Educating kids to debate alarming climate claims

Important new project provides videos and short non-technical issue briefs for students

Paul Driessen

It’s time to challenge the steady diet of bias, false information and alarmism on climate change that students are fed in and outside of their classrooms. Science and public policy analyst Dr. David Wojick has launched an important new project to do exactly that.

From kindergarten onward, our young people are repeatedly told that they, our wildlife and our planet face unprecedented cataclysms from manmade climate change, resulting from our fossil fuel use. The science is settled, they are constantly hoodwinked, and little or no discussion is allowed in classrooms.

They thus hear virtually nothing about the growing gap between computer model predictions and satellite temperature measurements; questions about data manipulation by scientists advocating the dangerous manmade climate change narrative; the hundreds of scientists who do not agree with the supposed “consensus” on manmade climate chaos; or the absence of any real-world evidence to support claims of carbon dioxide-driven coral bleaching, species extinctions, or the seemingly endless litany of ever more absurd assertions that fossil fuel emissions are making sharks right-handed, arctic plants too tall, pigs skinnier and salmon unable to detect danger, to cite just a few crazy examples.

Students are rarely told that the United States enjoyed a record 12-year absence of category 3-5 hurricanes making landfall between 2005 and 2017, or that 1944-1950 was the worst period in history for monster hurricanes hitting Florida. They’re not told the U.S. had 40% fewer “violent” (F4-5) tornadoes per year in 1986 to 2018 than in 1954 to 1985 – or that America did not have a single violent tornado in 2018, for the first time in history. Instead, they are misinformed that storms are becoming more frequent and intense.

They are rarely even told about the Little Ice Age, Roman and medieval warm periods, prolonged droughts throughout history, or the critical roles of fluctuating solar energy, periodic oscillations in Pacific and Atlantic temperatures and currents, and other major natural forces that have driven climate changes throughout Earth and human history.

It’s therefore hardly surprising that we are now seeing children marching in the streets and calling for “climate action” and “climate justice.” Worse, their teachers do not only excuse their truancy. They encourage it, giving course credit for these actions, or even saying student activism on climate and fossil fuels is more important than their reading, mathematics, history and other course work.

It’s ridiculous. But it’s real, ongoing – and often paid directly by our tax dollars or by tax-exempt foundations and activist groups whose views dominate and permeate our education and media systems.

In addition to what students are learning in their classrooms, they also receive “guidance” and “information” from “educational” websites that promote climate alarmism. Incredibly, many have been federally funded for years, and some are still funded by Trump Administration federal agencies!

For example, the “Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network” (CLEAN, as in “clean energy”) operates the CLEAN website, which is funded jointly by NOAA, NSF and DOE: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Energy.

It supposedly advances “climate literacy” – which is really code for the false belief that humans are causing dangerous climate change. CLEAN says it has over 600 free, ready to use resources suitable for use in secondary and higher education classrooms. It also boasts that it is the core of the “Teaching Climate” part of the website. This is Federal Government bias targeting children.

One of the key principles of CLEAN’s version of climate literacy is explained thus: “A great challenge of the 21st century will be to prepare communities to adapt to climate change while reducing human impacts on the climate system (known as mitigation).” CLEAN also says “Because the primary cause of recent global climate change is human, the solutions are also within the human domain.” In other words, we can now control Earth’s perpetually fickle climate, by adjusting its carbon dioxide thermostat control knob. In our dreams.

All of CLEAN’s biased teaching materials are based on this false premise. The reality is that dangerous human influence on climate is completely unproven and the subject of intense scientific debate. That only the scary side is being presented as settled science is a severe and intolerable lack of balance.

Dr. Wojick recently launched a crowd-funding project to provide alternative educational materials. His materials reflect the profound and well-documented debate that actually flourishes worldwide about nonsensical climate alarmism, the real (natural) causes of climate changes and weather events, the ways increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are helping plants to grow better and faster, and the actual causes of the sometimes crazy phenomena and creatures we encounter on this planet of ours.

The Climate Change Debate Education project or CCDE is still small. But it is growing steadily – and its GoFundMe effort is playing a critical role.

At this point, Dr. Wojick’s CCDE project provides two primary kinds of educational materials. One is skeptical videos by leading scientists. As of now there are 193 videos, by eminent scientists like William Happer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Wojick says his goal is to list 1000 skeptical scientific videos, clearly proving that the scientific debate is real.

Dr. Wojick and his project are also developing what he calls “gate breakers.” These are one-page, nontechnical summaries that explain a particular issue in the scientific debate about climate change. They are designed to be used to confront, challenge or question “gatekeeping” alarmists – such as teachers, speakers or politicians – who refuse to admit the scientific debate even exists.

Thus far, there are three gate breakers on the website, addressing hurricanes, the Little Ice Age and the sun’s role in global warming and climate change. But many more are on their way.

