The Ultimate Irony: Camille Parmesan argues “Texas textbooks need to get the facts straight” on global warming

clip_image002Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

In a recent Commentary posted to the here, Camille Parmesan and the AAAS want to force feed global warming to school children and are pressuring school districts not to adopt any science text books suggesting the causes of climate change are still up for debate writing,

“From the scientific perspective, there are simply no longer “two sides” to the climate-change story: The debate is over. The jury is in, and humans are the culprit.”

And “the textbooks in question are purportedly teaching science, not political theory. They need to get the scientific facts straight.”

Ironically Camille Parmesan has prevented independent replication of her own dubious climate research on butterfly extinctions and failed to publish her new observations that populations that she once claimed had been extirpated by global warming and led to her placement on the IPCC, have now returned. This has been documented here–parmesan-s-butterfly-effect.html

Parmesan also blamed global warming and extreme weather for population extinctions in a logged area. Although it was the logging that simply changed the micro-climate, to blame CO2 and global climate change, she failed to report that just 5 feet away in natural unlogged habitat that she had observed robust thriving butterflies doing better than ever as discussed here:

She also hijacked conservation efforts that resulted in the northward expansion of populations in Great Britain and falsely argued the observed expansion was again caused by global warming, as discussed here

This bad science and additional deceptive “science” was also discussed half way through my video presentation “Part 3 Recovering Whales, Ocean Acidification, and Climate Horror Stories”


People need to contact their local school boards.

Science textbooks should not be instruments to teach one-sided propaganda. Textbooks should encourage debate. Textbooks must encourage critical examination of all hypotheses. Textbooks should embrace Einstein’s advice “To never stop questioning.”

This tactic of trying to eliminate climate debate from the textbooks guarantees children will be indoctrinated with only Parmesan’s erroneous version of climate change under the guise of “science”. It is similar to Michael Mann’s campaign to label skeptics “anti-science”. The facts are indeed clear. It is Parmesan and the AAAS that are using politics to pressure school boards to force feed school children that CO2-caused global warming is now some sort of scientific law, when in fact both Parmesan’s research and the CO2 hypothesis are increasingly not supported by the evidence.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 8, 2014 11:31 am

Similar to her attempts to eliminate debate in high school textbooks, Parmesan has been actively trying to shut down debate within the scientific community. In 2011 Parmesan wrote Overstretching attribution and published in the first volume of Nature Climate Change where she argued, “By over-emphasizing the need for rigorous assessment of the specific role of greenhouse-gas forcing in driving observed biological changes, the IPCC effectively yields to the contrarians’ inexhaustible demands for more ‘proof’.
I suggest she wants to divert attention away from the numerous pieces of bad science she has published erroneously blaming global warming, and some of those bogus claims are unbelievably repeated in the “Overstretching Attribution” paper. For example while giving lip service to landscape changes she wrote, “Effects of habitat fragmentation also interact with those of climate change. Northwards expansion of the speckled wood butterfly (Pararge aegeria) in Great Britain progressed rapidly where barriers were minimal”. What she failed to report here and in her original paper was the speckled wood that had been observed recently moving into Scotland was not suddenly pushed there by global warming, it had been abundant throughout Scotland during the 1800s. Scottish butterfly experts were publishing in the 1940s pondering the causes of those ebbs and flows of this butterfly’s range. Read Downes (1949) The History of the Speckled Wood Butterfly (Pararge aegeria) in Scotland, with a Discussion of the Recent Changes of Range of Other British Butterflies. Parmesan hijacked these ebbs and flows as evidence the impacts of CO2 warming
As illustrated by the graph linked below, Parmesan’s paper claimed that due to global warming the butterfly had just moved into Scotland in the 1940s represented by the blue and red dots in her graph sown on the right. The graph on the left is from Downes (1949) with each dot and number showing where the butterfly had been documented in Scotland between the 1800s and 1940. No wonder Parmesan wants to avoid demands for more proof!
In her concluding marks of “overstretching Attribution” she outright lies claiming “Species’ extinctions have already been linked to recent climate change; the golden toad is iconic”. IN deed there were speculative assertions by fellow IPCC biologist Alan Pounds that global warming caused the Golden Toad’s extinction, but those assertions have been roundly debunked, as thoroughly documented in Contrasting Good and Bad Science: Disease, Climate Change and the Case of the Golden Toad

Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 11:45 am

Jim-Texas is in the midst of going away from textbooks to Digital Learning, where nonsense in the curriculum will be much harder to monitor. If the visual models that students view constantly show catastrophic effects, it will become quite difficult to undo beliefs that “Virtual Reality’ models created. Some of this hyping obscures that even more troubling fact.

Reply to  Robin
November 8, 2014 11:49 am

This lays out the National Science Foundation’s troubling Cyberlearning Initiative.
It ties into how USGCRP out of Boulder now intends to use K-12 education to change beliefs about climate change. It will largely be invisible unless the role of Gaming and virtual reality modelling in the classroom under the Next Generation Science Standards is better understood. Also under NSF funded STEM initiatives where the Austin Dana Center is a favorite grantee and evaluator of grants.

Reply to  Robin
November 8, 2014 3:21 pm

No more need to filter and reinterpret reality to conform with the world-view being programmed into students, when reality itself can just be replaced. If John Dewey was alive today ….

Reply to  Robin
November 9, 2014 5:03 pm

That’s one of the worst problems with digital media…instead of “a moveable feast” we have “a moveable beast”….history is fluid, flexible, and easily removed or changed (c.f. Wiki, et. al.). I fear Ms. Parmesan is employing “spaghetti logic” to achieve her aims, and the weak-minded (read: fund controlled) academia will do nothing to keep her honest.

Janice Moore
Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 12:34 pm

Wow, Jim Steele — the obtuseness (or narcissistic blindness OR…… cold-hearted greed (if she’s being bribed)) of that woman is jaw-dropping…. or…..:
“Star Trek” — Jean Luc Picard — Face Plant

(unlike Data, I doubt Parmesan is naïve)
Hang in there, Jim Steele — we truth tellers NEED your great efforts!
With admiration,

Reply to  Janice Moore
November 8, 2014 1:43 pm

Look at this from Scientific American this week on “wedding of virtual and physical”.
It will be the mindsets of the Parmesans of this world coding that virtual reality view of the world.

Reply to  jim Steele
November 15, 2014 9:03 am

The most glaring assault on science is in the response of AMS (#2) ‘the omission is reasonable’ I ask, in what universe is omission of known contradictory fact ‘reasonable’? This is simply another example of Mannian post-modern pseudoscience posing as knowledge/fact.
Thank you for your investigation of these fraudulent claims which refute another of the legs of the CAGW cabal!! C

November 8, 2014 11:38 am

Her faulty research is cheesy.

Jim G
Reply to  milodonharlani
November 8, 2014 2:47 pm

It’s ok grated on pasta.

Reply to  milodonharlani
November 8, 2014 2:58 pm

Parmesan is a nice cheese (like all other Italian food), but this both smell and taste bad!
This type of indoctrination are found in countries where extreme forms of Islam exists.
– Wait … We already have these (climate) changes in Swedish schoolbooks …

UK Sceptic
Reply to  milodonharlani
November 8, 2014 11:35 pm

She should changer her name to Epoisses because her “science”, like the cheese, stinks to high heaven.

M Courtney
November 8, 2014 11:38 am

Surely science is a process not a catechism?
Why doesn’t she call for the “wrong” science to be presented and then debunked with numerous validated models of how the climate works, graphs of the correlation of GHG emissions with Global temperatures and, of course, the obvious methods of distinguishing anthropogenic from natural effects?
Wouldn’t that teach the young Texans how to spot pseudoscience and confront it thorough out the lives?

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  M Courtney
November 9, 2014 6:38 am

If your research can’t be reproduced, it’s not science. If you won’t allow your research to be reproduced, you’re not a scientist, you’re a witch doctor.
Camille is a witch doctor, plain and simple. The University of Texas at Austin has produced many fine scientists.They should be ashamed.

geography lady
November 8, 2014 11:41 am

I teach presently at a small community college, as an adjunct teaching geography. But I have been in the working field of air and water pollution for 40 years. I have been teaching climate change (not global warming) can be caused by many things, but no one really knows what is the main cause. There may be many interactions. I tried to teach critical thinking also, so the student can come up with their own thoughts and beliefs on the subject and any other hot button subject. But my days are numbered. I will join the ranks of the pushed out college instructors. The only belief to teach is CO2 is the main and only reason for climate change (meaning warming, but with the temperatures stable for the last 17/18 years, there is an unknown.
The reason for a one sided approach is to “tell the student what to think”. And the K-12 grades and the State colleges are only going to follow the IPCC’s recommendations. Common Core is taking over the learning for K-12 and the colleges now.
College is not like it was 40-50 years ago where you got a lot of different view points and you learned to think for yourself. Now we are to learn what to think.
I am a bit down right now so sorry for the rant.

Reply to  geography lady
November 8, 2014 11:54 am

I am a bit down right now so sorry for the rant.
Rant away. People need to know what is happening.

