So if the models are so hopelessly riddled with errors and uncertainty that an anthropogenic radiative forcing signal cannot be distinguished from noise, or if the total magnitude of the warming attributed to humans is one-tenth to one-hundredth of the error or uncertainty ranges, why are those who dare question the degree to which humans affect the Earth’s climate branded as “deniers” of science?
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
'Nearly 100 ‘Climate Education Programs’ funded by NASA, NOAA, NSF & EPA'
The author introduces his study as follows:
'Four Federal agencies are funding at least 95 'Climate education programs'. These programs are specifically designed to influence students, teachers, and the public in general about climate change. Based on their summaries (which I will share) these programs are not intended to present information and let the public decide for themselves. Instead, they are designed for two goals. One, to influence the public to accept and take action on climate change. Two, to increase the future workforce involved in climate change fields. I will take each agency in turn, look at their stated goals, then look through some of the programs they have funded.
To be very clear, these programs do not further climate research. They are not studying the atmosphere or oceans. They are not studying clouds or albedo. We know nothing more about the state of our climate from these programs. Their sole purpose is education.
I'm going to explain my own view shortly. I do believe that the climate is changing, and that humans have had a minor role in this occurring. I do not believe that the future of the planet is in jeopardy. I object to these programs for multiple reasons, but one main contention is the fact that they all make the assumption that future climate change is overwhelmingly negative and that we absolutely must take serious action now. These programs all appear to assume catastrophic warming will occur unless action is taken. Enough of what I think. Look at the programs yourselves and see what you conclude.'
My comment appended to the above post:
'Excellent work to bring all this together and annotate it so wisely. In 2010, it seemed clear that the flimsy basis for alarm about rising CO2 had been so exposed, and that the unpleasant, self-seeking nature of the handful of individuals and organisations at the core of the alarmism was so visible, that this particular scare was over. But your work here helps show how deeply and widely the activists, acolytes and others have spread their scaremongering, enjoying their chunk of the billions of dollars diverted to this destructive, soul-destroying, and demented ’cause’. Well done! We still have a long, long way to go to get over this, and a lot of waste and societal loss is no doubt still to come as a result.'
Watch it here: