Repairing the Damage to Children Caused by Climate Alarmists: letters from Ross McKitrick and Richard Lindzen

It seems the high school students mentioned in the previous post sent their 5 questions to other distinguished climate authorities, not least to Ross McKitrick and to Richard Lindzen.  Both have made their replies public.  Here is the one from McKitrick:

Five questions from students about climate change
Ross McKitrick January 2018

'In late 2017 I was contacted by a group of students at a high school in Europe asking if I would answer some questions on climate change for a project they were working on. Here are the questions they asked, and the answers I gave them.

1. What is behind global warming? Over the last 150 years there have been influences due to strengthening solar output, land-use changes, increased greenhouse gases and natural variability, among other things. The dominant school of thought in climatology is that rising greenhouse gas levels explain most of the overall warming trend since the 1950s. There are good reasons to support this, although the climate system is too complex to assume the matter is settled. The mechanisms by which the sun affects the climate are not well understood, nor are the mechanisms behind clouds, ocean-atmosphere interactions and other basic processes. The relative lack of warming in the tropical troposphere and over the South Pole are not easily explained under the theory that greenhouse gas levels dominate the climate system.

2. What can we do to prevent global warming? If it is a natural process, nothing. If it is mainly due to rising greenhouse gas levels we need to ask instead whether we would want to prevent it. It would require complete cessation of fossil fuel use, which would cause intolerable economic and social costs and would only yield small changes in the time path of global warming for the next century or more. Even large-scale emission reductions (such as under the Paris and Kyoto treaties) would only cause a small slowdown in the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100, so any benefits from such policies are likewise tiny, yet the costs would be enormous. The small warming that took place since the early 20th century was largely beneficial, and the astonishing social and economic benefits associated with cheap fossil energy far outweighed any problems it might have created. It is likely that this will be true over the next century as well.

3. If we don't do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants? Humans flourish in every climate on earth from the tropics to the polar regions. We are very adaptable. The only issue is whether changes take place so quickly that we cannot adapt, but history shows this to be a rare situation. Climate processes are slow, and if the climate models are correct, the changes are gradual and predictable. People can adapt to warming conditions more easily than to cooling conditions. The IPCC predicted that over the next hundred years, changes in economies and technology will have a much larger effect on peoples' lives than changes in climate.

4. What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable? There is no chance that greenhouse gases will make the Earth unlivable. If an asteroid hits, or another ice age begins, or something like that, then we face catastrophe. But the question essentially asks, what happens if we all die? The answer is, we all die.

5. How can we save Earth if it isn't too late? To ask the question is to reveal that you greatly overestimate your size in relation to the Earth. We could not ruin the Earth even if we tried, nor could we save it if it faced ruin. Our planet is a remarkably adaptable and robust home. We don't live in a giant china shop where everything is fragile and breakable, it's more like a playground where everything is made to withstand considerable wear and tear. Over the Earth's history the amount of CO2 in the air has typically been 2-10 times higher than at present yet the plants, animals and oceans flourished. Much of the past half million years have been ice age conditions which wiped out life on the northern continents, yet it always came back as soon as the ice retreated. If you take the view that the ordinary human pursuit of prosperity and happiness will somehow destroy the planet you will end up adopting an anti-human outlook. This is both a scientific and an ethical error. Set your sights on a more modest scale, by trying to be a good citizen and be helpful to the people around you, and you will make much better decisions than if you are thinking in terms of faraway abstract categories like saving the Earth.

Good luck with your studies.'

Downloadable from here:   https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/5questions.pdf

Unfortunately, the Lindzen reply is behind a paywall, here:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-017-9669-x

Hat-tip for both to SEPP: http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2018/TWTW%201-6-18.pdf

Repairing the Damage to Children Caused by Climate Alarmists: a letter from Ken Haapala

Anyone on the look-out for materials, ideas, approaches that could help repair the emotional and intellectual damage caused to children (and vulnerable adults) by climate alarmists?  This letter from Ken Haapala of SEPP seems to me to be a good contribution in the right direction:

'Letter to Dr Singer from students in Denmark asking important questions:

We are starting a project next week and the topic is "change". We have chosen the subtopic "global warming"

Do you have the time to answer a few questions in writing?