Janice Moore
Reply to  geography lady
November 8, 2014 12:25 pm

Dear Geography Lady,
What a magnificent fighter for truth you are. And you have been fighting on the frontlines of the battle for a long time. No wonder you are discouraged.
Please know how VERY much you are admired by this (and, no doubt I speak for most of WUWT on this point) reader. Don’t give up. Certainly, many of the seeds of truth you have sown fell on the rocky ground of prideful hearts determined to believe their indoctrination, and some fell on just plain rotten soil, but, take heart! Many of those seeds landed on fertile ground and took root…… and they are growing and one day will bear fruit.
In the end, Truth Wins — every time.
Thank you, so much, for all your valiant efforts.
And a song (I hope you find it a bit encouraging — remember: the star and the dream are not absolutely “impossible,” for God is fighting on behalf of Truth and “with God all things are possible”…. God waits…… sometimes a very long time……….(asking why is pointless; God is simply too deep to explain Him/Herself)…… but, in the end, God (thus, Truth) wins).
“The Impossible Dream”

Your WUWT Ally for Truth in Science,
P.S. I have only shared this song with one other person…. someone very special to me….. so, you can consider yourself honored (by me, I mean).

Reply to  geography lady
November 8, 2014 1:16 pm

No rant. I can understand your frustration. It’s human nature, I suppose, to go along to get along, but thank god there’s still people like you that refuse to do so. I guess that’s not much consolation when one is out of a job, but mob rule mostly wins I’m afraid.

geography lady
Reply to  Grant
November 8, 2014 1:42 pm

Thanks everyone for your support. The loss of a job–money is not an issue, but I have a lot of passion for teaching others what I have learned in my experience. I have fought many a battle on major issues, asbestos being the main issue, and actually had a major impact in that field. You don’t hear of asbestos much any more.
I have enjoyed my teaching career for 15 years and have influenced many a student to think for themselves, and not be swayed by the popular opinion. But to use the scientific method when thinking about important issues.
Jim Steele, I have much enjoyed your book, and good work on climate issues. Thanks.
BTW Thanks for the song from Janice. I do have a theme song, but it comes from my time in the barrel working on asbestos issues…the guy in the black hat…

Reply to  geography lady
November 8, 2014 1:34 pm

I hear you. It’s way worse than most people understand.
I just came out of 10 years teaching College English, in which the course outcomes include critical thinking and the ability to analyze text. Of course, what they actually meant was to teach students how to write the same five paragraph essays they’ve been writing since grade four using whatever points support their predetermined outcome. Instead, I exposed them to evidence contrary to many of their cherished beliefs, including a lot about climate change. It was enormously successful — with the students. Every semester saw numerous students refuse exemptions in order to attend, or if the exemption had already gone through, many attended the course anyway and did all the assignments, even though they would get no grade for coming. My classes were larger than all the other College English classes, as students who attended the first class of the semester told friends who would then transfer out of their section (still retaining their program) in order to switch which College English they attended — one semester it was so dramatic it actually denuded two other classes.
Why? Because, as so many, many of them told me, it was the only class in which they were actually challenged to use their minds and not simply learn to give the “correct” responses. (One of my favourite tricks was to reserve one class for a “guest speaker” who spoke about the dangers of dihyrdogen monoxide, and passing around a petition to have all foods prepared with DHM banned from municipal buildings. When they signed — and they always did – I then lambasted them for having ignored everything I’d taught them to this point, which was about half-way through the semester, and having the arrogance to believe they had the right to ban water.)
In the end, of course, the admin got wise and I stopped being hired.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Frank Lee MeiDere
November 8, 2014 10:39 pm

Way — to — go, Frank M.!
Well, God decided you’ve served your time on that battlefield… there will be another.
Thank you for all you have done for the cause of freedom (for at bottom, that is really what truth is all about).
@ Geography Lady — You’re welcome!
black hatted man… Johnny Cash? I wonder what song…. .

Reply to  geography lady
November 8, 2014 1:36 pm

The real irony here is that kids hear the phrase “critical thinking” nonstop, yet the meaning of that phrase has become almost purely Orwellian.
Operatively, it now means, “accept our left-wing indoctrination without question”.

Reply to  TYoke
November 8, 2014 2:41 pm

While teaching I took the opportunity to sit in on many classes, including “critical thinking” classes. The main thrust seemed to be that advertising doesn’t always tell the truth and politicians lie. (Looking at the politicians’ statements used in the course, I came to understand that only conservative politicians lie.)

Reply to  TYoke
November 9, 2014 5:49 pm

Remember that bumper sticker “Question Authority”? Back in the day, it was irritating, because it implied that people questioned without thinking. Now I fear that people neither think nor question.
There was a song (country? not sure) If you don’t stand for what’s right, you’ll fall for anything.
Kind of a pithy phrase right up there with “time wounds all heels” and “there’s a tear in my beer”, but, in point of fact, it’s true. If something doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, then it’s not correct. Time for Ms. Parmesan to get a different recipe….

Reply to  geography lady
November 8, 2014 1:58 pm

I wish more would speak out. You really can’t teach both sides of the CAGW science?? (without getting fired)?? You have to teach it as settled science??

geography lady
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
November 8, 2014 2:27 pm


Reply to  geography lady
November 8, 2014 2:22 pm

“Common Core is taking over . . . .”
Not in the midterms. See:

Reply to  rogerknights
November 8, 2014 2:51 pm

You’ve got to understand that Common Core isn’t just what you see, it’s what’s behind the scenes in education courses and certifications. Because there’s a lot of visible effort right now to convert everyone to this system, most people can see it. But if the obvious aspects get booted out, don’t expect the subtle qualities to leave as well. The attitudes and teachings will stay, because that’s how the teachers are being taught and qualified.

Reply to  geography lady
November 8, 2014 8:19 pm

Not a rant at all. I have told my children and grandchildren repeatedly that they can disagree with me all they want; all I ask is for them to THINK; learn, and learn to think for themselves and reach their own conclusions as their lives will follow a different path from mine. Great remarks.

November 8, 2014 11:46 am

This report dismays. Camile Parmesan seems to be an evil antithesis of science. That there are so many in science who are like her is sickening.
It bears repeating: the CAGW crowd represent a setback for science.

G. Karst
November 8, 2014 11:52 am

People, like Camille, scare me far worse than AGW does… even under catastrophic scenarios. She is capable of causing the death of millions, without a shred of remorse. GK

Reply to  G. Karst
November 8, 2014 12:46 pm

Is Camille Parmesan an honest and consistent person? The irony is that Parmesan co-authored this:

IPCC Expert Meeting on Detection and Attribution Related to Anthropogenic Climate Change
The World Meteorological Organization – Geneva, Switzerland
14-16 September 2009
Good Practice Guidance Paper on Detection and Attribution Related to Anthropogenic Climate Change
Core Writing Team:……Camille Parmesan…..
Executive Summary
The reliable detection and attribution of changes in climate, and their effects, is fundamental to our understanding of the scientific basis of climate change and in enabling decision makers to manage climate-related risk. This paper summarises the discussions and conclusions of the joint Expert Meeting of Working Group I and Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC WGI/WGII) on ”Detection and Attribution related to Anthropogenic Climate Change”, which was held in Geneva, Switzerland on 14-16 September 2009. It seeks to clarify methods, definitions and terminology across the two working groups and is intended as a guide for future IPCC Lead Authors. This paper also outlines guidelines for how to assess the relative quality of studies and provides recommendations for good practice in detection and attribution studies. In this respect, it discusses criteria for assessing confidence, outlines data requirements and addresses methods for handling confounding factors.

Public records freely available on the internet.

Reply to  Jimbo
November 8, 2014 1:00 pm

There is a good chance Camille Parmesan will read this WUWT post. I want to ask you Camille Parmesan, is it the funding that makes you produce BAD science? Read and heed the words of a physicist whose shoulders you have yet to reach. You have barely reached his ankles.

Richard Feynman
Cargo Cult Science – From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974
………For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it………

Reply to  Jimbo
November 8, 2014 1:52 pm

Jimbo, the irony is that she does put down the facts that disagree with her. The problem is that she doesn’t understand that Feynman meant “write down”.

November 8, 2014 11:54 am

Geography lady.
Sorry to hear that political correctness is trumping your approach.
Jim Steele.
Excellent that you highlight the hipocrisy of this woman who publishes questionable science and then attempts to point a finger at people who champion open debate, alternative theories, critical thinking and all the right things about science. She is clearly a pause denier.

November 8, 2014 12:00 pm

‘Grate’ stuff, Jim!

November 8, 2014 12:05 pm

The Lazarus butterfly what other great scientific discovery will the pretend Nobel Laureate Camile Parmesan uncover in the future.
According to Judith Curry’s Blog
“Two years ago, Camille Parmesan, a professor at Plymouth University and the University of Texas at Austin, became so “professionally depressed” that she questioned abandoning her research in climate change entirely.
“I felt like here was this huge signal I was finding and no one was paying attention to it,” Parmesan says. “I was really thinking, ‘Why am I doing this?’” She ultimately packed up her life here in the States and moved to her husband’s native United Kingdom.”
What a pity she did not give up climate science and did something more suited to her ability (e.g. second hand car sales person).

Reply to  ConfusedPhoton
November 8, 2014 3:07 pm

“moved to her husband’s native United Kingdom.”
OMG we don’t want any more of your junk scientists, we have enough of our own

Pat Frank
Reply to  ConfusedPhoton
November 8, 2014 3:51 pm

IF Camille Parmesan really believed she was finding a “huge signal” AND if Jim Steele is really correct that her signal is all artifact, THEN, Camille Parmesan is incompetent. Someone of those two is certainly incompetent. There are no possible circumstances where both can be right.
I’d like to see Camille Parmesan come here to WUWT and have an on-line debate with Jim Steele. Written debates, carried out over days, even weeks, allows a full deployment of data and references and permits time for thorough working out of arguments.
Such a debate would solve the dilemma. I’m sure Anthony would readily provide the bandwidth. I’m pretty sure Jim Steele, would welcome the opportunity. (Jim?) Does Camille Parmesan have the confidence to present her huge signal and put it on the critical line?

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 8, 2014 4:27 pm

I think an online debate is a wonderful idea.

November 8, 2014 12:23 pm

Science textbooks should not be instruments to teach one-sided propaganda. Textbooks should encourage debate. Textbooks must encourage critical examination of all hypotheses. Textbooks should embrace Einstein’s advice “To never stop questioning.”

Well, hell. “Social studies” (whatever happened to “Civics”?) textbooks shouldn’t be deployed as vehicles to brainwash kids into hapless suckers for transnational progressivism and the rest of that leftard attack on Western civilization in general and the reasoning ability of the individual mind in particular.
To quote the late Alisa Rosenbaum:

The academia-jet set coalition is attempting to tame the American character by the deliberate breeding of helplessness and resignation — in those incubators of lethargy known as “Progressive” schools, which are dedicated to the task of crippling a child’s mind by arresting his cognitive development.

Paul 767
Reply to  Tucci78
November 9, 2014 4:42 pm

AR was right about many things, she was right about the “State Science Institute” also.

Mark Bofill
November 8, 2014 12:24 pm

Of course. This is a cherished liberal tradition of old; indoctrinate the kids and wait for the adults who disagree with the desired worldview to die out. The theory has some problems, but it’s got some merits too. It takes kids a long time to grow out of it, and many never do.

Reply to  Mark Bofill
November 8, 2014 1:43 pm

“and wait for the adults who disagree with the desired worldview to die out. ”
They are not always that patient.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Mark Bofill
November 8, 2014 9:07 pm

Hitler Youth is a good example that this has be going on a long time .

Stephen Richards
November 8, 2014 12:26 pm

And her husband’s native Plymouth Uni is a hive of alledged female harrassers, incompetent and greedy staff milking their expenses for all they are worth. She should be right at home there.

M Courtney
Reply to  Stephen Richards
November 8, 2014 1:08 pm

Why play the person when her actions are reprehensible?
Hit the behaviour.
She could always be replaced and the world would not improve.

November 8, 2014 1:20 pm

There was a distinct period between when we needed urgent debate and when the debate was over and settled. Unfortunately, I was in the bathroom and missed it.

Gary Pearse
November 8, 2014 1:23 pm

Dr. Parmesan’s reports she suffers from depression (“climate depression” has afflicted a number of CAGW scientists – particularly in Australia) because no one notices or takes note of the frightful climate “signals” she has pointed out. Gee, she’s been lauded by her peers and the liberal press for years, what more does she want?
She is one of the proud fake Nobel Laureates, and she has been applauded hand in hand with the charlatan who reported the extinction of the Golden Toad in Costa Rica because of global warming – instead it was a South African toad fungus infection that was spread by careless biologists who probably didn’t throw out their used rubber gloves or cleaned there instruments during their worldwide search for frog/toad based pregnancy testing pharmaceuticals for humans.
Her illness is perpetuated by….well… denial, a recognized barrier to recovery from depression that has been known for perhaps a century.
“Refusing to acknowledge that something is wrong is a way of coping with emotional conflict, stress, painful thoughts, threatening information and anxiety. You can be in denial about anything that makes you feel vulnerable or threatens your sense of control,….”
The psychologists who blame others for not responding to the patient’s climate “signals” are egregiously enabling their patients. Simply, these patients are troubled by the possibility that they are wrong, some knowing they cooked the books on global warming. The elephant in the room (Hadcrut and others are now “addressing” the problem by adding on heat) is the 18yr+ hiatus in global warming that is the culprit. The first sufferers were the CRU scientists ~in 2007, followed by the spate of Australian climate depression cases in recent years and now this “famous” case in UK. Only the weaker personalities are showing symptoms now, the rest will be joining them soon if 2014-15 El Nino doesn’t bring sufficient heat and relief from the ‘pause’.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 8, 2014 1:40 pm

Gary Pearse
November 8, 2014 at 1:23 pm
“Dr. Parmesan’s reports she suffers from depression (“climate depression” has afflicted a number of CAGW scientists – particularly in Australia) because no one notices or takes note of the frightful climate “signals” she has pointed out. Gee, she’s been lauded by her peers and the liberal press for years, what more does she want? ”
She wants recognition by sane people as well.

November 8, 2014 1:23 pm

When I was at junior secondary school many years ago, after the class had “proved” something by an experiment, our science teacher sometimes said, “by this time next week, try to disprove what you have just proved”.
We never did manage to do that, but he taught us to be suspicious of everything, including what our textbooks said. He always said that what we knew was only what we knew at the moment and who knew what would be discovered in the future which would disprove current belief.
I wish some of our current “scientists” had been taught by him.

Gentle Tramp
November 8, 2014 1:26 pm

Of course, totalitarian US people who can’t imagine that their “absolute truth” maybe not so absolute at all, are longing to have the rather totalitarian European situation where any doubts about “evil and climate- killing CO2” are simply unthinkable in current schoolbooks.
But such politically conformed and uncritical schoolbooks become involuntary funny after some decades. For instance: The German science schoolbooks of the 1980s did claim without reasonable doubt that the German Woods would get extinct completely very soon owing to the air pollution from motor traffic and coal power plants. This green scare-story of those years was called “Waldsterben” and did influence the German politic very much.
But if you read the totally exaggerated scare-message of “Waldsterben” in the old schoolbooks today, one can only grin about those former “certainties”. I bet our kids will laugh even much louder about the global warming scare in the current schoolbooks after the next 20 years…

November 8, 2014 1:38 pm

Let’s assume the Warmists, maybe together with Bill Gates’ Common Core, actually managed to force feed the Global Warming lie to all children. They would make total asses out of themselves and lose all credibility for a generation – making the next big propaganda campaign impossible to administer.
So I’d say, let’em go ahead, make it clear to everyone that Nietzsche was exactly right when he wrote
All that the government says are lies, and all that it has it has stolen.

Reply to  DirkH
November 8, 2014 4:53 pm

“If you learned it in school, it’s probably a lie.”

November 8, 2014 1:46 pm

Ms. Camille Parmesan must be the Big Cheese of Bad Science and Alarmism.

November 8, 2014 1:47 pm

I suspect this isn’t going to matter that much if the climate models keep diverging from surface temperature. If in 20 to 30 years climate models improve and they start matching real data (and the temperature is seen to be rising), then there won’t be so much to debate about climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases. In which case the debate will continue because there’s no agreement on the appropriate solutions. And by then oil prices may be so high the main discussions will be about whether to use nuclear power or leave this planet.

Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 8, 2014 2:03 pm

CO2 doesn’t drive climate… despite “sensitivity”. Other factors overwhelm whatever radiative effects happen. They need to figure this out, but it’s difficult to explain something to someone who is covering their ears yelling “la la la”. Any honest examination of the data shows this, and if there was ANY “climate sensitivity” to “greenhouse gases” it would be physically impossible for an 18 year straight line temperature chart in the face of increasing CO2 levels.
I say what I’ve always said: Let them talk. Let them do what they’re doing. Generally attributed to Napoleon: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake”. The credibility gap will be gigantic, and the entire “progressive” movement will completely lose their current captive age groups in 10-20 years. I know this because when I was younger I too was a captive audience to the left’s disinformation and misdirected idealism. They were so wrong that I now believe NOTHING they say.

