Earth Hour is Phoney, Energy Hour is Genuine: how schools can help children appreciate modern energy supplies, and sidestep the odious conspiracies around climate change.

Source

 If people must (and some seem determined to) engage in global displays of the same thinking at the same time on their clocks, then Energy Hour has much to commend it over the profoundly unpleasant and dubious Earth Hour as promoted by wealthy fundraisers such as the WWF.  For them, and others, fear means funds and they clearly don’t have enough yet to give all their executives incomes in the top percentile – that 1% targeted, curiously enough, by some other left-wing agitators as being somehow the bad guys. [Hat-tip – all the links in this paragraph are to posts by Donna Laframboise.]  In brief, Earth Hour is phoney because it is based on shoddy science, and is part of an intense propaganda campaign aimed ultimately at winning political control on unprecedented scales using 'climate change', currently, as the preferred Trojan Horse to get into people's minds and lives.  There are at least three alternative 'Hours' being suggested as defences to this insidious power-grab:

(1) The International Climate Science Coalition  is promoting 'Energy Hour':

Ottawa, Canada, March 28, 2012: “Earth Hour is yet another symbol of how climate activists have hijacked the environmental movement,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “Most people do not realize that, when they turn out their lights for sixty minutes on March 31, they are not supporting science-based environmental protection. Participants in Earth Hour are unwittingly helping prop up one of the most threatening scientific hoaxes in history—the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities are known to be causing dangerous global warming and other problematic climate change.”

 Anthony Watts (WUWT ) has picked up on this and that will ensure wider coverage.  The ICSC are taking the following approach:

‘“If we are going to demonstrate solidarity with those who lack adequate energy supplies, then we need to really feel what they feel, not just turn off a few lights,” said ICSC energy issues advisor, Bryan Leyland of Auckland, New Zealand. “Earth Hour should be renamed Energy Hour and citizens encouraged to use as little energy as possible for 60 minutes so that they can get a sense of what societies without adequate power are actually like. For this is exactly where we are headed if governments continue to yield to climate activists and try to replace reliable, base load generation with expensive, intermittent and diffuse energy sources such as wind and solar power.”

(2) Tim Blair in Australia is suggesting an 'Hour of Power': 'Earth Hour is with us again this Saturday night, so you’ll want to start planning.
For your normal Earth Hour types, this is a simple procedure. Just turn all your lights off at 8.30pm and sit there thinking that you’re Jesus. But for those of us in the Hour of Power movement, a proper celebration requires substantial commitment.
Just follow my essential power party guide and you’ll be set.
First, it’s symbolically vital that you turn on every single light for the appointed hour. Sounds easy enough, but there is always a sneaky bulb out on the back porch or in the garage. Be vigilant. Don’t let even the smallest or least visible globe escape illumination.
Toddlers are especially useful for this. “Just preparing for Earth Hour,” a friend texted before 2009’s event. “Max is loving running through the house turning all our switches on. We think he’s really learning something important!”'

Jo Nova has picked up on this and that will ensure wider coverage down-under.  She has also added a few ideas of her own to it (with a little fun with 'Hello Earthians!', picking up on a demented speech by the leader of the Green Party there):

'Hello Earthians! It’s time to say thank you to Edison, to Faraday and Maxwell, it’s time to celebrate the Gift of Light.

Saturday night at 8.30 – 9.30pm this week is the Hour of Power

(Don’t confuse this with the splinter group celebrations called Earth Hour, where people sit in the dark –  so they can appreciate the glory of luminosity come 9.31).

The Glory! We are the lucky generation with light at the flick of a switch

In the hundred thousand years since homo sapiens came to be, people have fled bondage, wars, small-pox, dysentery, died from minor scratches, starved to death, been ravaged by lions, stricken by cholera, and survived the odd ninety thousand year stretches of hypothermic, abysmal ice age.  We lived in the darkness for 99,900 years, cowering in corners, listening to drips, waiting for the sun.

There is only one type of Freedom – and all else is servitude, slavery or tyranny.

It’s your chance to show your commitment to fighting the forces of darkness. Be brave, stand up to the people who want to tell you what kind of globe you are allowed to buy. Feed the world by helping to boost global CO2 to lift crop yields and fertilize farms all over the planet. Children are hungry in Haiti and, since CO2 is a well mixed gas, sooner or later, you will be helping them.

(3) The Competitive Enterprise Institute is promoting 'Human Achievement Hour':
‘On March 31, some people will be sitting in the dark to express their "vote" for action on global climate change. Instead, you can join CEI and the thousands of people around the world who will be celebrating Human Achievement Hour (HAH). Leave your lights on to express your appreciation for the inventions and innovations that make today the best time to be alive and the recognition that future solutions require individual freedom not government coercion.’


It seems to me there are two basic options if you want to do something about 'Earth Hour' other than go along with it (and three, if you would prefer to ignore it completely):

 Option 1 Turn off lights etc as a symbol of concern and compassion for those who do not have this wonderful resource so readily available.

Option 2 Turn on lights etc to show how much you appreciate them, and that you do not take them for granted while others lack this wonderful resource.

Either option could be used to motivate study of the great benefits we have gained from mass power generation, and how these benefits can grow hand-in-hand with economic development.  The recent surge in material progress in China provides dramatic illustration of this, as they are said to be building coal-fired power stations at the rate of one a week.  No doubt, they will be displaced in due course but in the meantime, just as they did in the West, they can provide the enormous benefit of affordable, reliable electricity supplies as a stepping-stone to better futures.

Now, I must confess I am more inclined to turn all my lights etc on out of revulsion at such as WWF telling me to do otherwise.  I regard them as having made a transition from admirable to reprehensible, and anything I can do to diss them is appealing.  But these are not noble sentiments.  On the other hand, the examples above give plenty of scope to devise an Energy Hour/Day/Week etc etc that would be more edifying if you wish to take part in such activities, or if you are required to by, for example, state control over your school.

Note added 31 March 2012.  WUWT has that satellite pic of North Korea, and re-publishing of McKitrick's classic rebuttal of the sloppy, regressive thinking promoted by the like of the WWF for Earth Hour. Quote 'Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism.'

Note added 3 April 2012.  'Globe' as used above is Australian English for 'light-bulb'.


Note added 18 April 2012.  Here is a letter from a primary school announcing Earth Hour to a parent. A parent who was rightly outraged at the naive nonsense contained in the letter, and the deliberate intention it conveyed of indoctrinating the childen.

Climate Dogma lets Faith Trump Facts at the NCSE

What a mess the National Center of Science Education (NCSE) has gotten into.  They abandoned their own stated objectives of encouraging good science in schools when they jumped on the Carbon Dioxide Crisis bandwagon.  They hired Peter Gleick, just weeks before his demented alarmism and fantasies about the opposition to it drove him to crime, and they had to 'let him go'.  Now they seem to have hired another polemicist in his place, a Mark McCaffrey politely described by Patrick Frank as 'not particularly trained in climate science itself, but distinctly trained to promulgate his views about it.'  Last year,  they published an article in an in-house journal which is remarkable only for its intellectual depravity.  It is by an astronomer called David Morrison, apparently quite a distinguished one.  (We have had one of those in the UK heading up the Royal Society, and what an unhinged mess of neuroses and alarmism he provided us with, - see this report about Sir Martin Rees' views  'The human race has only a 50/50 chance of surviving another century').

WUWT has a letter by Patrick Frank which he tried but failed to get published in the NCSE journal.  The WUWT guest spot also provides the background leading up to this publication.  Please see the whole post there for more details.  I think it is instructive to compare and contrast the styles and the contents of the article by Morrison (pdf) and the letter by Frank.  I reproduce some extracts from the letter here - where all the emboldening is by me:

'When is Purported Science not Science?
by Patrick Frank

In his excellent book, “Galileo,” [1] Stillman Drake points out Galileo’s very modern understanding of science praxis, writing, “In his book on Hydrostatics, Galileo remarked that the authority of Archimedes was worth no more than the authority of Aristotle; Archimedes was right, he said, only because his propositions agreed with experiments.”

...
 In a recent NCSE Reports, Dr. David Morrison wrote an essay [4] about “Science Denialism,” which was one long effort to equate evolution deniers with AGW skeptics (Anthropogenic Global Warming).  There was very little science in Dr. Morrison’s essay.  Here’s most of it: “Climate models are indeed complex, and they do not always agree on details such as the timing of future warming. However, the evidence for warming is empirical, and its future trends are anchored in basic physics, such as the greenhouse effect and the heat capacity of the oceans.”

Those cognizant of meaning in science will immediately see the weakness of Dr. Morrison’s position: he grants causal meaning to climate warming while admitting the absence of a climate theory. The evidence for warming is certifiably empirical. But the meaning of that warming can come only from a falsifiable theory that makes unique predictions about climate. Is the warming due to the extra atmospheric CO2, or not? No amount of empirical data shuffling can answer that question.

...

Let’s take a short look at climate models. They do much less than, “do not always agree on [the] details” of future climate. They do not ever agree with the realities of past climate. For example, Demetris Koutsoyiannis and his group evaluated the advanced general circulation climate models (GCMs) used in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report issued by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). [5, 6] The IPCC used these GCMs to “retrodict” 100 years of 20th century climate, at all the points on a global grid. The reproduced trend in global average temperature looked great. As it should do because GCM climate models are adjusted to reproduce the known global average temperature. [7]
But the Koutsoyiannis group used the IPCC’s gridded 20th century global climate to reconstruct what these climate models said about the 20th century temperature record of the continental US. The GCM climate models got it very wrong. They also used the GCM retrodiction to reconstruct the 20th century temperature and precipitation records at 58 locations around the world. The reconstructions failed badly on comparison with the real data. This is a basic test of GCM reliability of that no one thought to carry out during 20 years of climate alarm; climate alarm ostensibly made credible by those very GCMs. Climate models cannot reproduce the known climate. Why should anyone believe they can reliably predict an unknown climate?

Dr. Morrison mentioned that climate models do not get clouds right, and then quickly dismissed this problem as irrelevant. But tropical and subtropical clouds strongly affect the amount of energy retained by the atmosphere. [8] Clouds have a net cooling effect on Earth. [9, 10] I evaluated the GCM cloud error as reported by the scientists of the “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project,” and found that the GCM cloud error, averaged over the globe, was at least ±10.1 %. [11]

This cloud error translated into a GCM error of at least ±2.8 Watts/m2 in energy. That ±2.8 Watts/m2 error equals all the extra forcing by all the extra greenhouse gases liberated into the atmosphere during the entire 20th century. That is, GCM cloud error alone equals ±100% of the increased “greenhouse effect.” It doesn’t take a very astute person to realize that when the error is as large as the effect, the effect itself becomes undetectable.

The scientists who use GCM projections to predict future climate do not take cloud error into account. Competent scientists would propagate that error into their predictions. But climate modelers do not. Neither does the IPCC. Propagating the cloud error would show that the growth of error quickly makes climate predictions no better than a random guess. [11]  GCMs can’t predict the global temperature even one year ahead, much less 10 years or 100 years. But Dr. Morrison tells us that’s irrelevant, because rising CO2 is enough all by itself to certify a catastrophically disrupted climate.

Remember the criterion of science? Only falsifiable predictions yield the meaning of observations. Climate models do not give falsifiable predictions, especially not at the resolution of CO2-forcing. Therefore, they can give no causal meaning to increased atmospheric CO2. They cannot explain the warming climate. They can not predict the future climate. The observation of rising atmospheric CO2, alone, is not enough to certify anything except a rising level of atmospheric CO2. Knowing causality and predicting outcomes requires a falsifiable theory. Dr. Morrison hasn’t one, and neither does anyone else. Those who predict torrid climate futures literally do not know what they’re talking about. But that hasn’t stopped them from talking about it anyway. Dr. Morrison’s position on climate is indistinguishable from an intuitive alarm grounded in subjective certainties.

Like the wages of sin among the believers.

....'
(See the original, linked to above,  for the complete version (well worth reading in its entirety) and for references.)

This brings me back to our very own Martin Rees, and the report (link above) on his doom-mongering which includes this:

'The Book of Revelation presents its own, hair-raising, account of the end of the world: "And, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth." 

His fellow knight and fellow alarmist, Sir John Houghton would have loved that.  More on his Evangelical Climate Initiative here and here and here.  The last reference includes this :

'

'But he thought little about climate change until 2002, when he attended a conference on the subject and heard a leading British climate scientist, Sir James Houghton, who was also a prominent evangelical. “You could only call the process a conversion,” Cizik said. “I reluctantly went to the conference, saying ‘I’ll go, but don’t expect me to be signing on to any statements.’ Then, for three days in Oxford, England, Houghton walked us through the science and our biblical responsibility. He talked about droughts, shrinking ice caps, increasing hurricane intensity, temperatures tracked for millennia through ice-core data. He made clear that you could believe in the science and remain a faithful biblical Christian. All I can say is that my heart was changed. For years I’d thought, ‘Well, one side says this, the other side says that. There’s no reason to get involved.’ 

But the science has become too compelling. I could no longer sit on the sidelines.  I didn’t want to be like the evangelicals who avoided getting involved during the civil rights movement and in the process discredited the gospel and themselves.”

One day during the conference, Houghton took Cizik on a walk in the gardens of Blenheim Palace, Winston Churchill’s ancestral home. It was a lovely day, sunny and bright. Houghton said, “Richard, if God has convinced you of the reality of the science and the Scriptures on the subject then you must speak out.” 

The science of alarm about CO2 is, of course, far from compelling.  But my goodness, treating it as if it were sure does suit a lot of influential people. Patrick Frank's letter is another small step on the way to exposing that faith as not only ill-founded, but in practice extremely damaging to society.  If teachers continue to push it, then it may well be left to their pupils, as they gain in wisdom and skills for critical review, to react against the conditioning they have endured for year after year after year.  Christianity has much to commend it as a religion of compassion, but it too will be damaged in the backlash over the deceptions and the sufferings imposed by those who claim to be acting in its name, and by those on the left for whom it has been a decidedly secular opportunity (e.g. see here and here), and by those more extreme still for whom it has been an ideal vehicle for their inhumanity (e.g. see here or here).

.

Note added later on 27 March 2012.  I just came across this comment on a blog post by 'klem', whichsupports the notion of a backlash led by children:

'This is typical of teachers, they are major contributors to ACC alarmism. They don’t realize that it is backfiring. I know a lot of children in their early teens and pre-teen age that completely reject ACC. They accept climate change but not the anthropogenic version. You might think that they have been indoctrinated perhaps at school, but nope, you’d be wrong. All of them go to liberal public schools which have been showing “An Inconvenient Truth’ over and over with no opposing films or opinions, the teachers openly blame humans for climate change, they ridicule any opposing views from their students, as a result most of the students have had enough and reject it all. I have been an environmentalist since 1970, and I have never seen anything like this. I have been saying for years, ACC will kill the environmental movement in the end. And now I’m seeing how. There is a whole new generation of kids who will not fill the ranks of the green movement in the future. They reject environmentalism. This is a disaster in the making. And teachers are going to take the blame.'

