From the GWPF (UK):

Executive summary

We have found examples of serious errors, misleading claims, and bias through inadequate treatment of climate issues in school teaching materials. These include many widely-used textbooks, teaching-support resources, and pupil projects.

The National Curriculum has recently been reviewed by the government, but the proposed changes seem unlikely to prevent such practices.

Surveys show that many children are upset and frightened by what they are told is happening to the climate.

Teachers and administrators have a fairly free hand to choose textbooks, other materials, visiting speakers and school trips for pupils provided they fit in with curricular goals. This raises the risk that some may select alarming and politically loaded sources in order to win children over to the ‘environmental cause’.

This ‘cause’ is often presented through the notion of ‘sustainability’, a poorlydefined catchword covering political and personal actions for which fundamental criticism is rarely entertained.

Many campaigning NGOs and other organisations with vested interests such as energy companies proffer teaching materials and other resources for use in schools. Some of it is presumably being used.

There are clear grounds for very serious concern. We therefore call upon the Secretary of State for Education and his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to undertake urgent inquiries into climate change education in our schools. Only a systematic evaluation of what is going on can determine the extent of the indoctrination as well as the emotional and educational harm to pupils that is undoubtedly resulting.

Full report (PDF)

In other news, the kid who started ‘climate strike’ has connections:



  1. In the 50’s & 60’s – We had duck & cover. That was real potential climate change- 10,000+ degree change in a millisecond vs 1 degree in 150 years.

      • Muslims in Birmingham UK are taking their children out of schools because of enforced lbgtqxyz indoctrination classes. The schools are caving, presumably because Muslims rank higher on the victimhood ziggurat, and perhaps because they have a tendency to kill people with views objectionable to their own. But nothing will stop the ultra-left climate indoctrination.

      • I thought it was silly too, getting under a desk could not save anyone from a white hot mushroom cloud THAT big, one would be better off dead after that.

        • …duck & cover was not meant to protect you from the heat of the blast but from the shock/blast wave that would soon arrive. After a meteor shot across the sky near Chelyabinsk, Russia, in Feb 2013 many people were injured by the blast wave as they looked towards the trail in the sky. People standing outside or looking through windows suffered from the blast. There was enough time for most to “duck & cover”

          • You are correct. Lost in the muddle of government thinking they alone are wise to the 10 degree. “Ger-Nade” is not a preparatory command, but the act of immediate defensive action . “where is the Ger-Nade?” leaves no survivability. Some of the Duck-cover children/schools came from post war Japan Atomic bomb analysis, while most duck/cover came from U.S. testing study. My 1st introduction to duck/cover 3rd or 4th grade 1950’s did not explain by the teacher any reasoning of the heat blast or simple shock wave. This program was a ‘canned ready to use teacher ‘safety’ presentation. Presuming that a teacher in the mid 50’s knew little about the physics or blast radius.

          • Fred, similar to how teachers today have little real understanding of the climate system.

      • Yes that is the problem today, people are afraid to question and mock stupid ideas like climate change. This is the mechanism through which people are told what to think. In the seventies and eighties I was a science teacher and we taught sceptical steps in observation of laboratory experiments and when they were taken outside the same principles applied. The teachers of today are not teaching science as it was in Project Physics, an American project based learning schedule.

    • The brainwashing has got so bad here in the UK that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced that, from 2025, that new gas connections to homes will be banned in the UK. This is with no mandate or public debate.

      The decision has been made on advice from a handful of people on a small ‘climate change’ select committee. Many of these people, including the head of the committee Lord ‘trougher’ Deben (John Gummer), have their noses in the renewable energy trough, particularly the Drax power station.

      The Drax scheme spent billions in public subsidy to convert from coal use to wood-chip fuel made from cut-down ancient forest in the USA and shipped over to the UK. A number of the members on the Climate Change Committee have investments in Drax so it would benefit them considerably if gas generation was curtailed.

      Yet, the scheme, far from reducing CO2 output, increases it, likely in parallel with the increase in the money in the pockets of many members of the committee who made the decision.

      The total CO2 generated is more than the CO2 that would have been produced if it had remained coal powered at much cheaper cost. Far cheaper and cleaner still with further reduction in CO2 (as happened in the USA) if they built more gas fired electricity generating stations and allowed Fracking in the UK.

      • “Hot under the collar March 16, 2019 at 2:52 pm

        The brainwashing has got so bad here in the UK that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced that, from 2025, that new gas connections to homes will be banned in the UK. This is with no mandate or public debate.”

        Sounds just like 1973 all over again when Heath took the UK in to the common market with no vote, no mandate and no debate. And look how tough it is with Brexit.

      • I see the Climate Change Committee have been rumbled yet again regarding their snouts in the ‘renewable energy’ trough. This time his family company receiving money via ‘consultancy fees for promoting highly polluting Biomass burners, which receive massive public subsidies, but, highly profitable for any investor.

        It was wasting over £400 million on such schemes to rich landowners to heat swimming pools and empty buildings that led to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Government.

      • From an economic point, Drax had little choice but to change fuel. That just shows how bad the UK energy policy has got since governments got involved in running it, especially with their track record of never getting anything right.

        If I have read the new retarded proposal on new builds from 2025 correctly, gas connections will still be allowed as they acknowledge that there is a preference for gas cooking, even though I thought in their future plans this was to be outlawed. So with gas available you could retrofit gas CH and waterheating although I suspect they might make it illegal under the building regulations.

      • This obscenity is ALL about CO2
        1. Per therm of heat produced Coal is way more dense than wood chips
        2, Per therm of heat produced wood chips produce more CO2
        3. People who cannot do maths or understand logic are telling us that wood chips are carbon (dioxide) neutral) because trees turned to pellets are replaced by new trees which suck all the released CO2 up. A tree burned in seconds replaced by a tree taking 50 or more years to grow and they are trying to tell us A is balanced by B?
        4. The wood chips burned at Drax come from the US….. carried on diesel lorries processed in megga plants and then transported across the Atlantic in DIESEL POWERED ships!

        Drax is also getting 750 odd pounds a year in subsidies!

        And all this is to “save the planet”

        This is disgusting

    • Patvann

      Nah. Adult abuse.

      The kids will recover from it as they grow up. The adults will die in climate change ignorance.

    • @Patvann, exactly! Indoctrinated, purely for propaganda.
      Serious psychological damage is being done by this indoctrination.
      Repeated from an earlier post:

      I don’t think it’s appreciated how much damage is being done to our young. They should be looking forward to their future adventures in life but instead they have been depressed and filled with fear of catastrophe and loathing for the ‘evils’ of fossil fuels, believing fossil fuel company’s are Satan and will lead us to the end of the world! Many are saying they’re not going to have children and bring them into a world where climate change is going to kill them. After a recent programme on the BBC here in the UK last week (Victoria Derbyshire) where they talked to people who stated they weren’t going to have children because ‘climate change’, one young girl in my locality (aged about 12) cut her wrists she was so depressed and scared of climate change!

      This was a direct result of the propaganda from the BBC and the Guardian.

  2. I have been thinking for a while about writing a book (a short one as I’m not a writer) called something like, ‘The duffers guide to climate change’ – ‘The layman’s guide to climate change’, or something similar.

    Nothing fancy, mind. No great long scientific tracts going into detail about stuff that the likes of William Happer would eat for breakfast, but the simple things like CO2 has never been ’empirically’ demonstrated to cause warming, explaining, of course, what empirical means. If one is not a scientist it’s an alien term.

    Then just gently steer people through the fact’s, without being confrontational, to encourage people (particularly children) to ask questions beyond what the MSM and left wing teachers propagate, and perhaps give examples of how to get to the truth.

    I guess it would be sowing the seeds of scepticism rather than out and out disproving the ‘consensus’. Stupid things like helping people finding a study associated with a particular claim, then entering the title into Google appended with the term ‘debunked’. They don’t need to read or understand the study, simply appreciate that science is under attack all the time, from itself.

    My understanding is that less than 10% of the global population are scientists. In other words, most people don’t have a clue what sceptics are talking about because our ‘consensus’ is that people should understand the science and not listen to the propaganda. But how can that work when 90%+ of the world hasn’t a clue about science?

    If anyone has any interest in contributing or can offer some help to produce graphics (especially simplifying charts and presenting them appealingly) then please let me know. I’m sure Anthony would help us hook up and create something meaningful.

    • Hotscot; I have prepared such a simple document as a powerpoint. Obviously it can be extended but its a start. Anthony oviously has my email address. If he is willing to pass it on to you or send me your email address I will send you a copy. A word as to my background, while I am now retired, I have spent the last 42 years working as a research scientist/engineer for a spectroscopy company. Spectroscopy is the science underlying the interatction between electromagnetic energy and matter ie: the basis of green house gases. I have around 20 patents to my name.

        • Thomas; I would love to but every time I try to send a story to WUWT it disappears into a black hole. No doubt I am doing something wrong. If you can give me directions as to how to go about having it posted I will have another go.

          • Michael: I’ve never submitted a story. Did you follow the instructions on the “submit story” link? You could also post it on DropBox or a similar site and post a link here.

      • Send me one too.
        Mod. – OK to pass on my email if you actually do that.
        Ron Richey
        Eugene, OR

      • michael hammer

        I would love to see your presentation, but what I am hoping to put together is Janet and John stuff so what you send me may not appear as such. I’m happy to have Anthony send you my email address (Anthony, are you there?) which will better inform me on the subject.

        Factual content is paramount but detail will be limited. I want to do something that provides people with sound bites and references they can recall easily. Nor do I seek to attribute the information to anyone as listing names of sceptical scientists will have alarmists immediately condemn it and launch ad hom attacks.

        • Hotscot; I think you will find what I prepared is exactly the sort of thing you are talking about. Nothing technical, just snippets with diagrams along the line the global warming theory predicts A but what we find is NOT A. Or, the theory of climate change showed “this” in 1990 but by 2000 it had changed to “that” both based on the same data set. How come the same data can generate different results.

          I tried the more technical approach and it did not work. As soon as something was raised that conflicted with the listeners beliefs they simply insisted I did not know what I was talking about and was an idiot. Like when I tried to point out that oxygen and nitrogen have negligible emission in the thermal infra red. The comment back was, everything emits according to the Stefan Boltzman law and that included oxygen and nitrogen. The fact that I did not immediately agree just proved how ignorant and stupid I was. When I pointed out that gases that absorb and emit in the thermal IR are by definition green house gases and oxygen and nitrogen are NOT green house gases the point was ignored. Thus I have given up trying the technical approach. Instead I now try to point out conflicts and paradoxes in the CAGW theory.

          Anthony or moderators please put Hotscot and my self in contact by passing on an email address one way or the other.

          • michael

            Sounds interesting, as much for the reaction to your approach as anything else, that’s something I think is very important. Producing just another exposé is no use, as you say, it’s condemned as lies.

            What I’m hoping to do is put things in perspective e.g. just how long would it take to melt Antarctica, were it even possible, at even modelled projections of warming. What sea level really means when we consider the natural bulge of the earth, the centrifugal effect of it spinning, the effect of the sun & moon and even the difference the mass individual oceans make to it.

            I’ll have a look at a Dropbox account to see if I can set something up.

            If we initially keep returning here until I have found a solution (maybe I just set up a one off email account) then we can keep in touch.

    • Marc Morano’s ‘the politically incorrect guide to Climate Change’ already does this at secondary school level. It is currently the best selling climate science book (much to the anger of greenpeace et al).

    • Hot Scot, admirable but very vulnerable to the usual challenge that one is not a climate scientist. It’s even leveled at Dr Happer who has inventions based on radiative physics and despite the fact there are more sociologists, social psychologists, philosophers, polisci types and journalists bleating on and writing papers on it.

      Maybe a book on the history of inculcating fear as a strategy for political change by totalitarians. There is a good supply of examples going back to the 18th Century and not a single thing ever has come to pass. Call it stop being afraid.

    • I have found that (to enlighten people) it is unnecessary to discuss the various hypotheses. Simpler is better.
      Using about 4-5 graphs of temperature (and sometimes CO2) is sufficient:
      600 MY fossil records show some powerful factors (other than CO2), that we do not understand. Those factors will probably show up again, sometime.
      5.5 MY ocean sediment cores show we are falling into deepening ice age, and why that is we do not understand.
      1 MY ice cores show glacial cycles, and we don’t have to understand Milankovitch to see the patterns.
      12 KY records show warming and cooling at rates that show current behavior is not unusual, and we can see the patterns without understanding hypotheses about clouds or sunspots or whatever.
      All people really need to see is the patterns and trends, and to recognize that those will continue.

    • “…science is under attack all the time, from itself.” A profundity. As Einstein once said, “Science is the destruction of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” The catastrophic man made climate change hypothesis is just one such hypothesis that is in dire need of destruction by ugly (to them) facts. ( An honest scientist would never consider a fact to be ugly). The facts are out there to which Mr Watts and others admirably testify. But the progressive take over of academia and the MSM is preventing the facts from reaching the public. That’s why we all must speak out at whatever level is open to us even if it is only letters to the editors and our Congress persons. You never know whose eyes are going to see your written word and have a “Good point. I never thought of it like that before” moment. That too is why I say Hot Scot, keep up the good work.

  3. In my school career, the height of the bomb-scare was 1950-51. As a 3rd-grader I knew nothing of radiation or vaporization but a school desk did not impress me much as protection from a bomb. My father told me not to worry about it, it was not going to happen.

    From what I have seen since there are an awful lot of people that need to be scared of something. But climate change, give me a break. Why not fear a pandemic or a major asteroid strike instead.

    • Jon Salmi: “Why not fear a pandemic or a major asteroid strike instead.”

      Because you can’t tax an asteroid strike.

    • Do you really think those who came up with duck and cover intended it as protection against an actual atomic explosion? No, it was intended to help protect against a collapsing building, much like getting under a sturdy desk, or standing in a doorway during an earthquake. I would think it would be much better than just sitting around.

      • Jeff, that was NOT the case in my neck of the woods when I was in grammar school.

        The rationale given to parents and students was that this would protect you from direct contact with “radioactive” dust. Of course that was silly for many reasons; but is it any worse than teachers today convincing children the world will end in 12 years unless we take action now! (Always a bit fuzzy about what action they expect to be taken.)

        • I experienced “duck and cover” drills in Florida. I thought the purpose was to avoid blast damage – flying glass, that would be experienced around the perimeter of the direct kill zone. We already had been advised to avoid windows during severe weather like tornadoes and hurricanes. This was mostly just more of the same.

  4. Around 2004 I was a student on a teacher training course to teach science in schools. It was made vividly clear to us that if we did not teach the “Global Warming” (as it was then marketed as) as “settled science” we would fail the course and therefore not become qualified teachers. This threat was not confined to global warming. Almost every school subject had various themes that had to be taught in a particular way, in accordance with the National Curriculum. In a nutshell, we had to teach that our white ancestors had made errors (Slave Trade, colonialism, inequality, racism, sexism, poverty, war, CFCs…) for which today’s children now had to atone and pay compensation. “Global Warming” (aloong with the then popular “Peak Oil”) was special in that it figured in many subjects, not just Physics. It still figures in even most school text books today, though sometimes marginally diluted compared with Peak Panic. I doubt if today’s teachers would risk a run-in with Ofsted inspectors by presenting a skeptical viewpoint in their lessons. Mortgages, food, you know.

  5. How strange this whole issue is: adults in the USA increasingly vote Climate Change as a very low-level concern, yet media, movie stars, left-side politicians, and, it seems, a lot of teachers, insist on the we’re doomed in ten years scenario. This must surely suggest that this issue of climate change is just too good of a topic to beat conservatives, professionals, SUV owners (gasp!), over the head with to let go of. I’m personally hoping for a Little Ice Age to freeze some reality into these people. Don’t tell me about the suffering in a Little Ice Age because I don’t actually have the control knob in my hand.

    • It is a slow takeover by the Left. Why do you think Sonia Sotomayor was appointed to the Supreme Court? Because of her brilliant legal mind? It was to pave the way for the future – socialism. A system based on a class struggle. Based on hatred.

      • SS is obese with Type 1 diabetes. That combination has a VERY poor prognosis. Irrespective of the quality of her legal reasoning, Nature will resolve the problem in short order.

        • Istvan “Irrespective of the quality of her legal reasoning,”

          See my comment below on Ricci & Shutte – zero quality

      • Sotomayor has demostrated multiple times that she lacks the intellect to be on the Supreme Court. Intellectually, she didnt even belong on CA2.

        The Ricci case showed she highly biased.
        The Shutte/BAMM case showed she was highly biased and quite ignorant of 14A
        Ideology, she doesnt belong on any court.

        I dont agree with kagan ideology, but she at least has the intellect to belong on the court.
        Sotomayor not even close

    • Think about it. Right now we have ~relative~ peace and prosperity across the entire world. No major wars with tens of thousands of casualties. No famines or epidemics producing same. No depressions, in fact we are in a Golden Age of wealth creation. So what is the party out of power to do? What issues can they run on? “Vote for us, we’ll cause the seas to recede and Heal the Planet!!” We’ll also steal from the rich and give the money to the slackers who “don’t want to work,” the druggies and the fools. We’ll demand “reparations” from the whole of Western history paid to anybody who “identifies” as a victim! Yeah, sounds good!

      (Truth is, it’s all they’ve got).

  6. Government schools exist to brainwash kids; it’s not a flaw, it’s exactly what the Prussians designed them to do.

    Which is why no sane parent sends their kid to a government school. Homeschooling is one reason for the growing opposition to ever-increasing government power in America; if the authoritarians can’t indoctrinate the kids, they can’t as easily get their support and votes.

  7. Look at this :

    An incredible bunch of propaganda, fake-science and climate bullshit.

    Example :

    “Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.”

    So, for those climate clowns, Earth can heat itself with some of its own heat radiated backward …

    Those deplorable clowns should avoid to look at themselves in a mirror since according to their fake-science, they could burn.

    • Petit Barde; actually the quote you give is correct. At a very basic level, that is how greenhouse gases act. Its also how a blanket keeps you warm. The most obvious example possibly is the use of a foil blanket just a thin layer of plastic with a shiny metallic surface (often used for exposure emergencies). The metal reflects back the energy radiated by the body and thus stops it being lost to space.

      Skeptics are not saying that green house gases do not act to make Earth warmer because they do. The issue is, how much incremental warming does doubling CO2 concentration cause. Even on this issue there is less disagreement than one might suppose. Both sides agree the direct impact of doubling CO2 is about 1C rise in temperature. The real issue is feedbacks, are they positive (increasing the rise to 3C or more) or are they negative reducing the rise to 0.3C. In this context it is worth noting that all natural stable systems exibit negative feedback – indeed negative feedback is more or less an essential requirement for a stable system.

      • michael hammer – March 16, 2019 at 2:47 pm

        Skeptics are not saying that green house gases do not act to make Earth warmer because they do. The issue is, how much incremental warming does doubling CO2 concentration cause. Even on this issue there is less disagreement than one might suppose. Both sides agree the direct impact of doubling CO2 is about 1C rise in temperature.

        Michael H, me thinks you are in serious need of an education in the sciences of the natural world.

        Actually, skeptics claim that GHGs inhibit the earth’s surface from cooling off as fast, they don’t claim GHGs make the surface warmer/hotter.

        “DUH”, neither GHGs nor cotton blankets are thermal energy (heat) producers, therefore they cannot make something “hotter”.

        And “NO”, learned science “skeptics” have never claimed that the doubling of atmospheric CO2 (to 800+ ppm) would cause about 1C rise in temperature, ….. because that would be a stupid, idiotic, asinine claim ………… given the fact that the most potent GHG, ….. H20 vapor, …. regularly and often increases from 10,000 ppm to 30,000+ ppm without causing a 50F to 150F increase in surface temps.

      • Michael : “Petit Barde; actually the quote you give is correct.”

        No, I’m afraid its not :

        – A system can’t heat itself with part of its own heat, be that heat reflected or absorbed and then emitted does not change the rule.

        The fact that greenhouse gases absorb a photon emitted by the assumed warmer ground and then half of the time emits a photon with the same energy back to the ground does not heat the ground since this energy comes from the ground :
        – radiative fluxes are not heat transfer, only their net balance can be interpreted as a heat transfer.
        In this case, it is the ground which heats the atmosphere, since by hypothesis, it is warmer than the atmosphere.

        It is the same thing with two black bodies, the first is at 350 K, the second is at 300 K :
        – does the second black body heat the first one ? No. It just slows down the cooling of the first one. But only the first black body actually warms the second one.

        It is he same with the ground and atmosphere which by the way do not behave as black bodies, but as for heat transfer, the analogy holds, assuming that the ground is warmer than the atmosphere.

        The diagram below shows the actual heat transfer between the surface and the atmosphere :

        Instead of the sentence I quoted in my previous post, this diagram is correct : and nowhere the atmosphere heats the surface.

        In the diagram below :

        – the atmosphere (clouds excluded) actually absorbs 117% (upward flux) – 100% (backward flux) – 12% (atmospheric window) = 5% and hence, emits backward 5% (due to isotropic greenhouses emission) so 95% of the backward flux in the diagram is actually caused by the clouds.

        Clouds absorb (as droplets do) infrared in a few microns and then emit it again (almost all infrared is emitted back) : this is why the backward flux is so huge. Another reason is because clouds (due to latent heat of condensation ) are much warmer than atmosphere at the same altitude (and hence, they emit more).

        • Petit_Barde – March 16, 2019 at 4:23 pm

          (almost all infrared is emitted back) : this is why the backward flux is so huge.

          Petit_B, …….. “emitted back” where to? Surely not back toward the surface.

          And Petit_B, …. is not your cited diagram missing an extremely important thermal energy transport mechanism and surely the most important of all, namely “conduction”.

          Conduction of thermal (heat) energy from the heated surface to all atmospheric gases that make contact with said surface …. which is what “warms up” the N2, O2, etc. in the near surface air ….. and then conduction of thermal (heat) energy between all the different air molecules that make contact with each other.

    • Petit Barde; on reading my previous comment I realise that one point in what I wrote could be confusing. The foil blanket I talked about works by reflecting infra red energy. Green house gases do not reflect energy, they absorb at certain wavelengths which causes them to heat up and since they absorb they also radiate at those same IR wavelengths. Some of that radiated energy is indeed downwards and is absorbed at the surface. Maybe I should have used the example of a convetional woollen blanket instead. In either case however the effect is the same. By the way, clouds do the same thing and at night it is easy to feel the temperature difference between a clear sky and a cloudy sky.

      • As I understand, the greenhouse effect is caused by the heating of the Earth by sunlight at largely visible wavelengths 400-700 nm that pass readily through the atmosphere and the CO2. The Earth reradiates at much longer infrared wavelengths and CO2 absorbs wavelengths at about 15 um. These emissions are reradiated, some back to the Earth slowing its cooling and thus raising the temperature. So the CO2 acts like a peculiar blanket that allows energy as light in and slows the loss of energy as infrared out. As with adding another blanket, adding more CO2 has an ever reducing effect on the warming.
        Note that the 15 um absorption of CO2 is largely overlapped by the absorption of water vapour, reducing the effect of increasing CO2 in a humid atmosphere.

        • Malcolm,your comments are correct. By the way, the total atmospheric absorbance of CO2 is so high (saturated) that increasing the concentration has no effect at the line center. What increasing the concentration does is to broaden the absorption line so energy is absorbed over a slightly greater range of wavelengths. This line broadening is what gives the logarithmic effect. In fact all green house gases of significance are saturated at the line center and incremental impact is via line broadening which is why all display the logarithmic relationship. This is because the line width before broadening is usually so narrow that it has little total impact.

          The CO2 line overlaps with water vapour at the long wavelength side around 16 microns but not at the short wavelength side around 14 microns.

          Petit-Barde your objection is based on a very narrow semantic definition. You insist the GHG does not warm the surface but you admit “it slows down the rate of cooling” – actually the rate of energy loss. OK use your terminology the end result is the surface is warmer than it would be if the GHG were not present. You can personally experience the same thing readily. Standing outside on a cold calm night in winter you feel cold but when you step back inside into the warm room you feel much warmer. The temperature in the room is lower than your body temperature so by your argument it cannot warm you yet you feel warmer!!!!!

          The “scientific” answer – when standing outside you radiate to space at a body temperature of say 30C (303K) (depends on how well you are insulated) and space radiates back to you at a temperature of 4K. Lots of outward radiation very little back so you lose a lot of energy. Inside the room you still radiate to the room at 30C but the room radiates back to you at say 20C (whatever the temperature of the walls is). The radiation from the 20C (293K) walls is much greater than from the 4K space so while you till lose net energy the loss inside the room is less than outside so you feel warmer. Technically one can argue the room does not warm you (you still lose net energy) but in common parlance it makes you warmer compared to standing outside. Hence you host is likely to say “come inside and warm up”. Still cold, put on a jumper and that will warm you up more except of course by you terminology the jumper has no intrinsic source of energy so it cant “warm you up”

          The same applies here, the presence of GHG makes the surface warmer than it would be without the GHG being present.

          • michael hammer – March 16, 2019 at 9:44 pm

            What increasing the concentration does is to broaden the absorption line so energy is absorbed over a slightly greater range of wavelengths.

            Michael, …… pray tell, …. what is the physical attribute that a CO2 molecule possesses that “triggers” it’s IR absorption spectrum frequency to be automatically modified just because additional CO2 molecules were added to the atmospheric quantity …… which exceeded a predetermined number of said molecules?

            WOW, ….. CO2 molecules that can count numerically, …… Sounds like AI (artificial intelligence) to me,

            The same applies here, the presence of GHG makes the surface warmer than it would be without the GHG being present.

            That was shur a cutey, …… “bait & switch”, HUH?

            Bait with “CO2” …… and then switch to “GHG”.

            The only GHG in earth’s atmosphere that can cause or does cause a measurable or noticeable effect on the surface temperature is the GHG water (H2O) vapor.

            The atmospheric quantity of the GHG CO2 matters not one twit if its concentration is less than 2,000 ppm.

            Desert environment are “proof positive” of the aforesaid fact.

          • OK Samuel; remember you asked! The absorption lines of gases are extremely close to a a gaussian in shape. Imagine the CO2 in our atmosphere as a block of CO2. Doubling the concentration is equivalent to placing 2 identical blocks one after the other. The surface radiation passes through both blocks one after the other. So what is the effect of the second block?

            Its like putting a signal through a filter twice. Mathematically the process is described as convolution. If you don’t know what that is, its probably simpler for you to look up convolution on the web rather than me try to explain it here. But gaussian profiles have a very interesting property with regard to convolution. If you convolve a gaussian with itself the result is also a gaussian with the same mean but a larger standard deviation.
            ie: the gaussian gets wider. Each time one convolves the gaussian with itself the result is about the same increase in width. In this case, convolving the gaussian with itself is a mathematical way of saying “doubling the concentration of CO2”.

            If we assume the energy density over the line is roughly constant (that assumption breaks down as the line gets very wide – Planks Law – but as a first pass simplification its reasonable) then the increase in energy intercepted for each doubling is about the same. Hence the logarithmic relationship.

            You want a non mathematical subjective explanation? For a gaussian shape the absorption never goes to exactly zero. There is always a small amount of absorption out in the wings of the line. By doubling the CO2 the absorption out in those wings increases simply because the radiation has to go through more CO2 so while near the line center all the energy is intercepted anyway, out in the wings some energy that would not have been intercepted will now be intercepted. Hence the apparent line width increases.

            In extreme cases its possible to get to the point where the emitting/absorbing line gets so wide it starts to look like continuum emission/absorption. That point is deliberately created in some digital projector lamps where the pressure of the emitting gas in the lamp is around 1000 psi. The normally narrow lines of the emitting gas are broadened into a virtual continuum.

            Hope this clarifies the situation for you.

          • Michael Hammer – March 17, 2019 at 1:44 pm

            Doubling the concentration is equivalent to placing 2 identical blocks (of CO2) one after the other.

            Michael, don’t be talking trash. Or should I say, don’t be doubling the height of the earth’s
            Troposphere from 16 km to 32 km. So, Michael, … IMAGINE doubling the density of the CO2 in the troposphere, NOT the vertical height.

            Its like putting a signal through a filter twice.

            Who the ell cares when YOUR filter (atmospheric CO2 molecules) are only capable of intercepting (absorbing), most probably LESS THAN 10% of the IR being radiated from the surface.

            IR radiating from the surface toward CO2 molecules in the air is AKIN TO ….. shooting a shotgun at a flock of birds flying overhead. Not every lead pellet strikes a bird and not every bird in the flock get struck with a lead pellet.

            For a gaussian shape the absorption never goes to exactly zero.

            Michael, get back on SUBJECT. And the subject is, ….. IR surface radiation and atmospheric CO2 quantities.

            There is always a small amount of absorption out in the wings of the line. By doubling the CO2 the absorption out in those wings increases simply because the radiation has to go through more CO2 so while near the line center all the energy is intercepted anyway, out in the wings some energy that would not have been intercepted will now be intercepted.

            Michael, what makes you think that the “centerline” of the IR radiation being emitted by the surface ALWAYs strikes an atmospheric CO2 molecule “dead center” if the ppm quantity is LESS THAN 400 ppm, …… but iffen the ppm quantity is greater than 400 ppm …. the “wings” of the IR radiation being emitted by the surface begins crashing into that added CO2?

            Michael, iffen you are going to describe the IR emission from the surface as being like a rifle “bullet” ….. then its not a single-shot rifle, ……. it’s a multi, multi barreled machine gun, all in rapid-fire mode. Its like …… wave after wave after wave after wave .… until things cool off.

            And the more CO2 you add to the atmosphere ….. the more IR “collisions” occurs. But who cares? Even at 2,000 ppm CO2 one could still not detect any temperature change.

            Quit talking mathematical “models” ……. and “closed environment” experimentation.

  8. Misleading information!!! My granddaughter brought home some printed school material in which it said that CO2 was the third most common constituent of a dry atmosphere. Wjen this error was pointed out her teacher said she would check. I despair.

    • Third or fourth, “third most common constituent” is pretty twisted and misleading way to describe it. Especially when you have to use hypothetical qualifier like “dry” air to rig ratings.

      There’s 78%, 21% and the “also-rans”.

      CO2 is a trace gas …. because there is only a trace of it in the atmosphere.

      The day I was born, I was the third most aged and the third most productive member of our household.

      Good for GWPF for shining a light on this abusive indoctrination of our youth BY OUR SCHOOLS.

    • We Grandparents have an important role to balance what our Grandchildren are taught. Their parents’ generation is a lost cause to some extent.

      • I’ve already started with the science on the little sponge that is my three year old grandson. I have my daughter’s full approval.

  9. As life neared death’s door
    Prometheus saved Gaia
    By giving Man fire

    With ev’ry dead tree that burns
    The CO2 Cycle turns

      • ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

        Not really. The very first sentence is confrontational and will evoke the response so many repeat here “BS!”

        Thereafter the discussion is closed even before it’s begun.

    • Sheri –
      Thank you for that great nostalgic article. It was a good description of my very pleasant grammar school experience in suburban NJ 65 years ago; bringing back great memories.
      We did not have school buses forcing us to get up hours before the start of class. No one was driven to school; we walked to and from with friends, often taking time for some play on the way, or in the dirt school yard before or after school hours. We went home for a nice lunch prepared by our mothers. (If mom was going to be gone for the day, one of the classrooms doubled as a lunch room for those who “brown bagged” that day.)

      Families had one car and often only one driver. There was fresh air in the classrooms; neither schools nor homes had air-conditioning (you’d go to the local motion picture theatre to obtain that experience). White boards had not yet been introduced; pupils were “volunteered” to clap the erasers after class (which usually involved eraser fights with lots of chalk dust. )

      Our caring school staff consisted of a school secretary, a half time principle (he had two schools) and a janitor for a student body of about 250 (K-8). We were well grounded in our subjects of English, arithmetic, history, geography, music (all teachers learned piano in normal school), and in the 7th and 8th grades we were introduced to “social studies” (which I saw as a combination of history and geography).

      Oh, wait! You say this is supposed to describe a scary, dystopian picture for today’s students to help them understand what they are actually asking for?!?

      Well, as you can see I actually lived through that “horrible” experience; and am none the worse for wear.

  10. I’ll bet I’ve donated upwards of $700 dollars, in the last 10 years or so, towards WUWT and Anthony.
    Best money I’ve ever spent.
    Prove me wrong.

