Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens have finally worked out how to promote climate action: Create more greens, by “ingraining” children with their worldview.
Study: inspiring action on climate change is more complex than you might think
People have to grasp how climate change impacts them, and we need to value environmentally sound behavior
John Abraham
Friday 19 May 2017 20.00 AEST
We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years. We also know that there will be significant social and economic costs from the effects. In fact, the effects are already appearing in the form of more extreme weather, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and so on.
So why haven’t humans done much about the problem? Answering that question may be more challenging than the basic science of a changing climate. Fortunately, a new review just out in Science helps us with this question. Lead author, Dr. Elise Amel, a colleague of mine, completed the review with colleagues Drs. Christie Manning, Britain Scott, and Susan Koger. Rather than focusing solely on the problems with communicating the science of climate change, this work takes a wider view on the hurdles that get in the way of meaningful action.
…
The authors identify a variety of strategies for moving forward with human limitations in mind. Since they acknowledge humans tend not to protect those things they either don’t know or don’t value, ingraining a sense of value in the natural world may be critical. In fact, there is a strong relationship between an individual’s connection to nature and their ecological behavior. In today’s world of growing industrialization and severing of the nature/human connection, the challenge may be to find and create new connection opportunities.
More immediately, the authors encourage efforts to change the social norms surrounding environmentally sound behavior – making it cool again.
…
I think the summary of the paper does a great job encapsulating the work’s important lessons. The authors write:
Psychological research suggests that humans can move toward a sustainable society by creating conditions that motivate environmentally responsible collective action – conditions that help people surmount cognitive limits, create new situational drivers, foster need fulfillment, and support communities of social change. Individuals whose actions are informed by a deeper understanding of how the planet really works can galvanize collectives to change the larger systems that drive so much of human behavior. To radically alter the way humans think and live; educate the next generation; and design physical, governmental, and cultural systems, humans must experience and better understand their profound interdependence with the planet.
…
The study referenced by The Guardian;
Beyond the roots of human inaction: Fostering collective effort toward ecosystem conservation
Elise Amel, Christie Manning, Britain Scott, Susan Koger
Science 21 Apr 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6335, pp. 275-279
DOI: 10.1126/science.aal1931
Abstract
The term “environmental problem” exposes a fundamental misconception: Disruptions of Earth’s ecosystems are at their root a human behavior problem. Psychology is a potent tool for understanding the external and internal drivers of human behavior that lead to unsustainable living. Psychologists already contribute to individual-level behavior-change campaigns in the service of sustainability, but attention is turning toward understanding and facilitating the role of individuals in collective and collaborative actions that will modify the environmentally damaging systems in which humans are embedded. Especially crucial in moving toward long-term human and environmental well-being are transformational individuals who step outside of the norm, embrace ecological principles, and inspire collective action. Particularly in developed countries, fostering legions of sustainability leaders rests upon a fundamental renewal of humans’ connection to the natural world.
Read more (paywalled): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/275
Sadly the full study is paywalled, so we don’t get to see how the authors plan to deal with parents, when they discover their kids are being “ingrained” in climate madrassas instead of receiving a balanced education.
We must keep those kiddies ignorant of science. I thought that was the pitch of creationists?
Yes. Just like the creationists.
No, this is more like Satan attempting to prepare a hell for mankind…
Ben,
A+ !
This post is a bit late. Check out this exam exemplar found in my government’s website.
I think most young people would have a problem shaking off this BS.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf
Note this is dated 2008. These people will be in the work force by now as well as being voters!
Cheers
Roger
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2013/03/13/are-we-experiencing-a-communist-infiltration-sponsored-by-the-united-nations/
Realistically though, the intolerance expressed toward those who doubt inter-species evolution is little different than the intolerance expressed toward those who doubt gorebull warming. In both cases the science is settled and there is no room for debate. But in either case, that’s not science.
In other words, saying there is no debate isn’t science.
“the intolerance expressed toward those who doubt inter-species evolution ”
Inter species evolution? The evolution of a species as influenced by selective pressures created by there species. Yes, that’s real.
But, the idea that an upper tropospheric gas at -17 deg C can warm the Earth’s surface at 15 deg C, 32 degrees warmer, is a joke and not science. To reject the idea that a trace gas that is accurately called a radiative gas, controls our climate is a major joke. In fact, water vapor and CO2 serve to coo our climate not warm it, if one addresses real science and real world experiments.
There is no real evidence to support the global warming position. They have dishonest graphs of temperature and and CO2 and horribly expensive and fatally flawed computer climate models that have failed to predict correctly 100% of the time. AGW is a political scam.
A coulee of typos, sorry. coo = cool and the idea that a trace gas drives climate is a rejectable joke.
I fight with automatic spell check all the time.
When there is a pitch in education to control ‘Worldview’ or its sister term ‘Mindset’ the point is not to brainwash with erroneous facts. That fails to grasp the wholesale shift in the nature of what now constitutes ‘learning’ and the focus of education now all over the world. This http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/personalized-learning-as-a-molding-mechanism-and-prime-instrument-for-social-and-political-control/ gets at the shift quite well as a start.
It is perception that gets targeted as it controls what gets noticed and ignored. Making concepts and Disciplinary Core Ideas the point of content makes these Ideas and Principles what gets used to interpret daily experiences takes how Brainwashing works in the 21st century to a whole new level. It then becomes an almost invisible Habit of Mind generally wedded to visual images created consciously by the virtual realities embedded into online curricula and assessments.
Have hope, Robin. It didn’t work in the Soviet Union Robin, and they had 3.5 generations of children to ruin. It won’t work here, either.
and yet parents willingly turn over their own children to these institutions AND pay them to indoctrinate.
if that’s failure, how is it different from winning?
Sadly, though, what happens as we find out it doesn’t work, and what do have then, this doesn’t working thing? My God, it’s the children.
===========
No, this is the pitch of quasi-religious/moral philosophers based on a conflation of logical domains. It is the same “secular” philosophers that believe in spontaneous human conception, evolutionary creationism, and depart from the scientific domain while hunting for missing links. The scientific domain is too restrictive for their beliefs and dreams. So, they indulge in assumptions/assertions about states and processes in the future and past in order to bolster their faith through a form of scientific mysticism that relies on inference, extrapolation, and invariance.
Neomarxism madrassas ??
Tom,
Creationists invented and dominated what we call science until very recently. You been brainwashed (as was I) it seems to me . . this ain’t the washers first rodeo ; )
Most schools were overtly church oriented until quite recently, in a historical sense, i.e. the middle of the 19th Century in the US. This was mostly due to a sort of armed standoff between protestant and Catholic parents, who disagreed on religious training.
As far as the original point, suppression of teaching biology was partly the notion of William Jennings Bryan, who objected to so-called Social Darwinism and eugenics, and was so ignorant of biology that he did not realize that neither had much to do with historical biology at all. Bryan was a non-Marxist leftist, and ran as such for President three times. It is only in retrospect he got labeled a right-winger, mostly on the basis of a rather bogus play and movie.
Tom,
I repeat; Creationists invented and dominated what we call science until very recently. Reciting the ridiculous little speals of your (and my) brainwashers, that reduce the entire matter to a few individual’ opinions and behaviour isn’t going to work.
You do seem to have reading comprehension issues. What you just wrote is mostly a non sequitur.
Tom, JK is simply stating what happened. Men who believed in the creator developed modern science. The “until very recently” part pertains to the mid-to-late 1800s when humanism co-opted and subverted science by redefining its frames of reference established on an unproven premise.
What John Knight was referring to as “creationism” is a mostly American heresy. Biblical literalism in biology was mostly unsupportable by the late 18th century.
Back on point, the green blob is trying to suppress teaching climatology to support their politics, or “teaching” in such as way that it supports their political agenda and ignoring any facts that contradict their narrative.
I say it’s the truth. I say your initial remark about creationists is the non-sequitur.
I Came I Saw I Left,
“The “until very recently” part pertains to the mid-to-late 1800s …”
I think that’s part of the brainwashing story. Consider, please (from the Wiki);
“1901–2000 A.D. (20th century)
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.[79] Overall, Christians have won a total of 72.5% of all the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry,[80] 65.3% in Physics,[80] 62% in Medicine,[80] 54% in Economics.[80][80]”
I believe the climate/science denier game, is essentially an attempt to replicate a rather successful previous propaganda campaign, involving Evolution/science deniers . .
John,
Creationists of the 16th to 17th century, before the discovery of fossils and extinction, were very different from those of the 19th and 20th centuries. They quit “dominating” science 150 years ago. And that the Bible is preposterously wrong about “creation” was recognized long before that. Hardly “very recently”.
Those scientists who thought about the origin of species at all before the late 18th century were default “creationists”. But it has been obvious to all modern scientists, ie since 1543, that the biblical account of creation and cosmology bears no resemblance to reality.
Indeed, even to biblical scholars from before then, to include St. Augustine c. AD 400 and subsequent Catholic theologians and the founders of Protestantism, it was obvious that the Bible is not literally true with respect to describing nature.
JohnKnight May 20, 2017 at 2:17 pm
What you call brain-washing is education. Creationism is simply false, both as science and religion. Evolution is a scientific fact. Teaching it is no more brain-washing than is teaching that the earth is a sphere and goes around the sun, contrary to the Bible, in which it is flat and immobile, covered by a solid vault from which hang the stars, which sing.
“What you call brain-washing is education.”
It’s alternative-less indoctrination, obviously, I say, Chimp. Just like “climate change” is today, and getting deep into the weeds about what exactly this and that term means, and how many scientists believe/believed this and that, is part of the same game, I feel anyone with an open mind an some grasp of what science actually is/involves, can grasp.
(Got nuthin’ to do with what is ultimately true, just what ultimately serves a (state) controlled society agenda, I believe)
John,
I oppose the state monopoly on education. Kids have been indoctrinated by the Left for decades, whether it was anti-nuclear, CACA or statism.
But evolution is scientific fact and creationism is false religion, which is why it can’t be taught in science classes in public schools. Even if it were valid religion, it couldn’t be taught in science classes, but it’s a cult.
So education requires the study of the best supported science, and evolution is at the top, being far better understood than gravitation, for instance.
Chimp,
“But evolution is scientific fact …”
Nope, not possible, it was not observed. You got the wrong idea of what science is, and that wrong idea has metastasized into a beast seen only in computer models, I say.
I’m going to let this subject drop because the initial creationist comment was OT.
But I gotta say, Chimp, you’ve got to be kidding. They can land small objects on planets and slingshot probes around distant planets into deep space, and evolution is better understood than gravity? Hell, they can’t even explain the Cambrian explosion.
JK,
“I believe the climate/science denier game, is essentially an attempt to replicate a rather successful previous propaganda campaign, involving Evolution/science deniers . .”
I think you’re right. We’re all blinded by our visceral biases. So right in some things, so wrong in others. For that reason it is so important to be self-doubting and humble.
Yes, they can explain the Cambrian Explosion. It was the same phenomenon as the Triassic Explosion after the Permian mass extinction and the smaller explosions after other such events. “Explosions” of new species naturally follow mass extinctions. The Ediacaran environment was destroyed when the seafloor cyanobacterial slime mats which supported it were devoured.
The level of precision and accuracy in space shots is routinely achieved in evolutionary statistical analysis as well. But no one knows what gravity fundamentally is. Newton’s model was replaced by Enstein’s, which is now at its limit. Gravity still can’t be unified with the three much more powerful “forces”.
Just because you don’t understand evolution well doesn’t mean that no one does.
Consider please, readers;
Several years ago, a young scientist/professor type came upon what appeared to him to be”soft tissue” inside a dinosaur bone. He was basically persecuted for speaking of it publicly, since the age of such fossil remains are assumed to be several orders of magnitude older than such tissue could possibly endure . .
A few years later, another young scientist came upon the same phenomenon, and was persecuted for speaking of it . . but she persisted, and eventually demonstrated that about half the dino bone specimens she examined had soft tissue inside them . . up to the su[supposed age of two hundred million years.
Observed, versus imagined . . I’m going with the observed, O scientific thinkers, not the many times I imagined those critters are from a vastly distant time . .
Aren’t you? ; )
JohnKnight May 20, 2017 at 4:53 pm
That’s funny, coming from a character who imagines that the Bible is science.
I’ve showed you hundreds of instances of observed evolution. That you can’t handle the truth has long been evident.
You have been brainwashed by professional liars.
Sad.
John.
More lies you swallowed. No one has ever been persecuted for pointing out soft tissue fossilization. Please provide the names, dates and institutions involved.
The scientist of whom you speak is Mary Schweitzer, whose career has flourished.
Soft tissue fossilization is well understood. It’s the iron.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
JohnKnight May 20, 2017 at 2:39 pm
It’s hilarious that you confuse Christian with creationist.
How many Christian Nobel winners have been creationists? Please name them.
JohnKnight May 20, 2017 at 5:13 pm I see John, that you are back for more self inflicted punishment on your crazy belief system in a young earth aka 6000 years old. So now you saying the dino’s are 6000 years old because you think they found soft tissue in dino bones? Have you escaped from an Institution? If you are so into punishing yourself with crazy cultic ideas, I suggest you try self flagellation. At least you will only harm your self with these crazy ideas and not some poor children who might be reading this blog for their science project. I suggest you join a religious blog, or create one yourself, and promote your ideas there. This blog is about science, and while some of us may disagree on science issues, that is to be expected. But I can guarantee you the majority of us here, even the normal Christians, would have no part of your belief system especially as I know, your entire belief system including Young Earth is essential for salvation. Yours is the absolute worst kind of brainwashing, the kind that is evil.
Ron – evil? Goodness sake!
Well understood, says Chimp . . which does not mean he understands it, I’m quite sure, but rather that he has blind faith in those who defend his beliefs.
He’s NOT a scientific thinker, but a Siants worshiper, to me (sounds like science ; )
“More lies you swallowed. No one has ever been persecuted for pointing out soft tissue fossilization. Please provide the names, dates and institutions involved.”
Here ya go, Chimp; (though he’s not as young as I thought)
“A scientist fired from California State University Northridge after he discovered soft tissue fibers on a triceratops horn and argued that the dinosaur bone could not have been millions of years old has settled a two-year-long lawsuit with the school.”
http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/scientist-fired-by-university-after-discovering-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-bone-settles-lawsuit/51118.htm
That guy was not fired because of the soft tissue issue. The court did not rule on that issue. The settlement was in a normal labor relations suit.
Did you even read the link?
Besides which, it isn’t a reputable source. “News” from creationist sources is always fake.
His claim of persecution is preposterous on its face, since Schweitzer had already found soft tissue of the same age in 2007.
I Came I Saw I Left May 20, 2017 at 5:07 pm
Wordpress has now twice lost my reply to you. I’ll try once more.
Nobody even knows what gravitation is. Einstein’s model, which replaced Newton’s incorrect model, is wearing thin.
The Cambrian Explosion is understood. It’s like the other explosions of new forms which followed other mass extinction events.
John,
I understand evolution very well. You OTOH, don’t have a clue. All you imagine you “know” is totally wrong, because you have believed liars.
“His claim of persecution is preposterous on its face, since Schweitzer had already found soft tissue of the same age in 2007.”
Already forgot about the “well understood” magic of iron in those bones, Chimp? ; ) And one wonders why he won about 15 times his pay before being terminated, if his claim is preposterous on it’s face?
“CSUN alleged at the time that the funding for his position was only temporary and had been depleted. But Armitage believed his firing was because of his findings. He sued the school under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
His attorney, Alan Reinach with the Church State Council, a legal defense group associated with the Seventh Day Adventists, said CSUN settled the school with a six-figure payout equivalent to around 15 times his annual part-time salary, but the exact amount of the settlement was not disclosed. More important than the money, however, was the “vindication” Armitage received.”
. . Oh, that’s right, I bet you imagined it ; ) Just like you imagined that I see the Book as science . . You’re such a sucker for whatever happens to pop into your head, it seems to me, that I sometimes forget how easily convinced by it you are ; )
John,
As your own link is forced to admit, the court found no merit in his false assertion that he was fired for saying that the Triceratops material included soft tissue preservation. For the simple reason that that was not why he was terminated.
His false claim is preposterous for the reason I gave. Paleontology had already recognized the possibility of soft tissue preservation in fossils. Back when I studied paleontology in the 1970s, geologists freely granted that the processes of mineralization weren’t perfectly understood. So soft tissue is not a big deal.
It’s now understood, as you’d know if you bothered to read the article I posted. But of course, you can’t handle the truth and are not even the least bit interested in finding it out. As I tried to teach you, it’s the iron. But don’t take my word for it. Ask Mary Schweitzer, who actually happens to be a Christian, though not of course a creationist, because she’s a paleontologist, so accepts that Earth is 4.56 billion years old.
JohnKnight May 20, 2017 at 6:46 pm
I don’t have to imagine that you regard a bunch of ancient Near Eastern myths as “science”, since you have repeatedly said so yourself.
You imagine that Earth was globally flooded above its highest peaks 4500 years ago, and that there is actually some kind of geological evidence for this fantasy. You likewise imagine that the Bible says the Earth goes around the Sun, which is obviously a delusional belief.
I wish that fundamentalists would actually read the Bible and try to understand what it really says, rather than what you imagine it says, or what paid liars tell you it says.
You still haven’t explained to me how it’s possible for the Earth, day, night and plants to exist before the Sun was created. I’m all ears.
Now, it’s not quite true that I think Chimp is bald faced liar, though crap like this is certainly justification, I feel; …
“I don’t have to imagine that you regard a bunch of ancient Near Eastern myths as “science”, since you have repeatedly said so yourself.”
… since I am absolutely certain I never said any such thing, but rather, I think he just doesn’t grasp what science is. He seems to think it means whatever some scientists decide is most likely true about ANYTHING at all. The concept that there is no “scientific fact” about things that no one witness in the past, is alien to him . . (and I suspect many of those reading these words.) There HAS to be scientific facts about everything scientists study, by default, it seems to me he believes, and so my beliefs about what the Book might say of some unobservable thing/event, constitutes me believing those things are “scientific facts” . .
I defy him to demonstrate I EVER said what he claimed I did repeatedly, but he’s an SJW of sorts, and will just go into a complex word-game that ends with him telling me I said it, whether I actually did in reality-land or not . . like I’m a racist to other SJWs, whether I ever said or did anything we mere humans might recognize as racism . . He’s an Evo Justice Warrior, fight the great battle against anyone who doesn’t agree with his “scientific facts” lists ; )
Chimp,
“You still haven’t explained to me how it’s possible for the Earth, day, night and plants to exist before the Sun was created. I’m all ears.”
Well, the plants are easy; it’s called genetic coding generally;
(Genesis 2:5)
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
For the other stuff, one needs to grasp that He is not “within” the time/space continuum as we are . . I could liken it to the way a human might generate a space/time continuum through a computer, like in a game . . or climate model ; ) The programmer/creator of the continuum might be experiencing night, while the “earth” he generated is bathed in sunlight . . The creating person is not “within” the time/space continuum they create, naturally . .
PS ~ (2 Peter 3:8)
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
JohnNnight…You are obviously not a Christian, don’t act like a Christian, or even think like most Christians I know. Except for a few I do know like you, but they can be excused since they barely have grade school and can barely read or write and only repeat verbatim what they have been told. Even they are not as obstinate as you, but most Christians ignore the likes of you because you demonstrate over and over that you don’t represent anything good about the religion. Why do you come to a scientific blog and argue young earth creationism when you know that you are not going to convince or convert anybody? It is sort of too bad that this blog site is so kind to all opinions, whether or not they apply to things science and interesting. Spoils it for the rest of us…Please don’t even reply to me.
Good thing you’re not Him, Ron ; )
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
“Soft tissue fossilization is well understood. It’s the iron.”
What I love (/sarc) about studies like that is that they say, “we’ve figured it out!” (Controversial [observation] Finally Explained) and then use words like “may”, could”, “possibly”, etc. This qualifies as established science in our day.
I Came I Saw I Left May 21, 2017 at 4:50 am
Science is always couched in those terms, as it should be.
JohnKnight May 20, 2017 at 8:14 pm
Your hilarious nonsense continues.
First, you claim never to have cited the Bible as science, but then immediately proceed to do so again. You provide endless mirth. How can any conscious person be so unaware of himself?
Do you really not recall repeatedly defending the ludicrous lie of “Flood Geology”? Or of claiming that earth is young, as you have just done by imagining that fossilized soft tissue somehow invalidates paleontology, geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology and every other science? Your memory is dangerously short.
You quote Genesis 2, not noting that its sequence of creation is irreconcilably contradictory to Genesis 1, which you still can’t explain. Can you really be this obtuse? It should be obvious that there can be no earth, day, night or plants without the sun. For that matter, in Genesis 1, earth emerges from waters, the existence of which is never explained. You will understand the source of the waters by reading the original Sumerian myth upon which that chapter is based.
How exactly can there possibly be day and night on earth without the sun? How can plants exist without the sun? You now claim that it was the genetic code for plants. A few problems with that.
The DNA coding for plants can’t exist outside of plants. Nucleobases and sugars have been found in meteorites (phosphate groups, I don’t know), but nothing like billions of base pairings in a double helix of DNA. Even meteorites formed around the sun, at the same time as earth. They offer one way of dating the solar system. But it took billions of years for plants to evolve. Besides which, plants came after animals, not before them, as in Genesis 1. Unless you consider cyanobacteria to be “plants”, which they are not. They did however become endosymbionts inside eukaryotic cells, the ancestors of chloroplasts, to form algae, from which eventually green plants evolved.
Quoting “Peter” gets you to 6000 years for six days. It doesn’t get you to 4.56 or 13.7 billion years, the respective ages of earth and the universe.
Genesis 1 bears no relationship whatsoever to observed, objective reality. Neither does Genesis 2, the other creation myth in that book. In it, the order of creation is 1) A man, 2) Trees, 3) Animals and 4) A woman.
I have not lied about anything, only stated facts.
I Came I Saw I Left May 20, 2017 at 2:11 pm
No such cooptation as you imagine occurred. Nor were infidel scientists limited to the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Science advanced during the 18th and 19th centuries, as it had in prior centuries, by rejecting more and more of the Bible as a source of information about the natural world. Church canon Copernicus surely believed in God, but obviously not the Bible as literally true, or even in the Ptolemaic system advocated by Rome. The whole history of modern science since 1543 is based upon rejecting ancient authority, whether the Bible, Aristotle or Galen, in favor of observation of reality and the testing of hypotheses through experiment.
Already in the 16th century there were scientists who tried to understand the natural world without reference to a deity. Both Catholics and Protestants burnt them alive. By the 17th century, many natural philosophers were secret atheists. During the 18th century Enlightenment, they could be more open. Buffon openly challenged the biblical age of the earth. In America, the Founding Fathers were largely Deists, ie they believed that there was a deity, but not that the Bible was literally true or that Jesus was the Son of God. So were many 18th century scientists, either publicly or secretly, among them the Father of Geology, Hutton, and the pioneering biologist Lamarck.
Ron Williams May 20, 2017 at 9:58 pm
You’re right of course that John and other creationists who haunt this science blog should peddle their antiscientific wares elsewhere, but, for whatever reason, our gracious host tolerates their gibberish. Many have commented on the paradox of banning Sl@yers, who claim that the gravity of an atmosphere, not GHGs, heat planetary surfaces, while allowing creationists to spew garbage and lies.
Creationism isn’t even remotely scientific, while “Sl@yerism” is, however demonstrably wrong. Creationists can offer no method by which new species emerge, other than God just poofing them into existence, all at once some 6000 years ago, including on the order of a billion extinct species. Old Earth creationists at least can imagine that God intervened in evolution at various points, although there is no reason to make the supposition that some genetic changes have occurred supernaturally rather than naturally.
You’re also correct that they aren’t Christians and don’t behave like Christians. Their blasphemous cult is heretical in the vast majority of true Christian denominations. Bibliolatry is idolatry, not Christianity. It’s blasphemous to worship a book, rather than God. Biblical literalism means that they blaspheme God as cruel, deceptive and incompetent.
Chimp,
I say, it is logical to think there are more creationist Nobel prize winners, than just the Christian Nobel prize winners (not less), because some other religions have a Creator as a basic component.
I think your dogmatic games with the term creationist are remnants of the brainwashing campaign I have hypothesized serves as a sort of model for the current CAGW campaign. You have been indoctrinated to inject qualifiers that go beyond believing in a Creator/God, I say, which is all any rational/natural classification would involve.
John,
Name all the Nobel winners who are or were Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists or creationists of any kind. Some might well have believed that the universe was created, but good luck finding any who imagined that God made each and every species individually Himself, whether over long intervals of time or some 6000 years ago.
I’m playing no word games. The types of creationist I mention all exist. Obviously, only those who imagine that evolution isn’t a scientific fact and/or that Earth is less than 10,000 years old are relevant to this discussion.
Again, the vast majority of Christian denominations reject your cult, recognizing that the Bible is not literally true with respect to any aspect of science. Nor, as I keep reminding you, is there any injunction in either Testament requiring a belief in biblical literalism, which true Christianity rejected c. AD 400, when the Church accepted that Earth is not flat, as in the Bible, but spherical, as pagan scientists had discovered. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church and, at first, Protestant denominations, did continue to accept other biblical passages as literally true, such as that Earth is motionless, while the Sun moves around it (rather than over it, as in the Bible). But from the 19th century, the Church finally recognized that biblical literalism in natural philosophy is not supportable. And in the 20th century, it even apologized to Galileo.
2 Timothy 3:16: “Every God-breathed scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. This passage is often mistranslated to read “All scripture is God-breathed”, but what “scripture” (which to Paul meant the Septuagint, the Alexandrine Greek translation of the OT) is useful for is correctly translated. Paul could not have written 1 & 2 Timothy & Titus, but they still have been included in the NT canon. This is the only place in either testament where the approved uses of “scripture” are given. Those uses don’t include science, ie the study of nature, φύση (“phuse”) in Greek, hence Aristotle’s “Physics”.
“The DNA coding for plants can’t exist outside of plants.”
More ridiculous word games . . the code, the specific sequence of molecules that determines what the plant is . . the information itself . . like what is “mapped”, “sequenced” by those studying the specific DNA a given creature-line passes on through reproduction . .
How is it even possible that I would need to explain that??? (Crazytown ; )
Chimp May 21, 2017 at 11:09 am Well, at least we all learnt something from your replies to John et al, which are very educational. So all is not lost except poor John being stuck in a rut about his version of creation. I suppose we could just ignore their kind, and maybe they would go to a religious blog to ply their trade. I must admit it is a bit of a trigger for me, being brought up in a mild version of this bizarre version of creation and hell fire damnation and punishment for not believing. Especially as a young child. It really is a form of child abuse and brainwashing, so we are on topic for this essay.
I am amazed that some Christians don’t remember the highest point that ‘Jesus’ was making in regards to humanity, which was his point about “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. That was what I thought was the main message of the original sect before Saul got ahold of the movement and used it for political pretenses to replace the state religion of the Roman Emperor as Divine, and the ancient gods’ to unifying ancient Greco-Roman religious history under the Christos theory of the Anointed One. That appears to be what happened with hindsight, although I sometimes wonder that, if there was an actual Jesus in ancient Judea, would he even recognize how the early/modern church was formed. Or how our modern day construct of Christianity is now so diversified in different variations and denominations or how that all relates to modern day thought in the western world. And how events may unfold under that evolving narrative. That is the interesting part, as seen in this weeks Middle East summit.
“I’m playing no word games. The types of creationist I mention all exist.”
I give up . . You take care . .
JohnKnight May 21, 2017 at 12:22 pm
Your imagining that by “plant” Genesis 1 means the idea of the genetic code for all plants as it was then in God’s mind is straight from downtown Crazytown. Genesis and other biblical myths mean exactly what they say, not what you try to twist insanely out of the words. Genesis is meant literally, not in such flights of figurative fantasy as yours. Ironic that biblical literalists reject the plain, literal meaning of Holy Writ, interpreting it beyond recognition.
The genes for plants evolved. They weren’t imagined by God before He made the Sun, or at any other time. Photosynthetic cyanobacteria evolved from chemosynthetic sulfur-bacteria. Eukaryotic cells later incorporated cyanobacteria, to become chloroplasts within algae, which eventually evolved into plants. The steps are preserved not only in fossils but in the anatomies, genomes and biochemistries of photosynthetic organisms living today. You find answers in science by studying nature, not by reading ancient myths, which of course aren’t without value of other kinds.
I repeat;
Creationists invented and dominated what we call science until very recently. I believe past severe brainwashing/indoctrination is evidenced by the inability of many otherwise intelligent people to remain rational in the face of this rather easily demonstrated historical truth.
It just dawned on me Chimp…we may have been arguing with a Bot, a trained AI program that generates random thoughts on a subject. Similar to the current post about the Hilarious Peer Reviewed Climate Hoax: “The conceptual penis as a social construct”. Apparently a computer program wrote that and it passed Peer Review. The only thing I read by John that was semi intelligent was when he finally said “I give up”. He never made a point that even made any sense. Geez, if that were possible, then I feel like John may be a computer AI construct programmed to argue young earth creationism. Albeit a very poorly programmed bot. I know they are very busy working on AI and Bots, so maybe we are the experiment…debating an AI Bot.
Tom,
“What John Knight was referring to as “creationism” is a mostly American heresy.”
No, wrong, not true, never happened, you spoke falsely, you assumed incorrectly . . and I think it’s due to extensive and prolonged brainwashing.
JohnKnight May 21, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Your repeated assertion has already been shown false. In this context, “creationist” means someone who doesn’t accept the fact of evolution as valid. It’s not used to refer to any Christian or adherent of another religion which supposes that some deity created the universe. Not that creationists can ever say how exactly they imagine that species are “created”.
As I told you and as anyone who has ever studied the Satanic cult of creationism knows, there are Young and Old Earth creationists. Since you imagine that the flood myth in Genesis is an actual geological event, and that soft tissue fossils “prove” that they aren’t 68 million years old, you are a card-carrying YEC.
Again, since you’ve come back here, I guess after church, please support your clearly false assertion by finding all the young or old earth creationists who have won Nobel Prizes. You won’t even find a great many who believed in a creator and sustainer god intervening in human history and lives.
Ron Williams May 21, 2017 at 12:54 pm
I’m pretty sure that John is a human True Believer rather than an AI Bot. Unfortunately.
Chimp,
” In this context, “creationist” means someone who doesn’t accept the fact of evolution as valid.”
Right, I get it, the conditioned response “context” you reflexively impose on what is actually just a statement of belief in a Creator . . that’s what I’m trying to point out, and have been trying to point out all along. That’s the residue of a propaganda campaign to discredit the very people who brought us science (predominantly), in what amounts to a divide and conquer ploy, I am proposing.
Because those Christians believed in an extremely intelligent Creator God, they believed they could study His Creation and detect the order and consistency He infused everything with, and potentially discover many useful and enlightening aspects to the world/universe we find ourselves in. And they did, to our great benefit, but many people have no clue that this is where science came from . . because they have been propagandized into believe essentially the opposite . . I say.
“Science is always couched in those terms, as it should be.”
Absurd. Now you’ve jumped the shark. Terms like “may”, “could”, and “possibly” are simply the scientific community’s way of hedging their bets.to save face and keep the grants rolling in.
JohnKnight May 21, 2017 at 1:37 pm
As I’ve already pointed out, belief in a created universe is not the same as modern creationism. Nor was early modern “creationism” like creationism after the discoveries of the age of the earth, extinction, evolution and other 19th and 20th century discoveries.
Scientists of the 16th and 17th century did indeed believe in God, and probably that He had created the universe. Their motives for pursuing science however were often not religious, as you suppose. They knew they were going against both the Bible and the Church, as well as most pagan ancients. That’s why Copernicus waited 36 years until the year of his death to publish.
But by the 18th century, evidence had mounted that not only was biblical astronomy wrong but so to were its creation stories, which also contradict each other, just as the two versions of the flood myth do, too.
Hence, had Newton been born in 1842 rather than 1642, he would have known that the biblical creation stories were not literally true.
The context of this discussion was evolution. Hence, this is the relevant statement of creationist beliefs, from the Institute for Creation “Research”:
http://www.icr.org/tenets
Among which:
“Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
“The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the “spiritual” nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.”
This is the definition of “creationism” which applies here, ie the antiscientific religious doctrine which, in court case after case, has been found illegal to be taught in public schools, and rightly so.
Again, I ask, find me the Nobel winners who have believed in modern creationism.
I Came I Saw I Left May 21, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Amazing that you find this obvious fact absurd.
Clearly, you have not read many scientific papers. If any.
Chimp,
With regard to “it’s iron”.
“Science is always couched in those terms, as it should be.”
But you don’t couch “evolution science ” in that way, obviously. You, like the CAGW clan, speak in absolutes and demand everyone agree to your statements of “scientific fact”, while declaring those who don’t see things as “settled” you do, are being un/anti-sceintific.
And, some people speculating that “it’s iron” is just people speculating. Science involves testing ideas, and (perhaps you have a vague memory of) skepticism.
Again, I draw attention to the similarity of the “evolution” absolutism, and the current “climate change” absolutism, and propose that both are brainwashing tools . .
NASA manager: Will the probe reach its intended target?
Scientist 1: It may…
Scientist 2: It could…
Scientist 3: Possibly….
Scientist 4: If everything goes according to our calculations, absolutely!
NASA manager: Scientists 1, 2 and 3, you’re fired! … Oh wait… You work for the government. Nevermind.
John,
When speaking of observations, as I often do, then they can be and are stated in simple declarative sentences. When discussing hypotheses however, scientists use words like “suggest, appear, seem, arguably, etc” in stating predictions and the results of experiments. I follow those standard protocols, even on blogs, let alone in formal papers writing up experimental results.
You just don’t like the facts, which are that evolution, contrary to the lies for you’ve fallen, is observed every day. I’ve made new species myself. It’s fun, easy and not as dangerous as GMO opponents suppose. In the lab, people can even create new genera.
My latest start up is in the business of directed evolution and synthetic biology, which is booming. We have the best products, but we’re hurt by the strong dollar in a globally competitive market.
I Came I Saw I Left May 21, 2017 at 2:24 pm
I suspect that even you know the difference between engineering and writing scientific papers.
Please read one. Any one. But you don’t really need to do so, do you, since you know I’m right.
Science is seldom if ever settled, so research papers are always couched in such language.
“Amazing that you find this obvious fact absurd.
Clearly, you have not read many scientific papers. If any.”
The appropriate time for “may”, “could” and “possibly” is before scientists publish. Otherwise, it’s just junk science, and the scientific community’s justification for such is basically honor among thieves.
“I suspect that even you know the difference between engineering and writing scientific papers.”
In our day and age, one of the most glaring differences between science and engineering is that engineers are accountable for their mistakes (unless they work for the government, of course) and scientists aren’t. Thus the latter can publish any BS they want without consequences.
I Came,
Here are two recent, typical scientific papers from my field. They’re on the evolution of collagen, the long compound which is the main structural protein in extracellular space in animal connective tissues. It appears to have been “invented” by sponges as they evolved from colony-forming choanoflagellates, the nearest unicellular group to us multicellular animals. They are practically identical to sponge feeding cells and resemble sperm.
http://rsob.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/5/5/140220#sec-1
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37374
Note frequent use of “suggest”, etc, even though the results are clear.
I Came I Saw I Left May 21, 2017 at 2:48 pm
Some scientists are responsible for consequences, but as you observe, much government-funded “research”, like CACA, not so much.
Chimp declares,
“When speaking of observations, as I often do, then they can be and are stated in simple declarative sentences.”
Please provide a list of the creatures you (or anyone else) observed evolve into existence . . or, stop speaking of it being a fact that they did. Pretty simple, really.
JohnKnight May 21, 2017 at 2:55 pm
I’ve repeatedly showed you lists of them and written at length about many of the instances of speciation observed in the wild and man-made in the lab, to include reproducing experimentally those seen in nature. Do you really not recall? Maybe you never opened the links.
I’ve helped gradually to make new species of E. coli and even insects.
With ionizing radiation I’ve created new bacterial species, aiming at the same genetic sequences in which simple mutations from cosmic rays make nylon-eating microbes in the wild. Before humans introduced nylon into their environment, any sugar-eating bacterium which suffered this deletion mutation would have died. After nylon was invented, the same mutation opened a whole new food source.
I’ve made new flower species with chemicals which cause the whole genome to duplicate. Polyploidy is common in the production of new commercial varieties of plants. I’ve posted links for you, which was obviously a waste of my time.
I also posted links on hybridization, to include creating new plant genera in the lab.
Had you ever studied genetics, you’d know that evolution can’t help but happen. It’s a consequence of reproduction. Given genetic variation among individuals, their differential success in life, environmental change and reproductive isolation, among other factors, evolution can’t help but occur continuously. There are a few “living fossils”, like tarsiers and Australian lungfish, which look superficially the same as their ancestors from millions of years ago, thanks to stable habitats, but sooner or later, every past species has either gone extinct or evolved into a new one. The process evidently continues today, as has been seen over and over and over again.
Chimp
Hmmmn. Have you not thus provided evidence – not for the Theory of random unguided Evolution to erratically and unpredictably provide new advantageous species and features, but for an intelligence designer who deliberately selects for those new advantageous features, artificially supporting the inadequate and threatened mid-life-form, when the hundreds of thousands of needed mutations are incomplete (and harmful) but not yet beneficial?
John,
Understanding evolution is vital in finding new drugs to overcome antibacterial resistance in microbial pathogens and various kinds of resistance in crop pests. Here’s a recent paper on testing strategies to delay the evolution of resistance in agriculture:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.4425/full
“The evolution and spread of herbicide-resistant weeds are highly prevalent in production agriculture. There are 471 unique cases of weeds having evolved resistance to 160 different herbicides. These cases span 66 countries and encompass 23 of the 26 known herbicide sites of action.[6] Weeds are the greatest threat to food security, and expenditures on herbicides are greater than on all other pesticides combined. Weed management tactics are the most expensive and time-consuming variable inputs in crop production worldwide. The current discussion of herbicide-resistant weeds focuses on glyphosate, because the area covered with glyphosate-resistant weeds continues to expand rapidly.[7] Additionally, many insects have also evolved resistance to insecticides and other management practices, which presents a significant threat to crop production.[8] Genetic engineering has brought into use a new series of insect management technologies. Genetically engineered traits conferring resistance to viruses have been deployed, and resistance to various fungal pathogens is in the development pipeline.”
RACookPE1978 May 21, 2017 at 5:27 pm
On the contrary, as noted, cosmic rays or other mutagenic agents must have caused the same random mutation for billions of years, during all of which time the result was the death of the sugar-eating organism and end of its lineage. It’s not as if the mutation suddenly arose for the first time once nylon entered the microbial environment.
If there be a Designer, He, She or It is intensely stupid, not intelligent.
Each mutation is random, but the fact there will be mutations isn’t. Mutation and other sources of genetic variation are an unavoidable consequence of the genetic code, the existence of which requires no supernatural agency. Just prebiotic chemistry. Before biological evolution, there was chemical evolution, as a result of the nature of matter. Different organic compounds assume shapes which confer properties which proved useful once biochemistry got started, which happens spontaneously.
Chimp, need to get your PC mojo; She/He/It, or in hipster terms: S/H/It.
On rereading you comment, I see that I must not have made myself clear the first time.
There is no “mid-life”. The mutation for nylon-eating is a single deletion, ie a cosmic ray taking out just one base pair in the whole genome of certain sugar-eating bacteria. The mother microbe is a sugar-eater and after the mutation, her daughter cells are nylon-eaters.
As so often happens, a new species emerges in a single generation from just one mutation, in this case the simplest possible. At the other extreme, new species also often arise from duplicating an organism’s entire genome. On one end, deletion of a single base pair. On the other complete duplication. In between are larger deletions, substitutions and partial duplications. Plus other sources of variation entirely, such as horizontal gene transfer, to include multicellular organisms incorporating the genomes of viruses or bacteria.
Dave Fair May 21, 2017 at 7:37 pm
I regret that I’m not as LBGTQwerty-PC as I ought to be in the 21st century.
Couldn’t we make H/S/I even more PC by changing it to S/H/I, pronounced “she”?
Chimp, you forgot the “t”
I don’t use /sarc.
Which “T” did I miss?
In this case, I hope that no sarc tag would be needed. But you never know.
Chimp, the lowercase t immediately after the uppercase I.
You have to remember that some people are so committed to their brand of religion, that they see the world in binary.
In this case it’s pure random mutation evolution, and everything else is some form of young earth creationism.
I’ve never met a creationist that demanded that evolution not be taught.
Like the rest of your ilk, your bigotry is causing you to see things that were never there.
I have lived in California and Texas, both states with state approved K-12 textbooks. The effort is in schoolbook selection, with various advocates trying to ensure that their version is the only one taught. The common result in both states was pablum content, trying to be inoffensive to the various advocates.
You describe many politicians and bureaucrats, Tom.
Stands as the the most solid evidence that CAGW is faith based religion
Prima facie evidence that once communism lost the economic argument, they took over the environmental movement to further their aims. Start with the kiddies in the crib.
Have you ever read about the so-called ‘transforming experiment’ launched by Leontiev in the USSR in the 60s, but brought to the US by his grad exchange student, Urie Bronfebrenner, who was Pres of the American Psychology Association? The idea was that the Soviets knew their mental concepts were being manipulated, but the West did not so we were the perfect place to monitor the actual effect.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/imitating-the-ussr-in-striving-to-discover-how-the-child-can-become-what-he-not-yet-is/ is an earlier post to what I linked above. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory or BEST is part of the Social Studies C3 Framework that was incorporated into the Common Core ELA Frameworks. The experiemnt continues in other words and largely out of sight.
First of all the people like those authors of the articles must understand the subject climate and then climate change. Then at second stage is they must understand different types of human impact on climate. Then come up providing gospels to public. Unfortunately all these people knew only one thing global warming and nothing more and even that they have little knowledge on the science of global warming.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
In Queensland state, in Australia they show Al Gore’s science fiction movie, An Inconvenient Truth” I made a submission to the government requesting they stop showing the movie because it contained 35 errors and the High Court in London ruled it was political indoctrination. The replied that the movie was shown by agreement between teahers and parents and if I considered it unsuitable for my kids I should approach the school and parents to have it withdrawn. There are 1239 schools in Queensland that I do not qualify to approach. That is how they do it.
They also show Bill Nye’s rubbish, especially about climate change, here in New South Wales. If my step-daughter comes home saying his garbage was shown or if they start showing Al’s rubbish I will certainly be having a word with the school and my local MP. In any case she was shocked to discover that what she was told about Pluto not having any gravity and that it is the iron core of the Earth that prevents us from “floating” up in to the sky was very very wrong.
Teaching standards in Australia are dreadfully poor.
They show that movie where my kids go to school as well. But there has never been an agreement between teachers and parents, the parents have never been consulted.
In reply to Patrick MJD. I presume that Australia is similar to the U.S. culturally, In the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, there were limited opportunities for intelligent women. A significant number of them went into teaching. Nowadays, there are PLENTY of openings for women, and those going into teaching are likely to be stupider than average
“Alan McIntire May 20, 2017 at 4:21 am”
Not sure about that. Don’t think it is a gender issue, although, IMO, men are discriminated against in teaching, especially public sector. Could be wrong tho. IMO it’s more a curricular issue determined by the Ministry of Education. Politics and the “correct” education at work.
Brainwashing right from the getgo.
” Nowadays, there are PLENTY of openings for women, and those going into teaching are likely to be stupider than average”
As the saying goes, “Those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach”. Or major in journalism….
“As the saying goes, “Those who can, do, and those who can’t, teach”. Or major in journalism…”
Or become actors. Take Bill Nye, the not-a-science-guy-but-he-plays-one-on-TV
Please take Bill Nye…
Queensland has been piloting UNESCO’s ‘transdisciplinary learning’ agenda as well as what is called the Dynamic Paradigm of Learning and Change.
Also take a look at what is called the Key Abilities Model created by global change agent Michael Fullan (based in Toronto) for Queensland to implement in the name of a ‘New Theory of Education.’
@ Patrick MJD May 20, 2017 at 5:23 am
Patrick is correct ……. and “Yes”, it is a “gender issue” …… and that is exactly why that currently, the number of female teachers in the public schools far outnumber the male teachers.
And it is also exactly why that currently, there is a horrendous shortage of “Degree qualified” Math and Science teachers in the public school system. One really has to study hard and apply themselves to earn a Degree in Math or Science. So why would anyone with a newly earned Degree in Math or Science apply for a beginning Teacher’s position ….. when the “partying” female with her easily earned, newly awarded Degree in Social Activism or LBGT Restroom Etiquettes ……. will be offered the same salary and entitlements as a “first year” Teacher as was/will the first-year Math or Science Teacher?
And I guess it would be technically correct to claim that …. “men are discriminated against being teachers in/of the public schools”, …… and the “discrimination” in question is the fact that male teachers are strictly forbidden to exercise their “fatherly instincts” to criticize, correct or punish any of the “misbehaving” juvenile delinquent students. And that is the factual reason that the numbers of male teachers have dramatically decreased during the past 3 or 4 decades.
There is currently only a few male teachers employed by the public schools …… that would stand there unemotionally and/or unresponsive …… while some punk kid cussed him out “in lavender”, while at the same time “punching”, ”kicking” and/or “throwing” objects at him.
Professional employment opportunities for women were limited in the past. The result was high IQ educated women taught school, were nurses, bookkeepers, librarians as examples.
When only boys went to school they were taught by school-masters/men.
@ Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy May 19, 2017 at 9:03 pm
I am sure you are correct in your above critique of the four (4) authors of the cited study.
So “Yes”, I’m sure that all four (4) of them know what the term “global warming” means or refers to, …… but their actual, factual science based knowledge of the “natural world” is surely limited to what each remembers from their High School studies, …… that is, …. iffen they were “lucky” enough to be taught said actual, factual science.
Remember this fact, …… “junk science” has been taught in the public schools and colleges since the early to mid 1980’s.
And thus I wasn’t the least surprised to learn the following, ….. to wit, their resumes:
Dr. Elise Amel – Professor of Psychology
She received her —– B.S., St. Norbert College, 1989, — M.A., Purdue University, 1992 — Ph.D., Purdue University, 1994
https://www.stthomas.edu/psychology/faculty/elise-amel.html
Dr. Christie Manning – Visiting Assistant Professor of Psychology …. And Professor of Environmental Studies. Also the Associate Director of the Educating Sustainability Ambassadors.
She received her —– Bachelor’s degree in Human Factors Engineering from Tufts University and a Ph.D. in Cognitive and Biological Psychology from the University of Minnesota.
https://www.macalester.edu/~cmanning/about.html
Dr. Susan Koger – Professor of Psychology
She received her —– B.A. degree from Kean College (NJ) —- Ph.D. in physiological psychology from the University of New Hampshire
http://www.willamette.edu/cla/psychology/faculty/koger/index.html
Dr. Britain Scott – Professor of Psychology
She received her —– B.S., University of Iowa, 1990 —- Ph.D., University of Minnesota, 1997
https://www.stthomas.edu/psychology/faculty/britain-scott.html
No, Dr. Reddy; first they must stop lying. There has been no increase in extreme weather events.
They have done it already. My brother who is 3 years younger than me believes in climate change. I am 65. He is 62. So the liberal takeover of education took place somewhere between then. What are we calling a generation? Every 25 years? So we have three generations that believe in whatever the liberals want to tell them. I am beginning to think I am in “The Body Snatchers” I have never before realized that we cannot win. This is not about facts. This is about them and us and there are way too many of them.
At one time I may have considered your view, fanciful….however, I now can do nothing other that agree with you whole heartedly.
Eve (9:16 pm) & DBH (9:42) Don’t get discouraged. Remember, Trump won, and even though he’s up to his a$$ in alligators, he still might be able to drain the swamp.
Excellent point, Eve. It is interesting that the indoctrination began before CAGW was a recognized “issue”, and before the Berlin Wall fell. While it appears that your brother was a victim of this new, collective, groupthink approach to live, you and I (I’m a bit older) seem to have escaped it. How were we so lucky?
Belief is not absolute yes or no, it is almost always somewhere in between.
Does your brother drive a fossil fuel car, wear synthetic clothing, use grid electricity, fly on business or to go on holiday?
If so we are winning.
If he truly believed to the bottom of his heart that climate is the issue he says it is, he would live according to his beliefs.
Talk is cheap. It is actions I’m looking to prevent.
If he truly believed we are
Eric
“Does your brother drive a fossil fuel car, wear synthetic clothing, use grid electricity, fly on business or to go on holiday?” “If he truly believed to the bottom of his heart that climate is the issue he says it is, he would live according to his beliefs.”
What complete rubbish. Typical all or nothing D team thinking. The “you can’t be concerned about climate change if I drive a car.” Actually I can. If people do their best best to limit their impact, then that’s a good start. I cycle when I can, but I still have a car. I use solar for electricity, but I still use the grid at night.
Using your thinking, you must believe the problem is real because you live a country whose scientific bodies support the notion climate change is real and an issue that needs addressing. If you were true to your word you would move to a country that doesn’t accept the science…. if you can find one.
You don’t need a car Simon. You don’t need the grid. Recycling is tokenism.
You could adjust your lifestyle to avoid these choices – buy a wood fire or biofuel lamps for light at night. Move closer to work, so you can walk or cycle, or use public transport.
The fact you choose not to do these things is a measure of your lack of commitment, your “doubt” about the green ideals you claim to embrace.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a good thing.
Hi simon, hows that pointless virtue signalling thing going for ya?
Simon that would probably be Afghanistan and the Sudan.
Our scientists, politicians and media are all singing from the same song book, they are pseudo Marxists out of tune with reality.
Who is winning when most of the world’s largest commercial companies are investing in renewable energy and energy saving?
when the world’s largest economies increasingly move to renewables without an impact on economic growth?
there’s a second industrial revolution going on out there and you seem to be missing it…
Once that starts to happen, the rich folks end up living downtown where they can bike to work. The poor folks are pushed out to the far suburbs. link Then they are at the mercy of whatever the public transport is. In North America it’s pretty uniformly crappy.
Eric
I agree to a point on your mindset. I’ve often commented that a true environmentalist is naked, living off of air and water and lives in a cave or out in the wide open wilderness until they starve to death. Otherwise they are hypocrites.
I do many recycling things to try to stay off the grid…not for the sake of the environment…but because it costs me less for not pay the high prices on living on the grid. Being a country boy living as a city dweller – because the wife prefers the city over the country – it has become against the law to be totally off the grid. My hot water heater is city gas on demand in the coldest of central Arizona winters and a large network of black plastic barrels and tubing the rest of the time. I recycle plastic and all oils and greases into bio-fuels that I use in my electric generator to start a 3 phase 1 HP electric motor with a series of stepped pulleys that runs a bigger generator, that once it’s started, the gas generator is shut off and the electric motor driven generator also powers that electric motor along with the rest of my whole house and the large A/C-heating unit.too. I built HHO generators that can run up to 5 HP gas engines without gas and I installed small ones on my vehicles that give them 43 to 56 mpg that were 18 and 23 mpg before I put those on them. I have a hydroponic garden in one room of my house for all the vegetables we need and can the rest for hard times, that we rotate to keep fresh. We save about $6,500.00 a year doing just those things. I built a water purification and recycling system for all our waste water – except the commode – to recycle the majority of our water and only what’s used for our trees, commode, hydroponic garden and yard plants is from the city water system. That’s a few hundred dollars saved each year too. Within a few minutes I can go totally independent and off the grid with several years of storage to live off of. I isn’t perfect, but it’s home.
More lies from Griff. In Ontario, Canada the wind turbines are forced upon land owners. In schools, the fake science is forced upon the children without parental consent. Do you ever tire of being wrong?
Simon says- ‘ I use solar for electricity, but I still use the grid at night.’
Which is like saying I always use my car in peak hour but catch the bus at other times so I’m doing my bit for congestion on the roads.
“Griff May 20, 2017 at 3:40 am
Who is winning when most of the world’s largest commercial companies are investing in renewable energy and energy saving?”
Tax.
Eric Worrall May 19, 2017 at 11:52 pm
“You don’t need a car Simon. You don’t need the grid. Recycling is tokenism.”
C’mon Eric, don’t fall into the same numb diatribe as what you are describing the education system is doing to the kids. Recycling is tokenism? I remember a few years back that the recycling laws didn’t include any whisky & hard alcohol or wine bottles, and the streets and parks were just full of broken glass everywhere. When the authorities finally added a deposit to these types of glass, you couldn’t find a whisky, rum, vodka or wine bottle anywhere. After a hundred years, that was all it took to solve that problem. And what the hell is so wrong about recycling anyway? It saves a lot of resources (is a resource in its own right) as well as saves a lot of energy in processing new resources. And saves a lot of space at stupid landfills.
Calling recycling virtue signalling is worse than the propaganda from the public education system brainwashing the kids about non scientific aspects of CAGW/CC destroying the world. It is just the mirror opposite of the same ignorance. There is a lot of common sense to some of the ‘green’ agenda like energy conservation, recycling, net metering renewables, and just plain old common sense about saving money wherever we can while not crapping in our own nest. Business as usual has always been changing in favour of better practises, as we have seen in the failings of earlier generations.
Simon, you seem tuned to see at least some false dichotomies. That’s good, but insufficient. Start looking for “appeals to authority” and cases where “post hoc ergo prompter hoc” fallacies are being deployed. Do your own research. First, try to find a science paper that definitively nails down the human attribution problem. Don’t assume you know anything about climate change until you find this paper. Oh, and if you find it, make sure to post a link here.
Ron Williams May 20, 2017 at 8:52 am
Ron W, the benefits of “recycling” is not quite what you have been miseducated into believing is “great n’ wonderful” …… so best you “click” the following link and enlighten your thinking, to wit:
Well, Samuel, I did read your link, and consider this point from the article… “Tierney puts it this way: to cancel out the greenhouse effects of a New York to London flight, you would have to recycle 40,000 plastic bottles. And that’s just if you fly coach. You’d need 100,000 bottles to make up for a business class seat.”
What difference does it make if you fly coach or business class? It’s the plane that is travelling to London from New York, so as far as the emissions are concerned you could be in the luggage hold. The plane only has a gross tare weight that can be on the flight, so differentiating a class of seats that has legroom and those that don’t is a false argument. I found most of the rest of the article from your link to be similarly flawed. And my point about whisky/wine bottles before being recycled had all the broken glass in the streets and parks has no merit? Just keep hauling all the garbage to the landfill? When I hear arguments against simple recycling, then I know I am debating people that really don’t care much about anything. And just make the whole debate about truthful climate understanding that much harder because now we have to deal with nut job theories why it is stupid to recycle.
Griff May 20, 2017 at 3:40 am
Hello Griff.
Yes many corporations are being strong armed into makeing unprofitable and foolish commitments. The one benefit is that some of the idiotic policy’s are so obvious a high school dropout can spot them.
The last production shop I worked at the management switched to a new coolant for the cnc machining centers. The coolant was sprayed inside the cncs to cool the cutting tools and metals being machined. There was as with all coolants a great degree of evaporation and misting of the coolant. Now this was a bio degradable product out of Sweden. Probably the safest in the trade. It would cover us we would inhale it, and it would soak our clothing. Now OSHA and other safety organizations determined that there were no health risks to this coolant. No one had respiratory aliments from it nor were there any out breaks of rashes.
Now the EPA made it clear that any parts produced could not be rinsed in the wash sinks and the water allowed to go out into the sewer system. The cleaning process had to be enclosed. And of coarse the water was tested. As well as the the cleaning system monitored.
So Griff, why did the sewer monitoring register as failing, thought no “parts” wash water was getting into the sewer system.
It was a expensive act of futility and a example of bureaucratic over reach.
Griff name the source of the contamination.
michael
Ron Williams
Re recycling and virtue signalling.
I read a story about Germany and recycling plastic, which is separated and cleaned in the home and put out on the street, same as in Waterloo, So it turns out the plastic was bundled with all the other burnables and sent to a power station where it went into the fire. The separating and cleaning were mere virtue signalling, with the cooperating public being hoodwinked into thinking that plastic was being turned into new plastic articles.
My view is that there is real plastic recycling but that most of it is in fact not going where the public is being led to believe it is going. I am a big fan of recycling and think that in future all the dumps will be mined for materials, turning metals into …metal and literally everything else into methanol as a precursor chemical for industry.
We could do that now (promote the methanol economy) but it would mean taking subsidies from the embedded hopeless industries and investing them in profitable materials processing facilities. Maybe in 30 years that will happen when the economics of ‘renewable’ devices eat the last of their own children.
@ Ron Williams May 20, 2017 at 10:53 am
Ron W, were you trying to be funny, ….. satirical, …. or just trying to CYA to distract from the fact that you are a “gullible believer” of just about anything government agencies, employees …… or the dozens n’ dozens of for-profit “non-profit” groups and organizations that depend on private donations and/or federal and state Grant monies to pay for their lavish lifestyle?
Ron W, from the context of your comments, it appears to me that you are living in a “glass house of dreamy beliefs” ……. and therefore you should refrain from ”throwing insulting rocks” at the comments of other posters.
Anyway, ………
Ron Williams May 20, 2017 at 10:53 am
Ron W, not only does your above cited comment “has no merit”, …… it doesn’t have even a “smidgen of truth” to it. To wit, ….. your comment:
Ron Williams May 20, 2017 at 8:52 am
Now Ron, you might “bedazzle” your pre-school grandchildren with “amazing” fairy tale stories such as that …… but we both know that you are “just blowing smoke” in an attempt to appear “knowledgeable”.
And iffen you get the time, …….. maybe you could explain this, to wit:
Samuel C Cogar May 21, 2017 at 7:17 am
Samuel…You didn’t even say anything intelligent I could comment on, except rip me apart personally. Time to put down the bottle…don’t break the glass cause you can get a refund.
Ron Williams May 21, 2017 at 7:17 am
Ron Williams, I am not responsible for the “miseducated” deficiencies in your formal education …… and thus I really don’t have a “clue” as to which “one(s)” of the thousands of different subject “matters” that can be discussed hereon WUWT ……. that you would/could consider yourself “intelligent” enough to engage in.
And ps, it is MLO that “recycling” is really not one of said “subjects” that you are capable of engaging in an intelligent conversation with another individual.
Samuel C Cogar May 21, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Forget to take your meds Sam? Say something intelligent that I or anyone can respond to. What does your acronym MLO mean? Haven’t seen that one that I remember.
You are having a hissy fit and I don’t know why because you won’t write down what your thoughts are, other than wildly flailing your arms around making stupid accusations. Recycling, when done properly, makes a lot of sense. You do us all a great injustice here when it appears you are trying to support the idea that recycling is bad or stupid and anyone who does is some sort of alarmist. Maybe you are the Alarmist? Get a grip Sam, take a deep breath, and think of something intelligent to say. Please.
Samuel C Cogar May 21, 2017 at 7:17 am
And iffen you get the time, …….. maybe you could explain this, to wit:
“To all Retail Dealers of Distilled Spirits, Wine or Beer:
(3) prevent any person from assembling used liquor bottles for the purpose of recycling or reclaiming the glass or other approved liquor bottle material.
Any person possessing liquor bottles in violation of law or regulations is subject to a fine of not more than $1000, imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both.
https://www.ttb.gov/public_info/5170-2a.htm ”
Come off it Sam. That link is from the Tax and Trade Bureau and it’s not about recycling. It’s purpose, if you read it, is to prevent the refilling and resale of used bottles (apparently with home made moonshine) and to keep track of batch numbers printed on the bottles, attempting to ensure that retailers return their empty bottles to the wholesaler for appropriate processing. Does a similar law apply to lemonade, or is there something about alcohol that permanently renders glass as toxic waste? No, it’s more likely about tax — (How dare you make a dollar without giving us half of it.)
You cherry-picked a seemingly remnant clause borne of your country’s prohibition era and you’re having a lend of us, surely. My local recycling depot has all glass bottles in one skip — Coke, wine, olive oil, rum, who cares, just no ceramics or windows.
My brothers are ten /eleven years older (50 /51), both have been taken by the deception.
I have been “red pilled” by my own research.
All of my younger colleagues blindly accept the dogma.
Yes. We are living in a movie world, and the plot sucks.
Nah, I just hit Level 6 in the game of life and I haven’t bought into any of the bullshit since I started working in air quality instrumentation back in the late 70″s. I’ve seen what it’s / they have done and it is indeed frustrating but I’ve not wavered and simply deal with the insults and flush them like the morning movement. That they keep changing the bucket of “facts” only shows desperation. They will not win. They might destroy my former livelihood (coal combustion), they might end up costing me more money by installing new taxes or they might cause a change here and there in the name of “climate change / justice”, I simply don’t care – they will never get their mitts on my grand kids and I can easily train my dog to rip out a jugular if he hears the word “sustainability”. They will not win.
Australia’s ABC are doing their best. An FOI request for info on science skeptical of AGW:
“I requested that searches be conducted of all hard and soft copy records for documents which fall within the scope of your request. As a result of those searches, no documents were identified.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/warmist-abc-admits-cant-list-any-sceptical-reports/news-story/4d0bdad0225ae1119469eaa23f36cb31
Tom, the question isn’t AGW; it is the extent of AGW. CAGW is not supported by existing facts/studies.
CAGW is based on extreme speculation around the assumed results of IPCC climate model projections. All such models (excluding the “hacked” Russian model) run hot; two (2) to three (3) times observed, especially atmospheric results. Additionally, the various climatic parameters (water vapor, drought, floods, hurricanes, etc.) “projected” by the models do not comport over time with the actual measurements.
An observation of mine, used in a report by Dr. Curry, is: IPCC climate models are not fit for the purposes of fundamentally altering our societies, economies and energy systems. Take that to the bank and avoid fatuous comments about the need to move to expensive technologies to reduce CO2 by fractional amounts of an already trace gas in our atmosphere.
I am unaware of any studies that show 7 billion humans have no impact on our environmental systems, Tom. Rather, you should ask for studies showing: natural variation of climatic parameters in the past, the possibilities of natural variation in post-1950’s climatic parameters, hindcasting and forecasting results of model projections compared to actual data, validation of models outside their parameterization periods, any success in attribution studies, etc.
Even a cursory review of current studies shows the crumbling of the bases of climate “science” hysteria.
Dave,
I am glad that Tom reports people are requesting facts from public institutions that have a big influence over the general population. The FOI that drew a blank tells us just how biased the ABC really is. The ABC presenters universally vilify sceptics and yet don’t have a single document that presents sceptical views – what goes?.
However, I totally agree that it is the C in CAGW that is critical in the debate. This is often lost in the polarized arguments that people have about AGW. And that capital C is the least discussed word by the fearmonging warmists because it is totally unquantifiable but sounds really bad so therefore by using the imaginary precautionary principle (I have spent a good part of my engineering work life assessing risks and can only conclude that the precautionary principle is something used by warmists who have no ability, or desire, to evaluate risk) we must panic, build windmills and end up with no electricity as has happened in my state of South Australia. IMO for 30 years there has been a deliberate avoidance from the UN down of calculating ALL the risks associated with AGW and mitigation and this is why I breathe fire at friends and family and others when I hear the CAGW mantra without no and minimal reference to risk.
Tom
The full yarn about the ABC FOI is also at Jo Nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/acma-lies-by-omission-at-the-abc-are-ok/
and at Catallaxy
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/05/19/guest-post-beliaik-theirabc-diverse-views-and-the-foi-act/
Cheers, Beliaik
These folks wouldn’t like the new push for STEM programs in schools in some Canadian locations. Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics. Some parents are cluing in.
There is hope.
Yes there is hope. My teenage son and his freinds are all climate skeptics, even though they went to liberal public schools and were mindlessly shown ‘Inconvenient Truth’ every year. Yet they still reject the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis. There is hope.
They haven’t been through college yet. That will be the test.
Good news Klem. Which country, which state? Do they say why they reject the mantra? Have they worked things out for themselves or are they just taking sides because they don’t like the teacher, or school or something like that. If it is rational thought that got them to ask questions and draw logical conclusions then it is more than good news, it is great news.
It is not just for the today’s to be K-12 ignorant of science, the scientific method, and critical thinking. The indictrination is to accept GroupThink and belief in the consensus. Pure “enlightened” Marxism is the goal.
One way to help would be to get the govt out of the college loan business. Snowflakes would be a little more realistic if they had to convince a bank they would be able to pay off a loan for a degree in social justice.
Failing that, the govt should only be lending for STEM degrees. And there shouldn’t be any loans for a school like Harvard with a zillion dollar endowment.
Absolutely!!!!
+1000000
There also shouldn’t be any loans for students to any College or University which refuses to allow ROTC programs on campus.
Agree with Mike Macmillan, but would like to add that there is a drastic shortage of tradespeople, especially where I live. Not everyone is suited to academics. Someone needs to get their hands dirty to build infrastructure. I have encountered some brilliant fellows in construction throughout my career. People that would have done well in the hard sciences, but are happier building and fixing things.
We need to let people know that pursuing a trade is needed and is a valuable contribution to society as our roads and buildings, etc., need to be safe and durable.
Addendum; “Fellows” includes females as well as males.
Orwellian. Hitler Youth Program, Communist youth rewarded for turning their parents in the Soviet Union, Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, Alinsky, and present day North Korea.
Looks like the communists, socialists, fascists, and radical leftist greens of today are re-learning the totalitarian thought control methods developed by recent history’s monsters.
“Particularly in developed countries…”
Developing countries get a free pass??
“So why haven’t humans done much about the problem? Answering that question may be more challenging than the basic science of a changing climate. Fortunately, a new review just out in Science helps us with this question. Lead author, Dr. Elise Amel, a colleague of mine, completed the review with colleagues Drs. Christie Manning, Britain Scott, and Susan Koger. Rather than focusing solely on the problems with communicating the science of climate change, this work takes a wider view on the hurdles that get in the way of meaningful action.”
__________________________________________
Understandable, challenged with the question “how to make environmentalism aka ‘ecological behavior’ cool again” those people don’t have the time to study “the base science” of “climate change, ocean acidification” and stuff.
Sorry for them – “the base science” is fascinating stuff too !
We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years.
Even Calendar acknowledged that little warming would occur due to emissions for some decades in 1938. It couldn’t be fact until
– Karl 2015?
Absolutely. I love this lack of clarity in English: ‘are causing climate change’. Yes, some climate change. The consensus-jury is still out whether it is warming, extremes, drought, flood, storm, or sea level rise, or possibly war, famine, and death, but absolutely the climate is not going to be unchanged. It has been known for a long time. Since 4000 BCE, at least.
Now if you just were a little more specific and could tell exactly how the climate is going to change here? Since, I’ve read predictions – no, projections, which is prediction with a disclaimer – from 2K to 10K warmer during the next century or something. I would like to know when it is time to buy a beach-front property with a bananaria from Greenland.
My personal guess is still that the biggest change will be greening of Sahara based of diminishing stomata. None of the horsemen will appear, and the warming will be pleasant and just guarantee the ice age will slowly end.
And maybe, just maybe the common hazelnut Corylus avellana will come back to 65N as is was during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
It is a while since Andrew Montford and I called for an inquiry into climate and other eco-indoctrination in UK schools (http://www.thegwpf.org/climate-control/ ) but the need is still there. Perhaps such an inquiry might happen in the States under this new administration.
Societies always ingrain children with their worldview and think it counts as “balanced education”. People can see that other people, those with a diffferent worldview, have been brainwashed, but are sure that their own worldview is sensible and rational.
It is interesting that my actions are informed by a much deeper understanding of how the planet works and I am completely opposed to what this article suggests. I am also frightened by the heavy use of Orwellian double-speak in the article: “…conditions that help people surmount cognitive limits, create new situational drivers, foster need fulfillment, and support communities of social change…fostering legions of sustainability leaders rests upon a fundamental renewal of humans’ connection to the natural world…”
I don’t need someone who knows far less than I do about the Earth’s atmosphere to “surmount my cognitive limits”. This is scary stuff!
These ‘authors’ are trying way too hard. Whether it’s pretentiousness or an attempt to make themselves seem more educated; trying that hard to sound clever among their peers only makes people like that appear as self-important buffoons.
It’s the fostering of their need fulfillment and the legions of sustainability leaders that spooks me and makes me feel for my wallet.
“So why haven’t humans done much about the problem? Answering that question may be more challenging than the basic science of a changing climate.”
This statement encapsulates one of the principal problems of discussing global warming and its effects – THERE IS NO BASIC SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. It’s mindblowingly complicated. I have an earth science background and have been reading about it for many years but the more I study the less I realise I know. To understand the subject fully, you would not only need far more data than we will ever have but you would have to be highly knowledgeable across an array of disciplines from statistics to astronomy, microbiology to atmospheric chemistry to oceanography to botany etc etc etc etc.
The idea that the science is somehow “basic”, or even “settled” is ludicrous. Anyone who claims to have an adequate grasp of the whole subject is either a liar or is deluded. Either way, they should be kept away from our children.
+10
Ian Magness:
You say of the “basic science of climate change”
That is not true because there is a difference between knowledge and understanding.
To fully understand the “basic science of climate change” one only needs to know there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Every other fact is mere detail.
Richard
On top of the fact that there is no evidence supporting climate change or the AGW required to have produced it, we have the fact that anthropogenic CO2 emissions fall in the trivial range of 3% to 4%, the rest (96% – 97%) originating from natural sources (e.g., volcanoes, ocean degassing, the biosphere, particularly). On top of that, the major “greenhouse gas,” water vapor, at 25 to 100 times the concentration of CO2 is never mentioned!
Any argument on climate change needs to begin with the foundational issues of what is purported to cause it. If those arguments and that foundation is not solid, then any other argument is not supportable and is in fact spurious – and all are actually wishful thinking of those who promote them. In other words, hogwash as far as science goes.
Bull crap Richard! A real scientist would never make such a statement because that is indefensible too. Everything changes everything, and without a double blind planet to observe the difference makes your statement incredibly ignorant and impossible to prove as well. The proper answer or question is, do human activities represent a significant threat to climatic systems that makes human habitation on earth tenable. IMO, it does not, and may even have made for a much more robust and stable climate over long time frames with increased CO2 being a net benefit to the biosphere and current weather.
Ron Williams:
Every real scientist points out when there is no evidence to support an hypothesis. And, as I said,
If you have any evidence of discernible human-caused global climate change then publish it because you will be awarded at least two Nobel Prizes (Peace and Physics) and possibly a third (Chemistry) for your discovery.
And you assert
The scientific answer to that question is that there is no evidence to support the suggestion that ” human activities represent a significant threat to climatic systems that makes human habitation on earth tenable”; no evidence, none, zilch, nada.
Assertions and suggestions are NOT evidence.
Richard
Richard… Real skeptics admit there is warming for every doubling of CO2. And it is logarithmic, in that each successive doubling has the same net temperature increase, which is not a whole lot anyway and very beneficial to life on earth. It is roughly 1.2 C for every doubling, not counting any feedbacks so 560-580 ppmv will account for 1.2 C increase from preindustrial times, and it will take 1120-1160 ppmv to get the next 1.2 C for a total of just 2.4 C if we were ever able to put 1100 ppmv of CO2 into the atmosphere. Meaning that CO2 is basically harmless as a catastrophic agent causing runaway global warming. That is not going to happen because earth will just radiate that heat away to the universe.
But what you do to the whole debate is cast a pale over the actual science, and then the real lunatics cast us all under the same bus, calling all of us deniers when you say CO2 causes nothing, and fail to prove anything yourself, by the way. We humans have immensely changed the planet with 7.3 billion people on the planet now, so I know we have an effect on the planet and some warming, thank goodness. But denying simple physics is an insult to all of us, just like someone who would have been so misguided to lobby the gov’t that burning coal in downtown London doesn’t cause smog or air pollution. It was that type of illogical lobbying that got coal completely thrown out of England, because it was so ignorantly stated. Talking about brainwashing, and a failure to communicate!
Refresh yourself Richard on some simple Physics…and this one doesn’t even claim a whole lot. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169
Ron Williams:
Your concern trolling fails.
Real scientists deal with reality. I again repeat,
To fully understand the “basic science of climate change” one only needs to know there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Every other fact is mere detail.
You mention radiative physics in the atmosphere which is one of the details. It is one of the lesser details. For example, cloud effects are a more important detail (they affect temperature, precipitation, etc.). Good records of cloud cover are very short because cloud cover is measured by satellites that were not launched until the mid-1980s. But it appears that cloudiness decreased markedly between the mid-1980s and late-1990s
(ref. Pinker, R. T., B. Zhang, and E. G. Dutton (2005), Do satellites detect trends in surface solar radiation?, Science, 308(5723), 850– 854.)
Over that recent period of less than two decades, the Earth’s reflectivity decreased to the extent that if there were a constant solar irradiance then the reduced cloudiness provided an extra surface warming of 5 to 10 /sq metre. This is a lot of warming. It is between two and four times the entire warming estimated to have been caused by the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. (The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that since the industrial revolution, the build-up of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has had a warming effect of only 2.4 W/sq metre).
And that is only one of the reasons why there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change. Simply, if there is any human-caused global climate change then it is too trivial for it to be discernible.
This agrees with all empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the putative man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected. If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
You do not state and cannot state any evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change because no such evidence exists. THAT IS REALITY. And I object to the brainwashing of children to obtain their belief in the superstitious and anti-scientific nonsense of human-caused global climate change.
Richard
Ron Williams,
Richard didn’t say there is no warming, he is saying the HUMAN climate change impact is not visible:
“To fully understand the “basic science of climate change” one only needs to know there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Every other fact is mere detail.”
You have yet to show that it is human causing the climate change that stands out in some way. Clive Best doesn’t support your claim at all:
“If it is really true that this formula has been derived only by assuming that all “observed” temperature rise since 1750 is caused only by CO2 increases, then I fear this is a circular argument ! Many skeptics argue that the recent rises in temperature is dominated by a natural recovery from the little Ice Age. In order to be convinced that CO2 is the primary cause of recent warming then I would prefer that this formula could be derived from basic physical arguments rather than introducing a fudge factor preset to prove a theory.”
Clive never once states that Humans are causing the warming since the 1800’s. His very first paragraph you seems to have missed:
“I have been struggling to understand exactly how increasing CO2 levels leads to global warming using basic physics, and the story is complex. The trapping of certain bands of infrared radiation emitted from the Earth by greenhouse gases is well known. The effective cross-section of CO2 of absorption for CO2 in its rotational bands is also well known (HITRAN). Using the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere it is also clear that essentially all the radiation emitted by the surface in these bands is already absorbed by CO2 at pre-industrial levels. In fact spectra from space show that the main CO2 bands are saturated in the lower atmosphere with minimal emission from the high atmosphere. The absorption of radiation follows a logarithmic law with distance assuming a uniform concentration of CO2 in air. All that happens if you double the concentration of CO2 in air is that the absorption length is halved. So more radiant energy is absorbed and reflected back to earth at lower levels of the atmosphere than before. However the total energy balance would appear at first sight to be almost unchanged. In fact just such an experiment was performed by Herr. Koch and led Angstrom to dismiss theories of man induced warming already back in the early 20th century (Realclimate: what Angstrom didn’t know).”
Got anything,Ron?
richardscourtney May 20, 2017 at 10:31 pm
I refer to your essay you wrote here AUG 17/2009 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/stopping-climate-change/
And I quote your exact words:
“Climate change is a serious problem. All governments need to address it, and most do.
In the Bronze Age Joseph (with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere and always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy since.” (Very timely and timeless advice that is always applicable)
Are you the same Richard S. Courtney that wrote the words above? “Climate change is a serious problem.”
And then you write yesterday: ” To fully understand the “basic science of ‘climate change’ one only needs to know there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Every other fact is mere detail.” If you are the same person Richard, how do you reconcile your saying that ‘climate change is a serious problem’ in 2009, and then saying in 2017 that ‘there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change’. The two statements, both by you, are at odds.
You state that for a doubling of CO2, there is less than 1 degree C warming. I say that the average value given for a doubling is 1.2 C. Since 1880 to date, only a total of .85 C has seen increasing temperature from all sources including natural variation and that is out of a preceding LIA in the 18th and early 19th centuries. We are splitting hairs, both of us realizing almost exactly the same thing, and then I note that there has been only .85 C warming since 1880. It should be noted though, that if we accept that there has been .85 C warming since 1880 from any cause, that the warming is noticeable, discernible and IMO, very beneficial.
My point being, is that we want to be Credible Skeptics, not pushing some deni@lism agenda that says there is no discernible evidence to date of warming by anthropogenic forcing. We both agree that the physics for a doubling of CO2 is in the plus/minus of 1 C warming. The .85 C warming since 1880 is very noticeable and probably half or more is due to AGW, although the IPCC states with 95% confidence that most of the warming is due to human development since 1880. That can’t be proven either, because we can’t do a double blind study on an another planet that is exactly the same as the earth. And for that reason, we will never know exactly what would have been had not humans inhabited the earth the way it has the last 140 years.
You contradict yourself in writing between 2009 and yesterday. It is that kind of statement that you make that there is no evidence for warming that turns people away from even listening to us. If we are going to win hearts and minds on the climate debate, it won’t be with statements like yours that is no discernible evidence for AGW. All credible skeptics acknowledge that we have had warming due to anthropogenic forcing. The question is how much, is it good, or when does it become bad? That’s a whole different kettle of fish.
Ron Williams, you manage to leave out this part from Richards 2009 guest post:
“There is as yet no clear evidence that the additional climate change is happening. But environmental groups are pressing the politicians to act “before it is too late”. And politicians are responding because of the fear of dire consequences from the additional climate change.”
and the whole block to show what Richard was really saying:
“There is need for a new policy on climate change to replace the rush to reduce emissions. The attempts at emissions reduction have failed but there is a ‘Climate Change Policy’ that would work.
Climate change is a serious problem. All governments need to address it, and most do.
In the Bronze Age Joseph (with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere and always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy since.
But now it is feared that emissions from industry could cause additional climate change by warming the globe. This threatens more sea level rise, droughts, floods, heat waves and much else. So, governments have attempted to reduce the emissions of the warming gases, notably carbon dioxide.”
===================================================================================
You are being dishonest since you are twisting what Richard is talking about,meanwhile Richard commented in the bottom part of the thread,the first one was about what I kept trying to get people to notice what Richard was saying:
“Richard S Courtney
August 18, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Friends:
I am away from base with limited web access so this response to your discussion must be brief. Sorry.
I am disappointed that so few of the commentators here actually read what I wrote but felt the need to comment on something else.
Sunsettommy repeatedly tried to point out what my essay actually says but he too was ignored.
I am not suggesting that the geo-engineering be adopted. Indeed, my essay says;
“Indeed, there would be no need to deploy the counter measures unless and until global temperature rises to near the trigger of 2 degrees C rise.”
I am content with that because I am confident mean global temperature will not rise to that level for decades and probably not at all. I anticipate the AGW-scare will have faded away by then as previous scares have (few remember ‘acid rain’ unless reminded of it).
And I did not choose the trigger of 2 degrees C rise. As my essay says;
“Politicians have decided how much additional climate change is acceptable, because they have decided that global temperature must not be allowed to rise to 2 degrees Celsius higher than it was at the start of the last century.”
Furthermore, I have no fear of unintended consequences because
(a) the geo-engineering is very unlikely to be needed, and
(b) it could be started and stopped very rapidly (sulphates rain out in under three weeks), and
(c) development trials are the suggested action for politicians to be seen to have adopted.
The claims that we should continue to ask politicians to do nothing are naïve and plain dumb. The reason that has not worked is because the politicians have to be seen to be doing something in response to Green lobbying. It does not matter if the politicians are doing something, but they would lose their jobs if they were not seen to be doing something.
Saying there is not a problem that science can see ignores the fact that the politicians can see a problem they have to be seen to be addressing.
My essay attempts to overcome the political problem. Perhaps those who have commented on what my essay is not about would care to suggest another way to overcome that problem?
Richard”
Roy, you need to stop digging here………………..
sunsettommy:
Thankyou for your demolition of the concern troll.
Richard
richardscourtney May 20, 2017 at 10:31 pm
Speaking of concern trolls, after doing a little digging, you do pretty well yourself Richard S. Courtney with drive by character assaults of people who make harmless observations or comments here. You claim to be an Expert Reviewer for previous IPPC reports, even calling yourself Dr. Richard S. Courtney PHD at various locations on the internet. Try searching for your Expert Review for any IPPC Reports (which you claim Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPPC, personally asked you to be an expert reviewer) Problem is Richard when you google your name for these Expert Reviews, you get dozens of hits and pages all claiming you are a fr@ud. You claiming this and that about publishing, when you have published no peer review science on climate change, but in Nature you claim to have published and then it turns out not to be even a Letter, but a 100 word letter to the editor. You claiming that you are a PHD in something related to climate science also appears to be false and every link I followed links you to the Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, a journal of the international coal trading industry. Or a methodist preacher. Which is it Richard? You obviously have an agenda, and it doesn’t look honest, but why you bother to conduct drive by verbal assaults on people such as Scott May 20, 2017 at 1:24 am down thread, makes you the troll. Deal with it!
It’s called narcissism. Venues like this give people with inflated egos a way to vent and criticise other’s to make themselves feel bigger than they are in real life. They have no real authority and invent themselves one where people don’t know them for whom they actually are.
Ron Williams,
when will you ever reply to Richard Courtney’s specific statement?
“To fully understand the “basic science of climate change” one only needs to know there is no evidence for discernible human-caused global climate change; no evidence, none, zilch, nada. Every other fact is mere detail.”
You drone on and on about warming stuff, but Richard was talking about,quoting him; ” human-caused global climate change”.
You never have answered it Ron.
johchi7:
You say
The despicable behaviour of Ron Williams is clearly deliberate and has nothing to do with “narcissism”. It is clear that he is a concern troll.
Richard
Thanks Ian. 97% of the population who are not scientists, and that includes politicians, think that self proclaimed, or media proclaimed, climate scientist experts do in fact know all these things from geology through to radiation physics to oceanography. So they swallow it without question, although some people are now realizing that there have been too many dud predictions which at least tells them that some scientists do not know as much as they think they do.
Ian writes in part,
“To understand the subject fully, you would not only need far more data than we will ever have but you would have to be highly knowledgeable across an array of disciplines from statistics to astronomy, microbiology to atmospheric chemistry to oceanography to botany etc etc etc etc.”
I can’t agree here because we have more than enough data already to easily show the failure of the AGW,even intelligent people without a science degree can see it is a failure.
The 1990-2014 IPCC reports themselves are being defeated, by a few simple data metrics such as Per Decade temperature trends, Snowfall increases, decreasing severe weather events and so on.
CO2 molecules by themselves doesn’t even create a NET warming trend, since the outflow to space is always greater than what CO2 warm forcing can create. That is why warmists pin so much hope on the never observed run away Positive feedback loop to take over, to rescue their failed AGW hypothesis.
“The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/
Let’s just give up. Face it, humans are ridiculous.
A few years ago I started writing/developing a thesis, at the suggestion of my (adult) niece, who had commented that she didn’t really know what to believe about climate change.
As I am not one for being short of a view on such matters, she was of the opinion that what information I had, might be well worth writing down for others to see and consider.
So I did.
Well, as mentioned, I started…….
Then, like many others no doubt, found that a ‘simple’ understanding of the subject simply wasn’t going to be sufficient, despite the multitude of the well sourced information appearing quite convincing – to me.
Even had I continued, and finished the project, what good would it have done, if the people to benefit from it the most, were already indoctrinated by the established view?
Besides, what hope would there have been, for them to be permitted/allowed to read such blasphemy ?
A basic fact is that, after a quarter century of hype, AGW is still not considered important enough to be a policy priority.
Why?
Because it’s been over-hyped.
Worse, the next generation are less prone to millennial fears both because of teenage rebellion and the calendar.
The most important issue for the Green movement today is to try to stop it’s implosion.
I don’t that is entirely true when in the name of climate change energy prices are soaring and industries being destroyed or driven elsewhere. The results of this madness have yet to fully appear and make it into public consciousness. But with South Australia and California leading the way, and the UK only a couple of years away from supply problems, they won’t be able to hide it much longer.
Equating “ingraining a sense of value in the natural world” with “climate madrassas: is bizarre, twisted and more than a little bit disturbed.
Think if the 350 video blowing up children and adults who fail to think correctly.
All AGW believers like tony try to forget that video. It’s so inconvenient for them now.
Brain-washed far-left anti-science cretins…….
As if the world need more pre-pubescent nil-educated jerks like McClod !!
So adult. So WUWT.
Andy, although the the 97% “agree” is a ‘cooked’ up figure and meaningless in science anyway (think of the he hundred scientists against Einstein letter and the great one’s response), it may not be far off the mark in estimating the percentage of Soviet outspoken dissidents at 3%. Another larger percentage would be silent ones who dared not speak out (fear for family) and the balance, a large majority who didn’t think and bought into the official “madrass” teachings and even preached the stuff.
Europe, with a long history of marxbrotherhoodiness beating in the background is less resistant to it. The whole strategy of the Ordre du Nouveau Monde has run into a roadblock with the US who have been “ingrained” with freedom and that is the full focus of the effort.
The nose rings are already in place in continental Europe except for Eastern Europe who lived the nightmare for almost 50yrs. The UK was almost half fitted with rings and got out (maybe not entirely) in the nick of time.
US Democrats (and Canadian equivalents) have undergone a transformation within the last several decades and succumbed to the ‘madrasses’ of Europe. Most D supporters don’t know that the party they support is not the one they think it is. They vote it in and it’s constituency is across the Atlantic. They have their nose rings in.
Gary, what is more worrying is the leftward drift of the Republicans – hence Donald Trump as no true Republicans stood for nomination – and the creation of Blue Labour in the UK from what used to be the Conservative party.
http://www.x-entertainment.com/pics/kool1.jpg
“tony mcleod May 20, 2017 at 5:07 am”
Are you Queenslanders still receiving the, nationwide, 0.5% temporary, as sold to the nation by RuddGillardRudd, medicare levy increase to pay for all the victims of the Brisbane floods a few years back, rain that Flannery said would never happen again, that didn’t have, or could not get, “flood” insurance because they lived on a floodplain? Lemme check! Yes you are.
You are certainly a koolaid drinker!
Except that is exactly what The Next Generation Science standards tries to do. Worst set of academic standards EVER!!!!
“Equating “ingraining a sense of value in the natural world” with “climate madrassas: is bizarre, twisted and more than a little bit disturbed.”
said the climate mullah with a mouthful of takiya wishing it were jizya.
The question, as we slide into a dark age so rapidly, is how to promote individualism, critical thinking, and tolerance? Erosion of these three key areas are weaknesses the climate extremists use to impose their dark authoritarian vision on the world. And of course siphon off huge amounts of other people’s money and take power through NGOs and other anti-democratic means. They are now openly gloating in this paper how to finish corrupting our educational system to convert it into an indoctrination system. So what can be done? I don’t know. It may be too late.
Hunter I started recognizing a problem in 6th grade after I found the information in the public library of “The 45 steps to Communism” presented to Congress in 1963 by Dr Cleon Skoulsen. I learned about Marx and Engels “10 Planks of Communism” from their 1840’s book “The Communist Manifesto”. Then by the time I was 14 I learned about “The Frankfurt School” and “John Dewey” being adopted into the way teachers teaching is applied. I learned of these Indoctrination Institutions that I was being manipulated from doing my own research in the libraries and showed them to my parents. They allowed me to drop out of school after I finished the 9th grade. That freed me to persue my own education supported by my parents and help from older my siblings tutelage, that had finished school before it really changed in the 1960’s and 1970’s that I’ve been taking about when I was in school. I may not have the documents or credits of doctorates and masters degrees… But I’ll put my knowledge up against those that have them.
It all began with https://www.google.at/search?q=1000+suns+robert+jungk&oq=1000+suns+robert+jungk&aqs=chrome.
No focus on simply “environment” at that time.
But after “Warsaw pact” https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=kO8fWZPlMIH-Upv4q-gB&q=nuclear+negotiations+US+Warsaw+pact&oq=nuclear+negotiations+US+Warsaw+pact&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
the fear of the threat of nuclear weapons was diminished and a new narrative had to be found: “threatened environment”.
During the last fifty years there has been a deliberate agenda to frighten children. I was a child during World War 2. There were children in my American school who had been evacuated from England. The fathers and brothers of some of my classmates were being shot at. The danger was far from us, but we were aware of it. The adults, not just our parents and teachers, made it clear that they would do everything possible to protect us.
When my daughters were in school in the late ’70s and ’80s, they were given the idea that adults were not interested in preventing nuclear war. One of my daughters told me that some of her high school classmates said it didn’t make any difference what they did because the world was going to blow up.
Now the kids are taught that catastrophic global warming makes it likely that they don’t have much future.
Aside from the fact that this is totally false, it is extremely destructive psychologically.
Mary, I understand you’re frustration. I was born in 1960. I just wrote a comment above yours in response to another commenter. My uncle’s served in the 1920’s and 1930’s one as an MP in France after WWI and one was on the US Arizona when it launched headed to Hawaii as a Communications Signafore waving flags to direct Howitzer fire before WWII. My grandfather – mother’s side – was a Rough Rider with Theodore Roosevelt. And many more I’ll not go into here. But my family has been in every war since the American Revolution with family on both sides of the Civil War and 2 lines from being the first Pilgrims in the colonies, 4 ancestors signed the D of I, 7 have been US Presidents and 5 First Ladies, with 1 territorial govenor that ran as a Republican against Lincoln, 2 explores and indian fighters, 3 famous outlaws and 4 well known authors. It is frustrating to see from our history how changes have happened and how it’s being twisted in education. At times I’ve gone hungry to buy old school history and science book’s and compared them to those being taught since the 1950’s I get from thrift and used book store’s. The millennial generations don’t even know what life is about, when they haven’t even studied the classics that made societies because people learn from others mistakes.
Environmentalists are extremely worried about over-population. Give Governor Moonbeam a few more years and he will have reduced the population of California by many many millions of wage earners. He will proclaim it a victory for his environmental policies. When California goes bankrupt because there is nothing left to tax, he will ask the rest of America to bail the state out. California is soon to be America’s Venezuela.
Does anyone seriously think that is not the direction things are moving?
Eugene WR Gallun
I think you are right on the mark in your assessment.
My son’s high school teach had a PHD in geophysics. First lesson she straight out ranted “I don’t believe I actually have to teach this rubbish! It’s nothing but propaganda!”
Don’t worry folks. Our kids are not as stupid as Bill Nye and Al Gore think they are.
This is the same exact disease that the Palestinians infect their children and why the climate issue will be contentious along with no peace in the Middle East.
La Cage Aux Folles.
Scott:
Your try at a ‘red herring’ fails.
The Palestinian issue is not relevant to this discussion and your assertion would gave been equally true if you had written, “This is the same exact disease that the Zionists infect their children and why the climate issue will be contentious along with no peace in the Middle East.”
Please return to the topic under discussion.
Richard
+ 1
Anyone who equates the only civilized nation in the entire Middel East with the father dictatorship of all Arab terrorist movements needs to get their brain dry cleaned. Get real, anti-Semitics.
arthur4563
I agree with your sentiments, but I hate that term “anti-Semitic”, regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Arabs are ALSO Semitic.
arthur4563:
You are the only person here who has claimed there is any country which is “the only civilized nation in the entire Middel East”.
Please return to the subject of this thread.
Richard
The topic for this thread IS the issue of brainwashing Richard. Something you are not so good at.
Who is Roy? Did you fall on your head Richard? You do the skeptic community a huge disservice by making stuff up, such as referring Scot’s comment that he was talking Zionist rhetoric when all he did was compare tactics by the Palestinian people and education system to brainwash their kids to hate Jews. The essay was about brainwashing, something you have been doing a lot of here as evidenced by the above. You introduced the Zionist word out of thin air and then went on to claim he was talking about middle east issues. Who is the troll here in this thread Richard S. Courtney? You are busted…as evidenced by your own words.
Ron Williams:
The subject of this thread is NOT support for Zionist propaganda.
I repeat my response to Scott
And I agree that I am not good at “brainwashing” because I have never attempted it and I never would.
Richard
Richard… Scott said nothing about support for Zionist propaganda. He was making a point how Palestinians brainwash their children to hate Israel, sort of the same way school education is getting the kids brainwashed very early in life about CAGW/CC issues. Don’t put words into his mouth. Sounds to me like you are the one who is anti Israel. Anyway, it was a completely relevant point, and thought I would tell you and everybody else so.
Ron Williams:
The Middle East troubles are completely irrelevant to this thread as you well know.
I understand your real point to be another of your attempts to derail this thread from its subject because your attempt upthread failed.
Richard
richardscourtney May 20, 2017 at 10:40 pm
“The Middle East troubles are completely irrelevant to this thread as you well know.”
Nobody is talking about Zionism and the Middle East troubles but you. Scott made a statement that the brainwashing of our kids is similar to Palestinians brainwashing their kids to hate Jews. It was a comparison statement about the act of brainwashing. Scott wasn’t talking about Middle East issues and didn’t even mention the word Zionism: You did that. And then you lectured everyone about it and told us all to get back on thread. I am just calling BS on you because you are trying to bully your way through here, and make stuff up out of thin air. The above just proves all this to everyone here reading this, but you.
Ron Williams:
You have ignored the advice given to you by ‘sunsettommy’ who responded to your previous and similarly stupid attempt to twist my words, and who concluded by writing to you above in this thread
Report back to troll central and tell them you have failed.
Richard
Who is Roy? Did you fall on your head Richard? You do the skeptic community a huge disservice by making stuff up, such as referring Scot’s comment that he was talking Zionist rhetoric when all he did was compare tactics by the Palestinian people and education system to brainwash their kids to hate Jews. The essay was about brainwashing, something you have been doing a lot of here as evidenced by the above. You introduced the Zionist word out of thin air and then went on to claim he was talking about middle east issues. Who is the troll here in this thread Richard S. Courtney? You are busted…as evidenced by your own words.
Ron Williams:
I cannot be bothered to answer any more of your trolling.
Sunsertommy demolished your nonsense and your attempts at flaming have failed.
In conclusion I repeat,
Report back to troll central and tell them you have failed.
Richard
richardscourtney May 22, 2017 at 10:08 pm
Richard, you get more flies with honey, than vinegar. Your flame comment against totally harmless commenters, changing the comment to your comment about Zionists and middle east peace, and then order us all to get back on thread is pitiful. Scott made a simple observation about Palestinians brainwashing their children to hate Jews and you reply with some nonsense about Zionism middle east peace. You had no business introducing your Zionist rhetoric into the conversation. You report back to troll central and report your failure to communicate! I see you do this continuously to people here, so expect some blowback if you do.
What are they proposing to do, carry out world-wide lobotomies?
“… design physical, governmental, and cultural systems, humans must experience and better understand their profound interdependence with the planet …”.
Must?
History demonstrates that you can’t change human nature and the only way their mad plans will ever be implemented is by coercion.
The concept of getting to children so they’ll grow up in the fashion these people want isn’t complicated and has been tried… and failed. Sure, kids might spout the right words but their actions are of ever growing consumption. More even than the generations before them. The dichotomy is caused by those teaching CO2 alarm, not understanding th science, the solutions and the costs of CO2 reduction themselves. They believe wrongly that cutting CO2 has to be done at national or even international level. Of course, those things only happen if individuals act as one. No government can significantly move against its people. It can spend money but only so much and, as we see, people rebel when CO2 reduction impacts on their lifestyle and their pockets.
There really is only one way to get a modern society to do as they’re told, and that is to get them fully informed (not just one side) and them chose to act. And/or find a way of acting that doesn’t disadvantage them. THOSE things are complex and really haven’t been tried.
One of the things I can’t understand is why psychologists rarely want to speak to the one group of people who can articulate their climate scepticism? Surely we’re the easiest group to examine? Are they afraid that if they listen to us for too long, we’ll convert them?
I’m not worried about youth. The socialist and communist states taught us the limits of propaganda. Also, enforcement of dogma sows the seeds of its own destruction.
As with the Dem’s anti-Trump resistance movement, every climate propaganda source must constantly stay on message. In a changing environment you get old propaganda that does not comport with facts on the ground. People see that and begin questioning their betters.
Abraham Lincoln said it all: You can fool ……
True, but it dosn’t stop them trying.
Their exact purpose is to create a society of Drones that cannot think for themselves and silence any opposition from being heard. 1. Everything for the State. 2 Everything to the state. 3 Nothing outside the State. Are the 3 Pillars of Fascism created by Mussolini. Or, you can take the Leninist approach of indoctrination of the children to create a society of the state and against their parents.
Reading the abstract, it sounds as though the authors are Gaia worshippers who hope to have their religion spread broadly by pop stars sharing their belief.
Science Magazine?
LOL… But you’re right.
“We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years. We also know that there will be significant social and economic costs from the effects. In fact, the effects are already appearing in the form of more extreme weather, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and so on.”
Four completely unsubstantiated statements with no scientific basis whatsoever! This smacks of something straight out of a Greenpeace(Redwar)/WWF manuscript for the scientifically ignorant & illiterate! Read, inwardly digest, & be prepared to regurgitate at every opportunity! Anyway, welcome to the Holocene Interglacial, ’tis a shame it’s not as warm as the previous four! AtB.
I’ve been on the support global warming wagon all my adult life. I wish it would get on with it and warm the heck up, so the environment would become globally tropical from pole to pole. It’s a reality that it is the difference between the cold at the Poles and the heat at the Equator makes the destructive storms. You either have a Glacial Period that has caused mass extinctions of flora and fauna. Or an Interglacial Period that reduces storms to Tropical weather that promotes the environment greening and population of fauna. This in between state we are in, is unhealthy for the natural condition of Earth. That these environmental cases want Earth to stand still in its current state is ludicrous. Economically it is government’s wanting to control their economies and not change their geographics if the glaciers melt. So they see their coast line’s reduce and property values lost, that reduces their taxes they get from them, that fund their pet projects. Where inland countries will benefit by reduced glaciers and give them greater growing season’s and land mass and fresh water. Deserts would become greener in many countries that would make them more independent by providing water that in past Interglacial Periods were greener. The one mechanism that staves off glacial periods is how warm it is before they happen. When massive Volcanic Activities and Massive Meteors, with solar minimums are the Abnormalities causing Glacial Periods as witnessed by the geographic and biological timeline. It goes without logic and rational thought to reach the conclusion that Earth should stand still.
The new (Governor) Brown shirts. The reborn Hitler Jugend.
“We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years. We also know that there will be significant social and economic costs from the effects. In fact, the effects are already appearing in the form of more extreme weather, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and so on.”
It is all false yet our children are haveing to learn it as if it were the truth and are being tested upon how well they have memorized it. I would bet that most of their teachers do not realize that the AGW conjecure is not scientific fact but is so full of holes that it should really be classified as science fiction. We should all object to the AGW propoganda that is all over the Internet and that students with an 8th grade general science mentality are having to memorize for tests and grades.
70 Plus years of the Bolshiveks taking over…and running under the corrupt “Maxist/Lenin” religion in Russia. When it fell apart in 1990, surveys showed there was only about 10% “true believers” (i.e.,
completely zombie “believers”…or total benefits from the “system” elites (gee like in the the USA!) and
90% of the population regarded all the propaganda as bullshit and nonsense. DESPITE the M/L tripe/manure being the OFFICIAL line, and it being taught in the schools, held in the “official media”, and at the highest levels of the society.
10% can have a big impact if it is backed by Official Truth Media and cowardly, activist, “well-meaning” politicians.
If it’s this easy to produce profound changes in world attitude, just utilize focussed education on the children, why doesn’t John Abraham EDUCATE THE NEXT GENERATION to eliminate terrorism? Afterall, terrorism is actually killing a lot of men, women, and children right now, and no sign of PAUSING. That might get him one of those Nobel Prize dohickies.
“Sadly the full study is paywalled”
http://sci-hub.bz/10.1126/science.aal1931
‘…..nearly half of Americans are “concerned” or “alarmed” about global warming, yet those who can afford it routinely fly to vacation destinations, drive solo, and keep their homes at a constant 72°F (22°C).’
Ah yes, oh to be a rich and fatuous pseudo Marxist.
Trying to indoctrinate folks who can see that, after all these decades of alarmist propaganda that none of their “consensus” predictions have come to pass, is an exercise in stupidity. In the coming decades, sheer economics and technology will render fears of carbon pointless. The future of widespread electric transportion is but a few years away, and molten salt nuclear reactors will
certainly provide the vast proportion of electricity in the years ahead. The problem with climate warming alarmists is that they are so incredibly stupid, on all fronts : in their preposterously exaggerated fear of carbon and their incredibly dumb view about the future of energy production.
They not only invent future catastrophies but then compound their silly nonsense by proposing perhaps the most inappropriate response one can imagine : unreliable and expensive low carbon
power (solar/wind)/. It’s almost as if they were programmed for dumb. And what’s their response to skepticism of their beliefs? They declare that “97%” of scientists believe as they do (a total lie – but even if 97% believe man is having an influence on climate, that is a million miles away from believing in future catastrophic climate change). Every skeptical scientist I can recall believes that man is having some influence on climate. Mostly small and with mixed ideas about the benefits versus the negatives. So far, the benefits far outweigh the almost imperceptible negatives.
These global alarmists are following a religious path, not a scientific one.
Claiming you are right because X number of scientists agree with you is not a valid argument at all in scientific discussions. And, of course, the alarmists lie in their claims about not only the size of X, but what those X scientists actually believe. Alarmists fail because they are caught in so many
obvious lies and misrepresentations. May as well argue with the Pope about Jesus as the son of God.
They have the rule makers on their side, because that is what the “rule makers” want. The only way to stop it is revolution.
Dumb and/or evil can get quite far with relentless PR stunts/messaging and a compliant/stupid media.
Propaganda doesn’t stop at climate change . And lying by omission is what we see happening everyday in one form or another.
“A fossil fuel company wishing to persuade us that generating CO2 is actually good for the environment would struggle to be taken seriously if they themselves were the public face of such a campaign, so in order to get around this a front group may be created. The front group could seem to be a grassroots movement, or at least one with no obvious connections to the fossil fuel industry, yet behind the scenes there are clear vested interests.”
“Lying by omission, otherwise known as exclusionary detailing,”
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lying_by_omission
“Propaganda is “information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view”.[1] Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns.”
Climate science in action.
This works, too. I was horrified a few weeks ago while listening to my two children talking. The elder child (15 years old), had to write an essay answering the question, “What makes someone a great American?” My younger daughter (12 years old) blurted out, “Someone who doesn’t litter.” I try very hard to counter all of the propaganda coming from the schools, but it is ingrained into EVERYTHING. The lesson plans, the homework, the curriculum, the standards, the assessments, the textbooks, the classroom instruction, the after school activities. EVERYTHING.
So why would you think your child is brainwashed because they think it is foolish to litter? I hope you don’t litter, otherwise maybe your 12 year old daughter is trying to tell you something. Not littering is good common sense, and while perhaps you could have used a better example, I agree children are indoctrinated now more than previous generations. Except of course, for religion of any stripe. That has been going on forever, and is still going strong. And that is just a straight up fairy tale.
It all sounds so innocent, at first: “Ingraining a sense of value in the natural world”. Nothing wrong with that. But the more you read, the more sinister it gets. Yes, it nothing less than a treatise on how to propagandize and brainwash kids, beginning with training “transformational individuals”, i.e. Leaders. Because with a system of “climate leaders” you can essentially create an army of non-thinking automatons. After all, if your leader says it’s so, who are you to question or disagree? Very Orwellian stuff.
The whole scam of AGW is perpetuated by the graphs and the figures. Instead of graphs with a Y axis demonstrating change in 0.1 degrees (which is meaningless anyway) and the X axis in the last 4 decades only, change the figures. 0.5 Celsius is more realistic, because that is the margin of error for ground measurement, or better still 1 Celsius because of the heat island effect. Satellite observations are more accurate and can be left as they are but without the “adjustments”, but obviously only from 1979. Arctic and Antarctic ice extents should be publicised more, because unless both are shrinking then CO2 cannot be responsible. Finally any subjective material (polar bears swimming in a sea devoid of ice for instance) should be highlighted as should objective material that clearly shows no warming. Publicise the fact that all the money spent on renewables could have been spent researching Thorium reactors and how the renewables can never provide cheap, reliable energy. Finally publicise and ridicule all the predictions of doom and gloom from the past, including those which are non-climate related.
Truth WILL eventually defeat propaganda.
I forgot to add to the above (which is being moderated so this may appear first). Publicise figures not in ppm but in percentages 380 rising to 400 ppm sound worse than 0.038% rising to 0.04% and the fact that CO2 was 20x higher in the past.
I think the relevant info is how high CO2 has been during the last 5 million years. If we go back 30 or 300 million years, everything was so different that knowing the situation then doesn’t much help us now. Remember there were no humans in 5 million years ago. Not that I’d be scared of 400 ppm (which has been beneficial) or even 500 ppm (which is probably still beneficial, but I’d let the experiment happen before I judge). At this speed 500 ppm will not happen fast enough for me to see it. But I think it will happen. About 600 I’m not sure. It could be we have more nuclear then and the oceanic sink will be so large the atmospheric component will not increase.
The atmospheric system is non Markovian. Predictions of PPMCO2 are speculation.
Hugs. I agree with you to a point, but the w@rmists claim there is a “tipping point” where the Earth heats up due to CO2 which becomes unstoppable as the oceans heat up reducing the solubility of CO2 and creating a positive feedback loop. Clearly with an atmospheric concentration of CO2 at a historical low currently about 5% of what it was in the past, this tipping point does not exist or we would not be discussing it because mankind would have never evolved.
This made me think of another point, how can the oceans be “acidifying” (ph of 8.1 is most definitely alkaline) if they are heating up? Another example of the fr@udsters having their cake and eating it.
I think that all on here would agree that some molecules form greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. I think that all on here would agree that GHGs keep the temperature of the earth warmer than if they were absent.
So surely this is safe to teach?
More GHGs in the atmosphere makes the heat loss less and so the temperature must rise.to maintain balance. so this is safe to teach.
How much the temperature rises is perhaps contentious but the scientific evidence for high rise should be taught, any scientific evidence for low rise can be taught,
The trouble is you need the physics to back up claims, All I ever see is – “it is not up to us to prove no problem it is up to you to show a problem”
Claiming that the climate always changes, and the current warming is part of that cyclic change is not teachable as this contains NO physical cause – where does the extra heat come from and where does it go and why?
AGW admits to a noisy signature signal, and explains the current rise. Suggestions for evidential teaching that does not include the GHG for increases in temperature would be difficult
“More GHGs in the atmosphere makes the heat loss less and so the temperature must rise.to maintain balance. so this is safe to teach”
And the change in heat and temperature is so small that it it is lost in the much larger natural change and random noise. For example, the daily changes, monthly changes, ENSO, PDO, AO, AMO, etc. That makes the above statement by itself dangerous to teach to children. Consider for example the extra temperature causing a small shift in the timing of afternoon cloud formation which then reflects solar insulation(cools). What of significance to the “balance” has happened? Nothing! So the above statement by itself will cause alarm for no good reason.
“AGW admits to a noisy signature signal, and explains the current rise. Suggestions for evidential teaching that does not include the GHG for increases in temperature would be difficult”
Actually AGW does not explain the current rise as the temperature record, though noisy, has been rising fairly uniformly since the end of the Little Ice Age and the anthropomorphic contribution of CO2 has only been significant during the later part of that period.
“Actually AGW does not explain the current rise as the temperature record, though noisy, has been rising fairly uniformly since the end of the Little Ice Age and the anthropomorphic contribution of CO2 has only been significant during the later part of that period.”
OK, to teach that AGW is no problem you must be able to explain the current rise, and also show that it will fall back within a similar period of 50 years. I have seen to scientific explanation for the proposed cyclic nature of temperature.
Here’s a couple pieces of the HADCRUT3 global temperature record. One section is from 1895-1946 and the other is 1957-2008. Guess which is which, and for extra credit, explain why one is totally natural variation, while the other must be CO2-caused.
http://i497.photobucket.com/albums/rr340/jaschrumpf/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.png
@smueller says if you drop 1gm of water per day into a pot which has an evaporation rate 0.99gm f water per day – would you expect the pot to overflow
————————–
If that’s supposed to support the catastophic global warming hypothesis, it’s a dumb analogy. For one thing, the pot is already overflowing.
accordionsrule May 20, 2017 at 8:41 am
If that’s supposed to support the catastophic global warming hypothesis, it’s a dumb analogy. For one thing, the pot is already overflowing.
—–
the analogy as described is for a noise free system. To add noise you carry your pot of water on the back of a truck travelling on a dirt road. the height of liquid at a point on the surface has many centimetres of variation but on average will be constantly increasing at a rate equivalent to 0.01gm per day being added.
Now of course when you hit a pothole you may overflow the pot long before the steady increase would cause it to do so. and in general it would be very difficult to see the 0.01gm added to the pot since the random movement would mask it. But it would be very noticeable that as time went on your pot would overflow more frequently.
[The mods point out that the more frequent each random potholes is hit, and the deeper the average pothole is, the more water is splashed from the pot of water. The hotter the water, the colder the air, and the lower the humidity, the more the evaporation from the pot. That pot may eventually become empty, not overflowing. .mod]
The real issue with AGW is the strength and sign of the feedback. Since you didn’t mention this I suspect you really know very little of the subject. CO2 by itself has a very weak warming influence. Dr William Gray proposes the feedback is negative and makes the weak warming signal from CO2 almost undetectable.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
So, if Dr. Gray is correct you would be teaching children that a small, almost undetectable warming influence may cause the planet to become uninhabitable and their future limited? Why do you want to unnecessarily scare children? I contend that is close to child abuse.
Richard M May 20, 2017 at 6:42 am
“The real issue with AGW is the strength and sign of the feedback. Since you didn’t mention this I suspect you really know very little of the subject. CO2 by itself has a very weak warming influence. Dr William Gray proposes the feedback is negative and makes the weak warming signal from CO2 almost undetectable”
——————
Sir, I know about negative/positive feedbacks being an electronics engineer!
I believe most on here would accept a 1C as being the temp rise without feedback.
if you drop 1gm of water per day into a pot which has an evaporation rate 0.99gm f water per day – would you expect the pot to overflow
————————–
rmm
“So, if Dr. Gray is correct you would be teaching children that a small, almost undetectable warming influence may cause the planet to become uninhabitable and their future limited? Why do you want to unnecessarily scare children? I contend that is close to child abuse.”
————
I do not believe many scientist woul predict a uninhabitable planet or limited life span. It is simply some places (low coasts, hot climares etc,) may not be inhabitable. When we were living in mud huts moving village was less of a problem than shifting London, new York, Amsterdam etc.
A point is being missed here. Water vapour far outweighs the effect of CO2 as a GHG and then there is the forgotten ocean above our heads, liquid water (clouds) which fill most of the gaps left by water vapour further reducing the share of warming CO2 can lay claim to. Add to that the ability of water to store heat and smooth things out. That’s why the daily temperature swing is greater where there are no clouds (deserts).
Michael K May 20, 2017 at 8:14 am
A point is being missed here. Water vapour far outweighs the effect of CO2 as a GHG and then there is the forgotten ocean above our heads, liquid water (clouds) which fill most of the gaps left by water vapour further reducing the share of warming CO2 can lay claim to.
—————————-
So can you explain how water vapour in the air increases. Is it perhaps because temperature increases and more h2o molecules escape from sea (etc) surface. What then causes the temperature to increase.
I believe water vapour is part of the positive feed back that amplifies the effect of co2
More co2-warmer world-more water vapour-warmer world-more water vapour-… etc
Michael K May 20, 2017 at 8:14 am
——————-
One also needs to remember that heat only escapes the earth via radiation. at low altitudes heat transfer between molecules is mainly through collision the radiative transfer is minimal. Higher up The mfp for collisions is long and radiation plays an important part of the heat transfer – eventually the radiation from a ghg molecule does not collide with another ghg molecule but escapes to space. There is very little water vapour at these altitudes so this ghg plays less importance..
>>
Smueller
May 20, 2017 at 7:09 am
Sir, I know about negative/positive feedbacks being an electronics engineer!
<<
If you were a EE, you’d know that long-lived systems don’t operate with much positive feedback–if any. If the Earth’s system did have positive feedback, it would have gone full Venus-mode or Pluto-mode long ago.
Jim
Jim Masterson May 21, 2017 at 5:22 am
If you were a EE, you’d know that long-lived systems don’t operate with much positive feedback–if any.
——————-
I do not see any mention of how long this system will remain stable – Positive feedback CAN coexist with a stable system. Keep the gain less than unity = stable add a non linear element = stable once a limit is reached.:
http://www.learnabout-electronics.org/Amplifiers/amplifiers43.php
Bootstrapping
Bootstrapping (Using positive feedback to feed part of the output back to the input, but without causing oscillation) is a method of apparently increasing the value of a fixed resistor as it appears to A.C. signals, and thereby increasing input impedance. A basic bootstrap amplifier is shown in Fig. 4.3.8 where capacitor CB is the ‘Bootstrap Capacitor’, which provides A.C. feedback to a resistor in series with the base. The value of CB will be large, about 10 x the lowest frequency handled x the value of the series resistor (10ƒminR3).
images/bootstrap-emitter-follower.jpg
Fig. 4.3.8 Bootstrapping applied to an Emitter Follower
Although positive feedback is being used, which would normally cause an amplifier to oscillate, the voltage gain of the emitter follower is less than 1, which prevents oscillation.
In Fig. 4.3.8 the base of the emitter follower is biased from a potential divider via R3. By feeding the output waveform back to the left hand side of R3 the voltage at this end of R3 is made to rise and fall in phase with the input signal at the base end of R3.
Smueller, May 21, 2017 at 3:03 am:
Increased water vapour is not a direct positive feedback to increased CO2; instead it is a direct positive feedback to surface-water warming, which may occur for a variety of reasons, not just an increase of CO2.
But that is all a matter of pure theory. Let’s think how we might test it empirically.
If the global warming that has occurred since the industrial revolution really was due to surface temperature amplification by the complete greenhouse effect (i.e. with all feedbacks included), then we would expect to find that the surface temperature variations have been amplified at the same rate as the basal temperature over that period. In other words, the trend in the global mean surface temperature variations (GMSTV) should be the same as the trend in global mean surface temperatures (GMST) themselves. However, analysis of the HadCRUT4.5 global mean surface temperature record yields an effectively zero (i.e. “flat”) trend in GMSTV while it yields a positive trend of 0.5°C/century in the GMST itself over the period 1850 – 2016. (Similar analyses of HadCRUT4.5 and the UAH satellite records for the period 1979 – 2016 yield effectively the same results.)
Thus HadCRUT4.5 and UAH appear to contradict the greenhouse theory of man-made global warming.
I think we can conclude that, unless those records are wrong, the global warming which has occurred since 1850 must have been due to some cause, or causes other than an increase in the strength of the greenhouse effect. (How disappointing for alarmists.)
>>
Smueller
May 21, 2017 at 6:13 am
<<
Now we know what kind of system the Earth’s climate is: A bootstrapped emitter-follower with a less than unity gain. Or at least it’s in one of the stages. The control voltage is in phase with the output signal. That indicates a pretty good frequency response. And this precariously balanced–less than unity gain–system has been running for billions of years. And if we throw in an occasional asteroid impact and large-scale volcanic eruptions such as the Deccan Traps, it’s just going to stay precariously balanced.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. There’s no indication that the climate’s frequency response is high, or that the equivalent climatic circuit is a bootstrapped emitter-follower.
Also, you do know that pan evaporation has been decreasing. Your H2O amplification is not actually occurring.
Jim
But pointing out past, non-CO2 driven decadal and longer warming and cooling episodes does indicate there are natural causes of temperature variations. To ignore them because you don’t understand their physics and blather on about CAGW is disingenuous.
“AGW admits to a noisy signature signal, and explains the current rise.” is absolutely nonsensical. Please explain the 1915 to 1940 rise with your “noisy signature.”
“I think that all on here would agree that some molecules form greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. I think that all on here would agree that GHGs keep the temperature of the earth warmer than if they were absent.
So surely this is safe to teach?
More GHGs in the atmosphere makes the heat loss less and so the temperature must rise.to maintain balance. so this is safe to teach.”
It is definitely NOT safe to teach. I am a pretty clueless visitor here but I can tell you why it isn’t safe to teach: Because it is not as simple as just ‘more GHGs make more warm’. What about all the other forces in action? Our planet is not an isolated GHG lab experiment.
I have been raised with the stuff everyone thought safe to teach. Before you know it, it gets turned around and they want to make you believe the opposite. This is not teaching. It’s numbing. Or dumbing. I resent to this day at how we were expected to swallow and not demand the root knowledge to understand. Just swallow. My classmates did it. I couldn’t. Off course our teachers would not have been able to explain, so it makes sense to force it down. Essentially I have spent 12 years of my life wasting my time to finish school knowing I don’t know nothing. I read the material here and the comments and could just bang my head seeing what BASIC knowledge I never got in 12 years of school. I’m playing catch up now. But I would have loved to learn as a kid. Instead I was indoctrinated and distracted with such safe-to-teach theories.
———————————-
“I do not believe many scientist woul predict a uninhabitable planet or limited life span. It is simply some places (low coasts, hot climares etc,) may not be inhabitable. When we were living in mud huts moving village was less of a problem than shifting London, new York, Amsterdam etc.”
It’s exactly what kids are taught in school. Nothing less. I know -I was taught.
And that moving is more complicated today than in older days is not a viable argument not even when you stand on your head. But I think that’s obvious.
If you are still capable of independent thought ponder this. The Left of politics are trying to destroy any narrative other than their own. There is a concerted war on 1. Private Schools. 2. The Church and 3. The Family, the population is systematically being indoctrinated to follow the Socialist line.
I do find this whole thing quite amusing. These folks are so desperate to find a rationale for the lack of movement to their cause that they have to study the non-believers to understand why they are non-believers. Sure we tell them to their face, but since they own the truth they know we have to be fixed as we are obviously broken. It can’t simply be a difference of opinion because science is not about opinion it is about facts. Of course, the fact is we do not have enough facts so we are left with opinions.
What they want to do is “ingrain a sense of value in the natural world may be critical.” Yet they miss the obvious. People that live close to nature are less likely to be green activists. The green activists are those far from nature that don’t understand that their live rely on people close to nature.
Nothing new there. The Left has been using the public education system as an indoctrination tool for at least fifty years.
“Education is a weapon whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands, and at whom it is aimed.”
–Joseph Stalin
Panic in the Arctic ?
“The vault is on the Norwegian island of Spitsbergen and contains almost a million packets of seeds, each a variety of an important food crop.
But soaring temperatures in the Arctic at the end of the world’s hottest ever recorded year led to melting and heavy rain, when light snow should have been falling. “It was not in our plans to think that the permafrost would not be there and that it would experience extreme weather like that,” said Hege Njaa Aschim, from the Norwegian government, which owns the vault.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts
Wow Vuk.
Seems like the typical government project that didn’t look at the historic active zone depth of the permafrost, look at proper drainage, or have an appropriately sealed vault. Looks like some one made a lot of assumptions and not much engineering or science. (I have worked in the arctic. This looks a lot more like the result of incompetence than “Global Warming”.)
In fact, in reading the article, they are now retrofitting things that should have been done during the original construction like taking heat producing electronics out of the vault, fixing the exterior drainage, water proofing the entrance tunnel, etc.
Human error, natural variability, poor initial design assumptions, poor arctic construction methods. Wow. If this is how they thought they would save the world, “we are doomed, I say, doomed!”
Chuckle of the day, Sadly.
A subtitled version is funnier
Now that is really scary. I see a movie deal for the kid in the hoodie. Talk about a dystopian sci-fi movie plot that is more thriller than sci-fi. The plot thickens, and the intergenerational war is on. I am sure the next generation will be pulling out our life support tubes for our past sins…
This has been going on for decades already. Just look at Trump’s daughter. She’ a climate cult drone.
PARENTS WANT THIS. Stop blaming schools. Parents send their beloved off-spring in daily for indoctrination. They WANT this. If they didn’t, they’d stop sending the kid in. Parents WANT this. Parents WANT this. The ones who truly do not pull their kid out of school. Do not blame the schools or anyone other than the parents.
What practical, non-private school options are there, now that having a degree has become effectively mandatory for any type of non-“blue collar” well-paying career? The game seems to be:
1. Get degree
2. Move into feckless management ASAP for salary, status, perks, “job security”
3. Be incompetent
Of course, automation is going to cause havoc in the economic system. It already is in some sectors, while the middle income earners are being funemployed out of existence with those who *do* remain employed fearful for their jobs since now there’s all that many more qualified people looking for work.
This is not going to end well, and here we are wasting time with the non-crisis called AGW.
There are online accredited schools where the parents can actually know exactly what their child is learning. The degree is the same as any public school. Yes, one parent has to stay home. How much do you love your kid? You want them indoctrinated or not? Parenting is tough. It’s easy to hand the kid over the government for re-education and then say there was nothing you could do. It’s also a great way to make America communist and have nothing but indoctrinated kids. Effort is required to keep America on the right track. No one seems to want to make the effort, so I have to conclude that the direction we are going is exactly where parents and most people want to go. Actions tell me that.
Unfortunately, this is how they will be successful. History has shown us in the past, how religions have grown out of fear and belief.
This blog has been useful in communicating a different message, but compared to their ability, it’s small fry. Last year there was a billion hits to this site. With an average of 1000 visits per visitor, that’s only 1 million viewers out of a population of 7000 million!!!
I hope I’ve done the maths wrong!! Cos that ain’t much. Concern of GW may be low on peoples priority, but if they’re not hearing and reading of the opposing view, they’re going to succumb in the end. The children will be the easiest.
Unfortunately, this is how they will be successful. History has shown us in the past, how religions have grown out of fear and belief.
This blog has been useful in communicating a different message, but compared to their ability, it’s small fry. Last year there was a billion hits to this site. With an average of 1000 visits per visitor, that’s only 1 million viewers out of a population of 7000 million!!!
I hope I’ve done the maths wrong!! Cos that ain’t much. Concern of GW may be low on peoples priority, but if they’re not hearing and reading of the opposing view, they’re going to succumb in the end.
The children will be the easiest.
Here is what I wrote in response to a virtue signaler who writes a column in the local free news weekly…
I borrowed some things from WUWT comments.
Dear Peter Maurer,
Re: Your article of May 11, it is hard to tell what you want, wind and solar power are simply not up to the task. You went to Ann Arbor to “March for Science” and I presume that you drove a fossil fuel powered car, to raise awareness about reducing C02 emissions. You ought to step up the hypocrisy and fly around the world to tell others not to fly. Both C02 and temperatures have been higher in the past, and life thrived quite nicely, but facts do not matter to climate alarmists. There have been warmer periods recently, the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warmings.
Coal never went away. You and I both use coal every day, to make electricity; coal is solar power made from plants grown under the sun. There is ample evidence that warming is beneficial and little, if any, that it is harmful. There is NO evidence that C02 (a trace gas) has any effect on climate, and biased computer models are not evidence or data. Water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas, and far more abundant. All the carbon in our bodies was once C02 blowing in the wind. There is no acceleration in warming, in fact it has been cooling lately, the El Nino of 2016 has waned. You may have heard about South Australia, the renewable energy crash test dummy, and their blackouts, as they are tearing down their coal power plants in a quest for an energy free future.
I saw some signs at the climate parade that said “THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED” and that tells me that the marchers do not even know what science is because science is never settled. The same democrats who were quite willing to throw science under a bus in order to pretend their political agenda had a founding in science are now marching to save “science”. If they wanted to save science, they should have remained neutral, objective observers instead of playing politics whilst claiming the authority of science. Such marches are blatently political and by their nature offend those with the opposite political bent. The “public support for science” issue is a faux issue, designed solely to smear climate skeptics/realists as anti-science. It has all the earmarks of a religious sect, and the fact that several people (Shekla, Nye) have even suggested and/or demanded that those with opposing views be prosecuted (or persecuted, take your pick).
I have no doubts that all this climate alarmism is coming from frustrated leftists, just look at the report from the Oakland climate march in 2014;
http://www.zombietime.com/climate_movement_drops_mask_admits_communist_agenda/
You ought to boycott the sinister fossil fuel industry and stop using their products.
Regards,
John Bell
Rochester Hills
Letters to local papers are a great strategy, John. They reach people who have never heard of the blogosphere. My area’s papers have crippling word limits, so here’s how I dealt with a recent virtue-signaller.
The Editor
(Newspaper)
How wonderful that Rod Dickson ((Newspaper) 28/3) will, at his own cost, demonstrate his belief in catastrophic man-made global warming.
Expect Rod to immediately cancel his electricity and get rid of his car. Then he’ll grow all his own food and carry all his water from the nearest creek.
Doing without all the other things that evil fossil fuels contributed to will be harder, but for the true believer going without tools, cooking pots, medicines and clothes is no hardship.
Rod’s transition to a totally carbon-free life will be an example for all the other virtue-signallers who spout empty rhetoric but who never, ever make any sacrifices.
Perhaps the (Newspaper) could document Rod’s epic journey?
Yours etc
Needless to say, Rod was never heard from again.
Parenthetical mine.
Psychological research suggests that humans can move toward a sustainable society by creating conditions that motivate environmentally responsible collective action (we want everyone, but us elites, to waste time & money on behaviors we elites condone) – conditions that help people surmount cognitive limits (support the useful idiots), create new situational drivers (criminalize normal behavior), foster need fulfillment (religionize environmentalism), and support communities of social change (band together and direct environmental wackos to protest). Individuals whose actions are informed by a deeper understanding of how the planet really works (how we elites preach the world works) can galvanize collectives (insulate little commie groups from critical thought) to change the larger systems that drive (that controls) so much of human behavior.
A large part of the problem is that opinion is being represented as fact, and very few distinguish between the two. Almost nothing we know about the world is true. Instead, we have approximations, rules of thumb that help us to survive.
The problem in human history comes when these “rules of thumb” are taken as Gospel. As great truths that are above question. At that point, the rules no longer serve our needs. They become a threat to our survival, because breaking the rules itself becomes punishable.
Before a rule becomes Gospel, if you broke the rule you suffered the consequence of the rule itself. But once the rule becomes Gospel, you suffer the additional consequence of breaking the Gospel when you break the rule.
Over our history this is one of the greatest failings of human society. We fail to recognize that rules are created to serve our needs. Rather, we elevate rules until we and up servants to the rule.
Consider a simple rule: “Do not poke a bear with a stick”. The consequence of breaking this rule is self evident. But now imagine over time that this rule becomes elevated to Gospel. Now if you poke a bear and survive, you have the added penalty of having broken the Gospel. The reason not to poke a bear is no longer that the bear might kill you, rather that other people might kill you for having broken the Gospel. For having broken the “sacred law”.
This is what is happening with Global Warming. The name was changed to Climate Change and at that point it was no longer a survival rule, it was elevated to Gospel. And to speak against the Gospel became heresy, an Act of de Nile.
We know humans are causing climate change. That is a fact that has been known for well over 100 years.
What??? Where do these idiots get their facts?
Too late, they’ve already tried it: Captain Planet anyone? Cheers –
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098763/
What a load of garbage passing as a salad. Hopefully we will find the strength to run a cleansing river through this fetid stable. Just the fun of attempting it is worth the effort.
I substitute teach hs science and math, mostly. My take is that by hs most ideas about political issues have taken root due to the ideas pushed at home, not in school or by the msm. The complexity of this issue revolves around whether the kids are adopting or rebelling against what is pushed at home. I suspect that the choice made is the one which produces the least anxiety for the child in question and is dependent to a large degree on peer group pressure, but not always. How’s that for a psychoanalytical bs answer? But then this is a small rural community and effects may be much different in a more metropolitan situation.
Vote. Every cycle on everything. Charter schools. Vouchers.
Yup. That’s the way to break their power. Cut of the easy money and make them work for a living.
Voting does little good when exactly the same people are sent back to Washington every election. Witness the last election where Wisconsin gave us Paul Ryan. The press controls most of the country and what they say, people seem to believe. The Republicans now have the House, Senate and Presidency and still, they can’t do anything to fix anything. (Trump’s Executive Orders can only go so far.) I don’t see voting doing anything.
That’s why during mock elections organized in schools “to supposedly foster democracy”, the Green candidate comes out on top: imagine how protecting the white and fluffy wins over saving to get roads built…
these people are LYING to school kids and causing many DEATHS……they paint a picture of hopelessness and MANY teens see they have no future so they live briefly for today and then kill themselves……..
Meh.
Is it Gang Green or spoiled vegetables?
The lead (paywalled) post is on par with the Pedesta Email, about having created an ignorant and compliant society. Cracks are showing in the compliant aspect.
The Emperors of our time are still naked and stupid.
The Tale of vanity,self delusion and appeal to any authority are timeless.
Human nature is as stable as Climate.
This tales of doom and the mass hysteria following from it would make Chicken Little proud.
Sadly there are adults who have fully subscribed to the madness and are living very miserable lives.
While surrounded by peace and plenty, they fret and agonize over Man Destroying Nature.
This CAGW is a madness of the City.
People who live with weather are mostly immune.
According to the Greens, action by the next generation will be too late. Won’t we already be under water or blown away by hurricanes?
Why not just say humans are causing climate change a fact known for over 10,000 years? Why just 100. If you’re going to make crap up, go big!!
A very old progressive/leftist narrative – “Check your brains at the door. We’ll do all the thinking for you.”
Psychological research [Pavlovian behavioral conditioning] suggests that humans can move [be forced] toward a sustainable society [totalitarianism] by creating conditions [social engineering] that motivate environmentally responsible collective action [eco-communism] – conditions that help people surmount cognitive limits [get over their stupidity], create new situational drivers [taxes and penalties], foster need fulfillment [energy starvation], and support communities of social change [targeted funding]. Individuals whose actions are informed by a deeper understanding of how the planet really works [brainwashed children] can galvanize collectives [kibbutz?] to change the larger systems [capitalism] that drive so much of human behavior [common sense].
There, I fixed it.
Quoting》》》
Griff May 20, 2017 at 3:40 am
“Who is winning when most of the world’s largest commercial companies are investing in renewable energy and energy saving?
when the world’s largest economies increasingly move to renewables without an impact on economic growth?
there’s a second industrial revolution going on out there and you seem to be missing it…”
–
Ummmm, lets look at the numbers and frame your assertion properly.
http://joannenova.com.au/2017/05/matt-ridley-wind-power-makes-0-of-world-energy/
And geothermal is 34% of that 1.3% (geothermal, wind, solar and tide)
And only 1/4 of renewables (3.5%) , are wind and solar, and that probably doesn’t include the fact that nameplate capacity often doesn’t at all match the capacity factor, nor the fact that it requires backup power, so its actual useful power is way less than what is stated. The vast majority of renewable power is from biomass, and that includes dung and any scrap fuels those in poorer countries have to rely on, which is unhealthy.
It’s not that those using dung and other natural sources for heat are causing their health problems. It’s that they don’t ventilate their abodes with proper methods to control the smoke. Sure, part of the problem is that large villages are going to have a cloud of the smoke hanging over them. But the biggest problem is doing it in enclosed structures.
Please pardon me Eric, but I just could not resist…….
..I hate remakes, never as good as the original…
Remake?
You have an original aside from this?
Please share accordingly. Thanks
The Canadian Government is well along in the “next” transition to scare the public into doing what the leftist government and pretty boy wants.
It is no longer Global Warming, or Climate Change; they have changed it to “POLLUTION CONTROL”.
Bold added.
She was interviewed on the radio this morning and continually used the word “POLLUTION”. Clearly their tactic to force a “CARBON TAX” on the country saying that it is “Pollution Control”.
Sadly, the public will probably buy it since they have been so inundated with this cr@p.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/canada-ready-impose-pollution-caps-fuel-tax-provinces-211215659.html
As if anybody doesn’t know, we had 3 feet of global warming. “a rare and exciting event… ” I was selling spaces out in the yard so those that wanted to experience this rare and unusual event could, but nobody showed up. Spring keeps getting later and later. It used to be that you could plant by May 11, and now not until June 1. If this ” lack of heat ” keeps up, it may be even later. Oh!! this global warming..
No matter how strong and heroic this lot tries to show they are at this point, by lighting up the light house in their island, and putting them selfies on this great map clearly, even at the point of their nymph, sirens singing melodies of enchantment, it does not really matter or really count unless the fail of theirs and their methods is very clearly accepted with no much controversy….otherwise no “parley”, for such as……
The fail must be very very clearly accepted if that is to be considered as a way of approach….
If they have failed up to now, that is it, regardless of their wishful thinking, their dreams or their nightmares, or their silly imaginations, or their bolshevik ideology…….is all about what up to the present, now…..simply, clearly all these suckers, all this bolshevik ideologues have failed, no matter what……
They have to consider that they have just lighted up one more lighthouse and put on the map, one more of their precious islands, and one more such of a place it has being revealed ………think carefully, sirens………very very very carefully.
The matter and subject of that study and especially the introduction to it is very very loaded……as it stands, but very one sided, very much favoring one side, by trying to scare the whole shit on the other side, typically unfair business of this lot, and also very devious……by PH.D people who do not deserve to even be considered as simply common philosophers, especially when such as, do recognize that the main point of their stupid creed failure is,,,,,,,,,, philosophy…….
If you do not believe me, please do just ask Mosher..:)
cheers
From the article: “Psychologists already contribute to individual-level behavior-change campaigns in the service of sustainability,”
Oh, really? I wonder if the psychologists tell their clients that part of their therapy is to be brainwashed about the environment?
TA
May 20, 2017 at 10:42 am
The problem with brainwashing is that it really is not such a bad thing, until you have to consider the abuse of the expert towards the subject, when and where the main intention is for the expert to turn the subject into a brainless drone….
Teaching has a lot to do with some kind of brainwashing, so does conning…..
But still there is huge extreme divide and separation in between, Making one completely the opposite of the other…..
cheers
The word “collective” is so insistently repeated here as to pretty much give the game away.
The remedies demanded by advocates of “climate change” converge far more towards socialism than they do to really improve the environment. The evil of socialism is how easily they presume the power to own and control the property and even the lives of their fellow citizens. Did I mention how evil and dangerous this is?
They’ve been pushing this crap on school children since the beginning of public education. The good news is that generation Z are probably going to be the most conservative since WW2. Simply put, the cultural Marxists have been force feeding this nonsense and they’re going to vomit it back up on them.
absolutely won’t matter – the millenial kids have no sense, no skills and are utterly dependent on the 1% who can find a way to make them worth their keep – when that does occasionally happen.
this doesn’t end until it hits the wall.
The whole country is already brainwashed. People actually think Trump is not a liar. People think climate change is a hoax. If you really want to get to the crux of how the american population is brainwashed on a daily basis then read Manufacturing Consent by noted scholar and MIT professor Noam Chomsky.
Did you forget a /sarcasm tag? Noam Chomsky, really?
I know, right? People actually think that space aliens aren’t already here, and that an invasion isn’t imminent.
Sad!
Troll Effort Rating: 0.04 out of a possible 97. Sorry, try again.
Don’t you mean “noted anti-American Commie loon who has always been wrong about everything”.
Kids are pretty resilient and in fact, sometimes see through indoctrination that adults pester upon them. Sometimes the kids just outright rebel and take the opposite view of whatever is being pushed, since they are smart enough already to know that there is always an agenda. The CAGW/CC meme is a new religion, so the smart kids who already know that start to question everything, which is the foundation of science. Luckily, there is enough publicly available information for anyone who digs into the matter and they can find some scientific facts about all the subjects that relate to this.
Which is why this blog is so important in keeping up good scientific responses to the general population about CAGW/CC issues, as well as encouraging the general population to be involved in the debate. The only problem is that many here have different agenda’s too, or are just looking to pick a fight with meaningless arguments about anything else, or indulge in character assassinations or personal attacks against a writer, and not the idea they wrote. It would be nice to see a lot more factual and intelligent discourse here.
Marxism against Capitalism and the 10 Planks of Communism. Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” tactics. Cloward and Pevin Strategy. John Dewey everyone is equal and gets a Gold Star for effort. The Frankfurt School in the USA. Leninism of teaching the children young to change society to support the Government and against their parents. The “45 steps to Communism” presented to Congress in 1963 by Dr. Cleon Skoulsen. Those are what the Leftist have used to control the population and push their agendas. Our Indoctrination Institutions (schools) have been infiltrated a long time ago by these Liberal Progressive Democratic Socialist. Communist and Socialist Party’s stopped trying to get their members elected and disbanded in the reign of FDR to join the Democratic Party. And people are just starting to wake up now?
Part of the driving force to create the new geo-political, sci-fi short story series Time Protectors was this very concern. Brainwashing of the susceptible public and of our children are purposeful steps in defining a new world order.
This very subject is brought forward in Chapter 2 of the latest installment, Time Protectors, book four, Counter Strike.
Extremely topical.
Since these psychologists think they are scientists, they need to be asked if rugrats nowadays are more programmed (programmable) than they were generations ago. Have they raised any lately?
here’s the liberated file:
https://ufile.io/j9ht7
and yes, it is totally a protocol and rationale for indoctrination – animal husbandry.
how to train your sheep.
so, by sheer chance, all the comments about that are correct.
It’s the same story now as it was under the Soviets and Nazis: if you can’t win over the moral, the intelligent and the informed, target the young, the naive and the uninformed by seducing them with social rewards such as peer acceptance and virtue signalling.
Already happening, for example one class in the greater Victoria BC area wrote letters to a government person urging action on climate change – no justification in letters, most likely a devious teacher’s scheme.
(The BC Teachers’ Federation is a lefty union.)
Folks may be interested in a very recent study from Harvard Education. The tools and processes are already in place:
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/17/05/curriculum-changing-world
I remember in my high school days seeing a video about the advance of the desert into farm land, how worldwide governments were spending close to a billion dollars to stop it. Last year I saw a video about how global warming was threatening desert plants, because the greening of the earth was causing deserts to retreat. Something needed to be done to protect desert habitat.
Somehow people concerned about natural fluctuations forget or never studied earth history. The Sahara Desert is a geologically recent phenomenon. Just 5000 years ago, it was still moist.
Desert-adapted species find habitats in which to ride out the wet intervals
This “brainwashing” idea has been going on for almost a hundred years. The left has been advocating it as the winning alternative to classical Marxism’s violent revolution. Marxist gurus like Lukacs and Gramsci have been pushing these ideas since the early 20th century.with the goal of defeating the greatest obstacle to their Marxist Utopia, Western civilization itself.
From https://smashculturalmarxism.wordpress.com/2015/02/28/antonio-gramscis-grand-plan/ :
“Mastery over the consciousness of the great mass of people would be attained, Gramsci contended, if Communists or their sympathizers gained control of the organs of culture — churches, education, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, serious literature, music, the visual arts, and so on. By winning “cultural hegemony,” to use Gramsci’s own term, Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination.”
Anyone can see how the left has become dominant in the media and in the the education system from K-U. Political correctness which is rampant in our culture is another manifestation of this. The green movement is another part of the leftist program, so it’s not surprising that the “study” documented above suggests similar but perhaps even more brazenly radical tactics.
A friend and colleague of mine, who died too young from pancreatic cancer, wrote his PhD thesis on Gramsci. My buddy and his Catholic wife belonged to SDS while in grad school.
He later turned conservative and wrote a popular book on the 1970 U. of Wisconsin bombers.
Gramsci’s vision of how to impose Communism on the masses is so far having more success in the West than violent revolution.
This is the Australian version-
https://www.crinklingnews.com.au/
Scientific theories are just that: Theories. They may be right and, to the best of our knowledge, many of them seem to be. Einstein’s theories seem to be right because no one has been able to disprove them. Of course, Einstein showed that Newton’s theories were just a very good approximation and the best that Newton could do at the time.
Darwin’s theory of evolution seems to be right. It must be the Truth, because there is a 99.9% consensus. And everybody knows that a consensus is right and anyone who disagrees is a heretic and must be stoned.
Right?
But, creationists/intelligent design people seem to be pretty harmless. However, Marxist/socialist theories have been proven a failure every time they have been tried. And, in the process socialists of various stripe have murdered some 200 million people. And they run the education system. Why in the world would you hire someone that teaches a theory that is so brutally, horribly destructive?
‘Why in the world would you hire someone that teaches a theory that is so brutally, horribly destructive?’
Simple: Complete denial and rationalization of real-world consequences, done by filtering reality through ideology, combined with a control-freak mentality as a psychological starting point.
Although to be fair, we’re on the second or third generation of this indoctrination – which brings me to the most frustrating part of dealing with unconscious ideologues – it’s hard to blame people for believing what they’ve been taught.
I still remember the moral outrage back in the seventies over reading primers like ‘Janet and Mark’ – portrayed with a ‘traditional nuclear family’ – which was supposedly ‘reinforcing stereotypes’ and was an example of ‘social engineering’ – which was apparently a bad thing. Personally, I simply saw it as reflecting typical, naturally-evolving reality with no agenda whatsoever.
Of course, when the Progressives take over the messaging, the about-face morality of it is instantaneous – deliberate social engineering, with pre-determined agenda (and, believe me, it’s not just Climate Change, but every Progressively Correct issue there is) – all THAT’s okay.