Reply to  CodeTech
November 9, 2014 2:32 am

CO2 may not drive climate over a very long period, but it seems to me it has the ability to tweak temperatures (this is evident from the simple physics involved). The “tweak” or forcing is cumulative over the years, and the CO2 concentration increase we are causing can be considered an unusual tweak (or forcing). This tells me the issue isn´t really whether CO2 raises temperatures. The issue is more how much does it raise temperatures as its concentration increases in the atmosphere.
I can readily visualize phenomena which keep the surface temperature fairly steady for a couple of decades, without negating the fact that CO2 does tweak the temperature. Furthermore, given the chaotic nature of climate systems, it is also fairly easy to visualize a change in albedo caused by clouds, and other POSSIBLY TEMPORARY phenomena causing a halt in temperature increases.
In about 20 years we would have more Argo buoy temperature data to understand if “the heat is hiding in the ocean” or not. And models do tend to improve, if nothing else because we get much faster computers to play with. I don´t think the models will be good enough to make reasonably accurate predictions at the regional level, but they´ll be good enough to tell us if the basic theory stands up. This is why I´m not really worried about how they teach the issue, as time goes by they´ll either toss, change, tweak or confirm their theories.

Curious George
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 8, 2014 2:10 pm

There are so many free parameters in models that they can be adjusted to fit any past data. The problem is how well they fit future data – so far, miserably. But their goal posts are movable very freely.
A textbook problem – and all other problems – can be resolved simply by imposing a zero child policy.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 8, 2014 2:22 pm

The climate models will never improve. The data, both future and past, will be improved though, to match the models. The propaganda decibels will continue to rise. From talking to regular folk who go about their daily business, it’s only the “educated” who still buy this carp. The mass of people are, how to say, skeptical?

Brian H
Reply to  Fernando Leanme
November 10, 2014 1:08 pm

Horse feathers. Much greater warming (the Holocene Optimum) kick-started civilization, and every warm period since advanced it (Miocene, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods). We are possibly in the last (Modern) in a half-hearted recovery from the Little Ice Age, before the current Interglacial ends. Make the most of it; trying to “solve” it is perverse and stupid.

November 8, 2014 1:52 pm

when your saving the planet , in your own mind , anything is excusable for what higher calling could their be?
So for Parmesan its not really lying and doing poor science , its telling the truth in a different way and using ‘science ‘ to achieve a higher goal.

November 8, 2014 1:55 pm

Climate scientists have been trying to reverse creative thinking for decades. Our schools spend big bucks bringing in programs to teach kids to resist peer pressure and think for themselves. they are taught not to be bullied by peer pressure. Then climate scientists reverse all that label them as stupid, evil deniers if they dont bow to the consensus. Go figure.

Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 3:12 pm

Well … even their “think for themselves” is quite suspect, since they’re being told exactly how to feel about such things and what words to say in “defence.” Nor really a lot of individual thought.

Mike H.
Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 6:06 pm

“Then climate scientists reverse all that label them as stupid, evil deniers…” Through the education establishment. Two opposing targets.

November 8, 2014 2:00 pm

Man, what a downer… Don’t suppose there’s much chance of a critical thought process for those kids affected. Although I do remember my second grade class learning that when we grew up, cars would use nuclear power because that was the mantra then.

Curious George
November 8, 2014 2:02 pm

The parallel with Germany after 1933 is overwhelming.

Reply to  Curious George
November 8, 2014 2:35 pm

From the schools to the media… propaganda reigns supreme.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Curious George
November 9, 2014 3:47 am

This comparison is really to overstretched indeed. The NS regime did use brutal force and lethal intimidation right from its beginnings. Thus that historic period is not at all comparable with the current situation in the climate scare propaganda, luckily.
The mainstream propaganda campaign against CO2 and Global warming skeptics has more the characteristics of a soft dictatorship in which not lethal but economic pressure is used when skeptical scientist, teachers and journalists don’t get research funds or jobs in the mainstream sector.
This soft suppression methods are very annoying but don’t kill people, except the many victims in poor countries of course, who do perish indirectly owing to wrong priorities and lack of cheap energy… 🙁

November 8, 2014 2:09 pm

Maybe Parmesan should spend more time trying “to get the facts straight” about her Nobel Prize. Multiple sites still claim she was a recipient.

etcetera, etcetera, etcetera

Reply to  Taphonomic
November 8, 2014 2:48 pm

What I find most disgusting and dishonest in this 2013 video is that she still repeats her old story that her butterfly (Edith Checkerspot) had moved upwards and northwards when 1) No such thing ever happened. Only the statistical center moved because more the butterflies had been extirpated due to urban sprawl mostly in southern California and 2) she has known for at least 5 years now that populations that she reported as extinct have now returned. Thats why she refused to let me replicate her study. So she still refers to her zombie data, instead of telling the world she was wrong the butterflies returned and never died due to global or local warming!

Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 2:52 pm

My old prof Paul Ehrlich also studied butterflies. Something about the Lepidoptera that makes students metamorphose into flights of fantasy.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 3:02 pm

How can she refuse to let you replicate her study? She won’t provide data but you can redo and give different conclusions.

Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 3:21 pm

Although good science requires a methods section to allow independent replication her paper in Nature never had a Methods section. I needed the coordinates of each location and her determination of present or absent, to check both her statistical conclusions as well as to examine the surrounding habitat to assess the effects of landscape change. Instead of providing me that data, her husband and colleague Dr. Michael Singer kept trying to dissuade me from replicating her work saying it was “too much work” or that original study was “not important” any more. Curiouser and Curiouser she still touts that original story in every press release as a “beautiful example” global warming. (Makes me gag)

Pat Frank
Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 4:01 pm

What does that mean, Jim? — that she refused to let you replicate her study. Was she your boss?

Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 4:22 pm

@Pat Frank No she was not my boss. I never met the lady in person. So again, without a Methods section replication was impossible unless she provided the locations and presence determinations. She refused to supply that data. What’s amazing is that this paper gained widespread publicity and an invitation to the White House despite lacking a Methods section for replication and despite contradicting conservationists who argued the butterflies decline was all loss of habitat.

Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 4:37 pm

Jim Steele,
Well, there is the answer. Her fraudulent science gained her notoriety; a female Michael Mann.
Why don’t you go the FOI route?

Pat Frank
Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 4:56 pm

Should have read the whole thread.
I gather the relevant Nature article is (1996) “Climate and Species Range” 382, 765-766 doi:10.1038/382765. You’re right, Jim, it’s very short on details. But Camille Parmesan specifically writes, “I documented extinction and persistence in 151 previously recorded populations of this butterfly [Edith’s Checkerspot – PF] and excluded from the data set all sites where butterfly habitat was degraded and no longer usable by this species, including sites altered by human activities such as land-clearing, construction, overgrazing, and introduction of exotic plants.
The studied range was western North America, from Baja California all the way into British Columbia. So given her exclusion of logged and disturbed sites, how could her data have been skewed by logged and disturbed sites?
She seems to be saying that she checked only viable sites, and that the more southern or lower altitudinal of these still viable sites that held butterflies a century or so prior, were empty in the years just prior to 1996. So, if she followed that procedure her data should not have been skewed by the statistics of local but artifactual extirpation of habitats.
Given study of only viable habitats, the only possible artifactual source of statistical skewing seems to be if a human-caused extirpation of the butterfly population did not include extirpation of their habitat. That should perhaps show up as a spatial correlation between viable but empty butterfly habitats and human population centers.
Google scholar says her 1996 paper has been cited 663 times in 18 years. I’m always amazed at the citation rate of AGW-related papers. Einstein’s 1915 paper on the orbit of Mercury and Relativistic predictions has been cited only 207 times in, now, 100 years. Modern estimates of scientific impact factor wonderfulness would have it that Camille Parmesan’s paper is more important than Einstein’s.

Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 6:01 pm

@ Pat Frank
Her first paper is indeed Climate and Species Range and she did correctly eliminate from her analyses sites where the host plant was no longer present due to landscape changes. That was the right thing to do but still does not eliminate landscape changes. The caterpillars typically feed on an annual species Plantago erecta. If the plant lives long enough then the caterpillars will grow large enough to enter diapause (a type of hibernation) that is required to survive and overwinter. However when annual plants stress, typically due to the lack of moisture, they quickly sets seed. It ensure’s the plants’ survival but creates an asynchrony preventing the caterpillars from reaching their critical weight. Because primary habitat with soils that hold enough moisture had been lost, annual Plantago growing on marginal fast-draining soils could not support the life cycle of the butterfl unless there are perfect weather conditions.
During rainy years (typically El NIno years) the weather is too cold and the caterpillars can not grow. Studies show the caterpillars will crawl for a day or two to find the right micro-climate where they can sunbathe and raise their body temperatures by as much as 10C above ambient air temperatures. When the rains stop, the caterpillars get their needed heat and will survive if they are feeding on plants in good soils where Plantago will have a long growing season. But the butterflies will be extirpated where the soil drains too quickly and Plantago sets seed too quickly. Marginal habitat can have populations “blink on and off” depending on the weather. Other habitat is “perfect” and creates a “reservoir population” that produces enough butterflies to re-colonize any marginal habitats that blinked off (extirpated). Agriculture and urban sprawl had eliminated most reservoir populations and relegated it to marginal habitats. So Parmesan’s simplistic elimination of habitat where Plantago was absent was not enough to eliminate landscape changes. Plantago would still be present on marginal soils. Her study need to characterize the type of soils and evaluate the relationship to reservoir populations.
In addition, studies have shown that the caterpillars may enter into diapause several years in a row, awaiting beneficial weather before metamorphosing into adult butterflies, a trait that likely evolved due to alternating droughts and rains from El Nino La Nina. So without flying adults, Parmesan likely missed those diapausing larva. The sudden re-appearance of butterflies in habitat she had labeled “extinct” suggests she either missed those diapausing caterpillars or else did not understand that population inhabited marginal soils that were frequently recolonized by individuals from reservoir populations.
However she did understand the problem of asynchrony between the life cycle of the butterfly and its plant host but still tried to paint any asynchrony as a product of CO2-caused global warming and extreme weather. That’s why she published Parmesan, C., et al. (2000) Impacts of Extreme Weather and Climate on Terrestrial Biota. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 81, 443?451. However to create a picture of climate change caused asynchrony which only happened in the logged area she studied, she had to hide the fact that butterflies survived better than ever just a few feet in away in unlogged habitat that she also studied and where there was no asynchrony. To pain a climate horror story she kept half the information off the books a la Enron. If we thought Enron executives were wrong, then Parmesan is no better.
Read here—part-3–extreme-weather.html and