One interesting feature is that each gate breaker has a version that includes a Google Scholar search for more of the massive scientific literature on its topic. Dr. Wojick says the point of these searches is not that students can read all this technical stuff, but that they can see the debate truly exists. In each case, there are thousands of scientific journal articles that challenge the groupthink and borderline hysteria that dominates classroom and media discussions of climate issues.

The Climate Change Debate Education project is an ambitious and important undertaking.

It deserves the support of anyone who believes in the scientific method, integrity in scientific research – and having open, robust debates on dangerous manmade climate change claims that are being used to justify a rapid and complete switch from fossil fuels that provide over 80% of America’s and the world’s energy … regardless of the tremendously harmful impacts that switch would have on our economy, jobs, living standards, health, productivity, housing, transportation and personal freedoms.

Companies that could and should support this vital educational program are too intimidated by the Antifa mobs arm of the $2-trillion-a-year Climate Industrial Complex to do so. That means citizens need to step forward. The future of American and global science, energy and prosperity hang in the balance.

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of many articles on the environment.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 8, 2019 6:44 am

Report: Teachers Inserting Climate Change into Curriculum Without Training, Textbooks

Teaching global warming in a charged political climate

“On this next-to-last week of the school year, Lau was squeezing in a lesson exploring the link between increased carbon emissions and extreme weather events such as floods and hurricanes. A goal was to give students the knowledge to debunk the argument often made by climate change deniers that a few frigid days disprove climate change; even in a warming climate, there will still be many cold days.”

…setup a strawman first

July 8, 2019 6:48 am

So now there is a push to “educate” children by presenting that with materials that is not endorsed by one single academy of science in any country on the planet.

David Murray
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 7:28 am

Begging the question. The project is designed to challenge the prevailing notion that a trace gas, vital to us all, is to be considered our nemesis.

Reply to  David Murray
July 9, 2019 1:06 pm

No CO2, No trees, No plants, No animals so No humans.

Reply to  Phillip Walker
July 9, 2019 1:40 pm

Nice strawman. No one is trying to eliminate CO2.

That trace CO2 prevents the Earth from being a ball of ice.

The current levels have not been recorded in 3-5 million years. We evolved and our food crops were domesticated in an atmosphere that never exceeded 300 ppm CO2.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2019 11:56 am

Jack Dale
You forgot about water vapor!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 12:14 pm

Actually I have not forgotten about water vapor.

Here is some information you might find enlightening.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2019 1:12 pm

I’d like to point out that the link you provided for Total Precipitable Water leaves out the 30% of the Earth covered by land. Not an inconsequential omission!

Now, what is the point you are trying to make? You said, “That trace CO2 prevents the Earth from being a ball of ice.” You make it sound as if the only control is CO2 and I was pointing out that water plays a role.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 1:27 pm

As well-mixed, non-condensing, GHG CO2 is a driver, as a poorly-mixed, condensing GHG H2O is an amplifier.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 1:30 pm

Oceans hold 96.5% of the earth’s water.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2019 6:58 pm

You offered up the following non sequitur: “Oceans hold 96.5% of the earth’s water.”

We are talking about the water vapor in the air, not the volume of water on Earth. For the record, it has been estimated that the mantle of Earth holds vastly more water than the oceans. However, it is unimportant as a source of atmospheric water vapor, just as the water below the surface of the ocean is an unimportant source.

You behave as though you think that throwing out ‘facts’ gives you credibility and weighs on the balance of winning an argument. I have news for you — most of the people here are smart enough to see through your naive attempts to “baffle with BS.”

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 7:19 pm

Surface area of water on earth:

Surface Area of the Planet (510,066,000 sq km)
Land Area on the Planet (148,647,000 sq km) 29.1%
Ocean Area (335,258,000 sq km)
Total Water Area (361,419,000 sq km) 70.9%
Type of Water (97% salt), (3% fresh)

You state: “For the record, it has been estimated that the mantle of Earth holds vastly more water than the oceans. ”
How does that affect climate change?

“The results add to mounting evidence that there is much more water than expected beneath us, mostly locked up within the crystals of minerals as ions rather than liquid water.”

Have you read the RSS information on the water column?

Here is some more information on H2O in the atmosphere.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2019 7:04 pm

You remarked, “As well-mixed, non-condensing, GHG CO2 is a driver, as a poorly-mixed, condensing GHG H2O is an amplifier.”

For starters, the fact that water vapor condenses is relatively unimportant because it is being replenished continuously. The link you provided demonstrates that the specific humidity is actually increasing, not decreasing as a result of condensation.

The claim that one is a driver while the other is an amplifier is a distinction without a difference since both have overlaps in the IR absorption features and increasing water vapor acts as a driver.

Reply to  Phillip Walker
July 9, 2019 1:59 pm

Talk about your straw men! LOL

So no evolution took place when levels were 7-8 times higher than now? LOL

Paradigm Shift Jack, I did my first CO2 plant experiments over 40 years ago, and not one plant ever balked at ridiculously high levels. In fact every single plant that enjoyed high CO2 levels thrived, and used less water than the deprived plants.

Another fallacious argument from Paradigm Shift Jack. I wonder if he knows… nah! Still grossly self-unaware. LOL

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 7:29 am

they have taken Christian religion out of schools…and replaced it with prayer rooms, foot baths, and global warming

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Latitude
July 8, 2019 8:41 am

They’ve replaced the Faithbook with Facebook.
(I have a nagging feeling that I’ve heard that before)

Roger welsh
Reply to  Latitude
July 8, 2019 9:14 am

And Muslim intolerance!

Reply to  Latitude
July 8, 2019 4:57 pm

You forgot … “grooming” middle school girls with braces for Epstein’s Lolita Express

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 8:02 am

The science academies are run by politicians. Most of the scientists left them years ago.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2019 8:14 am

Wrong. More unsubstantiated rivel from MarkW

Between them the AGU and APS have over 100,000 voluntary members world wide.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:06 am

That’s cute, there are nearly 7 million people employed as scientists in the USA alone.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 8:15 pm

I was thinking that a whole 100,000 and we can all pretty much guess the demographic a bunch of true little green lefties.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2019 8:14 am

Voluntary members? Sounds kind of like the democrat party or the NRA. Gee, I wonder if like minds congregate?

I’ve heard that 100% of Baptists say Jesus saves, and that all Christian churches recognize Christ as Lord and Savior. Not one of them is against the teachings of Christ. So it must be true!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2019 12:19 pm

“… 100,000 voluntary members?”
You had previously noted the importance of a lack of bias in ‘authority’ figures. What motivates someone to volunteer their time in mid-career?

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 8:03 am

If appeal to authority is the best you can do, then best stay quiet.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2019 8:11 am

Appeals to authority are valid when:

The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
The authority in question must be identified.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:15 am

Sounds like Lindzen, Happer, Curry, et al. all fit that description.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 8, 2019 10:30 am

Lindzen – yes, although his Iris Theory never came to much.
Curry – yes
Happer – his area of expertise is not climate science.

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 8, 2019 10:38 am

My thoughts exactly although they likely fail the bias test in Jack’s opinion. Whaddya bet?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 10, 2019 12:15 pm

From your link: “He [Happer] was one of the first to investigate the effects of light with a wavelength slightly different from the atomic resonance, and he studied several effects including the rotation of the light polarization and Raman atomic transitions. These have become mainstays of modern atomic physics. In what has become a trademark of all his research, Will combined experimental measurements with the development of rigorous theoretical models and simple intuitive explanations.”

At the core of the presumed importance of CO2 in AGW theory is the absorption and emission of IR for water and CO2, with overlapping absorption features. Who better to understand, describe, and analyze what is actually taking place?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 12:35 pm

Happer has never made his apparent understanding public as he has no published peer-reviewed literature on the topic.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:16 am

Jack Dale
You appear to be the ‘majority rules ding bat’ here.
There is no need for scientists in the future ?
Because everything is settled science now ?
Whatever the majority says is the truth ?
A majority could never be wrong ?
All the scientists can empty their desks and go home ?

I can guarantee one thing, Jack Dale, no appeal to authority will EVER use YOUR name as the authority … on anything !

We have over 60 years of climate predictions, made by science “authorities”, that did not happen.

Science breakthroughs throughout history almost always involved individuals, or small teams, that disproved the existing “consensus” … proving that science is NEVER settled.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 8, 2019 9:05 pm

You fail to understand the significant different between a scientific consensus and popular opinion. WUWT is a site devoted to popular opinion.

As someone who has read and understood Thomas Kuhn, I would never accept that “science is settled.” In the postscript to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn has an excellent discussion of the role of scientific consensus in scientific paradigm shifts.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 9, 2019 8:41 am

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”
-Michael Crichton

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
-Albert Einstein

‘Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.”
-Nicolaus Copernicus

“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
-Michael Crichton

“Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”
-Albert Einstein

Paradigm Shift Jack strikes (out) again!

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 9, 2019 8:52 am

If it is a consensus, it is not a paradigm shift.

A paradigm shift is defined as “an important change that happens when the usual way of thinking about or doing something is replaced by a new and different way”.

Consensus takes time, and once consensus is achieved it is no longer a paradigm shift. Jack refuses to acknowledge paradigm shift in climate science, and sticks with the established dogma, yet claims to honor “new and different” ways.

Paradigm Shift Jack, or Cognitive Dissonance Jack? You decide, because Jack cannot.