Memo to Education Scotland: Stop Brainwashing our Children with One-Sided State Propaganda on Climate Change

 Quote 1 'Children should not be overfed with one particular view of this ['climate change'].  It is far too complicated for that.'

Quote 2 ' ...it is brainwashing our children.'

Quote 1 is by Professor Tony Trewavas of Edinburgh University.  Quote 2 is by Martin Livermore, of the UK Scientific Alliance.  Both quoted in this article in the Scottish Daily Mail on 24th March, 2012 (hat-tip: Stuart Crawford, media commentator):

Education Scotland is an agency of the Scottish Government, a government which has produced absurd legislation on climate, and committed to absurd targets on renewable energy, thereby leading the way in sub-scientific foolishness.  The facade of scientific justification is easily exposed, but not by children.  They tend to trust what the adults tell them, and hence have long been a clearly identified target for eco-propagandising by the zealots who are intent on telling others how to live.  The Royal Societies of Edinburgh and London have failed to defend the wider society from such manipulation and shoddy extrapolation from unconfirmed speculations about the importance of CO2 in the climate system, and so it is all the more refreshing to see a member of the Edinburgh Royal Society taking a more informed, a more independent, and indeed a more civilised approach on climate matters.

This is especially encouraging and important given the recent announcement of a concordat amongst the major political parties in Scotland in support of the preposterous 'climate change targets' of the Scottish government.  This announcement has been noted and commented upon at Bishop Hill , where it is deemed 'somewhat reminiscent of the Soviet Union'.





Note added 20 Mar 2019.  Education Scotland being noticed internationally for their shameless promotion of junk science and scare stories in schools:
'Educational materials often don’t help, either. One officially endorsed geography textbook in the United Kingdom suggests that global warming will be worse than famine, plague, or nuclear war, while Education Scotland has recommended The Day After Tomorrow as suitable for climate-change education. This is the film, remember, in which climate change leads to a global freeze and a 50-foot wall of water flooding New York, man-eating wolves escape from the zoo, and – spoiler alert – Queen Elizabeth II’s frozen helicopter falls from the sky.'
https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/98628/decades-climate-change-exaggeration-west-have-produced-frightened-children-febrile?page=1

Earth Day Climate Propaganda: Stuff the Data, Stuff the Science, Stuff the Panda - hey kids, look at that cute Panda!

Ross-Shire Journal

These children from a rural school in Scotland have been encouraged to switch lights off on 31st March, in order to 'support people and wildlife threatened by climate change'.

It is not difficult to spot the political campaigners who are coaching them in this nonsense.  And a regional council is on-board too, claiming that it 'hopes the effort will make people think about the energy they use, where it comes from and the impact that has on the environment and climate change.'
 (Source: Ross-Shire Journal)


Of course, the council and WWF are busy scheming to make that energy more expensive and less reliable thanks to the windfarms that are popping up in their territory to destroy wildlife, industrialise wild places, and discourage visitors and sensible industries from going anywhere near there.  Meanwhile, it is quite disgraceful that wealthy, un-accountable, biased, scaremongering, self-serving schemers like WWF have been allowed such access and influence on those youngsters.

This tiny example can no doubt be replicated in many thousands of locations worldwide, and this gives us a hint as to the extent of the  targeting of children by ruthless campaigners who will no doubt claim that they are protecting 'the world', or at least the Pandas if not the People.

The campaigners may well protect their Pension Plans by such actions, but I fear they may be bringing nought but harm to both People and Pandas, and for that matter, to Progress itself.

Note added 27 March 2012.  Earth Hour is no piece of fluffy symbolism dreamt up by nice but ill-informed people.  Instead
'Earth Hour was brought into this world by corporations
Launched in Sydney, Australia in 2007 there was never anything grassroots or shoestring about it. There’s no history of penniless activists toiling in obscurity, working their fingers to the bone, hoping against hope to attract attention to their cause.
Earth Hour is, instead, the brainchild of two large corporate entities – the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Fairfax Media Limited.'   Donna Laframboise
Note added 28 March 2012.  Donna explains the differences between Earth Hour and Earth Day: In any case, whereas Earth Day was the brainchild of a politician, Earth Hour (as I explain here) was brought into this world by wealthy corporations.http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/03/27/earth-hour-corporations-preaching-morality/

A Climate Book for Children - the cover alone deserves our contempt

Produced and published by what kind of people?  Sadists?  Sociopaths?  Dupes?  Fools?  Profiteers? 

Pic found on a blog hosted here, the AGU, home of an ethics committee once chaired by Peter Gleick, a man made decidedly un-ethical by his disproportionate alarm about CO2 and climate: http://blogs.agu.org/georneys/2012/01/26/global-warming-is-scary/  'Un-ethical' is also applicable to the cover of the above book.  As are a great many other adjectives conveying dismay, displeasure, distaste, and damnation.

The publishers are Dreamland, an Indian company describing itself thus:

If any reader in India or elsewhere can get this book and send in more details of it, I would be grateful. 

Teaching Point on Climate Data Analysis: for rigour and thoroughness, look to the outsiders, not the ‘authorities’.

Teaching materials, and guidance for teachers, can readily be found which defer to such authorities as the IPCC and the Royal Society and Met Offices and other government agencies around the world.  But, sad to say, none of these are to be trusted these days. 

They have all bitten the apple of political temptation, and the resulting lust for power has deflected them from paying adequate attention to details.  Such as how the hockey stick was constructed (see Montford’s masterpiece, 'The Hockey Stick Illusion', for how this was exposed by climate establishment outsiders as shoddy and indefensible).   The IPCC has also been exposed as an organisation careless of its own integrity (see Laframboise’s jaw-dropper 'The Delinquent Teenager' for chapter and verse).  And Montford has more recently described in a GWPF report the recent descent of the Royal Society from the high ground it might once have had a claim, indeed a responsibility, to occupy.  The UK Met Office has been saddled with an ex-WWF climate zealot as Chairman, and a deference to biased computer models which have made a mockery of its short-term climate predictions, both formal and informal. 

In New Zealand, amateurs exposed the official temperature records as being so unsatisfactory that no one ‘in authority; would subsequently take responsibility for them.  A recent summary was published on WUWT.

In the States, several commentators are challenging the temperature history adjustments being made by GISS and other agencies.

In Australia, a new report is out which exposes severe quality problems with the official temperature records there.

In each case, the ‘errors’ or the ‘adjustments’, just like the blunders of the IPCC, all happen to favour exaggeration of warming or its effects during the last 100 years or so.  And note that in each of these three cases, my links are to 'outsiders'.

So, teachers, the rug of authority is being pulled from under your feet.  You will fall too when that process speeds up, if you have been conscientiously urging your pupils to trust the IPCC, the Royal Society, the ‘97% of climate scientists’ (another deceptive statistic), and such like.  As Christopher Monckton has recently said in a related context, ‘Never do that again, even for the sake of appeasing authority. In science, whatever you may personally believe or wish to be so, it is the truth and only the truth that matters.'

Now it is clear that the truly conscientious teacher must hold the claims of such bodies within metaphorical tongs for his or her pupils to review and compare with other sources.   It is a sad thing that we have come to this.

Sloppy Science in a Nutshell: head of climate analysis says drought is permanent 4 years before record floods

It seems that whenever prominent CO2-driven folks condescend or blunder into making falsifiable statements about the climate system, the system duly responds by revealing them to be false.  Real Science has this beauty, using quotes from the Sidney Morning Herald:

January 4, 2008
IT MAY be time to stop describing south-eastern Australia as gripped by drought and instead accept the extreme dry as permanent, one of the nation’s most senior weather experts warned yesterday.
“Perhaps we should call it our new climate,” said the Bureau of Meteorology’s head of climate analysis, David Jones.
March 13, 2012
Changes to the system are almost certainly due to human activity.
The past two years have been Australia’s wettest two-year period since at least 1900

Yet the show goes on.  They have the money, the politicians, big agencies, big finance, big green, and of course virtually all of education from nursery schools upwards. Their scandals are numerous - the list at NoTricksZone is now up at 129 items, and is surely incomplete.  I suspect there are also many thousands more on smaller scales, within and around all the uncounted initiatives on the climate crisis bandwagon. 

But thoughtful teachers everywhere must be asking themselves how long they must go along with this madness.  On the one hand are to be found agitated activists and all the power that effective PR (such as the IPCC) and financial prizes can win, and on the other, are calmer citizens and all the integrity that careful observation and reflection can bring.

 It is clear to me which side has won the financial and political battles.  It is also clear which side has won the moral and intellectual ones.  Which side should teachers best be on?  The educational battles have also been lost, but the war is surely not yet over.  I think it is in the field a war between irresponsible adults who cannot contain or cope with speculations about CO2-driven catastrophe, and responsible ones who are dismayed by over-the-top reactions to something so poorly supported by observation and experiment.

Note added 14 March 2012: Real Science has more examples here of stupid, irresponsible, and subsequently refuted claims by scientist-activists.

Climate Week UK - a weak week weaker than ever in 2012?

That time of year again, and here I nearly missed it.  Climate Week, 12-18 March 2012.  It must be getting harder and harder to stir up enthusiasm for it.

It has as ever a list of supporters that would provide a decent resource for any sociologist researching into the spread of climate madness through a society.  Here's how it starts, with a few politicians, one a reformed terrorist, and how it continues with various 'eminent individuals' such as Al Gore and Nicholas Stern, two famous alarmists, and a star of the 10:10 terror film 'No Pressure', Gillian Anderson:

'Political leaders

The Prime Minister, David Cameron
The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg
The First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond
The First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones
The First Minister of Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson
Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Martin McGuinness
The Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband

Eminent individuals

Al Gore, former US Vice President
Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General
Lord Anthony Giddens, sociologist
Lord Nicholas Stern (author of the Stern report)
Sir Paul McCartney
Michael Palin, presenter
Gillian Anderson, actress'


The whole, far longer, list can be found here.

It does not seem to include CRU, but it does have the Royal Society and the Foundation of Holistic Therapists on board, to name but a few.  On the business front, alternative energy companies and the like are well-represented, the Prince's Mayday Trust is there, as is the UK Rainwater Harvesting Association and the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership.  Climate Week is not just about scaring and misinforming people, not least the very young, but there is money to be made through promotions and image-building events.


One construction company,  possibly in a time warp, is proposing to run public showings of the notorious and ludicrous 'An Inconvenient Truth'.   Another company is encouraging their employees to have good lunches that week:
'Each day during Climate Week, Sunvil Holidays will be providing our staff with a daily buffet of local and British produce.
On Thursday 15 March, all staff are encouraged to bring in their own local/British dish and the office will hold a lunchtime picnic.'

In Devon, students are helping out with a cider and ale festival.  Well, who said CO2 was all bad?


Chester Zoo on the other hand is more mainstream - it seems they might be going to shut themselves down for a week: 'We are having a Big Switch Off at Chester Zoo' 
We shall have to hope for good sunny week for any tropical beasties that may be there.  Chilling children is bad enough, but imagine the uproar if animals were to be so mis-treated.


On the education front, what do we see?
One school in Surrey announces 'During lunchtime break,members of the Green Team will be offering a ‘plant your own sweet pea’event.'  Now that does not show much in the way of self-sacrifice, self-criticism, and general flagellation that this great 'crisis of a trace gas' calls for.  They might wish to learn from National Star College where 'Students & staff are being asked to focus on switching off lights, computers & electrical items on standby as well as turning down heating.'  That's more like it.  Next year, they might like to try boarding up any north-facing windows, or perhaps just try sitting still in classes while volunteers put ice cubes on their heads to symbolise both the disappearing icecaps and the gross indulgence of past students wanting to be warm all day.  Meanwhile near Glasgow another school is being even more ambitious - their charges are being encouraged to control the very cosmos:
We are holding two competitions within our school. The infant department are completing a climate-related dot-to-dot challenge. The upper school are to design inventions to help reduce climate change. We are excited!  I'd be excited too, if I could somehow convert my dismay into something more positive.

So what will it be like, this 'Climate Week'.  In last year's post on it, I added this footnote when it was all over:
'...hard to get data for an overview, but my impression is that Climate Week has been a low-key, low-profile, low-impact event.  Thank goodness.'

Same again this year? 

 An article yesterday in Forbes Magazine by James Taylor of the now more famous Heartland Institute:

Global Warming Alarmists Rally Around Classroom Propaganda

 (Hat-tip: Tom Nelson)

 A short article, well worth a read.  He puts in revealing juxtaposition some of the propaganda initiatives in schools deployed by those who want children to be alarmed about airborne CO2:

'Force impressionable young students to watch, at least eight times apiece, an Al Gore global warming propaganda movie? – Check!

Keep showing the propaganda movie even after a court of law found numerous important factual errors in the movie? – Check!

Set up National Teach-Ins with environmental activists and other propagandists, while at the same time freezing out participation from non-alarmists? – Check!

Flood the Internet and school district mailboxes with activist global warming curricula? – Check!'

 beside this quotation from Michael Mann:

 “[T]here was this program to indoctrinate K-9 school children with climate change denial propaganda. To me that is so pernicious, and I am genuinely horrified by it. I’m all too aware that those who will bear the brunt of our emissions today are going to be our children and grandchildren. They’re going to bear the costs of our cheap energy today. So there’s this effort to misinform the very people who will bear the greatest cost of climate change. To me that is so amoral it’s almost hard to put into words.”

He puts in revealing juxtaposition an appeal for a 'rational public debate' by Peter Gleick :

 'In his letter in which he admitted stealing Heartland Institute internal documents, engaging in fraud, committing identity theft, and distributing to the media forged documents designed to cast the Heartland Institute in a false and pernicious light, Fakegate perpetrator Peter Gleick claimed he did so because “a rational public debate is desperately needed” and there are coordinated efforts to “prevent this debate.”

beside this observation that that this self-same man was intent on poisoning public discourse and turning down a debate:

 '...Gleick, on the very same day that he perpetrated his acts of fraud and theft against the Heartland Institute, turned down a Heartland Institute invitation to publicly debate global warming and share his climate concerns at the Heartland Institute’s annual benefit dinner...'

The moral qualities of some those on the 'other side' of this inadequately debated topic are not at all impressive.  The double-speak, the deviousness, the projection, the ruthlessness, and the intolerance are all short of being edifying.  And of course, some of them call for no debates at all since since they would give undesirable publicity and recognition to calm, moderate, and well-informed views on climate,  And, of course, in the few public or publicised debates that have taken place, such views have been so much more impressive, usually winning the day. 

They may win the 'days', but meanwhile the years of climate alarmism accumulate in schools.

Church of CO2 Alarm tenets challenged in a university - junior priests and a missionary are startled by this

I try not to get spread too thin here, but this one is hard to ignore (hat-tip: Greenie Watch).  It is, I think, revealing of the narrow-minded, ill-informed yet animated attitudes that have led to the production of so much execrable material on climate aimed at schoolchildren.  The people responsible for it are just the kind that I hope will change their minds soon if this dreadful corruption of the young is to stop.

You have to put yourself in their place to understand their inner turmoil.  They are believers.  They have been brought up in the faith.  They learned about the threat of the evil deniers, paid by evil corporations to spread lies and deceptions - mostly to stupid, gullible people, or to other wicked people.   That's simple and clear enough, and would have been reinforced all but daily in the media, and within their circles of chosen ones.  Imagine their horror then to come across a professor in a university delivering an entire lecture course which undermined the Revelations of Gore and the Holy Insights of Hansen.  Surely, of all sheltered, solidly socialist places, a university should be a safe haven from such non-conformist views?  You can see they would be upset and puzzled.

Four junior priests of the faith took it upon themselves to study videos of the offending lectures, and then put together a 96 page document to capture the horror of them, and add some attempts of their own to refute the heresies.    Hearing of this report, the missionary agreed to do a telephone interview with the heretic himself, and thereby no doubt display both her courage and willingness to deal with such people in the name of the cause.  Perhaps she might show him the error of his ways, or at the very least publicise more awfulness to bring shivers of horror to her own small band of followers.   But, goshdarnit, it turned out that the heretic was polite and rational and well-informed and not at all obviously unhinged or evil.  Listen to the call, or read the transcript, and see how her faith is tested, and how she sometimes remembers her catechisms about Consensus, Deniers, Big Oil, Heartland, Catastrophe, and suchlike.  Yet these potent words, words that produce automatic cheers of agreement amongst the faithful and deep declarations of solidarity with the cause, were brushed aside or even challenged to good effect!  But although she stumbled, and failed in her hopes for this call, she made the best of a bad job and reported next of nothing of it.  Why expose her converts and hangers-on to what she had to endure?  No,she concentrated on the report of the junior priests instead.  A report which even now, the bad guys are having some fun with.  It seems it is a foolish piece of work, one which will bring nought but shame and embarassment to the new church.

I hope, but experience tells me it is a forlorn one, to have time to return to this myself.  In the meantime, and that may be for a long time, here is the inestimable Watts at work on it: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/03/fake-moral-outrage-translated-to-smear-media-upset-that-students-can-choose-to-take-an-elective-course-on-climate-change-at-carleton/#more-58227

Here is some of what he has written:  [note Goldenberg is the missionary in my scribbles above, and Mr Harris is the heretic]

'Contrary to Goldenberg’s statement that the review of the Earth Sciences course was “an expert audit”, Mr. Harris in his telephone interview (from the transcript linked above) explained to her that it was conducted by two biologists and a writer, none of whom apparently have significant expertise in Earth Sciences or Climate Science.

According to Mr. Harris, contrary to assertions in the Guardian piece, the 2011 version of the ERTH2402 course was well supported by peer reviewed science literature and was in no way extreme. It merely concluded that we are a long way from understanding the science well enough to be able to make reliable forecasts about future climate. Harris says the course was completely nonpartisan politically and avoided any sort of commercial endorsement.

Goldenberg wrote in her Guardian article:

“A team of scientists, who reviewed the videotapes of Mr. Harris’s lectures provided by the university, found 142 false, biased and misleading claims”.

Mr. Harris advises me that he will release an appropriate response to those claims when he has thoroughly reviewed the CASS “audit” report. However, as of this writing, no problems have yet been raised by Carleton in the course material as taught in 2011. It appears that Carelton University itself has no issue with the course material, only the CASS group and the media seem to have issues.

Suzanne Goldenberg’s Guardian piece condemning ERTH2402 is itself riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations, omissions, and errors, some of which were described in a letter to the editor sent by Mr. Harris to The Guardian early on February 29. So far, The Guardian has not responded or published the necessary corrections in either their Letters to the Editor or “Corrections and clarifications” sections.

If they don’t, and I’m predicting they won’t, I’ll carry the letter from Mr. Harris here as a separate post.'

Note added 9 March 2012:  That promised post has been posted today.  Strong stuff for WUWT:

Editiorial: The Guardian doesn’t give a damn about accurate reporting nor its own editorial code

Posted on March 9, 2012 by Anthony Watts

Funders of school materials on climate: vested interests in the The Scare vs The Heartland Institute

CartoonsByJosh

Most of these state-funded bodies have grown hugely bigger, richer, and more powerful by jumping on the CO2 Scare bandwagon with alacrity.  I suspect they also all produce materials for schools with some of their funds.  They no doubt see children as a means of influencing their parents as well as voters of the future.  Meanwhile, some climate alarmists have tried to frame, abuse, and attack the tiny Heartland Institute for daring to consider producing some educational materials on climate themselves.  The moral and intellectual mess which Peter Gleick has got himself into in this smearing and deceit is tragic for him, and has itself drawn out more reprehensible comments from his 'side' (for examples, see this post by Donna Laframboise ).  

The reality is the funding of that institute is minimal in comparison with those who push the establishment's line, while their integrity may well be orders of magnitude greater than that of their critics.  I would hazard a guess that the science and reasoning and basic humanity in any climate materials they might produce for schools will be outstanding compared to the alarmist dross currently polluting the minds and spirits of the young.

Josh (Cartoons by Josh) captures a sense of the funding discrepancy with his superb graphic shown above.  Ben Pile does the same, also superbly but using prose:
'The environmental movement is as promiscuous with its ‘ethics’ as it is with ‘The Science’. You can make stuff up, apparently, just so long as you do so in order to ‘save the planet’. And this is why sums as paltry and insignificant as $1,000 are so important to their perspective. It is only by amplifying the trivial that the myth of ‘networks’ of ‘well-funded deniers’ can be sustained. It’s only when you lose a sense of proportion that a few million dollars can stop global action on climate change. Trivia, vanity and mythology allows environmentalists to turn ordinary facts of politics – funding, associations of people, and campaigning organisations – into secret conspiracies to explain their own failure to create a popular movement.'


(hat/tips: Bishop Hill)

Those wealthy agencies may well turn on a sixpence as and when their political masters change tack.  They will continue to do as they are bid.  The glossy materials, the fancy websites, the PR machines, the outreach to the young - all of it could look the same from the distance, but, and here is the dream, one day the words will be different, the fearmongering will go, the manipulation, the condescension and the authoritarianism will vanish.  Proper science, respect for others - especially for the trust and vulnerability of the young - and a sense of calm perspective about what we know and don't know about the climate system will take their place, along with more respect for the great industrial achievements of the past and for our ability to rise to the challenges of the future.

And all on greatly reduced budgets!  There's the rub.  And there's the value for money in small outfits like the Heartland Institute.  I hope they do proceed with their climate materials for schools - they could scarcely fail to improve on some of the stuff out there, and they might just help with the long climb out of this pit of fear and smear we find ourselves in thanks to the political and financial power of people driven crazy by their phobia concerning CO2.

Who will help our schools push back on the Great CO2 Scare?

The offer to supply free to schools 300 copies of Ian Plimer's new book, 'How to get expelled from school', has been reiterated on Jo Nova's site.
 

Publisher

Jo writes:

 'The Education Department and the CSIRO push their propaganda and scare our children with apocalyptic, unscientific scenarios.  They are even trying to target pre-schoolers. The ABC has accepted grants from the Climate Change Foundation to work the Climate Change message into ‘DirtGirl’, an ABC4Kids TV. Then there are demonstrations of bias like this from a school in Sydney.

They’re trying to train the next generation to “think” their way. We’d be mad to let them get away with it.

Thanks to the Gallileo Movement and donors, 300 FREE copies of Professor Ian Pilmer’s new book ‘How to get expelled from school’, are available to schools in Australia' 

They require an official order from the schools, and this may be a problem.  If the schools are required to follow the government line on climate scaremongering, then obtaining such a book through official channels is not going to appeal to any head in search of a quiet life, nor is the book likely to be deployed in his or her classrooms.  I think they might be more successful in giving the books to teachers, and others in the education system, in their personal capacities.  It may be that the overthrow of the scaremongers will begin in staffrooms rather than classrooms.

But the idea is a good one.  Some schools, some heads, may be both willing and able to take a more independent view, at least for some classes who have either gone past relevant exams requiring conformance to the climate neurosis, or who have no intention of taking them.   I think as well as books, kits could be provided for physics classes to do their own greenhouse experiments and learn for themselves that the term is a misnomer - thereby undermining one of the emotive catchphrases of the scaremongers (exploiting the widespread experience of hot and unpleasant conditions in real greenhouses). Experiments showing the relatively large energies involved in the phase transitions of water would also be relevant as part of studies into the immense importance of the water cycle in the climate system.  What else?  New books, pamphlets, posters, DVD, and computer games and exercises - all the sorts of kit, in other words, deployed thanks to state funding by those who wish to scare the young into obedience, can be used by those who wish to liberate the young from such oppression and encourage them to think clearly for themselves.  There is great scope for generating enthusiasm, from the grand cosmic scope of the theories of Svensmark and Shaviv, to the great convective systems of the tropics, and the evaporation of a raindrop.  Even CO2 will deserve a mention as a minor player in climate but a major one for plants and indeed ourselves.  No need to scare 'em at all.

While climate alarmists wallow in the mud of their ugly subculture, a real climate scientist speaks out in London - Prof Lindzen, undermining crass climate curricula in schools the world over.

Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. 

It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. 

The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. 

The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. 

The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. 

They are sometimes overtly dishonest.

Professor Richard Lindzen introducing a lecture (pdf) he gave in Westminster on 22nd February, 2012, in response to an invitation from the Campaign to Repeal the Climate Act.  Video via Climate Realists.

Josh was there and captured insights and visual reminders in his gifted way:

Lindzen even managed to penetrate the smug assurance of someone at that home of sanctimonious superficial climate alarmism, the Independent:

Is catastrophic global warming, like the Millennium Bug, a mistake?

The educational implications of this are clear.  Here is perhaps the most distinguished scientifc meteorologist of our age.  His message is not the one our schools have been told to put out.

He is a moral and intellectual giant compared to the likes of Al Gore whose shoddy DVD was issued by the last government to all schools in England and Wales, or the likes of Peter Gleick, a vainglorious alarmist now being hoist by his own petard, or, another alarmist en route to a personal fortune, Dave Miliband, a leading member of that government whose Climate Change Act brings such shame and loss to British society.

Lindzen's core message is not new.  This is not a sudden revelation.  Leading climate scientists were saying it loud and clear to politicians 20 years ago, as the following statement, signed by Lindzen and many others, makes clear:

'February 27, 1992
WASHINGTON, D.C. - As independent scientists, researching atmospheric and climate problems, we are concerned by the agenda for UNCED, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, being developed by environmental activist groups and certain political leaders. This so-called Earth Summit is scheduled to convene in Brazil in June 1992 and aims to impose a system of global environmental regulations, including onerous taxes on energy fuels, on the population of the United States and other industrialized nations.
Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree.
A survey of U.S. atmospheric scientists, conducted in the summer of 1991, confirms that there is no consensus about the cause of the slight warming observed during the past century. A recently published research paper even suggests that sunspot variability, rather than a rise in greenhouse gases, is responsible for the global temperature increases and decreases recorded since about 1880.
Furthermore, the majority of scientific participants in the survey agreed that the theoretical climate models used to predict a future warming cannot be relied upon and are not validated by the existing climate record. Yet all predictions are based on such theoretical models.
Finally, agriculturalists generally agree that any increase in carbon dioxide levels from fossil fuel burning has beneficial effects on most crops and on world food supply.
We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science. We fear that the rush to impose global regulations will have catastrophic impacts on the world economy, on jobs, standards of living, and health care, with the most severe consequences falling upon developing countries and the poor.'

When it comes to cleaning the alarmist guff out of school curricula, one excuse that neither the politicians nor their tame educationalists who put those curricula together and forced them on to schools, will not have is 'we didn't know any better'.  They will also not have the excuse of 'only now has recent scientific knowledge suggested less cause for alarm'.  No, the real knowledge has never provided sufficient cause for alarm.  Never.  The alarm was and is based on speculation - hollow, flaky, insubstantial and promoted vigorously by grossly irresponsible people for a generation.

The Great CO2 Scare - has it run out of steam, will the scaremongering soon be driven out of our schools?

Generally, education and climate change is a gloomy overlap, given the apparent dominance of ruthless scaremongering about CO2 in curricula, and the apparent abundance of zealots all too keen to recruit the young for their peculiar cause.  A recruitment process that seems to involve scaring them about their future, then rubbishing their heritage of discovery and invention, and finally crippling their spirit of adventure, displacing it with obedience to elites who will tell them what they are permitted to do: eating, working, inventing, travelling, thinking, and even procreating.  The old socialist dream, in other words, of Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Pol Pot, and many other more minor dictators who besmirched the 20th century with their hideous behaviour.

But here are some signs of revolt, or of setbacks for alarmists, or at least of dawning realisation that all is not well with this scheme, or with its so-called scientific 'underpinnings'.  In no particular order:

(1) WIthin a month of deciding to support warped science-teaching in schools about climate, the NCSE have 'released' their prize catch of a distinguished climate alarmist from their board of directors, one Peter Gleick, a man driven to malevolent distraction by his vivid fears of armageddon.

(2) Judith Curry, a climate scientist who is not afraid of debate, and who clearly values the integrity and repuation of science in general and her subject in particular, has just started a new thread about teaching climate in schools on her site, and within 24 hours or so it had attracted several hundred comments.

(3) The Australian Climate Madness site has in the last couple of days posted several pieces on climate materials aimed at children, and it is not at all pleased with them - here and here and here.  Looks like that site may continue to pursue this topic.

(4) Andrew Bolt, and several other commentators in the mass media in Australia, have been impugned in a school geography textbook.  He doesn't like that much, and I daresay the others won't either.  Hopefully they will, as Bolt has done, make their displeasure widely known.

(5) Andrew Montford is the author of an outstanding book about an interface between climate science and politics, the Hockey Stick Illusion, and a man very concerned and knowledgeable about the activities and effects of key players in the headlong rush underway to make CO2 and 'climate' a dominant factor in policy making.    He has just given a talk at one of the UK Met Office sites.  This organisation was chosen as a next career choice by a man who played a large part in transforming the World Wildlife Fund into a lobbying body obsessed, even demented by 'climate change'.  In some ways, so is the Met Office - to its great demerit since its level of competence in climate forecasting is laughable, yet it has played an important role in making climate alarm respectable, not least through the influence of its former director John Houghton, who saw climate change and man's impact on it in a religous light.   Anyway, the meeting took place, and the first reports of it sound favourable.

