It is little wonder that kids are scared when grown-ups paint such a horrific picture of global warming.
For starters, leading politicians and much of the media have prioritized climate change over other issues facing the planet. Last September, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres described climate change as a “direct existential threat” that may become a “runaway” problem. Just last month, The New York Times ran a front-page commentary on the issue with the headline “Time to Panic.” And some prominent politicians, as well as many activists, have taken the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to suggest the world will come to an end in just 12 years.
This normalization of extreme language reflects decades of climate-change alarmism.
Read more in my latest article for Project Syndicate: http://ow.ly/esXK50nrxfs
When I was in elementary school in the early 80s the alarmists of that time were preaching peak oil. I remember very well an assembly where they showed the whole school a movie foretelling of the coming energy crisis because pur parents were using up all the world’s oil. There would be wars, famines and plagues if we didn’t go home and tell our parents to conserve energy. The images of our future were horrifying. So I did. My father worked as an executive in a company that provided tungsten carbide inserts to the oil rigs. He laughed amd showed me an article in an oil industry journal about a study where scientists drilled for oil in some of the places least likely to have oil and even there they found if you drilled deep enough you would find it. Then he said “we’re never running out. Don’t believe everything your teachers tell you.” Many of my classmates were not lucky enough to have parents that taught some skepticism. So they bought it. My own kids today are assailed by the same lies. They are also being taught to be skeptics be me (and their grandpa remembers that story…unfortunately he doesn’t have the industry journal any more).
The reality is that there has not been any serious work done to quantify natural climate change.
Thus we get never ending arguments over who’s guess might be correct.
What would the increase in global temperature have been when we came out of the Little Ice Age if CO2 levels had remained at 280ppm?
Apparently we have had 2 degrees C of warming since 1850 to the present day, much of which happened by the early 1900s, so would the increase have continued or stopped at the 1910 temperature?
I’d love to see professionally done polls of scientists, statisticians in the field, and engineers (including crony scientists…i.e. those on the AWG dole) showing how many would subscribe to:
1.) Runaway warming being certain before 2050.
2.) …before 2100
3.) …Ever
Where are actual questionnaires of climate scientists? Questionnaires sent to ALL scientists and Engineers?
I’d like to see the statistical reports broken down by Sources of funding. Listings if Publication contributions (authored, reviewed, cited) would also be informative.
Is that crap study by the cartoonist Cook all we have?
Where’s Gallop, Zogby, Reuters, BBC (cringe), Harris, Rasmussen and the rest?
Did I miss them? I’ve searched for hours and all I get is poorly executed polls with poorly written conclusions all saying “95-or more percent agree the Climate has been warming”. That number should be 99 +/- 1%.
I know there is no 97% consensus in Catastrophic Climate Change…but I don’t know what the truth is.
WUWT?
97% refers to 75 carefully selected “scientists” worldwide, see Gabro’s comment
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/10/freeman-dyson-on-heretical-thoughts-about-global-warmimg/#comment-2205470
Lomborg is correct “Paris will – in the best case – fix just 1% of the climate problem [sic]” and that Nature found “no major advanced industrialized country is on track to meet its pledges”.
The whole debate has descended into a ‘tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing’.
And just think of the extreme language they use on any other issue.
They didn’t throw the Jews in the camps on the first day – they spent about ten years justifying it first.
The left’s preferred tactic to get a population of sheeple is encourage hostility been the generations, so that when the oldies have gone (by whatever means that takes) the new generation of the indoctrinated can be better used.
Does anyone else think it ironic that the child protesters in the video are well wrapped to fight the cold weather using fossil fuel-based clothing?
How many of their parents allow these fossil fools to make all other decisions in their households?
Will they listen to and heed the future demands of their own children should they deign to have them?
Well fed (They don’t even have to cook, just dial up on their smart phone app for home delivery), healthy, fit(-ish), ample tech, ample free time to learn rather than work in fields usually ending in agonising death, fossil fuelled transport, power, well clothed…
Yeah ironic!
The Economist recently published a world-wide poll that was privately commissioned by Nitto Denko Corporation:
https://www.nitto.com/eu/en/about_us/gallery/prioritiesofprogress/whitepaper.html
Although it seems they didn’t specifically ask about climate or global warming, once again the world’s people consistently ranked the environment last, or second-last to R&D, when asked to prioritize. And once again, it is clear the elites with their snouts in the bureaucrats’ trough are still completely out of touch with the citizens of the world. (I assume they surveyed adults and not a bunch of D-grade school kids bunking off school with some teachers who didn’t fancy trying to educate the kids that day or any other day.)
Thanks for all the great comments. It helps me in better understanding the highly complex issues and how others think about them. If it weren’t for you all, I might be buying into the propaganda.
One of the things I have learned over the many years is that you really shouldn’t trust those in politically derived positions or the corporate media who seem to be their voices.
A great book is Lincoln Unmasked by Thomas Di Lorenzo. He dedicates a chapter or two to what he calls the gatekeepers, those who try to cover up and continue to cover up facts and events. As people are able to research and communicate better and cheaper, it’s just easier to get and share information. Thinking that we will not learn things hidden by those in political and economic power is really naive.
As an example, a woman writing on the history of railroads found receipts and deeds with Abe Lincoln signatures on them at strategic sites such as turnarounds and stations along the railroad lines the Republicans in Congress were subsidizing. It is common knowledge Lincoln worked as an Attorney for the railroads even having his own railcar before being elected President and dabbled as a land speculator.
No conflict of interest in his actions, right? You don’t really think he was elected President because he was so honest, do you? Read the book you’ll learn a lot more about “honest” Abe.
I think that these students should shift the focus of their environmental beliefs/activism from “climate change” – which is only somewhat caused by mankind with its greenhouse gas emissions anyway – to genuine environmental issues like biodiversity decline (including the poaching crisis), the global plastics/garbage problem, and noxious air/water pollution, as well as potential asteroid strikes, the anti-vaccination movement and the associated measles comeback, and the antibiotics crisis.