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.
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.