'First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects observed in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial.'

Freeman Dyson,

in Foreword to http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Earth Interview: something for the classroom, or the kitchen, wall?

Source: Bishop Hill

Readers here will enjoy the cartoon - another fine one by Josh (http://cartoonsbyjosh.com/)

It could also help your children realise what a one-sided view the mass media has been deliberately promoting (the BBC for example) , and that by itself could help them cope better with stress from the alarmism that has been pushed at them all their lives.  And perhaps encourage some to look into it for themselves - the best way to reduce their anxiety.

Some backround reading: 
From the latter:
In an interview with The New American after his presentation, Carter made a statement that supported the findings of the newly released “Greening of the Earth and Its Drivers” study: The CO2 added to the atmosphere in recent decades has been responsible for a tremendous greening of the planet. “That’s a huge environmental benefit,” he said, adding that much of the greening had occurred along arid areas such as the Sahara Desert. “If you talk to most scientists, they will acknowledge that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant,” explained Dr. Carter. “Indeed, it’s grotesque to call it a pollutant. It’s an abuse of logic, it’s an abuse of language, and it's an abuse of science.... Carbon dioxide is literally the stuff of life.”

Friday, 22 April 2016

Stop Indoctrinating Children with Eco-Junk! 'Subsidy Sam' turns up to fight the good fight.

Cartoons by Josh
Josh has the story at Bishop Hill:

''Subsidy Sam' was written by Lyndsey Ward to counter the shameless pro-wind propaganda allowed in schools. Lyndsey asked me to help out with a cartoon and I was only too happy to oblige. Today 'Subsidy Sam' made it into The Press and Journal, a Scottish newspaper'

On her the Facebook page, Wind Energy's Absurd, Lyndsey writes:
'This short story has been written to counter the shameless wind propaganda that is allowed into our schools to influence young minds with no effort to show the other side.
Here at Wind Energy's Absurd we have repeatedly challenged the wisdom and morality of allowing multinational companies into the classroom to put their side of a story that is designed to cultivate acceptance of their industry into future generations.
You will remember Tommy the Turbine - a tale told to children in Ireland about the wonders of wind power.  http://www.tommytheturbine.net/    http://tommytheturbine.com/   

Well now Tommy has a rival - and our money is on Subsidy Sam getting the message out there.
It is time the indoctrination of our children was stopped.'

Hear, hear to that!
Lyndsey is based in the Highlands, where the regional Council has long been complicit in pushing eco-junk on to children.  This picture shows kids from a school which opened its doors to that nasty multinational, the WWF, back in 2012.
From the Climate Lessons post at the time:
'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.'

The 'Subsidy Sam' story has also been picked up from the Bishop Hill post by another excellent organisation, Scotland Against Spin.

It is good to see people fighting back against the waves of propaganda that children have been subject to for decades.

Back in 1999, the problem was already clear to some:

'#1999 USA 'Shortly after Earth Day in 1997, for instance, a parent wrote a letter to the New York Times: "I have noticed a disturbing trend. With each passing school year, my children are more convinced that humans and technology are bad for the planet....While teachers are helping to insure a ‘greener’ future, I do not think they understand that children may infer a condemnation of humanity."'  

P.S. Today, it would seem, is Earth Day.  Here's some good reading to help get it into a sensible perspective: https://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-predictions-of-1970-the-reason-you-should-not-believe-earth-day-predictions-of-2009

P.P.S. Here's an update on that first Earth Day, and its awful stupidity: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7-enviro-predictions-from-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/  Truly, we need to protect children from such twisted, irresponsible, malevolent junk.

Note added 23 April: the Subsidy Sam story can be downloaded from here: 
http://docs.wind-watch.org/Subsidy-Sam.pdf  [hat-tip: https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/subsidy-sam-the-turbine/ ]

Note added 10 May 2016:  On the topic of windpower, some adults are making good progress in exposing the lunacies  and reducing the damage:  http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/09/major-blow-to-wind-power-bavarias-highest-court-upholds-10h-rule-shoots-industrialization-of-idyllic-landscape/  'The ruling represents a major landmark victory for wind energy opponents, who have been increasingly shocked by the rampant destruction of Germany’s countryside and natural landscape. They greeted the ruling with loud cheers.'  

Monday, 11 April 2016

Good! In the USA, 18-29 year-olds seriously divided about 'climate change'.

Picture source
Tales of youngsters at school growing weary of relentless 'global warming' alarmism appear occasionally, but are the brainwashing efforts of immoral, ill-informed, or irresponsible campaigners nevertheless succeeding?

Not as much as they might like.  At least in the USA, according to a recently published survey from the Harvard Institute of Politics.

This was a survey of people 18 to 29 years old - in other words those who have spent their entire lives under the shadow of the CO2 Frenzy, and during almost all of whose lives, the overall global warming trend has been around a distinctly un-alarming 1 deg C per century, and sometimes with no rising trend at all for many years at a time.