Pat Frank
Reply to  jim Steele
November 9, 2014 11:49 am

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Jim. It’s always more complicated than immediate perception allows.
It’s clear from your discussion that the caterpillar-butterfly-landscape problem is multi-phasic and deconvolution requires multi-year study in any one location. It appears Camille Parmesan did not do that. It may also be that the historical studies she relied upon did not include such detail.
One guesses that she was convinced by her first paper and, after that, ignored (or was blind to) any evidence that countervailed her original thesis.

Solomon Green
Reply to  jim Steele
November 9, 2014 11:56 am

Try looking at it this way. About the time that Parmesan was graduating my wife asked one of our scientist sons-in-law, who was doing a post doc at UCLA why there were so many papers being published about “global warming”.
The reply was illuminating.
“Climate science has always been considered a boring subject. One which did not attract much grant funding. But, recently, by focussing on the possible dangers to mankind (which are totally without any evidential foundation) climate scientists have been able to receive huge grants. No matter what branch of science, by adding words such as ‘affected by global warming’ to the title of a paper publication is almost certain to be achieved.”
Pretty as butterflies are, lepidotera is another somewhat boring subject, so Parmesan had the wit to attach her research to the climate bandwagon, and lo she is a full Professor.
Clever girl for spotting a niche in which to climb!

Pat Frank
Reply to  jim Steele
November 9, 2014 10:29 pm

I don’t think she’s that cynical, Solomon. Crediting her own statement about her “huge signal” it seems more likely she really believes her own story.
But any scientist true to the profession, after fighting whatever good fight to defend a position, if demonstrated wrong must eventually swallow hard and change position.
The question is whether Camille is a scientist and able to change her position in light of an unavoidable disproof. It seems to me that Jim Steele makes an excellent case. I’d like to see Camille defend her position. Either she can, or she cannot. We’d all end up the better for the attempt, including Camille herself.

Robert of Ottawa
November 8, 2014 2:17 pm

Eat cheese, Parmesan!
(Sorry, couldn’t resist)

Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 8, 2014 2:40 pm

Durn… I was going to try to tie in the stinky nature of it too.

Reply to  Dawtgtomis
November 8, 2014 2:50 pm

You mean how it grates on reality?

November 8, 2014 2:20 pm

I lay the total blame at the feet of publishers whose word was once, “the voice of science, truth and responsibility” that were seduced by a wall of scientific deceit, trickery, aided an abetted by corruption in the form of politically applied grant monies and the willingness of professional organisations to take an ignoble part in the spread of that corruption and in turn the institutionalisation of that insidious propaganda, foisted on the most vulnerable by way of the education curriculum.
This happened on our watch, and it is our duty to clean up the mess. We took our eyes off the ball and did not question or insist upon good governance in the field of science and the scientific method. Time to sweep and clean the temple of learning, if only to protect the future well being, and critical thinking capacity of our students.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  KenB
November 8, 2014 3:00 pm

To. late Ken, education has been co-opted by ideologues.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 8, 2014 3:39 pm

A reason to end the state monopoly on education & permit vouchers allowing parental choice of private schools.

November 8, 2014 2:21 pm

Hmm, last comment hit the moderation wall.?

November 8, 2014 2:25 pm

I never knew money (Climastrology funding) could corrupt so absolutely. Why don’t some people have shame anymore?

Pierre DM
November 8, 2014 2:28 pm

Soylent Green

November 8, 2014 2:39 pm

The other sick irony was Dr. Peter Gleick getting appointed Chair of the prestigious American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics after which he then forges documents accusing the Heartland Institute of trying to sabotage science education.

M Courtney
Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 2:41 pm

Corruption is not irony.
The use of language in terms other than the norm is not lying.
Gleick, he lied.

Reply to  jim Steele
November 8, 2014 2:53 pm

Of course… anyone who endorses the NIPCC is trying to sabotage controlled education.

slow to follow
November 8, 2014 2:43 pm

Is there any way that the US legal system can be used to require that Camille Parmesan prove her statements in a Court of Law before they should be accepted as valid for an educational curriculum?

Reply to  slow to follow
November 8, 2014 3:12 pm

I tried to get her most blatantly false paper retracted as discussed here
But because she has been such a leading figure promoting global warminghorror stories and because that the same bogus story I wanted retracted has already been introduced into high school and college text books, her flagrant deception was allowed by BAMS.
I have seen references to her bogus work in 2 textbooks but neglected to write down the names and editions. (I merely slammed the books down in disgust) However I am now searching to find which books had used her falsehoods. I think a public outcry against bad science my get those textbooks enough bad publicity that the publishers would either pull the books or prevent further untruths from being published. People should check college and high school text books for her work and hopefully we can bring such bad science to light.

Pat Frank
Reply to  jim Steele
November 9, 2014 11:56 am

Jim, I’ve run into exactly that sort of dishonest editorial caviling many times when trying to publish papers critical of AGW. Fortunately, not every time. It’s very frustrating and distressing to be silenced like that. You have my sympathies.

November 8, 2014 2:51 pm

Who the hell would want to employ someone like Parmesan. I thought it was a cheese LOL

November 8, 2014 2:59 pm

High school science classes shouldn’t even be bringing the subject up. It’s not a basic science concept, but an applied one. High school science needs to focus on basic science concepts. People should learn spectroscopy and thermodynamics before applying those concepts to the specific problem of climate, or ay other specific question.

November 8, 2014 3:00 pm

What kind of organization calls itself AAAS, or PNAS?
I suppose members of AAAS are called AAASes – or is it even worse?
Heads of Departments at PNAS must be PNAS Heads, for God’s sake!
We’ve got to protect our phony-baloney jobs! We must do something immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph!
– Willam J. Le Petomane, Governor

Björn from Sweden
November 8, 2014 3:02 pm

Camille Parmesan is very proud to be a Nobel prize Laurate, but to her credit she admits that the prize was not awarded only her, but also the IPCC.
Fake climate research sure produces a lot of Nobel Prize winners, some 1200.
The peace prize really is Orwellian just look at some winners here:
Obama, Arafat, Rabin, Perez, IPCC, EU, Kissinger, Gore, Moniz (for inventing frontal lobotomy, swedish socialists love that and forced sterilisation), Myrdal (swedish sterilisation-eugenics program that ended 2012). So why am I bringing up peace prize winners?
I just want to show the difference between politics an science. It is never as obvious as in the Nobel Prize. Most scince prizes make some kind of sense, while the political prices almost never do. The political prices are awarded monsters sometime. Like this Moniz guy who invented frontal lobotomy; the medical scientists where (naturally) abhorred by the idea of lobotomy so there was no way the procedure could win a medical prize, but politicians loved it. If people are rebellious, just punch a knife into their brain and destroy them, wonderful. IPCC didnt get a science prize, bacause what they do is not science, their work serves political purposes. So does this Camille Parmesan.

Reply to  Björn from Sweden
November 9, 2014 1:13 am

On the Nobel Prize Camille Parmesan needs to get cracking and correct some website statements.

Access News – October 23, 2011
Nobel Prize Winner, Camille Parmesan
Science Watch – 2010
In 2007, as a lead author, she shared in the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Link2Media – Sep 15, 2014
…A co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, Professor Camille Parmesan, will be speaking at the Wits Rural Facility on Tuesday, 23 September 2014, during a visit hosted by the Global Change and Sustainability Research Institute (GCSRI) at Wits University….

David Schofield
November 8, 2014 3:11 pm

I’m currently corresponding with the Press Office at Plymouth University about the claim that she is a Nobel Prize winner. They have just removed statements of such from their website this week at my behest.
The press officer tells me she has a certificate (which he hasn’t seen) saying she is a ‘co recipient’ of the prize and has contacted the IPCC media office for clarification. I sent him a copy of the IPCC protocol and a photo of their certificate which states ‘x… is a contributor’.
Watch tips and notes for updates.

Reply to  David Schofield
November 8, 2014 3:14 pm

Good work David!

