southern England, took legal action against the secretary for education in the High Court, and sought the film's withdrawal from schools.

In a famous judgment in October 2007, Justice Burton, discerning that Gore was on a "crusade", commented that "the claimant substantially won this case", and ruled that the science in the film had been used "to make a political statement and to support a political program" and that the film contained nine fundamental errors of fact out of the 35 listed by Dimmock's scientific advisers. Justice Burton required that these errors be summarised in new guidance notes for screenings.

In effect, the High Court judgment typed Gore and his supporters as evangelistic proselytisers for an environmental cause.

Fast forward to this month and many Australian parents have been surprised to learn Gore's film "will be incorporated in the [new] national [English] curriculum ), as part of a bid to teach students on environmental sustainability across all subjects".'

The complete article is here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/inconvenient-nonsense-infiltrates-the-classroom/story-e6frg6zo-1225951336015

I hope that the Australian legal system will permit a challenge to this.  'Shoddy science and politicians on the make' is one thing, blatant indoctrination of children is quite another.  Not only will they be misled, they risk being mentally abused by the scaremongering.  Unfortunately, the Australian Psychology Society is collaborating in this by failing to study the science, and devising instead ways to make the promotion of pseudo-science and alarmism a little more palatable.  See:  http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/climate/

Or actually listen to what I can only describe as a speaker from the Pollyanna school of psychology, the Australian Susie Burke, during this radio programme: http://www.rnw.nl/english/radioshow/kids-and-climate-change-enlightened-or-frightened

Climate campaigners' classroom turpitude captured for future studies of depravity at work

'Why did they think ruthlessly killing children was funny? –

because in their heads, they weren’t killing children,

…they were killing deniers.'

Jo Nova has done sterling work in documenting and providing insight into what led to the 10:10 video in which the producers fantasise about utterly destroying, at the press of a button, those who show the slightest reluctance to toe the party line on climate.  Including young children in a classroom.  

The whole thing deserves deep study.  The paper by Jo Nova has been published by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), and can be downloaded as a pdf from here: (1) 

Kudos to the SPPI for publishing this.  Kudos to Jo Nova for creating it.  She gives a summary and background at her own blog (2).

It provides some provocative speculations as to what led to the creation of the video, speculations which deserve to be shared widely and investigated further.  Given that the scientific case for alarm about CO2 in the atmosphere is so shoddy, the motivation for such an arrogant, aggressive, and deeply malevolent video must come from elsewhere.  Is it the same motivation that drove Maurice Strong to call for the destruction of industrial civilisation? (more background on Strong here: refs (3) below).  Is it the same motivation that led James Lee to terrorise the employees of a broadcasting company  in the States?  (4).   Or, at the milder end of this sorry spectrum, was it what led three women to barge their way into the offices of a newspaper whose editorials they happened to disagree with? (5)  

Meanwhile, and more in the background, there seems no end to the initiatives aimed at pushing children into conformance to the party line on climate.  Here is a recent report of one in the States called ACE (6).  Links to many more can be found on the Page on climate sites aimed at schools (7).  Many of them do not hesitate to use scary imagery and doomladen notions to win attention and obedience.  


This is a veritable moral swamp that needs to be drained.  Standing at the edges of it, we can see unpleasantness, scaremongering, arrogance, ignorance, intolerance, brutality, destructiveness, and terrorism.  Quite a result to follow from the speculative insertion of a dramatic effect for CO2 into computer models of the climate!  Fortunately the real climate has displayed no such role for this beneficial gas.  In our world, the dramatic role for CO2 is found in its impact on plant growth.

References

(1) http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/mystery_solved.html

(2) http://joannenova.com.au/2010/11/mystery-solved-why-the-pr-hacks-exploded-their-credibility/

(3)  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250789,00.html, and here: http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Maurice-Strong/article1.html

(4) http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100052207/james-lee-is-al-gore-is-prince-charles-is-the-unabomber/

(5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/11/climate-rush-daily-express

(6) http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2030099,00.html?xid=rss-topstories


(7) http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/p/climate-sites-aimed-at.html

Gore out the door in one school, but Nye clouds the sky in his place

What's in a name?  That which we call Al Gore
By any other name would be more discreet
And thus by stratagem we may play our part
And let our children Bill Nye to meet.

In England a court of law found that
The Inconvenient Truth has many lies
And must be shown with caution
Lest it mislead about our skies.

In the New World some teachers have decided
That Gore is not good news
But they found a ready substitute
To promulgate his views.

Extract (I put it in italics, and bolded one paragraph) from a post by Jeff Wiita on the site Minnesotans for Global Warming           :
'My daughter's 8th grade Earth Science teacher showed her class a video on man-made global warming by Bill Nye, The Science Guy, and kids consider him a science guru; thanks to PBS.

I wrote a letter to the teacher and specifically addressed climate history, including the 1975 Newsweek article, the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and the Holocene Climate Optimum. I even addressed the Roman Warm Period and the Dark Ages Cold Period.

At the parent/teacher conferences, I asked the teacher if she was going to show Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." She shook her head "no" and said, "We wouldn't do that." She told me that she was not supposed to interject any bias in the science class. I then told her that was exactly what she did when she showed the video of Bill Nye, The Science Guy.