Reply to  Richard Greene
July 10, 2019 12:06 pm

Jack Dale

You fail to understand much.

A “scientific consensus”
is a “popular opinion”,
not real science.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 10, 2019 12:24 pm

You remarked, “WUWT is a site devoted to popular opinion.” It seems to have escaped your view that not only are most of the commenters well informed, but many (if not most) have technical degrees. Many of us have written technical guest articles, not just opinion pieces. I would characterize what I have seen of your comments as being “popular opinion.”

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 1:04 pm

Do you count Kenneth Richard of NTZ among your technical experts? He is a frequent contributor to WUWT.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Richard Greene
July 10, 2019 7:17 pm

You asked, “Do you count Kenneth Richard of NTZ among your technical experts?” Whether I do or not is inconsequential. You seem to have a problem with logic. You said, “WUWT is a site DEVOTED to popular opinion.” I pointed out that many of us contribute technical articles and analysis. That nullifies your claim about “devoted.” Clearly there are some here that contribute little to the technical aspects. After all, there are no requirements for posting comments. Even you are allowed to post. That doesn’t mean that the blog is “devoted” to opinions. It would be better to say that the blog ‘allows’ even just opinions, some from authorities you hold in such high regard.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:17 am

Climate bafflegab Jack.

Show some data, not links, real science, error bars.

I’ll post my response to your next comment in advance:

I knew you couldn’t.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:45 am

Jack Dale:
Please watch this:

Now please tell me where in the scientific method “appeals to authority” are valid?

So what are your predictions for the next 20 years Jack? Hotter, colder and by how much? Assume CO2 will continue to rise by 1-2 PPM per year.

Reply to  TRM
July 8, 2019 7:07 pm

So Jack can you name one, just one dire prediction that has come true in the last 50-60 years? What happened to those 50 million climate refuges the UN was predicting? Oh wait they are busy building resorts and airports.

Reply to  nc
July 8, 2019 7:32 pm

I do not consider myself to an “alarmist”. I also discount the alarming predictions of the Grand Solar Minimum crowd.

There are successful predictions that are not that alarming – yet. Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Many of these go as far back as Arrhenuis (

As for warming predictions the models have done quit well. (

Reply to  TRM
July 9, 2019 8:16 am

And believers believe. The only predictions that have come to pass are along the lines of “the Sun sets in the west and rises in the east”. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TRM
July 10, 2019 12:40 pm

Many of the things you have listed are empirical observations, not actually predictions from the climate models. The major problem with the models is not the qualitative prediction, but the quantitative prediction. It is a reasonably safe bet to say that, barring some obvious changes in known forcings, the past trends are a good qualitative predictor of the future. But, qualitative predictions are of less value than quantitative predictions, particularly for policy decisions.

The laboratory experiments of Arrhenuis et al. are really a non sequitur. They established that CO2 can and does absorb IR. However, they don’t address that larger issue of how a complex system reacts to perturbations.

I beg to differ on the claim that “the models have done quite well.” I have demonstrated that Hansen’s 1988 predictions actually were quite poor and that a simple linear extrapolation would is superior. The modern models are generally acknowledged to run warm (with the exception of the Russian model), and often disagree with precipitation ‘projections’ for the same region.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:45 am

Wrong. Appeals to Authority are never valid arguments being by definition, logical fallacies. You don’t know jack.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:51 am

‘ The person in question is not significantly biased.’
‘There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.’

Those two pretty much rule the rest.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 11:34 am

Jack should be introduced to one of the founders of modern science…

“Before we come to class and Range the Sciences, ’tis proper we should sift the merits of Knowledge, or clear it of the Disgrace brought upon it by Ignorance, wether disguised as (1.) the Zeal of the Divines, (2.) the Arrogance of Politicians, or (3.) the Errors of Men of Letters.”
-Sir Francis Bacon, “Advancement of Learning”, 1605 (Father of the Scientific Method)

Several of science’s largest advances came about because “amateurs” ran against the consensus of professional scientists, and subsequently showed those “experts” to be obtuse. Next time you fly on a plane or read about Yosemite, thank your lucky stars we ignored the consensus and experts.

Reply to  Gator
July 8, 2019 2:58 pm

I would like to introduce you to a modern scientsist – Thomas Kuhn. Here are the Cliff’s Notes of his his landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922–1996) is one of the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century, perhaps the most influential. His 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the most cited academic books of all time. Kuhn’s contribution to the philosophy of science marked not only a break with several key positivist doctrines, but also inaugurated a new style of philosophy of science that brought it closer to the history of science. His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions. To this thesis, Kuhn added the controversial ‘incommensurability thesis’, that theories from differing periods suffer from certain deep kinds of failure of comparability.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 5:36 pm

It never ceases to amaze how self-unaware you are.

Reply to  Gator
July 8, 2019 6:00 pm

Like you your post lacks substance.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2019 3:43 am

“Like you your post lacks substance“

This is Jack’s deer like reaction to a direct hit through the vitals, a verbal leap into the air before crashing to the ground in a heap. LOL

Reply to  Gator
July 9, 2019 6:41 am

Another post of no consequence, just like its author.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2019 8:09 am

The chess playing pigeon hath declared victory! LOL

Reply to  Gator
July 9, 2019 7:01 pm

Jack Dale- it’s been known for centuries that science, and other learnings, advance if fits and starts as the old guard dies off and the newer ideas take their place. One of the newer examples is plate tectonics. All of geology was really limited to a static view of the world. While note was made of the fact that the outlines of the continents seemed to be a bit of a jigsaw, the overwhelming view was that the continents have never movers.

The discovery of undersea rifts where the basement rocks were moving away from each other, and lots of geological and fossil data that the same exact fossils and the same geological formations existed on a number of different continents, and the passing of the most influential “statics” allowed a new, more reliable theory of continental drift.

I would point out that most of the “climate model predictions” mentioned are strongly criticized by many other equally qualified scientists.
Perhaps the biggest criticism of climate models is that the system they are trying to model is chaotic. Even the IPCC agreed that models cannot make reliable predictions of future climate. They adopted the euphemism “projections”, which they promptly treated as predictions. The climate models are greatly simplified descriptions of the earth’s climates. They may be useful for exploring some possible effects of how changes might affect various processes in the climate. However, since they come nowhere near having a comprehensive list of variables it can only give suggestions of where to look further in the real climate.

Reply to  Philo
July 9, 2019 7:19 pm

I know. I studied computer modeling and other forecasting techniques in graduate school (University of Houston Clear Lake). I still prefer the term “forecast” to “projection”.

One big advantage of computer modeling is that you must use clearly identified variable in your model. You can run various scenarios while changing the parameters of those variables. You can also run contingent forecasts.

Now a question for you and anyone else: What alternative do you propose? Particularly since we know there is a significant system lag with CO2 emissions.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gator
July 10, 2019 12:54 pm

You asked, ” What alternative do you propose?”

An acknowledgement that GCMs may provide insight on the the complexities of the dynamic system we call climate, but that actual “forecasts” or “projections” do not have the accuracy or veracity on which to base significant changes in our energy infrastructure or political systems. As pointed out elsewhere, even the IPCC, in one of its more candid moments, acknowledged that because climate is chaotic, long-term predictions are probably impossible, and to pretend otherwise is a path only a fool would follow.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 12:58 pm

So your answer is “We have no alternative.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Gator
July 10, 2019 7:20 pm

You asked, “So your answer is ‘We have no alternative.’”

You obviously have a problem with reading comprehension as well as logic.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 7:33 pm

You stated “actual “forecasts” or “projections” do not have the accuracy or veracity on which to base significant changes in our energy infrastructure or political systems. ”

What alternative would meet your criteria, since the current models do not do so?

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 2:54 pm

The other replying comments left out a couple of helpful quotes, from a couple of favorite scientists of mine:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual – Galileo Galilei

Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says ‘science teaches such and such’, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it. – Richard Feynman

John in Oz
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 8:41 pm

Appeal to authority is so useful when there are so many authorities to choose from.

Experiments often contradicted the theory of the aether, but by the 1700s it had become so widespread that its existence was assumed to be a given.

Reply to  John in Oz
July 8, 2019 8:51 pm

Welcome to the world of scientific paradigm shifts. See Thomas Kuhn, The Structure Scientific Revolutions, for further information.

Ptolemy’s model of the universe was supplanted by Copernicus, Galileo and others. Ironically it is the model used in celestial navigation.

Newton’s Universal Law of Gravity was replaced by the Einstein’s theory, but Newton’s Law still got men to the moon.

Reply to  John in Oz
July 8, 2019 8:58 pm

As an aside I have lost track of the number of times folks have pointed me to the video by Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever at Mainau giving him some sort of authoritative status. After his talk 70 other Nobel Laureates signed the Mainau Declaration urging immediate action on climate change.

I suspect that was not his intention.

Reply to  John in Oz
July 9, 2019 8:45 am

So you will stop your silly appeals to authority Paradigm Shift Jack?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2019 12:08 pm

You seem to be unaware that the revered Lord Kelvin infamously calculated the age of Earth to be at least 20 million years, but no more than 40 MY. He was seen by his peers (if he had any) as having sufficient expertise, which was within his many areas of expertise. He had no obvious reason to be biased. What do you mean by “adequate degree of agreement?” Einstein famously remarked “Why 100? It only takes one to prove me wrong.”

What you have described is a political pundit, not a scientist.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 12:27 pm

Not only am I aware of Lord Kelvin’s dating, I am aware of Bishop Ussher’s. Kelvin’s was closer.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 12:33 pm

“What do you mean by “adequate degree of agreement?” ”

That would be a scientific consensus are put forth by Thomas Kuhn; it is not popular opinion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 1:06 pm

Both Usher and Kelvin were wrong. Kelvin was wrong by a ‘mere’ 2 orders of magnitude. How happy would you be if your bank reported your balance as being 2 orders of magnitude smaller than the actual amount?

However, you really are tossing up a red herring because the point at issue is whether an ‘authority’ can be trusted. If they get an answer that is isn’t even wrong by a factor of two, but by two orders of magnitude, it is little better than a qualitative answer (i.e. >0) Kelvin thought that his answer was 30 +/-10 MY years, when the ERROR was MUCH greater than his estimate!

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 1:20 pm

Newton was wrong as well. But NASA used his formulae to put men on the moon.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 1:19 pm

Your answer to what is meant by “There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other EXPERTS in the subject in question.”, is not responsive to my question. The emphasis is on “adequate degree of agreement.”

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 1:41 pm

It is expert consensus for which I look.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 7:37 pm


Consensus is a political activity. Fundamentally, when a committee or some body charged with a social responsibility has to make a decision, they set aside their differences and agree that they can support a particular position, whether they like it or not. It has nothing to do with being right or wrong. It is something the ruling body can live with. They don’t vote on whether the position is right or wrong, they vote on whether they can and will support the position. Fifty-one percent of the quorum of a subset of those with a vested interest may be sufficient to formally arrive at a consensus.

Such behavior has no place in science! Those who advocate consensus are politicians, not scientists.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 8:02 pm

I suggest you read the postscript (at least) of Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, to understand the role of consensus in scientific paradigms.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an excellent summary. Read it and count the number of times the word “consensus” appears. (It is 8 times)

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 8:09 pm

BTW – For an examination of the role of consensus in earth science, I highly recommend Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth. By James Lawrence Powell. New York: Columbia University Press, 2015. ISBN 978-0-231-16448-1.

Here is a review:

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 8:13 pm

BTW – you a majority is not a consensus.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2019 9:55 am

You knew his first response would be to legitimize authority.

So much of this argument is based on the way people think.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 9, 2019 8:22 am

Yep! But then he reversed course and agreed that authority needs to be questioned. Whatever is convenient for his POV at that moment. He also claimed to not be an alarmist, yet I never see him attacking them, and he’s always trolling skeptical sites.

Jack Dale is either a very confused person, or a poorly programmed bot.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 8:54 am

Science is not a cult that needs authoritative permission from cult leaders to challenge assertions.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:11 am

Important to understanding climate is understanding how thermalization works, that absorption and emission take place continuously up through the atmosphere, that water vapor is a ghg, that the population of water vapor molecules declines dramatically from average about 10,000 ppmv (1%) down to 32 ppmv because of the low temperature at the tropopause (about 10 km), and that the population of CO2 molecules is about 410 ppmv all the way up.

This explains why CO2 has no significant effect on climate:
Well above the tropopause, radiation to space is primarily from CO2 molecules. If you ignore the increase in water vapor (big mistake), WV averages about 10,000 ppmv. The increase in absorber molecules at ground level since 1900 is then about 10,410/10,295 = ~ 1%.

WV above the tropopause is limited to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature (~ -50 °C) while the CO2 fraction remains essentially constant with altitude at 410 ppmv up from about 295 ppmv in 1900. The increase in emitters to space at high altitude (~> 30 km, 0.012 atm) accounting for the lower atmospheric pressure is (410 + 32)/(295 + 32) * 0.012 = ~ 1.4%. This easily explains why CO2 increase does not cause significant warming and might even cause cooling.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:13 am

What a whoooosh to start the week.

Hello Jack, do you know anyone who was brainwashed into believing in something that doesn’t exist.

Reply to  philincalifornia
July 8, 2019 10:22 am

I know a few adherents of the Cult of Ra, who chant “its the sun, its the sun.”

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 2:16 pm

Can you actually give a coherent response? Or is this the best you can do?

Reply to  F.LEGHORN
July 9, 2019 3:23 am

Best he can do. Low information person, Jack.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2019 8:24 am

Paradigm Shift Jack strikes (out) again!

Richard M
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 2:19 pm

How many people in those academies voted on any endorsement? What choices were they given? Oh, that’s right. Nothing has ever been to any academy for a vote. All you have is the opinions of leftist bureaucrats.

Reply to  Richard M
July 8, 2019 2:41 pm

I gather from your comment that you are totally unaware of the process employed by the American Physical Society which entailed a debate among 3 who support climate science (Collins, Santer, Held) and 3 who dismiss it (Christy, Curry Lindzen). The transcript is over 500 pages long.

