Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University
In a recent Commentary posted to the Statesman.com 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
http://landscapesandcycles.net/climate-doom–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:
http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html
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
http://landscapesandcycles.net/hijacking-conservation-success-in-the-uk.html
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”
Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooaZLoJXhu4
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/08/nzclimate-truth-newsletter-no-320/#comment-1470144
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
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. . .
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
http://www.ecosense.me/index.php/key-environmental-issues/10-key-environmental-issues/208-key-environmental-issues-4
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
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.
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.
Reblogged this on CraigM350.
A very dishonest woman!
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.
““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!!
“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.
It is people like Mann, Keyhoe and Parmesan who are making “climate science” rate up there with “military intelligence”.
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.
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.
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%)
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.
Reblogged this on Earth Changing Extremities.
Camille Parmesan, climate alarmist.
This whole thing smells rather cheesy to me.
We ca only hope students follow in Mark Twain’s footsteps who said ““I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
“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.
“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?
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?”
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?
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. 😉
Madam Butterfly’s arguments just aint got wings.