Reply to  David Schofield
November 8, 2014 3:24 pm

She wouldn’t do that. It would be ‘unmannly’ of her.

Reply to  David Schofield
November 8, 2014 3:25 pm

It doesn’t matter what the IPCC hands out, it is the Nobel Foundation that determines the status of Nobel Prize winners.
I believe they have already made it clear that contributers to institutions awared a nobel prize are not allowed to refer to themselves as Nobel Laureates.

Björn from Sweden
Reply to  ConfusedPhoton
November 8, 2014 4:13 pm

500 million people are members of the EU, and fund it with taxes, but I think it is unreasonable to claim that the EU hosts 500 million Nobel Laurates…

Reply to  ConfusedPhoton
November 9, 2014 9:18 am

This means I’m a contributor to a Nobel Peace Prize winning organization? Cool.

Reply to  David Schofield
November 8, 2014 4:47 pm

Contact the Nobel Prize Committee, or whomever. If you’ll recall, they issued a statement in the case of Michael Mann, denying that Mann was a recipient of the Prize. Perhaps they will feel prompted to do so in Parmesan’s case.

Reply to  mpainter
November 9, 2014 5:37 am

Well if they don’t, I am claiming my Nobel Laureate status since as a taxpayer I am an important contributer to the IPCC reports.

Phil R
Reply to  David Schofield
November 10, 2014 5:08 am

Just curious, I thought an academic who knowingly claimed an award that they didn’t receive (and didn’t correct the record) was guilty of academic fraud, which should be grounds for termination from any academic position. Nowdays it’s ok as long as they revise their CVs an press releases?

November 8, 2014 3:19 pm

Tasmania, Australia has been the venue for pushing similar indoctrination:
7 Nov: The Conversation: Our kids need to learn about climate change
By Libby Tudball, Senior Lecturer, Monash University
The conclusions published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this week provide a wake-up call about the importance of teaching kids about sustainability. The IPCC’s dire warnings are based on new evidence just released on the impact of climate change…
How to get kids involved
How to do this was a big question discussed in Hobart this week by over 350 participants in the Australian Association for Environmental Education conference…
Teachers, school leaders, academics, local council program leaders, members of NGOs and youth organisations discussed action plans including school gardening and food growing, healthy eating, buying locally sourced products and implementing energy awareness programs…
Greens leader Christine Milne added her voice at the conference, urging more government support for education programs focused on sustainability..
What do we need to do now?
Environmental degradation, climate change, species extinction, rising sea levels, excessive or unequal consumption, resource depletion and lack of wellness in our world are local and global problems, so students need to learn what is going on. But we seem to have lost even a veneer of political commitment to sustainability at the federal level….
Twitter: Australian Association for Environmental Education

November 8, 2014 3:22 pm

And so it goes. Liberal extremists are not nice, play by their own rules and lie when the first two fail.

November 8, 2014 3:39 pm

Dear Geography Lady, sorry late to this thread, I too appreciate your truth teaching. I have had an interesting year as an outdoor education teacher 2013 school year, I was privy to an assortment of supplemental documents generated by the NYS DEP concerning water purity issues and global warming / climate change causation of increased turbidity in public water supplies. Some of the presentations I sat through were alarming, not because of scare stories of doom from CO2 ( of which there was some of that) but sheer error being presented as fact. One glaring tome was the insistence that rain was falling more frequently with greater intensity causing increased turbidity in our reservoirs. Punctuated by more frequent occurrence of more extreme drought conditions…. wish I could post graphs and charts here …. in any case my take on this was dubious at best. The overall yearly average of precipitation here in the Catskill Region of New York State has remained remarkably stable for the last hundred years of records. If I am wrong on this point please correct me those of you who have better data to asses. Anyway that was not as bad as sitting through a presentation where we were told that forest fires are an increased risk due to climate change in our region which historically did not have them!!! I was floored. The North East Woodlands absolutely had a forest fire cycle! I argued the point and was greeted with distain then a retreat from the topic. The real issue regarding eastern forest fires is multi-fold. One is vast forests have returned from denuded landscapes of the 1800’s when trees were cut for lumber, farmland and fuel. Now we have forests that have not burned properly for about 100 years. This is a tinder box reality here now. Bad forest management and fire suppression has created this increased risk, not climate change. The battle for truth is everyday in this arena. We don’t have to be employed by a learning institution to share truth! Keep on it Geo Lady!

Reply to  George NaytowhowCon
November 8, 2014 4:04 pm

this is the closest station I could find to the Catskills and there doesn’t seem to be any signif monthly change in precipitation .the past 100 yrs

November 8, 2014 4:06 pm

Suggestion for those wishing to write one-liners: read the comments before posting your ‘joke’. The more obvious the attempt at puns, the chances are that it has been written before.
You know there is another irony. I forget the name, but an investigator in England, when belief in witches was the norm, put in a valiant effort to use empirical evidence to prove that witches existed. It was not enough for him to merely believe that witches existed, for if they did exist it would be evident.
The point: a person who believed in witches had more integrity and respect for objective gathering of evidence than so-called ‘climate scientists’ of an apparently enlightened society.

November 8, 2014 5:05 pm

It happened before. For decades zoologists clung to the nobel prize winner Lorenz’s theory on aggression. On the great man’s demise they went back to their field notes and film footage and realised they had self censored what they had originally observed. A new theory was born, the selfish gene theory and aggression, both inter and intra species was confirmed.
It will happen in climatology too. It will be the way for the new generation of scientists to establish themselves and get their turn at the funding spigot.

November 8, 2014 5:59 pm

Remember when the consensus was the earth was flat,? Remember when the consensus was the aether so light would have something to propagate in? Remember when the consensus was after 35mph one would burst into flames from the friction? Remember when all that was left for physics to figure out was that pesky “black body” problem then everything would be all sewn up?
Remember when people thought CO2 was warming the planet and to question it was anti-science?

November 8, 2014 6:20 pm

We have the cynicism of youth to help us. Over the last 5 years or so my son has had science teachers who flat out would fail any assignment that didn’t agree with AGW and he’s had teachers who bluntly stated that human caused global warming was “a joke”.
My son and his friends figure out quickly which type of teacher they have and prepare papers accordingly. Like those trying to earn a living they need to get passing grades but laugh at the bogus nature of AGW.
There is hope.

November 8, 2014 6:48 pm

Physics textbooks used in our high schools are already of dismal quality and if we listen to nut jobs like Camille Parmesan they will get even worse.
If you want to improve physics textbooks support John Hubisz at North Carolina State University:

Mickey Reno
November 8, 2014 6:58 pm

Camille has many strikes against her.
Strike 1. Bad California butterfly science.
Strike 2. Bad Great Britain butterfly science.
Strike 3. Won’t share data and methods for independent replication
Strike 4. Won’t correct when new information comes to light.
Strike 5. Falsely claims to be a Nobel laureate just like Mike Mann
Strike 6. Gets depressed because some of us don’t fall for her bulls***.
And yet, seen as a great climate scientist by her peers.

Reply to  Mickey Reno
November 9, 2014 1:34 am

I don’t get the butterfly thing and global warming in the UK. Maybe it’s down to other factors too.

BBC – 1 June 2011
Springwatch: British butterflies facing decline
Changes in the way our landscape is managed has contributed to a decline in the number of butterfly species found in the UK….
BBC – 1 June 2012
UK butterflies continue to decline
…..Butterfly Conservation has blamed the decline on “last year’s record-breaking cold summer”, but also said there was a long-term and “ongoing deterioration of suitable butterfly habitat across the countryside”. …..

Let’s turn the HEAT UP!

BBC – 16 September 2013
Hot summer helps boost butterflies
…..The sustained warm weather over the summer provided “perfect” conditions for a boom in butterflies and day-flying moths according to experts……
“The hot summer this year meant that some butterfly species, which were in their early life cycle stages when the heat wave began were able to capitalise on it giving rise to high numbers of adults during the count in late July and early August.”…..

November 8, 2014 7:42 pm

It is PI=3 all over again.
Why don’t we just ignore the laws of nature, and indeed nature’s God altogether. No problem there… after all, consensus is mightier than the scientific method.

November 8, 2014 7:49 pm

Dear Camille,
To quote a famous politician with words you may recognize, Elections Have Consequences.
And Texas elections ain’t been going your way. Just ask your pal Wendy about that.

November 8, 2014 10:10 pm

So let me see if I see this right. Steele complains about Dr Parmesan’s work, and his references are, oh my, his own blogs. Why no peer reviewed rebuttals? Well, there are none.
So, let’s see, it’s because of the global scientific conspiracy or it’s because it’s the Steele conspiracy. You make the choice.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
Reply to  trafamadore
November 9, 2014 12:54 am

Kilgore Trout would be ashamed of you.

Reply to  trafamadore
November 9, 2014 1:51 am

trafamadore November 8, 2014 at 10:10 pm
So let me see if I see this right. Steele complains about Dr Parmesan’s work, and his references are, oh my, his own blogs. Why no peer reviewed rebuttals? Well, there are none.

It is not for lack of trying. It’s just the way Climastrology is.

By omitting half of the data, their paper manufactured an illusion of extreme climate catastrophe as discussed here. So I requested an official retraction……
Dr. Rosenfeld at was the editor with whom I was communicating, but he mentioned having some health issues, so to be kind I suggest your opinions be sent to the first two email addresses.
I requested an official retraction but the editors of the AMS excused the deception of telling such half truths. Was the refusal to retract bad science affected by political pressure because Parmesan’s papers have been the foundation of so many biological climate catastrophe stories like this AAAS media ploy???

Reply to  trafamadore
November 9, 2014 2:20 am

Because the “official” and nepotic peer review process has been compromised like MI5 was by the Cambridge Five. For now, this forum will serve quite well…

Pat Frank
Reply to  trafamadore
November 9, 2014 12:00 pm

Yours is the sort of specious argument, trafamadore, that typifies people unable to judge a scientific argument on its substantive merits.

Just Steve
November 9, 2014 12:03 am

I’m sorry…the term “bad science” needs to be replaced with a much more accurate term….”bad scientist”.
Science is a process, and philosophically can be neither good nor bad. Since most climate change propaganda is produced by non scientific processes, calling it science, even bad science, is IMHO a mistake.

Reply to  Just Steve
November 9, 2014 2:24 am

The trouble is the ‘good scientists ‘ have played the three wise monkeys , hearing nothing , seeing nothing , and worst saying nothing over the ‘bad science ‘ of people like ‘the Team ‘ and Parmesan. By this they created a situation that when ‘the cause ‘ falls its likely to take much else with it , there is actual good environmental science but it will get labelled under the same category has the type of rubbish Parmesan and co push out to support AGW , and for that we may all pay the price.

November 9, 2014 1:48 am

TODAY is the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Wall was opened on November 9, 1989.
Four months earlier, in July 1989 I had travelled through the Wall via Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin. I was with three colleagues on a business trip. It was not a fun trip , but it was highly educational. East Berlin and East Germany were everything Ronald Reagan said they were – repressive, backward, and evil – families were spying on each other and ratting to the Stasi, the dreaded East German Secret Police. I wrote about this trip one year ago today, at
At that time, I re-printed an article called “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, written in 1994 by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore stated, in part:
“Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments. These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society.”
I believe that Patrick Moore was correct, but this is a more personal story.
I went back to Berlin and former East Germany several times in the mid-1990’s, the first time with two colleagues. I recounted to them how, during my first trip there in 1989, I had asked our host if I could go for a jog and was advised that “We do not jog in East Berlin”. He added “You can walk anywhere you want – it is completely safe – not like your London and New York.” We took a walk later that evening from our hotel, the Metropole, and found there were eight armed guardposts in every block.
Now, however, the Berlin Wall had fallen, the Stasi files had been broken open, and East Berlin breathed free after more than 40 years of Soviet domination. It was early on a warm summer evening, and I asked my friends if we could take a long walk to the Brandenburg Gate, once one of the entry points through the Wall. As we approached that grand monument from the Tiergarten, I asked for my friends’ indulgence and broke into a slow jog. I passed under the Brandenburg Gate and continued a short way down Unter den Linden.
You see, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the entire Soviet Union, we do jog in East Berlin.
Regards to all, Allan

Pat Frank
Reply to  Allan MacRae
November 9, 2014 10:37 pm

Great story, Allan, thanks.
I crossed at the Brandenburg Gate in the early 1990’s, while East Berlin was still pretty raw and all the buildings near the wall still had the WWII bullet holes in their façades.
Just through the gate was a huge shiny gold-metal statue of a Russian soldier; rifle, great-coat, boots, and all. Must have been 10 meters tall. If there was ever a sign of triumphalist dominion. . .

Reply to  Pat Frank
November 10, 2014 5:30 am

Thank you Pat. I watched the celebrations in Berlin yesterday, recalling the joyful emotions of 25 years earlier. At that time I stayed up all night watching the exuberant crowds at the Brandenburg Gate and sharing in their happiness and their relief. The Berlin Wall and East Germany will not be missed.
I also remember the bullet holes in the facades of buildings in East Berlin, but I missed the giant Russian soldier – one hopes he has now been melted down and is part of a new Smart Car (along with all the Trabbies and Wartburgs). 🙂
A few notes:
At my request, Dr. Patrick Moore kindly emailed me yesterday the new link to his 1994 essay, of which “The Rise of Eco-Extremism” is a chapter.
Moore’s essay is “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement” at
Moore was remarkably prescient, imo, and well worth the read for those who want to understand the basis for the long-running and fractious global warming debate.
This debate has always been political and is NOT about the science, which has always been rather clear and is becoming increasingly so – due to the now~18 year global temperature “standstill” – it is not a “pause”, since the planet will probably cool in the next decades.
The mainstream climate debate is essentially an argument about the magnitude of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity or ECS:
Warmists say ECS>= 3C or more, which is nonsense;
Skeptics say ECS<= 1C, which is more reasonable but still questionable, in my opinion.
The detailed signals derived from the data show that CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, from the 9 month delay for ~ENSO cycles to the ~800 year delay inferred in the ice core data for much longer cycles.
I suggest with some confidence that the future cannot cause the past.
I suggest that temperature drives CO2 more than CO2 drives temperature. This does not preclude other drivers of CO2 such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, other land use changes, etc.
However, Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2-deficient and the current increase in CO2 (whatever the causes) is clearly beneficial. Regrettably, the warmists are wrong – increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause significant global warming – the world is too cold and about to get colder, imo. CO2 is plant food, and greater atmospheric CO2 is good for natural plants and also for agriculture.
Regards to all, Allan

Jaakko Kateenkorva
November 9, 2014 2:28 am

Well, I tend to agree with those here who’d let her. There is no reason to underestimate children. Which generation has lapped up the teaching of their predecessors? Baby Boomers rejected their parents values famously and generations X and Y are hardly characterized by compliance either. The more obviously Camilla fights the laws of nature with her misanthropist values, the more likely the students will question them.

November 9, 2014 3:19 am

More “the science is settled” claptrap dressed up as science. Like Kehoe from Texas Tech who with her husband is busy shaking down religious people with global warming hype, these people have no shame/ Texas seems to be on a path that is more in the direction of Australia when it comes to standing up to intimidation by the climate obsessed. I hope that path is successful.

November 9, 2014 3:25 am

Reblogged this on CraigM350.
A very dishonest woman!

November 9, 2014 5:30 am

J Steele, keep up the good work. I am dismayed at the level of faulty science in this field.
Fortunately, I work in a field where opposing views are welcome. If an idea or a conclusion can stand up to opposing thoughts, it makes them more robust.

Brock Way
November 9, 2014 5:47 am

““From the scientific perspective, there are simply no longer “two sides” to the climate-change story: The debate is over. The jury is in, and humans are the culprit.””
Humans are to blame for something that isn’t happening…because SCIENCE!!

Ralph Kramden
November 9, 2014 7:51 am

They need to get the scientific facts straight” I agree, the books should clearly state there has been no global warming in over 18 years.

November 9, 2014 11:07 am

It is people like Mann, Keyhoe and Parmesan who are making “climate science” rate up there with “military intelligence”.

November 9, 2014 12:23 pm

As a teacher I think there is ample justification for teaching students that AGW is real. How can there not be when it is accepted by pretty much every national scientific body on the planet? I also think it is ok to let students know (and I do) that others have opinions, but it would b misleading to say those opinions should hold equal weight in this debate.
Clearly many here will disagree with me. In support of my position I’d like to point out that many prominent skeptical scientist working in the field (the likes of Christy, Spencer, Currie) accept that C02 is causing some of the present warming. In fact you would be hard pressed to find a working climate scientist who would not acknowledge the affect C02 has on the climate.
In fact, not only do I think it is reasonable, but it is in fact responsible to teach that some of the recent temperature increase is due to our dumping C02 into the atmosphere. And, it would be morally wrong to not teach this reality to kids.
So given I believe what I have stated above, I think the real questions we should be getting our students to think about are:
– how much of the warming is caused by C02?
– how much more warming (if any) will we see?
– what if anything should be done?
I am very much in the camp that it is far from settled that future temp increases will be catastrophic, although that is entirely possible. And if it is possible, then at the very least, it would be responsible for us all (including children, because after all it is there future we are talking about) to look at the possible paths/actions we can take from here. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact that is good teaching.

Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2014 1:33 pm

The argument is not if it is right or wrong to teach CO2 caused climate change. It is the dominant paradigm. What is definitely wrong is arguing “there are simply no longer “two sides” to the climate-change story: The debate is over. The jury is in, and humans are the culprit.” especially when observations like record Antarctic sea ice or an 18 year hiatus in the global average, do not support the theory. What is political intellectual tyranny is claiming there is no more debate, when there very much us, but trying to end debate via political fiat.

Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2014 2:14 pm

Well, I just read all 92 of your responses here at WUWT (going back to 2012) and, in truth, I find you have rejected every previous argument presented by many different readers against your CAGW religion – including your claim that you are not a religious person.
Thus, I am sure it is not worth responding to you: Your mind is made up as a matter of faith, trust, and respect to Mann, and you will reject (again) the comments (corrections) you are unfortunately propagandizing (proselytizing and promoting) “as a teacher” to our innocent youth… Regardless of my knowledge that YOU will (again) reject the evidence and continue promoting your religion of death to billions, I will address the following corrections to the others who may be more open minded than your closed little circle of those 75 government-paid so-called “scientists” of 13,500 who were asked five questions about climate change. (Yeah verily, it is only in climate “science” that 75/13500 = 97%)

November 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm
So given I believe what I have stated above, I think the real questions we should be getting our students to think about are:
– how much of the warming is caused by [human-released] C02?

Well, since there has been 0.0 increase in the actual measured global average temperature the past 18 years (longer than your “students” have actually been alive!), and since man’s release of CO2 is approximately 3% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, then the answer to your actual question is
0.03 x 0.0 = 0.0
More practically, since you really wanted to claim (blame!) ALL of the increase in temperature since 1650 on man’s release of CO2, you “want” an answer like 90%, 75%, or perhaps even 50%. But NO ONE at any level has ever calculated that figure: They CANNOT admit that NONE of the CO2 released since the recent peak in 1945 can be correlated with a consistent rise in temperature.

November 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm
– how much more warming (if any) will we see?

We do not know. NO CAGW-approved computer model has been correct over even short periods of time, and the further we proceed, the worse EVERY computer model has become in predicting global average temperatures. The world’s temperatures can be approximated by a sum of short term (60-70 cycles) superimposed on a much longer 900-1000 year cycle of raising and lowering temperatures.
If those cycles continue, and there is NO REASON to assume they will not continue, then we are at the short-term peak of one recent well-defined 60-70 year cycle between 2000 – 2010, and are beginning a decline until probably 2030 – 2040. However, we are ALSO at the peak of long, slow peak of the 1000 year cycle that saw its last 200 year maximum between 1000 AD and 1200 AD.
SO, will today’s Modern Warm Period be recognized as occurring between 2000 – 2010, then declining into a “Modern Ice Age” in 2450? Will we face one more short-term cycle peak in 2070-2080, THEN decline into a 500 year cooling period of death and famine?
The honest answer is : “We do not know.”

November 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm
– what if anything should be done?

Cold kills. CO2, fossil fuels, fertilizers, give life. “Fighting CO2 increases in the religion of CAGW KILLS PEOPLE.” Thus, no. Nothing should be done. EVERYTHING should be done to increase energy availablity to the owrld, to reduce energy prices, to increase conservation and efficiency in energy production, transportation, and use to maximize economy and minimize waste. More CO2, more energy and a warmer earth creates more food, fodder, fuel, farming, and feasts; and reduces famine, failure, frustration, fear, and fatigue.
Your religion has killed 24,000 innocent elderly and poor in 2012-2013 in the the rich nation of the UK alone due to artificially high energy prices caused BY your demand for CAGW policies. 26,000 were killed this past winter. You will kill many tens of thousands more this winter. Are you satisfied?
How many more must die before you, yourself, admit your religion is responsible and you, yourself, stop the propaganda?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2014 2:37 pm

Simon, teach the facts. Including the fact that policy is being based on computer generated climate models based on Man-made CO2 that do not match observed reality.
If a car bumper designed by a computer program crushed when a prototype was actually tested, that design would not go into production.
It is NOT responsible to teach children that virtual reality trumps reality.

Reply to  Gunga Din
November 9, 2014 5:07 pm

But Gunga Din!
it’s even worse than that.
If EVERY car bumper designed by a 28 different computer programs crushed when EVERY prototype was actually tested under ONLY 18% (18 years data out of 100 projected years of CAGW) of their intended load, and if that program EXPECTED the additional deaths of AN ADDITIONAL 45,000 car deaths each year just to PERHAPS save 20 people from minor injuries 100 years from now, that design would not go into production, but would go into prosecution.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Simon
November 9, 2014 11:18 pm

I can see where you’re coming from as a teacher, Simon. You’re right about every scientific body subscribing to the idea of AGW, pretty much as the IPCC pronounces it. As a practicing scientist myself, this widespread agreement is a real conundrum to me.
The evidence of duplicity among AGW-promoting scientists is public and available to all. Evidence such as Ben Santer illicitly changing the 1995 2AR to say the opposite of the original text. Evidence such as uncovered by Steve McIntyre that Michael Mann knew his hockey stick paleo-temperature plot required distorted California strip-bark bristle cone pine tree-ring series to give the desired result, and knowing that his reconstruction failed the 1400 verification test, and then covering all this up and going on to publish anyway. Evidence that certain AGW-promoting scientists actively subverted peer review, and plotted with one another to do so. Evidence unearthed by Doug Keenan of fraud in the knowing use of garbage Chinese temperature data.
These are four of many more examples of dishonesty. Under ordinary circumstances, heads would roll for this sort of thing. But instead the party just sails right on.
The climate models on which the whole AGW narrative depends were shown quite awhile ago to make huge errors and to be unable to predict anything.
These are just two examples of disproof. There are more. Under ordinary circumstances, in idea under such serious threat would be put in abeyance. But instead the party just sails right on.
As a teacher, you’re not in a position to do the research on this, and gather the materials for an honest presentation. You have to go with lesson plans and the weight of official authority. But your teaching is suffering from dereliction of professional duty by the officials of the scientific organizations who have neglected their due diligence, and by a press that has willfully neglected to report on these faults and in fact have willfully avoided reporting on these faults.
In my opinion, after spending more than 10 years researching the scientific question, the whole AGW business is the worst case ever, EVER, of dishonesty of the few abetted by an epidemic of incompetence among the many.

November 9, 2014 12:48 pm

Reblogged this on Earth Changing Extremities.
Camille Parmesan, climate alarmist.

November 9, 2014 5:58 pm

This whole thing smells rather cheesy to me.

November 9, 2014 7:27 pm

We ca only hope students follow in Mark Twain’s footsteps who said ““I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”

November 9, 2014 8:13 pm

“Textbooks must encourage critical examination of all hypotheses. ”
This is wrong. We know it to be wrong because this has been discussed 1000x in relation to other ‘popular’ topics, e.g. teaching the creation story as an alternative to evolution; even Bush said that on camera… how unbefitting for a president. Interestingly, bringing creation back in to text books is always at the top of the list in Texas… oh dear.
We do not teach creation “science” in school because there is only so much we can teach in school, and if we were to teach each and every theory for kids to critically examin them, then we wouldn’t get anywhere.
We also don’t teach that the earth is flat, even though it has been a popular theory which is even still propagated by some obscure US christians to this day, if we are to believe the book The Flat Earth Theory, which details the history of this idea through the millenia…
So then, we teach in school books what is considered the consensus at any given time, because there is no other way around it. That may change over time, of course. But it cannot change in the text books first; you have to swing academic opinion first. Academics inform text books, not the other way round.
Whom are you trying to fool anyway? Everybody who follows the issue of what goes in to text books in Texas knows it is a disgrace. Evangelical nutcases pushing their agenda… what’s next? The earth is 6000 years old? If there weren’t people holding back against this, it would be in Texas text books for the longest time.

Reply to  Matt
November 9, 2014 11:05 pm

“Strong is the hatred in this one. Beware of the power of the hatred.” …. Oops, wrong movie genre.
So, should a text book in Texas be so one-sided that it repeats lies, exaggerations, and propaganda designed by the ultra-rich to harm people and destroy lives of the poor and needy needlessly? Should it repeat lies falsified by actual measurements and contrary to real life?
Should a religion based on faith and the arcane, unproven opinions of self-selected experts be the only thing “allowed” by the followers of that religion to be presented to the children of Texas?

November 9, 2014 8:33 pm

Matt are you referring to “CO2 climate evangelical nutcases” pushing their agenda??
I have provided well documented evidence that Parmesan has pushed bad and false science, and prevented replication thus defiling the scientific process, but your OK with that. You are OK with suppressing critical thinking. Your OK with all that because we should’t teach the earth is flat? As if satellite pictures of a round earth is the equivalent of failed models predicting CO2 climate hell.
I suspect you have another agenda other than truth seeking! “Whom are you trying to fool anyway?”

Phil R
November 10, 2014 5:10 am

Just curious, I thought an academic who knowingly claimed an award that they didn’t receive (and didn’t correct the record) was guilty of academic fraud, which should be grounds for termination from any academic position. Nowdays it’s ok as long as they revise their CVs an press releases?

November 10, 2014 7:45 am

How ironic that many of the same left-wing idealogues who don’t respect an individual’s freedom of religion have created the cult of global warming, which is actually more like a religion than like anything scientific. They worship at the altar of Mann and will not listen to reason. Repent ye climate deniers. 😉

November 10, 2014 1:12 pm

Madam Butterfly’s arguments just aint got wings.

%d bloggers like this: