Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate change crusaders are concerned that at 16 years old, the age Climate is officially introduced to the Australian school curriculum, too many kids are proving intractable, holding onto skeptical views about climate change. Their solution – start applying pressure when the kids are younger and less able to resist authority.
Why we’re building a climate change game for 12-year-olds
October 30, 2017 6.10am AEDT
PhD candidate, Australian National University
Senior Lecturer, Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University
There is no doubt that we need to teach kids about climate change.
But although the Australian Curriculum embeds climate change into its senior high school program, children are typically aged around 16 before they receive any formal teaching on the topic. We argue that this is too late.
Here’s a possible solution: “CO2peration” is an interactive, online game we developed for children aged 12-14. It teaches climate science in a politics- and emotion-free zone.
In most countries, the topic of climate change is usually introduced at around the age of 16. Unfortunately, students at this age have largely made up their minds about climate change. Any efforts to teach them about the science may cement those opinions (both for and against) – particularly if it threatens their existing opinion.
This “made up their mind” phenomenon is known as a worldview – and it is the single biggest predictor of an individual’s opinion related to climate change.
Working with 12-year-olds
At the age of around 12, children undergo a rapid developmental change that, over the next 12 years, will take them fully into adulthood.
This change preempts some exciting intellectual developments. It prepares the child for some of the challenges of adulthood – such as building social networks, finding work or becoming financially responsible. It also allows them to start processing complex issues like nuclear energy or social justice.
So around age 12, children’s worldview is still open to change and they can take on board new information in a way that their older selves may not.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/why-were-building-a-climate-change-game-for-12-year-olds-85983
I guess the idea that school is there to teach kids how to read and write and reason is way too old fashioned for modern educationalists, who now appear to consider school a means of indoctrinating kids with their worldview.
They don’t appear to have considered, or maybe don’t care that deliberately bringing many of the kids into conflict with their parents by force feeding the kids social justice and climate action dogma from a young age might disrupt their home life, which could have all manner of detrimental knock on effects.
When it comes to green policy, the end always seems to justify the means.
Kind of old for these propagandists usually they start at kindergarten or younger.
Notice the green eyes of avarice, as they contemplate all the free grant money they can cadge to fool around with on some totally Hollywood climate notion.
G
Oh yeah, I’m sure that you will not be using any emotional arguments in the way that you present the TRUTH about climate change in your ‘game’.
Your deliberate and expressed aim to try to indoctrinate children with your views before they fully equipped to make a reasoned and informed choice, of course has NO political motivation whatsoever.
Speaking of games, I’m watching THE GAME right now. 11-8 for Houston.vs LA.
I lived in Houston so I’m cheering for them – never lived in LA so…
Damned big game.
Even bigger strike zone… 🙂
Game 5 of the World Series
Houston 13, LA 12 in the 10th inning
14 hits by each team
All in all, not a bad game… 🙂
Rugby League – in the US?
Auto
Aaaaaaarrrgh!
LA won Game 6.
HOUSTON WINS!
@ur momisugly Eric Worrall
It was a roaring success when they launched their fear mongering campaign about “anti-cigarette smoking”, to wit:
By that time, they already had a lot of experience brainwashing kids.
Look how successful they have been convincing kids that the government is responsible for taking care of you.
You are correct, MarkW, ….. The Great Society Program, aka: the War On Poverty, was signed into Law by Democrat President Lyndon B Johnson in 1964. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society
And trillion$ have been and are still being spent to fund said Program and the number of people living in poverty is greater now than it was back then in 1964.
Look at how many people are surprised when they find out they won’t be able to live on their Social Security income alone.
I am reminded of the classic scene with Cardinal Glick (played by the late great George Carlin) in the film Dogma:
Cardinal Glick: Fill them pews, people, that’s the key. Grab the little ones as well. Hook ’em while they’re young.
Rufus: Kind of like the tobacco industry?
Cardinal Glick: Christ, if only we had their numbers.
Modus operandi for all kinds I guess… including the Green religion.
“Get them when they’re young”. Said the Hitler Youth instructor to the Young Communist indoctrinator.
He probably got that from the Jesuits.
Wasn’t it something like ‘Give me a child until he is seven, and I will have him for life’?
NB 1 – ‘he’ – then – meant ‘he’ – not ‘he and she’ – about 1600 or so, IIRC.
NB 2 – ‘have him’, presumably, meant ‘have influence over him’.
Auto
They would also need to censor the internet if they really want the kiddies to believe, and there is some tendency for that being done now.
Tom
I read last week that George Soros and Google were starting a project called fact check. When you want to check if something on the net is true, you just go there.
Soros and Google, me thinks that the truth will be the first casualty.
I’ve moved to duckduckgo and changed my business email to protonmail.
There is already a website called Snopes.com which you can use to test for urban myths and other facts.
Snopes is decidedly leftist, and rather sloppy besides. Putting any credence in Snopes is exactly like trusting other fact-checking sites like PolitiFact. If you want to know what the US Democratic Party’s left wing has proclaimed to be revealed Truth, use them.
That does overstate it a bit, but Snopes is about as treacherous to use as Wikipedia.
Stephen, snopes.com? Did you look at http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/26/delingpole-an-impertinent-pup-from-snopes-tried-to-fact-check-me-on-global-warming-heres-my-reply/
Unfortunately, Snopes is not the generally trustworthy organization that it used to be.
TruthOrFiction.com is less comprehensive, but more trustworthy.
Snopes used to be run entirely by Barbara and David Mikkelson. When Barbara was there Snopes was pretty good. They leaned to the left, but I think they tried to be truthful and fair, most of the time (except that they tended to be inappropriately solicitous toward President Obama, whom they really, really liked).
But Barbara & David divorced in 2015. Barbara is gone. David still writes about 20% of the Snopes articles, but he’s hired other people to write the rest, and at least some of them are shockingly dishonest.
Here’s a Daily Mail article from late December, 2016, about Snopes:
http://dailym.ai/2h32avh
Here’s a January, 2017 article about how Snopes trashed the pro-life organization Live Action with a disreputable “straw man” attack:
https://www.mrctv.org/blog/snopes-defends-planned-parenthood-we-rate-them-mostly-false#comment-3144799410
Another of Snopes’ tricks, these days, is to debunk a collection of other stories, all at once, some of which are untrue, but some of which are accurate. They lump theem all together and rate the collection False. For instance, here is Snopes’ deceptive combined critique of a DailyCaller report plus an unrelated “fake news” Facebook page:
http://www.snopes.com/flags-banned-at-dnc/
Here’s DailyCaller’s rebuttal:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/snopes-caught-lying-about-lack-of-american-flags-at-democratic-convention/
Both the smear of Live Action and the smear of Daily Caller were written by a David Mikkelson hireling named Dan Evon. The one that trashed Delingpole is Alex Kasprak.
Who snopes Snopes?
No kidding:
“The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts, what a shock, and the facts of climate change are not in question anymore,” Schmidt said. “Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.” –
Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt
See no evil, just selectively practice it, because we are right.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
The world’s largest advertising company , is just that.
From my own observations, the indoctrination starts much earlier than that. Certainly, it happens in primary schools when kids are in the 7-11 age bracket. Also, if you’ve ever spent any time watching children’s TV, the indoctrination propaganda is being spread via cartoons and suchlike. If you plant the idea early enough, such “received wisdom” becomes very difficult to erase, unfortunately!
I think you are right – I have always been told (!!) that successful indoctrination must begin at the latest at age 7. Kids at 12 (especially today’s kids) will question everything – thank goodness.
I think this is sick. But I am not too worried. I was indoctrinated in Christianity starting before I could even read. When I hit about 15 I started thinking for myself about the issue. . By the time I hit college I was pretty much not religious at all. Later in life I revisited the subject and became what I would call an authentic Christian, in that I arrived at faith in Christ through study and research not only of Christian writings but also writings about other faiths (including atheism, which also requires an abundance of faith). My point is that indoctrination at age 12 (or earlier) does not necessarily mean that the child is forever doomed to be a CAGW automaton.
Ken
Atheism does not require an abundance of faith, just tolerance.
I wish you well.
Everyone has an abundance of faith in something. What’s in your wallet?
ozoneburst, believing something you can’t prove requires faith. That includes atheism.
Ozonebust, I would tend to disagree with you. You have to have absolute faith in your being right. Those who accept faith as a possibility, however, do not.
Ken, as for a child not being forever doomed, that also doesn’t matter. They only have to be “believers” long enough to endanger the rest of the race AND themselves. Life without ample, affordable power will be the best way to reduce world population over the next 40 to 50 years, but it is getting it to that critical point in the next 20 years that creating CAGW automatons is vitally necessary. After that, well, a useful idiot is always a useful idiot only when you need them.
Ozonebust, without proof in a belief, the only thing left is faith. Do atheists have empirical evidence that God does not exist? The atheists that I know do not have such evidence.
Tom O. Good point. But I still believe that many who are indoctrinated early in their lives revisit their world views and are able to change as they see new facts. It happened to me. In fact, it happened to me in the CAGW issue, although my indoctrination was not done when I was a child. I was all in on CAGW until I heard “the science is settled”. I knew that idea is a load of horse feathers, so I started looking deeper. I found the money trails. I found the attempts to grab power, control, prestige. And I found that there was very little science involved. So, there is hope even for indoctrinated people as long as the actual science is available to them.
“started thinking for myself…” The rarest commodity in the world.
Here’s a possible solution: “CO2peration” is an interactive, online game we developed for children aged 12-14
Uh, well no it isn’t a “solution” because it doesn’t exist. The link takes you to a page asking for money via a “kickstarter” campaign. If you donate enough money, you get a coffee mug, and if you donate even more, the creators will plant some trees in your name.
I followed the link expecting a “game” with bullsh*t science that could easily be debunked, instead I got to a “beg for money” page. That seems to be the standard output of the alarmists these days. BS and beg for money to produce more BS.
And their campaign will likely fail.
Even the campaign for the sequel to Fate of the World has failed just recently (and the first game was quite popular).
Well the campaign has only 10 days left and they are just barely past 26% of their goal.
Well, over the last 2 days they have gotten to 28.3% funded. So they are gaining about 1% a day (with 8 days left). At this rate they will end up below 40% funded when their campaign ends.
Classic indoctrination. The only reason they need to do this is because of how wrong they are.
It’s like something straight out of 1984.
In Australia the green dogma is often introduced under the guise of sustainability at primary level. Young children are routinely taught about endangered species, the evils of pollution etc. By the time the kids are 16 many are acolytes.
Somalia, the Congo, Syria,….
the common thread is to indoctrinate and train the child soldier as early as 12 yrs old.
http://i64.tinypic.com/tyf9.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/28vf59i.jpg
The tactics advocated here by Inez Harker-Schuch and Will Grant are a common theme of despots, jihadists, far-left and far right zealots around the world. These two are just trying to play catch-up to create indoctrinated climate warriors before more adult reason and education can interfere.
“too many kids are proving intractable, holding onto skeptical views about climate change. Their solution – start applying pressure when the kids are younger and less able to resist authority.”
Seems a good idea to start teaching them to be skeptical to all ideas, especially non-scientific ideas.
Non-scientific ideas? Do you mean like a climate change crisis? This game is clearly designed to get kids to toe the line, not question the line. It is a great idea to teach kids to be skeptical and to develop critical, independent reasoning skills, but that is apparently forebidden when it comes to climate change.
From the article above:“Here’s a possible solution: “CO2peration” is an interactive, online game we developed for children aged 12-14.”
They don’t have a game. They have a rent seeking bait-and-switch con. From the CO2peration ‘game’ site:
“The team are now urgently seeking crowd funding – if you’re concerned about climate change, please visit the [my delete] campaign to help make this important initiative a reality.”
Also from the CO2peration ‘game’ site: “Understanding the climate system means learning about feedback loops, process-oriented mechanisms and the dependence of climate phenomena on control factors such as greenhouse gases and Albedo”,…. If they really wanted to teach about ‘control factors such as green house gases’, it would be far more scientifically honest and grammatically accurate to name the game/site H2Operation! H2O, in solid, liquid, and gas phases, is the primary environmental ‘control knob’ for planet earth.
From reading the crowd funding plea it sounds like one concept the ‘game’ will push is the idea that Venus is hot because of the greenhouse effect and that Earth could end up going the same way.
But…..All you have to do to subtract H2O from your considerations is to do all of your fantastic analysis using a mythical something that’s called “dry air.” — But if you should be so ambitious as to want to do reality-based measurements, just where on planet Earth would you be able to find some of that stuff?
If you treat CO2 as if it is the whole of atmospheric “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere, then a lot of strange things can be imagined to be happening. However, if you should wish to work with reality and you look at CO2 as its actual percentage of aggregated
“greenhouse” gases, then you have to deal with limitations that just won’t get you to panic time. Unless, of course, there is always cause to panic over the proposed actions of idiotic politicians.
I’m feeling really skeptical this evening!
reallyskeptical offers a sophist’s argument.
reallyskeptical uses a sophist’s name.
Is reallyskeptical a climate change sophist?
Sophist: noun
1. a person who uses fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
Thank you J Mac…I learned a new word today!
“especially non-scientific ideas.”
Then WHY are you so TRULYGULLIBLE about climate pseudo-science?
Because I read. And I listen to what other people say. And then I think.
Three things that you seem incapable of doing.
ROFLMAO….. You haven’t got a skeptical bone in your body.
You may read but only what you believe can make it through your deep-seated brain-washing.
Heck .. Even your name is a LIE. !!
Is your real name John Cook, by any chance.
You seem about that level of anti-science.
You read what you are told to read.
You listen to people who agree with you.
You think about how best to lie about the science.
True.
The problem for a parent is raising children who can think for themselves on the one hand and yet thrive in society on the other hand. If your children are merely skeptical of everything, they won’t do very well.
Ummm…just curious about your take on this, reallyskeptical. There’s an entire movement in some classrooms at the college level now to eradicate the he/she biological aspect of the human species. In short, the social sciences are being rearranged (for want of a better word) to disavow the reality that reproduction is a he + she thing, and the creators of this sociological mess are substituting neutered terms for male and female humans.
In short, as it appears in this CO2peration proposal, the creators of this scam are doing their best to create a false reality which will have a severe impact on people who fall for it.
So are you including this kind of thing in you ‘non-scientific ideas’ meme? Just askin’.
Oh, yeah, I checked the “website”. It’s a scam to get money out of the gullible and not much else. I doubt you’ll get a tax deduction out of it.
reallyGullible: You mean like the idea that it is possible for computers to accurately model the climate?
Too true. Education is supposed to enable the young to read, think, and assess. Instead, they’re told what to believe, and punished if they stray from the party line. There’s a bright spot on the horizon, though. When they’re old and snarky enough to rebel (as all teenagers will be, eventually) … They’ll have plenty to say on this and related subjects. And they’ll know exactly who to blame.
Brainwashing. All religions have to do it.
Et tu, Jimmy?
Life itself is indoctrination; you learn what will kill you before you die. You learn what to eat; how to behave. Ignore this indoctrination at some peril. if everything is coming your way perhaps you are in the wrong lane.
Michael 2
It’s a pity you weren’t indoctrinated with the English language.
And how can something kill you before you die?
HotScot asked, “how can something kill you before you die?”
Much more easily than after you die.
Smart Rock wrote, “Null hypothesis is that there is no god. Disprove it.”
No, the null hypothesis is that what you experience is the truth. Since you experience the fact that your own body is qualitatively unique, in that it is the only body which houses your consciousness, but your body is not qualitatively physically unique, that means you are more than than the physical, more than merely your body chemistry.
Science gives no explanation for that fact. But God does: He, who is named “I am,” made you in His own image, and breathed His life into you.
Do you have an alternate explanation?
Dave, he whom made ‘i am’ made ‘i am’ in his own image as he whom made ‘i am’ could not imagine anything he had not experienced, thus, a man made God in his own image and decreed that God’s final act was to create that man and all men in the image of the God, that man had first created, the second thing man attributed to God was his own love of himself above all other things, including all of the heavenly creations.
Especially atheism.
Null hypothesis is that there is no god. Disprove it.
Can any thing come from no thing? Yes or No.
Nice bit of sophistry their rock.
BTW, thank you for admitting that you believe something that you can’t prove.
“Here’s a possible solution: “CO2peration” is an interactive, online game we developed for children aged 12-14.”
Bill Gates wouldn’t happen to be selling educational programs, games and computers to public schools, now would he, maestro?
One thing people can do is to make sure that they are not investing their retirement funds in computerized educational materials, and pharmaceuticals which drug these poor, institutionalized children playing “save the planet” and “gender unicorn” all day.
Check this one:
(Don’t overlook the word “tacitly”)
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/25/bill-gates-tacitly-admits-common-core-experiment-failure/
“in a politics- and emotion-free zone”
So it’s a field trip, then? Not like they’d find one at any Australian public school, y’know.
Disturbing.
CO2peration: n, the act of scolding someone for exhaling and enjoying the benefits of human production of carbon dioxide.
See: CO2, vituperation
More on the use of computer games in K-12:
http://www.cfact.org/2017/10/27/academic-develops-video-game-teaching-eco-terrorism/
“An academic at a public university created a computer game that allows players to torch oil pipelines and block energy projects to bring awareness to climate issues.
Elizabeth LaPensée, an assistant professor at Michigan State University, created a game earlier this month called Thunderbird Strike that allows players to use lightning bolts to destroy pipelines and trucks. The video game is scheduled to debut at the imagineNATIVE film and media arts festival later this month.
The game’s mission starts in Alberta, Canada’s oil tar sands and winds through the Great Lakes, while the player defends what the developer calls Turtle Island “with searing lightning against the snake that threatens to swallow the lands and waters whole,” according to the game’s website.”
According to Wikipedia, “…She studies and creates video games, visual art, and digital media to help indigenous people to confront and process intergenerational trauma…”
Almost certainly CREATING what she says she is trying to prevent.
The far-leftist way. !!!
Yuck.
I know. Sorry you had to see that, Eric! (:
These indoctrination campaigns are exactly the same sort of Child Abuse programmes that the Communists, Nazis and Muslims ran/run to spread belief in otherwise insupportable belief systems.
Sociologists would be more informed to study the psychopathology of those who create those kinds of programs than of the players.
Most sociologists I have ever encountered would do well to heed the admonition, “Physician, heal thyself!”
“I guess the idea that school is there to teach kids how to read and write and reason is way too old fashioned for modern educationalists”
Schools haven’t been about teaching kids how to read and write and reason since the Prussian system took over in the late-19th/early-20th centuries. That was all about indoctrinating the kids to love Big Brother, and it’s only grown worse over time.
“…If you’d like to support the CO2peration game, click here to help—there are some great rewards for those who pledge: from the mug’s game mug to having the creators plant trees on your behalf, there’s something for everyone. Get in early to get the best rewards—and change the game on climate change…”
I like the idea of “the mug’s game mug” (???).
If CO2peration really wanted to teach about ‘control factors such as green house gases’, it would be far more scientifically honest and grammatically accurate to name the game/site H2Operation! H2O, in solid, liquid, and gas phases, is the primary environmental ‘control knob’ for planet Earth.
“They don’t appear to have considered, or maybe don’t care that deliberately bringing many of the kids into conflict with their parents by force feeding the kids social justice and climate action dogma from a young age might disrupt their home life, which could have all manner of detrimental knock on effects.”
What???? So as long as the parents think it, it must be right? Are you serious? I for one am all for parents being contradicted if they teach their kids nonsense. And it is entirely right to teach children that looking after the planet is a reasonable thing to do. After all they will inherit it. And it is certainly right to teach mainstream science in schools. And it is recognised by pretty much every national representative science body that pumping CO2 into the air is warming the planet. I couldn’t care one bit how many parental feathers get ruffled in homes if teachers teach this. The only discussion point is how much warming and how much damage?
Who decides what is nonsense Simon?President Trump? Pauline Hanson if she wins the balance of power in the next Aussie federal election?
Riding roughshod over the views of parents stops being fun when it is your views being trampled.
Fun has nothing to do with it. Parents who physically or sexually abuse their kids don’t think it is fun when the police knock on their door. Parents who feed their kids crap breakfast lunch and dinner don’t think it is fun when the doctor tells them to sharpen their game. But sometimes parents are wrong and when they tell their kids CO2 has no affect on temperature, they are wrong. Teachers shouldn’t have any guilt about that. Good on them I say.
You’re still not seeing it Simon.
Leaving aside your deeply offensive suggestion that questioning a scientific theory is equivalent to sexual abuse of children, if parental rights are not respected, to whom do you turn when your kids are being indoctrinated with theories you don’t like?
Right or wrong, there is a deep political divide on this issue.
If you disrespect the parental rights of your opponents, if you forcefully indoctrinate their kids with your views, how will you object when your opponents win power, if they start using the same tactics in reverse?
Do you really want to turn schools into a free for all political battleground where everyone tries to create political child soldiers in their own image?
Simon;
Parents who physically or sexually abuse their kids don’t think it is fun when the police knock on their door.
Only an idiot or someone with an agenda would equate physical and sexual abuse with a candid discussion of sensitivity to CO2.
Parents who feed their kids crap breakfast lunch and dinner don’t think it is fun when the doctor tells them to sharpen their game.
Only an idiot or someone with an agenda would equate malnourishment with a candid discussion of sensitivity to CO2.
But sometimes parents are wrong and when they tell their kids CO2 has no affect on temperature, they are wrong.
Only an idiot or someone with an agenda would equate telling kids CO2 has no effect on temperature with a candid discussion of sensitivity to CO2.
Which are you Simon?
Eric
I’m not concerned with the politics, only the science, and the science says it is entirely appropriate to teach that our planet is warming because we are pumping CO2 into the air. Do you disagree with that?
We don’t know that Simon. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but the Earth’s past climate has been remarkably stable over a wide range of CO2 levels. So it seems likely the amount of CO2 we have and shall emit is inconsequential.
Simon October 29, 2017 at 8:39 pm:
” The only discussion point is how much warming and how much damage?”
Simon October 29, 2017 at 10:29 pm:
“I’m not concerned with the politics, only the science”
Simon, the science says miniscule warming due to CO2, producing benefits without damage. Only politics says there is to be damage. (None yet)
SR
Simon
There is no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes the planet to warm.
The only observable manifestation of increased atmospheric CO2 is that the planet has greened by 14% in the last 30 years. That’s it.
To all of you back room scientists…. find my the name of a climate scientist who does not concede part of the significant warming we are experiencing is due to mans contributions. Till then you are just blowing hot air… and we have enough of that.
The planet has warmed and cooled many times without us pumping CO2 into the air. The planet hasn’t been created in 1800 with the perfect temperature settings either. -20º C is too cold and that is the typical winter night temperature in places like Moskow, Minneapolis or Oslo. Our children deserve warmer places. Do you disagree with that?
“Simon October 30, 2017 at 1:15 am
To all of you back room scientists…. find my the name of a climate scientist who does not concede part of the significant warming we are experiencing is due to mans contributions.”
How about look at the data yourself? It’s a real eye/mind opener.
Simon thinks it is perfectly ok for children to be intellectually raped and systematically lied to in school.
Simon, there are uncertainties that have to be acknowledged. To compare trends from past normal climate shifts to the current one is to compare the mush of proxy data with the data of the instrumental record.
The proxy reconstructions simply lack the decadal resolution required for a valid comparison with the instrumental record.
Moreover, there is yet an accepted means to disentangle the “unnatural” from the “natural” in the current record. The current warming is shown to be consistent with the recovery from the last neo-glacial (The Little Ice Age) and at or near another warming peak of the millennial oscillations revealed in various proxy reconstructions. There is a distinct possibility the ACO2 warming contribution is negligible.
Clearly, if they are going to teach the CAGW point of view they have to teach where the science ends and the supposition begins. IMHO the topic is best left for post-secondary study.
All the science indicates that the small bit of warming that CO2 is capable of producing is 100% beneficial.
Combine that with the well documented greening that higher levels of CO2 is producing and there is no “damage” for you to be concerned about SimpleSimon.
SimpleSimon, the expert at false equivalencies.
First you claim that CO2 is going to cause damage.
Then to defend the claim that the small warming caused by CO2 is beneficial, you demand that someone provide you the name of a global warming scientist who doesn’t believe that some portion of the tiny warming the planet has experienced over the last 100 years isn’t caused by CO2.
1) By limiting the selection of scientists who are already recognized as part of the cabal, you seek to bias the answer.
2) Your criteria indicates either that you believe any warming must be bad, or you are attempting to lie to hide your previous mis-statements.
Simon;
find my the name of a climate scientist who does not concede part of the significant warming we are experiencing is due to mans contributions.
As I pointed out upthread, the debate is not over if some portion is due to our contribution, but what the sensitivity actually is. Find me a scientist who actually knows this. You can’t. The IPCC estimates range from 1.5 to 4.5 C, they have reduced that estimate in each of the last three AR reports (you know, the ones that are compiled regularly by the United Nations to update us on the best climate science in the world), they admitted that the models run hot, and even admitted that everything from life style changes and aging to technology will have not just more affect on our socioeconomic well being than climate change, but in fact MUCH more.
So by all means Simon, lets teach the kids cutting edge climate science, the ACTUAL climate science, which is that we don’t know what the contribution actually is, we’ve continuously reduced the estimate over the last 20 years, and we’ve figured out that the socioeconomic impacts to our lives will be a whole long list of things other than climate change.
Or do you have better science to refer to than what is quoted by the United Nations IPCC AR5, which is the best, mot peer reviewed climate science in the world according to them?
MarkW October 30, 2017 at 7:24 am
So MarkW calls me SimpleSimon. Wow that is so grown up.
OK so I am going to take it that no one was able to name a climate scientist who denies CO2 has provided some of the recent significant warming. In my book that means that it is reasonable for schools to teach this s as a fact. I do however think we need to be careful how we convey possible dangers ahead to children.
Simon October 30, 2017 at 9:17 pm
OK so I am going to take it that no one was able to name a climate scientist who denies CO2 has provided some of the recent significant warming.
I pee in the ocean. Name a single scientist who den*es that my pee raised the level of the ocean.
See how useless that is?
davidmhoffer
“See how useless that is?”
Mmmm I see how useless your argument is. Not a scientist on the planet would say you could measure that.
“find me the name of a climate scientist who does not concede part of the significant warming we are experiencing is due to mans contributions.”
ROFLMAO.. you forgot the trade mark sign !!
Its “climate scientist™”…… and many are not.
Simon, find me one paper that empirically proves CO2 has caused any warming.
Anything else is just suppository.
It matters not if a “climate scientist™” has conceded a non-fact or not.
“Not a scientist on the planet would say you could measure that.”
Not a scientist on the world has measured any warming from CO2.
So your point is.. as always… POINTLESS.
Simon;
Not a scientist on the planet would say you could measure that.
Excellent. You are staring to understand the difference between something being true and something being significant.
We exist on this planet, its not ours, we are not custodians…far too anthropocentric.
“Simon October 29, 2017 at 8:39 pm”
In Australia, Bill Nye’s videos get screened. That’s the level of “mainstream science” that is taught here.
Translation: Children must be taught that government is always right.
Next we teach the children to spy on their parents so and report them if they have any thoughts that the government disagrees with. Have to get such parents to the gulag before they can harm their children.
MarkW
“Translation: Children must be taught that government is always right.
Next we teach the children to spy on their parents so and report them if they have any thoughts that the government disagrees with. Have to get such parents to the gulag before they can harm their children.”
That is called paranoia…..
If this was driven by an ordinary citizen in Aus, it could be considered child abuse.