They also consulted with their membership.

More here:

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2019 1:35 pm

Christy dismisses climate science? I thought that was how he earned his living? Or are you letting your bias show through?

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 10, 2019 1:44 pm

Poor wording. Those three do not dismiss climate science. I do regard them among “legitimate” skeptics. I use UAH data and I respect many of Curry’s opinions.

Reply to  Richard M
July 8, 2019 2:50 pm

BTW – It is quite easy to refute my claim. Jus name one academy of science in any country on the planet that disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. While you are at it name any academy of science in any country in the planet that endorses the Heartland funded NIPCC.

Joe Peck
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2019 4:49 am

Would you consider MIT a scientific academy worthy of consideration? Here is what the scientists at MIT say about AGW on their synopsis page for the MIT Center for Global Change:

“Understanding the circulation and CO2 biogeochemistry of the oceans is key to our ability to predict and assess the future evolution of climate. The ocean is important in the regulation of heat and moisture fluxes, and oceanic physical and biogeochemical processes are major regulators of natural atmospheric carbon dioxide (as well as being an important sink of fossil fuel CO2). The physics, chemistry and biology of the ocean are coupled since the oceanic CO2 cycle is controlled by the ocean circulation, the supply of sunlight, and major and trace nutrients delivered by the oceanic and atmospheric circulations.

Due to computational and conceptual limitations, however, most climate models do not incorporate realistic descriptions of the coupling between ocean circulation and climate and none include a realistic description of the biogeochemical cycle of CO2. If the future oceanic CO2 uptake rates cannot be predicted, then certainly the future levels of atmospheric CO2 cannot be predicted, let alone how they will affect global climate.”

Reply to  Joe Peck
July 9, 2019 8:39 am

That does not dispute the conclusions of the IPCC. Some the staff of the Center wrote the conclusions.

The staff includes Kerry Emanuel, who has one of the best presentation son climate science.

Take a look.

Susan Solomon is an IPCC lead author.

Ronald Prinn, the director of the Center for Global Change Science, was also a lead author of IPCC reports.

Take a look at the FAQs page: “As part of the Center for Global Change Science’s outreach efforts, the list below provides links to frequently asked questions and answers on websites that provide reliable information to enhance understanding of the issues related to global change. ”

Reply to  Joe Peck
July 9, 2019 8:57 pm

BTW – Were you about to claim the Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) at MIT disputes the conclusions of the IPCC?

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2019 8:43 am

Hey Paradigm Shift Jack! How many atheists attend church?

July 8, 2019 6:52 am

This is a critically important subject. Thank you Paul Driessen.

Just minutes ago I saw this article at CBC news:

Malcolm Carter
Reply to  Sommer
July 8, 2019 8:50 am

So according to the CBC value system:
” “climate crisis” could carry a whiff of advocacy in certain political coverage. ”
“But the second value that we think is important is appearing unbiased, because if we appear unbiased then people will believe that we are telling the truth.”

The appearance of truth seems more important than truth, always important for good propaganda. I am surprised that the CBC, the Climate Blight Channel has actually put any limits on their coverage.

If these proposed videos by Dr. Wojick are going to be successful they cannot be talking, grey, professorial heads laser pointing to obscure graphs. The videos have to appeal to teenagers so they will actually watch them. The videos are unlikely to be shown by teachers to a captive classroom.
I think a better approach would be to have a teenaged presenter (cool, not nerdy) present the information in a series of <5 min videos that use adolescent humour to attract the viewers.

Coach Springer
July 8, 2019 6:57 am

It is more than a crying shame that our schools make such a project necessary.

July 8, 2019 6:57 am

Dr. David Wojick & Paul Driessen

I applaud your efforts, especially regarding the sun’s role in weather and climate change.

…or the [1]critical roles of fluctuating solar energy, periodic oscillations in Pacific and Atlantic temperatures and currents, and [2]other major natural forces that have driven climate changes throughout Earth and human history.

[1] How TSI-insolation drives climate change.

[2] Cosmoclimatology/the Svensmark Effect is a spurious correlation.

The ocean produces the clouds Svensmark claims for his cosmic ray theory, during increasing MEI/decreasing Central Pacific OLR conditions, as observed here using figure 10 from his latest paper.

The strong OLR-cloud relationship is plotted here and here.

Cosmic rays exhibit almost no correlation with ISCCP clouds

Clouds (and CO2) are outcomes of solar cycle TSI variation.

It’s no coincidence that cosmic rays and clouds follow the solar cycle, but to claim cosmic rays cause the clouds is a misattribution, just like attributing temperature rise to increasing CO2, wherein both theories implicitly ignore the primary role of the sun’s TSI in warming/cooling the ocean.