  11. There’s a particularly bad classroom tool called BrainPop. I’m constantly correcting it.

  12. We the human race have always had “Brain washing” in its varying forms.

    Go back to say the 14h Century, after the great Cathedrals of Europe had
    been built, and consider how a farm worker, a poorly educated person, would
    feel upon entering such a magnificent building. The interior would be a bit
    dim, but the windows with beautiful stained glass showing the stories from
    scenes in the Bible would make a strong impression on such a poor educated

    The sermons would build on this by telling such a person that while life on
    Earth was a bit miserable if they did what they were told to do by their
    Masters, when they died they would go to Paradise. And of course the reverse
    Hell was there for those who did not so behave.

    The Christian Church has been going for 2000 years and Islam almost as
    long, so it obviously works. So is it brain washing ? I would say so.

    I recall reading of a conversation between a high ranking Roman to a friend
    on passing a Church, that it was a religion “Fit for slaves “.

    Emperor Constantine possibly chose Christianity for just that same reason,
    he carefully Cherry Picked the bits that he approved of, and in the process as
    we are now finding out, a lot which was discarded would have given us a very
    different view of the Jesus story.


  13. I think many education authorities deliberately scare kids in order to make them more amenable to being led. My daughter was in high school in the 1980s. She said that some of the boys in her class were apathetic. They said that it didn’t make any difference what they did because the world was going to blow up. (We had talked about this at home and explained why it was extremely unlikely).

    I was in school during World War 2. There were kids in my school who had been evacuated from England and a boy who was at Pearl Harbor the day it was bombed. We knew something very serious was going on, but we also knew that the adults would do everything they could to protect us. Kids nowadays get the idea that they are completely unprotected.

  14. This’ll be why the kids have taken to the streets, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

  15. At the Ann Arbor kids march to stop climate change I saw a couple of signs that said, “Make love not CO2.” Okaaaay. It reminded me of an old joke. “Are you coming? Nope, just breathing hard.” So it looks like in this age of insane climate fear sex is OK but it must be done very quietly, without passion and for God’s sake, NO HEAVY BREATHING!

    • Saw a sign “I heard there would be cake”
      Thinking about making one, and stashing it in my car, then if I happen past a march I can join in with my sign.
      However, maybe people wouldn’t like it, and it might be dangerous, not as dangerous as a red MAGA hat, or a sign that says CO2 is plant food, but still ….

  16. One of my children (17 years old) went to a climate strike yesterday 🙁

    So, in an attempt to clarify the behavior of “greenhouse” gases I proposed him an analogy between
    the “Earth’s surface + atmosphere + vacuum” and the Spacelab.

    First of all, some words about one of the problems with Spacelab :
    – Since there is neither conduction, nor convection in the vacuum, the only way for SpaceLab to cool down is to radiate, but the radiation of a surface induces a very slow cooling rate (much slower than with conduction and atmospheric convection). Due to Spacelab form, the Spacelab walls radiative cooling rate alone is too slow, this is why Spacelab is actually a giant fridge with a redundant cooling system and several huge radiators (12 by 50 feet each).

    See NASA article :

    This is how the analogy stands :

    1) Inside the Spacelab Earth’s surface.

    2) The cooling system of the Spacelab (Pump module + cooling loops + radiators) The atmosphere :

    – a) Spacelab Pump module and cooling loops transfer heat from inside the Spacelab to the radiators

    heat transfer by evaporation, conduction, convection, condensation from the Earth’s surface to the upper troposphere,

    – b) Radiators outside of Spacelab

    greenhouse gases which lose heat in the vacuum by infrared emission in the upper troposphere,

    – c) In the process, some of the emission of the radiators go back to the Spacelab walls and hence, slows down somewhat the cooling process, but without radiators there would be almost no cooling and the Spacelab inside temperature would increase.
    This is also true with the pump : the motor produces some heat that slow down the cooling process, but without the pump, there would be almost no cooling and the Spacelab inside temperature would increase.

    greenhouse gases near the surface actually absorb some of the infrared emitted by the Earth’s surface and slow down somewhat the surface cooling rate, but without greenhouse gases, there would be no atmospheric cooling at all and a new radiative equilibrium would have to be reached involving a Earth’s surface emission increase (and hence a Earth’s surface temperature increase).
    The same holds with convection : some friction might warms somewhat the atmosphere and hence slows down the cooling process, but without convection, there would be almost no cooling of the Earth’s surface.

    I hope this is less fake-science than what is actually taught to children.

    • Oups … equivalence symbols disappeared :

      1) Inside the Spacelab is equivalent to : Earth’s surface.

      2) The cooling system of the Spacelab (Pump module + cooling loops + radiators) is equivalent to : The atmosphere

      In a), b) and c) : each line break means “is equivalent to :”

  17. “Kids nowadays get the idea that they are completely unprotected.”

    They’re being told that Democrats can control the weather. And they believe it.

  18. It is woeful and disgusting that “educators” are now actively teaching kids WHAT to think – not HOW to think. I really don’t know how these charlatans sleep at night.

    • I am pretty sure my first experience being told what to think, instead of what is, was Earth Day, 1970.


Comments are closed.