1. What is behind global warming?

2. What can we do to prevent global warming?

3. If we don't do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants?

4. What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable?

5. How can we save Earth if it isn't too late?

RESPONSE

Dear Students:

Dr. Singer was not available to answer your questions. I have worked with him for the past seven years, and he approved this response to you.

You ask some very good questions, which require answers with some detail. Science advances by asking good questions, providing answers that may or may not be correct (guesses), then testing the guesses against all hard evidence, that may or may not support it. If the strongest evidence does not support the guess (the hypothesis), then the guess must be discarded or changed.

The climate has been warming and cooling for hundreds of millions of years. For over two million years, the globe has usually been cold, with long ice ages interrupted by short warm periods of 10 to 15 thousand years. We live in one such warm period of about 10,000 years. The longer periods of cooling (and shorter periods of warming) have been explained as resulting from a changing of the orbit and tilt of the globe in relation to the sun, known as the Milankovitch cycles.

Within the generally-warm past 10,000 years, there has been shorter periods of modest warming and cooling. During a warming period, agriculture began and with it, civilization. The most recent cooling period is known as the Little Ice Age. It occurred between about 1300 to 1850 and was very hard for those living in Northern Europe and China, where we have written records. In Europe, many died from starvation and associated diseases because crops did not ripen. The Nordic settlements in Greenland were wiped out. Great storms occurred in the North Sea, killing thousands of people living in the low countries. It is thought this cooling period was caused by a weaker intensity of the sun, which resulted in increasing cloudiness and corresponding cooling.

Understanding what is behind the current warming of the last century or so, requires a complete understanding of what created periods of warming and cooling over the past 10,000 years, which we do not have. The earth’s climate is extremely complex. It can be described as the result of two fluids in motion interacting with the land. The fluids move in response to the heat generated daily by the sun.

One of the fluids is the ocean, which transports heat on the surface from the tropics to the poles, where it escapes into the atmosphere and to space. A famous surface ocean flow is the Gulf Stream, which keeps Northern Europe much warmer than the corresponding latitudes of Canada. The other fluid is the atmosphere, which transports heat from the surface to the upper troposphere by convection, from which heat can escape to space by radiation. We simply do not understand the movements of fluids sufficiently well to explain exactly how these systems work.

Adding to the complexity is the rotation of the earth, which changes the intensity of solar energy hitting any specific location on the globe. That varies both daily and seasonally, which adds to the ever-changing motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. It may take hundreds of years before these complex motions are fully understood.

In answer to your question: What is behind global warming? We simply do not know in detail, but can guess, then look at the evidence.

Over 100 years ago, scientists wondered why the surface of the earth does not cool as rapidly at night, as many thought it should. An explanation, since then well tested, is that some gases in the atmosphere delay the transport of heat from the surface to space, keeping the earth warmer at night. These gases are called greenhouse gases, the most important of which is water vapor. Deserts, with low atmospheric water vapor, cool more rapidly at night than humid areas at comparable latitude.

A lesser greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide which humans emit by burning fossil fuels. But research by different laboratories have shown that adding carbon dioxide to today’s atmosphere will cause only a small warming, nothing to fear.

Prior to the time when satellite measurements began (1979), the surface thermometers that indicated warming were largely on land, mostly located in the US, Western Europe, and other Westernized areas. The coverage was not global. Surface temperatures may indicate what is occurring in the atmosphere, but are influenced by many other human activities such as building cities, land clearing, and farming. For over 38 years, we have had the benefit of accurate temperature measurements from satellites that cover nearly all the earth, including oceans.