Bill Nye is part of Repower America (Alliance for Climate Protection). Here is a short video.

Repower America - Bill Nye, The Science Guy

During the video, Bill Nye turns man-made global warming into a generational war. Categorizing global warming skeptics as old and intellectually challenged while believers are young and intellectually enlightened.

The founder and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection is Al Gore. Bill Nye is clearly acting as a surrogate for Al Gore in the public schools system. The public school teachers are still promoting man-made global warming, but they understand that Al Gore's movie is radioactive; so, they have reverted to covert warfare with Bill Nye, The Science Guy.

We must not confuse our kids with science fiction in a science class that is supposed to teach scientific fact. How are they supposed be able to distinguish between the differences? Their future relies on their trust, and their trust is fragile.

I have requested some time to present an opposing point of view to the Earth Science class based entirely on scientific fact. I am still waiting for the teacher's response.'

Source: http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarming.com/m4gw/2010/10/bill-nye-the-global-warming-guy.html#more

The Tangled Web they weave as they practise to deceive children on climate

There are dozens of sites, possibly hundreds, that are pushing out information and grounds for alarm to children and young people in and around our climate.  The variability of this climate poses problems, not least from the inevitable 'extreme values' that must occur from time to time in any particular characteristic subject to this variability, such as temperature or rainfall.  But these sites are not so much about climate as about 'blame' and political action, often using frightening images or language to engage with their targets and persuade them to hassle their parents, to change their lifestyles, and generally be scared witless about the future.  The complete lack of observational evidence to justify such treatment of the young does not deter them.  They have been told by the IPCC that the world is doomed unless we act soon, and they believe it.  The 'evidence', such as it is, is entirely based on the projections of computer models of climate specifically designed to give CO2 a large, indeed driving effect, a role which it steadfastly refuses to adopt in the real atmosphere.  Very commonly, these sites compare the atmosphere to a greenhouse - an all but entirely fatuous analogy, but one which has caught on very widely.  One day, pupils will laugh at any teacher who tries to explain why greenhouses get hot through 'trapping infra-red'.  But Miss, they will chuckle, greenhouses almost transparent to infrared would get just as hot as ordinary glass ones.  And unless 'Miss' has a red button on her desk, she will have some explaining to do.

I have put a partial listing of such sites on this blog.  It can be found as a 'Page', and can be reached via the link near the top right corner of the homepage.  Dave W has provided further information on some of these sites, and I am most grateful for his help.

If anyone out there would like to help with this, please email me (JSclimatelessonsatgmaildotcom) with the name of the site you plan to check out, so that we may reduce the chances of people working on the same one at the same time.

Please also email me with any errors or omissions you come across on the Page.  Thanks!

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/

RIP Phillip and Tracey, virtual victims of 10:10's murderous intolerance

The use of children as political fodder for spreading alarm about CO2 is bad enough.  Showing them being murdered in cold blood for having parents who do not share that alarm is disgusting.  At a time when many people are under daily threat of renewed attack by other intolerant bombers, also obsessed by their cause to the point of losing any trace of humanity, the 10:10 movie was particularly odious.

It served to give us insight into their attitudes, and for that we may be grateful.

Delingpole has a bitter-edged post on suggested actions for today, the 10th of October, 2010:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058296/1010-who-are-you-going-to-kill-to-help-save-the-planet/
It begins:
'Hey kids, the big day’s here. It’s 10/10/10 and that if you’ve been following the campaign of Franny Armstrong, Richard Curtis, Eugenie and all their other nicely-spoken, privately-educated, Daddy-funded, Guardian-reading trustafarian chums at 10:10, you’ll know that means just one thing: Climate Action.'




The first comment I saw posted under that piece, by 'scientificanomaly' is the inspiration for the title of this one:
'This post is in loving memory of the young martyrs Phillip and Tracy. May they rest in peace. They shall never be forgotten, we shall honour their memory by re-doubling our efforts to consign the AGW climate scam to the dustbin of history and by driving all the deranged eco-bullies out of positions of influence.'

Pushing Junk Science on Children in the USA

More political context for CO2 alarmism getting into schools in the USA is given in this piece:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/pushing_junk_science_on_childr.html      than in my earlier one here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html

Extract:

'Democrat Representative John Sarbanes of Maryland wants public schools to "get young people invested" in "climate change" and "population growth" in order to "[raise] awareness early" and "promote the agenda." That would be the agenda of junk science alarmism.

Thank goodness for clarity, because until now, Americans were unaware that public schools are supposed to breed fanatics for ruling class politics. Not only has Sarbanes advocated global warming indoctrination, but the congressman's remarks also seem to call for schools to push the debunked overpopulation myth popularized by Paul Ehrlich in his 1970 book, The Population Bomb. Rachel Carson's DDT scare, acid rain, anti-nuclear power hysteria, the population bomb, and the global warming hoax -- the world has been asked to prepare for one faux-disaster after another. In the process, American liberals have used schools and universities to fill young minds with grotesque falsehoods.'

Is there any country in which this corruption of the young is not taking place?  Certainly not the UK.