(6) The Independent newspaper, like some other leftwing mass media in the UK, notably the Guardian and the BBC, has been prominent in campaigning and preaching about the dreadful effect of man-induced CO2 releases into the atmosphere.  Their evironmental reporters have been like missionaries seized with fervour as they spread the good words about how salvation will come from reducing something called our 'carbon footprint'.  Aided and abetted by rising taxes, reduced standards of living, and greater power to their preferredinstrument of all progress - the government.  Well, and this is admittedly small beer, yesterday on their website a writer was allowed to publish a sympathetic report about a public lecture on climate by Richard Lindzen, another man who clearly loves science and the pursuit of truth.  The penny seemed to have dropped for this writer that maybe, just maybe, the Great Co2 Scare has been overblown.

(7) The Royal Society's craven dance macabre with government over climate alarmism has been lucidly captured by the above-mentioned Andrew Montford in a short pamphlet which tells how recent leadership there has thrown away the splendid and  precious spirit of objectivity and indepence captured so vividly in their original motto, Nullius in Verba (pdf).  A previous mini-revolt by a few dozen fellows over the society's stance on climate may well be replicated a fortiori if this fine pamphlet helps foment some more unrest.  This matters a lot for schools, since educational materials and their pushers on the climate front have been able to quote the society as an authoritative source in an area of science education that is awfully dependent on reference to authority since actual observations of the climate system show nothing at all unusual going on in what we see or experience.

(8) Another big source of authority for scaring the wits out of children, the IPCC has been exposed as a shoddy organisation by Donna Laframboise, and the next reports due from it are already being attacked in their draft form by knowledgeable commentators - see here or here.

(9) In fact, the speed with which alarmist hyperbole is being jumped upon and exposed in the blogosphere is in general very encouraging, with groups such as the GWPF and SPPI and NIPCC and CO2Science doing sterling service with high quality analyses aimed at policy makers.  See here, for example, for an evisceration of the BBC's record (pdf) on climate alarmism, and here.  Or visit WUWT for regular features challenging the establishment view - a website by the way which recently went past over 100 milllion visits, by itself a good sign.

(10) New books are coming out that could well be used, or inspire, teachers and pupils to take a more robust line when it comes to dealing with those who would use their pupils as pawns in political schemes.  One in particular, Don't Sell Your Coat, is very accessible, being bright, brief, and extremely well-written. It also comes from an an author on the left of the political spectrum, the end at which it would seem that most teachers find themselves to be.

(11) And here's something I've been listening to with great admiration while finishing off this post: Matt Ridley talking to a 'tipping-point' conference recently.  Since 'tipping-point' is one of the catch-phrases used to scare the gullible, it is likely that his audience was mostly of true believers in the climate faith, the apocalyptic one  (h/t Bishop Hill) .  Teachers, I know you are constrained by state-imposed curricula, but could you at least share this in your staffrooms?

(12) Perhaps we are going to see an end to junk like this video clip below, introduced by one Ben Santer, famous for editing draft IPCC reports to suit his, rather than other scientists' more rational, views, and for being tempted  to 'beat the crap' out of another scientist who had the temerity to be wiser and more knowledgeable than him.  The only possibly encouraging thiing about this video, apart from its dire quality, is that comments on it have been switched off at YouTube, possibly because they were too angry:



And the snows of Kilimanjaro?  Well, they got that wrong too - they are not steadily disappearing.  And airborne CO2 emits just as much as it absorbs of infra-red - neither it nor methane is a 'trap' keeping that radiation from escaping to space.  Once high enough up, they will actually help that escape of energy to take place.

The false image of the earth behaving like a glass house will be laughed at one day in classrooms, as will the idea of CO2 as a pollutant, while the youngsters learn a little of this crazy era of CO2-driven political madness say, c. 1980 to 2020, in which gullible politicians were led to believe they could control the very weather by raising taxes, and when little children were coached as activists to encourage such beliefs.  That end date may be on the optimistic side, but I think it is not out of the question.

Climate corruption causes caustic commentary in a school textbook displaying moral turpitude, rotten attitude, and downright 'stupitude'.

Andrew Bolt describes a school geography textbook as ‘sludge’.  For some reason, best known to the authors, and perhaps not unconnected with the widespread CO2 Alarm virus that is now endemic in left-wing circles in particular, they chose to denigrate him and some other commentators in a somewhat unimpressive coverage of climate politics in their book.  I think their approach, while it would not be unexpected in any conversation with agitated climate alarm believers, is wholly out of place in a school textbook.  It is due, I suspect, to a corruption of climate science that has been widely propagated by such as the IPCC.  I divide my concerns into three headings below, and follow that with some extracts from the offending passages in the book as provided by Australian Climate Madness.



Moral turpitude.  The loaded use of words like ‘denial’ and ‘denying’ is a hideous abuse not only of good people who happen to have views contrary to the establishment’s, but also and more importantly to the memory and the message of the Holocaust itself.  But further, to take the good intentions of such as the IPCC at face value is to make a profound error.  Good intentions seized upon with enthusiasm and faith in the wisdom of ideologically-driven elites in the 20^th century led to horrendous tragedies.  In the climate area, the most dramatic of late has been in the imposition of bio-fuels  – not just adding to energy costs in the rich world, but bringing further, totally avoidable, misery and starvation to the poor one.  The longer-term harm will flow from the accretion of power and wealth by new ‘elites’ using CO2 fear-driven legislation and taxes, while the associated suppressed development, known as ‘sustainable development’, will impoverish most people in both rich and poor countries.

Rotten attitude. Aggressive, politically-loaded one-sided misrepresentation of those who are speaking out against the corruption of both science and politics does not reflect what I imagine most parents would want to see in a teacher, or in a textbook.  No pupil would realise, from this material, that very distingusihed, very experience scientists have taken issue with climate alarmism, as have many very well-informed, logical, coherent, and civil commentators.  The scarcity of admirable role models on the climate alarmist side is quite stark, and is not alluded to.  You can hardly look into any area of climate alarmism without finding matters of great concern, often revealing low levels of integrity in science, in politics, or in journalism.  Now a teacher of science or of geography might reasonably wish to protect his pupils from this rather confusing turmoil in order to teach them something of his or her subject matter.  Instead, in this textbook, we see propaganda – a one-sided denigration by innuendo of good citizens, freely and reasonably deploying their own minds and finding serious grounds for opposing the headlong rush to legislate and spread fear, ostensibly in the cause of CO2 reduction.
  
Downright 'stupitude':  The poor quality and global coverage of so much climate data is such that to describe the evidence for global warming as ‘overwhelming’ is not a very intelligent thing to say, especially when the context implies that by ‘global warming’ is meant something quite dramatic and scary.  There is indeed some evidence, most notably through estimates of that rather hard to define concept of global mean temperature.  This is not actually an observed temperature.  Many real observations of temperature show no particularly sustained trend in the 20^th century for example, some show cooling, some show periods of warming and cooling, and some show warming.  Large areas of the earth’s surface have no surface weather stations in their vicinity.  The satellite data available for the past 30 years or so, show no clear warming signals.  Even the widely accepted global mean temperatures only show a modest overall rise in the 20^th century, and furthermore show no evidence of a rise in the 21^st.  The case against acute, or even any strong alarm about rising CO2 levels is actually a very strong one, and so far it has been well-supported by Mother Nature herself.  So many alarmist predictions capable of being put to the test by contemporary data have failed that test that it is rather stupid to pretend that the arguments are over, and we face disaster if the Jeremiahs are ignored.  The scientists who are promote acute alarm about rising levels of CO2 are actually very few – perhaps a few dozen or so in my estimation, with their impact amplified by the leadership of scientific institutions and others.  The numbers who promote appeals for a more calm, considered discussion of the science are far greater, probably in the hundreds or even thousands if some petitions are to be taken at face value.  Finally, picking on such as Andrew Bolt, a highly articulate, well-informed man with a very sharp wit (not to mention newspaper columns a radio slot, a tv show, and a great many enthusiastic followers) is both inappropriate for a school textbook, and a little, shall we say, ill-advised.  I suspect he knows far more about the climate debate that the authors of this sorry book.