Meanwhile, computer models, known as General Circulation Models, have been used with relatively little success. Built into them is the assumption that the slight warming caused by CO2 will be amplified into a much greater warming due to water vapor. The principles of the scientific method demand that real data from observations be used, and for a computer model to be valid, it must reproduce the observed data. Any warming caused by increased greenhouse gases will be stronger in the atmosphere than on the surface.

Satellite measurements of temperature trends in the atmosphere have been studied intensely, including even tiny corrections for drifting orbits. Furthermore, the temperature trends are double-checked by using four different sets of atmospheric temperature measurements, taken with different instruments, carried by weather balloons; and all closely agree. Now stretching over 38 years, these show a modest warming trend.

From this evidence, we can conclude that: unless compelling evidence indicates otherwise, the warming influence of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, has been greatly overestimated; efforts to reduce greenhouse gases will not prevent global warming; carbon dioxide-caused warming will be modest; and the Earth will not become unlivable from carbon dioxide warming. Life began on this planet when the atmosphere was far richer in carbon dioxide, and far poorer in oxygen, than it is today.

Starting in 1972, Landsat satellites have been taking images of the earth. They show that the earth is greening with increasing carbon dioxide, becoming richer for life. Thousands of experiments show food crops grow better in atmospheres richer in carbon dioxide than the atmosphere today. Indoor plant nurseries routinely increase the carbon dioxide concentration of their air to three to four times that of today’s atmosphere.

Through the wonder of photosynthesis, using energy from the sun, green plants convert carbon dioxide and water into oxygen and carbohydrates (food). All plants and complex animals depend on this food. We should praise carbon dioxide, not fear it.

To directly answer your questions:

1. What is behind global warming? We don’t know exactly, but based on evidence, greenhouse gases are not the main cause.

2. What can we do to prevent global warming? Nothing. The main cause is natural variation, which we cannot prevent.

3. If we don't do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants? You and your descendants will live in a world richer in carbon dioxide, which is a benefit to plants, the environment, and humanity.

4. What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable? Life began on earth with the atmosphere many times richer in carbon dioxide than today. The earth will not become unlivable from carbon dioxide-caused warming.

5. How can we save Earth if it isn't too late? The earth does not need saving, but it needs good stewards. You can help by not polluting with trash, not wasting energy, and living healthy lives.

Best wishes,

Kenneth Haapala, President

Science and Environmental Policy Project

December 22, 2017'

Source: [dead link: http://sable.madmimi.com/c/16467?id=468806.21087.1.702e167e90d3764e59f9302489c6a55f]

Farewell

I have not been able to post much here for what seems like a long time.  I had been hoping to change that, but I have not managed to.  Now I've decided to stop altogether for a long break.  I'll leave the blog up and available for readers, and I may update the reference Pages now and then.

CO2 Scaremongering Climate Junk Claims Antidote: just look at the data

The seemingly endless streams of junk science, junk assertions, and portentous pontifications about climate based on CO2 Scaremongering are generally best, and most readily, dealt with merely by looking at relevant data.

Photo: http://www.flowers-magzine.com/Reviving_Wilted_Roses

That UK National Treasure of a web site 'Not A Lot of People Know That' has seen a great many posts refuting the silly claims of both victims and perpetrators of the Scaremongering.  The most recent is in response to a report just published by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS).  It turns out that that Society has burdened itself by employing someone as a 'climate scientist'.  Said 'scientist' naturally wants to be seen to earn her keep by producing something to justify her employment.  That 'something' has been generously hyped by the BBC.  That of course is not a good thing, since the BBC is little better than a cesspit of eco-junk  known to be severely and deliberately biased when it comes to environmental matters, not least climate.  This RHS report and the BBC reporting on it, as Paul Homewood deftly demonstrates, provide more exhibits for the prosecution on the these charges.

Parents, other family members, and teachers would do well to bookmark Homewood's site, and search it from time to time as and when climate spins pushed by victims, perpetrators, and collaborators in the CO2 Scaremongering come their way, or more importantly, in the way of their children.