The summarised responses to each question can be found here: http://iop.harvard.edu/sites/default/files_new/IOPSpring15%20PollTopline.pdf

Four of them mention climate change, and these results are reproduced below:

20-24 Now thinking specifically about Barack Obama, do you approve or disapprove of the way he is handling: 

20. Climate change.
Approve........................................................... 50%
Disapprove ..................................................... 48%
Decline to answer............................................. 2%

85. Government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth. 
Strongly agree ................................................. 12%
Somewhat agree .............................................. 20%
Neither agree nor disagree .............................. 44%
Somewhat disagree ......................................... 12%
Strongly disagree ............................................. 11%
Decline to answer............................................... 1%

96. Hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ is a process used to more easily extract natural gas and oil by injecting a highly pressurized mixture of water, sand and chemicals into the ground. Supporters say that using this technique on American natural gas deposits can boost the country’s energy independence, can lower energy costs and create jobs. Opponents say that the technique can contaminate drinking water and air, can cause small earthquakes and contribute to climate change. Based on what you know at this time, do you support or oppose the use of fracking in America? 
Strongly support............................................. 9%
Somewhat support........................................ 31%
Somewhat oppose ....................................... 35%
Strongly oppose ........................................... 23%
Decline to answer........................................... 2%

97. Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? 
The United States should take action to address climate change, regardless of whether or not other nations have agreed to it....... 67%

The United States should only take action to address climate change if most other nations agree to take action as well............ 31%

Decline to answer............................. 2%

What are we to make of this?  Well, once again 'climate change' in the survey is not adequately defined, and this may well be deliberate.  The term is, after all, a neutral one when taken at face value.  But we know that CO2 Alarm campaigners do not use it that way - they use it as short-hand for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (cagw).  How different might the responses have been if this had been used instead, especially if preceded by 'the conjecture of'?

So we must take the results with a large pinch of salt since they will depend on just how the ostensibly neutral and un-alarming phrase 'climate change' was interpreted.

But what is clear, is that opinion (about something called 'climate change') is very divided indeed.  Some  48% don't approve of President Obama's approach (and he bigs it up big-time as a planetary crisis).  Some 57% fail to even just 'somewhat agree' that 'government should do more to curb climate change', whatever it was taken to be.  40% support or strongly support fracking, an activity widely detested by CO2 Alarmers.  These alarmers might well be pleased, however, that about two-thirds of the survey respondents think that the United States should 'take action' to address whatever it is.  But since that could include wanting the government to encourage more fossil-fuel power stations to help citizens cope with climate variation, it is not by any means conclusive!

The full-time Alarm campaigners will be pleased that there is still work for them to do, still a need to jet around the world to exotic places for glamorous conferences, still plenty need to make portentous speeches about the end of the world, still a need to raise funds for their chosen way of life.  But others may be pleased that the brainwashing does not seem to have overwhelmed young people, and that this is encouraging.

Now to help develop a scientifically appropriate view on all of this, I commend the following words from Richard Lindzen, whom I regard as the world's most distinguished climate scientist:

'The implausibility or even outright silliness through which global warming became global warming catastrophism is so extensive that one hardly knows where to begin. It is crucial to emphasise catastrophism because the situation is made even more incoherent by the intentional conflation of simple basic results that are widely agreed upon, but which have no catastrophic implications, with catastrophism itself. Currently, there really is quite a lot of basic agreement within the climate science world: 

• climate change exists 

• there has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around the beginning of the 19th century (well before emissions are regarded as contributing significantly) 

• human emissions can contribute to climate change 

• levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been increasing. 

None of this is controversial and none of this actually implies alarm.'

This is from a lecture given in 2015.  The text is here, and well worth reading in full: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/03/Lindzen.pdf

In fact, why not print it out and give copies to any 18 to 29 year-olds of your acquaintance?

Thursday, 7 April 2016

Oh Mothers, Tell Your Children: don't trust museums on climate change

Picture: The Guardian
Mothers, and fathers concerned about your children getting a fair and balanced view of climate variation, please read this article by John Tierney from which the following is an extract:
'A few years ago, I went to the museum and gave a quiz to a class of high-school students who had just toured it. I asked about two long-term trends in the United States: Was air pollution getting better or worse, and was the amount of forestland increasing or decreasing? None of the students—nor their teacher—got both questions right. Most had no idea that air pollution has been declining for decades while the amount of forestland has been increasing.
You can’t blame them, given what they’d just seen at the Hall of Biodiversity. The message is unrelentingly gloomy, and sometimes just outdated or wrong. There’s an image of a forest supposedly decimated by acid rain, which was a much-proclaimed eco-catastrophe three decades ago—until an extensive federal study concluded that there was ‘”no evidence of widespread forest damage.” There are warnings of resource shortages and admonitions to “reduce, reuse, recycle—and rethink.” One exhibit panel claims that “global warming has already resulted in more frequent and severe coastal storms as hurricanes,” which is contradicted by both data and theory. There has been no upward trend in hurricanes over the past half century (the last decade has been especially calm), and the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictsthat “future changes in storms are likely to be small.” A video shows much of Florida and Long Island disappearing under the rising ocean—representing a sea-level rise far beyond what IPCC projects.
The hype was even worse when the museum presented a special show on climate change in 2008. The exhibition, which toured other science museums in the United States and abroad, displayed a model of lower Manhattan under 16 feet of water, while the rest of the world was ravaged by storms, droughts, fires, and plagues. In a review of the exhibition for the New York Times, Edward Rothstein criticized it for being concerned less with science than with frightening visitors. “What we need from a museum is not proselytizing but a more reflective analysis,” he wrote, complaining that the exhibition “made me feel like an agnostic attending church and listening to sermons about damnation.” '
So, the message is that parents need to be ready to protect their children from museum exhibits about climate.  The reality is that the world has been improving in just about every environmental measure you might think of.  Furthermore, evidence continues to accumulate about the gross hype and scaremongering in some scientific circles on climate: the reality of the benign warming trend is ignored, the fantasy of incompetent computer models is preferred.   A quick check of the blogosphere right now, supplies these examples within seconds: (1), (2) , (3), (4) and (5)
Several posts have raised concerns about museums on this blog in previous years:

(scroll down to '2015 Open Reply to US Museums ')

(use Ctrl-f to find at least 3 'museum' mentions)

(use Ctrl-f to find at least 3 'museum' mentions)

The basic message is: children are at risk of being seriously misled by museums about climate and other environmental matters.