Some extracts from the book, with comments.

 Extract 1: 'Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the planet is warming, there are still people who deny that is a result of human activity. The most vocal of these deniers are conservative political think tanks and the right-wing radio 'shock jocks'.'
 This is a straw man, there to allow the authors to vent theirs spleen at what they no doubt sees as 'the enemy'.  After a brief CYA sentence including 'there is a range of views', they develop the above theme.  Yet what is the reality?
The planet has not been warming for the past 15 years or so by the usual measure of estimated global mean temperatures.  When it was warming in the late 20th century. it was at a similar rate and magnitude to the warming of the early 20th century - a rise not attributed by anyone to CO2.  Furthermore, many distinguished scientists and other sceptics are perfectly willing to entertain the possibility of a human contribution to warming via CO2.  They do not dispute that, they merely observe that the expected and the observed effect are both rather small, and not of much, if any, concern.  For a recent illustration of such an approach, I would direct my readers to item 1 and item 2 in the Wall Street Journal.

Extract 2 ‘Shaping the nature of the public debate about the issue is an important focus for those groups opposed to any program designed to reduce CO2 emissions.  In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that a conservative American think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was offering scientists and economists US$10,000 each to ‘undermine a major climate change report’ from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’

$10,000 dollars will sound like a life-changing amount to a schoolchild, and being paid to ‘undermine’ something does sound very dubious indeed.  Yet let us look at some facts:

1.     The AEI request was for ‘essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs’.  The sender of the request noted ‘Right now, the whole debate is polarised," he said. "One group says that anyone with any doubts whatsoever are deniers and the other group is saying that anyone who wants to take action is alarmist. We don't think that approach has a lot of utility for intelligent policy.’  Doesn’t sound too sinister to me.

2.     $10,000 dollars does not actually buy you a lot of specialist consultancy.  Maybe 1 or 2 days of a leading expert’s time, maybe 10 to 20 days of a relative newcomer’s. A decent amount of money to be sure, and I’d guess it is a sum not out of line with what even The Guardian newspaper will pay for a piece by a distinguished commentator.  I suspect they might well pay $10,000 for a few thousand words by a specialist commissioned to write for them.  [see footnote (1)]

That Guardian article by the way, came complete with this picture of a polar bear.  Such bears might well become symbols of the shallow opportunism of some climate alarmists since many bear populations have been growing despite being held up to us, and to children in particular, as already being harmed by the awful warming underway.



Extract 3. ‘Many large fossil fuel-based industries have also tried to discredit the work of scientists.  Exxon Mobil, the giant American Oil Company, has, for example, spent millions supporting conservative (right-wing) organizations that cast doubt on the science on which the warnings about a warming climate have been based.’
Some people really have it in for Big Oil in general, and Exxon in particular.  Yet these companies are noticeable by their low profile on the sceptic side of the debate, and their prominence on the warming side with their campaigns, investments, and support for the global warming worldview that ‘something must be done’.  The recent theft and publication of Heartland Institute documents is informative here I think.  This is an example of what the authors refer to as a ‘conservative think tank’. First of all for the insight into the ethics of climate alarmed scientist-activists and their supporters in the mass media, but also for the remarkable absence of millions in funding by Big Oil or other fossil-fuel based industries (how much of modern industry, or indeed living, is not fossil-fuel based, by the way?).  For more insight into the far larger sums flowing into the climate alarm industry, see this post by Jo Nova.

Extract 4:  'In Australia, journalists such as the Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt, the Sydney Morning Herald's Miranda Devine, the Telegraph's Piers Akerman and the radio 'shock jocks' Alan Jones and Ray Hadley dismiss the science underpinning warnings about global warming.'  
This, remember, is in a school textbook on geography aimed at 13 and 14 year olds.   I am not familiar with the output of all on that list, only some of Bolt's work and a little of Alan Jones'.  If it is typical of this lumped together group, then a more accurate focus would be 'scientific speculations underpinning warnings about global warming'.  And a more accurate term than 'dismiss' might be 'examine' or even 'draw attention to criticisms of'.  'Dismiss' does imply an attempt to ignore or downplay, but both Bolt and Jones seem to go out of their way to draw attention to them (thank goodness).   For example, on 17^th March, 2011, Bolt wrote this:

'Once again, Julia Gillard tells an untruth in her speech last night on her carbon dioxide tax:

Ms Gillard said human-induced climate change was real and opinion polls could not change that. ‘’I ask, who would I rather have on my side?’’ she said. ‘’Alan Jones, Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt?

‘’Or the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Bureau of Meteorology, NASA, the US National Atmospheric Administration, and every reputable climate scientist in the world?’’

“Every”?

Here are just some of the climate scientists who’d object to Gillard including them in her list of supporters:'

[there follows an annotated list of some of the most distinguished scientists who do not take Ms Gillard's alarmist view of the climate system - no dismissal of science there, I'd say]

Or you might prefer to listen to Andrew Bolt interviewing a hapless EU apparatchik called Jill Duggan, who was in Australia to promote the EU's carbon policy without having a clue about what it might achieve.

Or watch him on TV.

In all three cases, he seems to me to be taking climate science very seriously indeed.  He is far from dismissing it. The TV slot also includes an interview with Prof Lindzen who is a known believer in anthropogenic global warming.  He just doesn't think it amounts to much. 



Extract 5 ‘Fortunately, a new generation of world leaders is taking global warming seriously.  In the United States of America, President Barack Obama is working to reduce America’s reliance on fossil fuels and is providing leadership in international efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.’
This is so misleading.  President Obama may be noted for some things, but providing such leadership is demonstrably not one of them.  And why the ‘fortunately’ when so much harm is coming from political decisions driven by alarmist posturing?

In Bolt's own words, in reaction to this book:

This is not education, but propaganda. It is pure melodrama, short on facts and long on fancy.

Few “deniers” - an offensive term meant to evoke Holocaust denial - dispute that man’s emissions have a tendency to warm the planet. That is not where the main debate is at.

The dispute is about the extent of any warming, the danger of it, the likelihood of it being overwhelmed by natural influences, the true sensitivity of the climate to our gases, and the cost-benefit of trying to “stop” the warming we’ve seen - which actually halted 15 years ago.

These “deniers” include many reputable scientists, including some of the world’s leading climate scientists. To suggest they’ve been bribed to say what they do is a vile smear. If money does corrupt debate, it should be noted that the vast bulk of money goes to the alarmists.

As for those leaders who “fortunately” take “global warming seriously”, Obama is not doing anything seriously about it and Rudd was dumped after backing off his own plans.

There’s much more to say about this sludge. What is depressing is that it is taught as fact in our schools. 

Note.  My rough draft of this post went to 15 pages.  I have cut out most of the material, and many of the references to save some time and spare the reader from ramblings (found lots of good stuff though).  I plan to come back and add links to add back up to some points made above, as well as correct the typos that must be there.

Footnote (1) added 25 Feb 2012. A supporter of the UK's absurd Climate Change Act gets c. $30.000 a day for consulting, and an average of $25,000 for each of 8 speeches last year.  

 Socialist greenies - you've to hand it to them - they know how to look after themselves! 


More here: http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2012/02/this-is-wrong.html


Will this get into the next (heaven forbid) edition of this textbook?