………….A good attempt to try and see through the fog of the ‘climate wars.’
Archive for the ‘alarmism’ Category
Guest post from Tony Thomas following up the GWPF story from yesterday about the degree to which schoolchildren are being propagandised by climate activist material and teaching practice.
Climate Catastrophism For Kiddies
by Tony Thomas 9-4-14
Get ‘em young and fill their heads with warmist propaganda — that seems to the unofficial motto of Britain’s education establishment, which has just been warned by the Home Secretary that peddling propaganda as fact is a punishable offence
Alarming climate and eco-activist messages are saturating the British school system, according to a report by noted UK bloggers Andrew Montford and John Shade. On the same day of the report’s publication, April 8, the response of UK Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove was to warn teachers they are breaking the law if they fail to provide balanced coverage of climate change and similar issues.
The affair suggests a similar independent inquiry into “climate teaching” in Australian schools would be worthwhile. Anecdotal accounts of brainwashing by activists masquerading as teachers in our primary and secondary schools are legion.
From Benny Peiser at the GWPF:
London, 8 April: A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation is calling for Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, to institute an official inquiry into the way environmentalism and in particular climate change are being taught in schools.
In the report, authors Andrew Montford and John Shade describe how environmentalism has come to permeate school curricula across the UK, featuring in an astonishing variety of subjects, from geography to religious education to modern languages. Passing examinations will now usually involve the ability to recite green mantras rather than understanding the subtle questions of science and economics involved.
The authors review in detail the climate change teaching materials currently used in British schools, with disturbing results. There is ample evidence of unscientific statements, manipulated graphs, and activist materials used in class and even found in textbooks.
The report also describes how activist teachers try to make children become the footsoldiers of the green movement, encouraging them to harass their schoolmates and pester their parents to bring about “behaviour change”.
Guest post By Tony Thomas:
Climate Papers Without Peer
by Tony Thomas 6-4-14
Want your, er, highly innovative research to get lots of attention, the sort that keeps those grants coming? You could do worse than start with some kind words from a peer-reviewer whose work is glowingly cited in your own paper. After that, apply for the next batch of grants
Peer review is claimed to be the gold standard for scientific papers. Yet in the establishment climate science world, “peer review” operates differently. Professor Stephan Lewandowsky’s now-retracted paper Recursive Fury, about conspiracy-mindedness of “deniers”, raises a few issues about peer reviewing.
The background is that in 2012 Lewandowsky, Winthrop professor of psychology at the University of Western Australia, wrote a paper on climate “denialism” with the provocative title “NASA Faked the Moon Landing-Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”. This caused an outcry on climate sceptic blogs, where it was alleged that, among other things, that the survey was based on only 10 anonymous internet responses. Lewandowsky, now at Bristol University, surveyed and analysed the outcry and created last year a new paper, “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation”.
From the Mail online. H/T Maurizio ‘Omnologos’ Morabito for the improved title:
Green ‘smear campaign’ against professor who dared to disown ‘sexed up’ UN climate dossier
By David Rose 6-4-14
The professor who refused to sign last week’s high-profile UN climate report because it was too ‘alarmist’, has told The Mail on Sunday he has become the victim of a smear campaign.
Richard Tol claims he is fighting a sustained attack on his reputation by [Bob Ward, director of the Grantham Institute], a leading institution that researches the impact of global warming .
Prof Tol said:
This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign. It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert.
Prof Tol, from Sussex University, is a highly respected climate economist and one of two ‘co-ordinating lead authors’ of an important chapter in the 2,600-page report published last week by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR5 WGII).
He has been widely criticised by green campaigners after he claimed that the much shorter ‘summary for policymakers’ [SPM] – hammered out in all-night sessions between scientists and government officials over a week-long meeting in Yokohama, Japan – was overly alarmist.
In his view, the summary focused on ‘scare stories’ and suggestions the world faced ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’.
“The Met Office has admitted that it overstated the threat from air pollution yesterday and said that people had been panicked partly because it had just introduced a new forecasting system. On Tuesday the Met Office forecast that there would be high or very high levels of air pollution across southern England and the Midlands yesterday.
However, results from 130 monitoring sites showed that it remained low or moderate for most of the day over most of the country.
In the late afternoon, air pollution reached 7 on a scale of 1 to 10 in the South East and East.”
Then on the BBC’s ‘PM’ program yesterday, after spending some minutes worrying the public further with talk of keeping children and ashsmatics indoors, some truth finally emerged:
Well our scale of 1 to 10 can’t be compared to China’s… their 10 would be a hundred on our scale.
Repost from nationalreview.com
Why the IPCC Report Neglects the Benefits of Global Warming
It needs catastrophe scenarios.
The IPCC’s Working Group II, tasked with assessing the risks and impacts of climate change, could have chosen to make amends for its previous effort in 2007, which was widely panned for bias and numerous errors. Such was the outcry over the 2007 report that the Dutch parliament ordered the country’s Environmental Assessment Agency to carry out an audit. It found that the working group was dismissive of the potential benefits of climate change, and it criticized the group’s process for being insufficiently transparent. Similarly, a report by the InterAcademy Council, chaired by Princeton’s Harold Shapiro, noted that the group’s Summary for Policymakers had been criticized “for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change.” The summary contained many statements that “are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective, or not expressed clearly,” the Council said.
Reposted from Battsby’s blog:
Do you remember Up Pompeii? Frankie Howerd, as Lurcio, regularly encountered a series of unlikely characters who dragged him into their deranged world with increasingly far-fetched but ultimately pedestrian plots, almost always relying on deception and the concealing of truths on pain of death. None of Lurcio’s encounters were met with such dread and derision as those with Senna the Soothsayer. “Woe, woe and thrice woe…”? Well, that’s the climate change lobby, that is.
The UK’s weather will become both too wet and too dry – and also too cold and too hot – as climate change increases the frequency of extreme events, the Met Office has warned in a new report.
There, fixed, anything can be excused, same ploy as before.
Out of curiosity what is not too wet too dry too cold too hot?
And another thing, it seems the Met Office has selectively leaked to friends of the Met Office, BBC had it, The Guardian (quote source) had it. The Met Office web site Press Releases has nothing, the Met Office blog has nothing.
That’s too too much.
Reposted from Ukipdaily.com. The content about Enron and Gore is what caught my eye. The final paragraph is a bit of a mashup. Perhaps we could help Malcom out with a similar length statement which is a bit more rigorous.
There were three key individuals central to the advance of the Global Warming Hoax; Ken Lay of the Enron Corporation, Al Gore Vice President of the USA and his former University lecturer Professor Roger Revelle.
A former under-secretary general of the United Nations, Maurice Strong also aided the promotion of their efforts.
In 1957, Revelle suggested that the Earth’s oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a ‘greenhouse effect’ that would cause global warming over time.
Al Gore graduated from Harvard in 1969 and had been particularly impressed by Revelle’s class. From then on Al Gore was and still is, convinced of manmade global warming.