When I get back early in May, it will be close to this blog’s first birthday, and I plan to review what use this blog has been to me or anyone else, and what it might do over a further year.
For me, it has been one means of getting back to some familiarity with climate theories and observations, after a gap of more than thirty years, and perhaps more importantly, with climate politics and school curricula. I remain more convinced than ever that there has been a deliberate and gross exaggeration of the role of rising CO2 levels on climate, and a grossly irresponsible and melodramatic promotion of this rather weak theory outside of the walls of universities and other places of research - the only places where it really belongs. A new headache tablet would have been subjected to far more rigorous review, and yet have been capable of far less harm without it, than the overblown declarations of settled science concerning the impact of CO2 on the very complex climate system. That it is has been accepted with such confidence by policy makers points to some profound weakness at least in our political if not in our psychological make up. That it is being pushed on to children in our schools remains a great concern over the potential for harm to their spirits, their attitude to science and technology, and indeed to society itself.
But has the blog been of much use to others? It seems to get 20 to 60 new unique visitors most days, with an all-time high of 607 on one day this year, and it is now achieving 4 to 5,000 pageviews each month. Far fewer than some climate blogs get every day! I had hopes that it could serve as a convenient repository of ideas, arguments, and links for others engaging in more direct calls or campaigns for reform of school curricula and of the kinds of people, organisations, and materials allowed in or near schools to promote their causes under the guise of ‘climate change’. The widespread dissemination of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ to schools in the UK remains, in my view, a sad disgrace. It may be relatively rarely used nowadays (?), but I presume we remain vulnerable to more like it from the efforts of zealots for whom threatening the emotional wellbeing of children is not so much an obstacle as an objective in their drive for more political influence or power.
So, whether you are in the select band of frequent visitors which I hope exists, or you have just stumbled upon this place, please let me know what you think about it. What kind of purpose might it serve for you, and what might be done differently to make it better for that purpose?