Read his latest post to see his method at work:  https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/bbc-peddle-rhs-climate-lies/

BBC Peddle RHS Climate Lies

APRIL 30, 2017

US Science Teaching Union Responds to Reason on Climate with Three Lies

The Heartland organisation recently sent out to US schools 25,000 copies of its excellent booklet entitled 'Why Scientists Disagree About Climate Change' (follow my link to get your copy and see for yourself).

A leader of the National Science Teachers Association responded with three lies and no cogent criticism. Here are the lies:

"First, scientists don't disagree about climate change or its causes," David Evans, the executive director of NSTA, wrote in a letter to members earlier this week. "Second, labeling propaganda as science does not make it so. Third, science teachers are the critical bastion in the war against reason. And the special interests know it."

Why are they lies?

First, it is a platitude that scientists disagree about climate change and its causes.  The booklet gives chapter and verse on that.

Second the booklet is not 'propaganda labelled as science'.  In fact it is a reasoned counterstroke to exactly that phenomenon, a phenomenon which often proceeds by omission and by hyperbole to make the case for panic over CO2.  

Third, teachers have been docile vehicles for state propaganda for generations.  The socialists in Germany for example, regarded them as no obstacle at all in their promotion of the Third Reich, and they have been no less a pushover when it came to one eco-scare after another in recent decades. 

Jo Nova has more on this sorry rejoinder from the NSTA:  http://joannenova.com.au/2017/04/us-science-teachers-say-trash-books-and-watch-leo-instead/

In particular she notes that the NSTA report no errors in the Heartland booklet, and that is why they resorted to a squeeling distortion of reality as their response.

I hope most readers will download the booklet and pass it on to all the teachers they know.

Note added later. I see from the Heartland site that they plan to send

 out a total of 200,000 copies to schools and colleges. Good news:

'The summary below is taken from the book's concluding chapter. You can read it for free at the PDF link above, or buy a hard copy from the Heartland Store. A collection of reviews is here, and a page with even more information about the book has been created here.

In 2017, The Heartland Institute is mailing some 200,000 copies of the second edition of this book to K-12 and college science teachers across America. Read the cover letter of that mailing here.'

Help the Children of the CO2 Scaremongering Scam

A big effort is called for to help all the victims of the CO2 scaremongering of recent decades, scaremongering which has reached nursery, primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of education and of course can be found embedded in much of the mass media - not least the BBC.

I am hoping to see more and more books, articles, videos, and maybe even tv programmes one day, that will help with this work.  Here is the most recent example I have come across:  It is an article in the online Quadrant magazine:

A Handy Primer for Deluded Warmists

We all have them, friends who believe the planet is on a CO2-fuelled collision course with a catastrophe that can only be averted by directing large sums to rent-seeking wind farmers and the like. If you know someone like that, here's a simple, handy guide to the climate scam

Well worth a read: http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2017/03/handy-primer-deluded-warmists/
Hat-tip: Greenie Watch
Note added 08 April 2017.  Here are some examples of folk who need help: http://grist.org/article/depressed-about-climate-change-theres-a-9-step-program-for-that/

Read this Classic Post before talking about Earth Hour with your family and friends

Earth Hour: A Dissent by Ross McKitrick 

In 2009 I was asked by a journalist for my thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour. Here is my response. 

I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity. Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading. Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water. Many of the world's poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases. Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that's how the west developed.

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonises electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity. Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity. People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.

I don't want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in "nature" meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

Here in Ontario, through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s, despite the expansion of industry and the power supply. If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations. No thanks. I like visiting nature but I don't want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilisation with all its trade-offs is something to be ashamed of.


Ross McKitrick
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph

Source: http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/earthhour.pdf

This could become an annual post here:  http://climatelessons.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/children-asking-about-earth-hour-give.html