I also intend to publish my own solar-terrestrial educational materials along these lines to combat rampant disinformation on the solar side as well as the CO2 side. For instance, we are not in a Grand Solar Minimum.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 8, 2019 9:14 am

Does the ISCCP even measure Mesospheric clouds? I can’t find any suggestion that it does.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
July 8, 2019 10:39 am

I didn’t say anything specifically about mesospheric clouds.

The low clouds in Svensmark’s Fig 10 were produced during increasing MEI as I noted. The ISCCP clouds don’t include Mesospheric clouds, asfaik, but they do include low clouds, which are what is claimed for both his and the monsoon theory.

When galactic cosmic rays increased during the Earth’s last geomagnetic reversal transition 780,000 years ago, the umbrella effect of low-cloud cover led to high atmospheric pressure in Siberia, causing the East Asian winter monsoon to become stronger.

Their association is just a happy coincidence. The sun’s variable energy TSI output is in control of the ocean warming/cooling that leads to cloud and CO2 production, while cosmic rays are modulated by the solar wind, making both processes manifestations of the sun’s magnetic field.

The low clouds during high cosmic ray periods are from El Nino conditions.

Cosmic radiation is most concentrated in the north. Most clouds emanate from the tropics. Clouds move from the tropics northward, not the opposite as would be expected if higher cosmic radiation in the north were actually producing more cloud cover.

For mesospheric clouds see AIM.

July 8, 2019 7:11 am

We are ‘lucky’ in the UK, we have the EU which funds lots of teaching material in our schools, all about climate change…

Reply to  Steve Richards
July 8, 2019 9:41 am

I hope not for much longer.

Reply to  Steve Richards
July 9, 2019 3:26 am

We are also ‘lucky’ to be ‘enriched’ by the ‘diversity’ of knife crime in Londonistan……

July 8, 2019 7:11 am

Short factual statements would work well for kids of all ages, such as:

Heat + Water = Life (obvious to anyone who has seen Spring and Summer)

Oh, and by the way, more CO2 gives more heat and more water (allegedly), and therefore more life.

I’m working on one for global energy consumption, along the lines of … Global Average Power Consumption = 10,000 GW (all energy), most of which is combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas). The number of days till 2050 is also around 10,000 … so zero carbon by then requires 1 GW of “green” power EVERY DAY for the next 30 years, AND no growth in energy demand. Good luck with that.

July 8, 2019 7:14 am

In 10-12 years these kindergartners will be well into their teens and will realize that for years their “teachers” have fed them fantasy as fact. They will rightfully distrust the green blob from then on.

Reply to  PaulH
July 8, 2019 8:04 am

I don’t know about that. Look at how many college students believe that communism is the perfect solution for every problem.

Reply to  MarkW
July 8, 2019 9:33 am

I used to be very left wing until I gained experience and grew up

John Bell
Reply to  PaulH
July 8, 2019 8:58 am

Maybe, but I think they will also learn to ignore the obvious and believe the hype and keep believing as taught, and march on command, but keep using fossil fuels anyway.

July 8, 2019 7:47 am

Ok, here is my contribution to educate kids on the GHE (though I suppose most of the grown ups don’t know it either..)

Danley Wolfe
July 8, 2019 7:56 am

Very important but challenging, given the liberal / left has already taken over education / schools. That means you are going to have a hard time even getting a forum to communicate to school age kids. A fact based approach is correct but keep it simple… maybe start by makijng clear that this is a complicated and controversial subject and there is a lot of misinformation. I like the idea of putting out in simple terms what the scientific method really is and what it requires in order to make absolute statements on causation. Key point to communicate is the difference between opinion / opinion science and fact / demonstrable conclusion of cause and effect. Davied Wojick is a great choice to lead on this effort. His c.v. can be found at Good luck. and tell me how I can help on this too.

Reply to  Danley Wolfe
July 8, 2019 8:27 am

Great sarcasm. Super link to Wojick. Nice to know from whence he comes.

“Wojick is a journalist and policy analyst. He holds a doctorate in epistemology, specializing in the field of Mathematical Logic and Conceptual Analysis. [1]

Wojick was a “scientific advisor” for a now-defunct Greening Earth Society (GES), a group created by the Western Fuels Association, a large US coal industry association. He is currently an expert at the Heartland Institute, where he regularly contributes articles critical of mainstream climate change science. [2], [7]

In his role as a “policy analyst,” Wojick’s clients have included AES Corporation, one of the largest electrical generation companies, with much of that in the form of coal. Wojick also worked with Allegheny Energy, a company that generates 95% of its power from coal. [12], [1]

Wojick is the owner and operator of, a listserv discussing climate change. He is also a former columnist for the Electricity Daily, a now-defunct electrical industry trade magazine. [11], [4]”

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:17 am

You’ve never taken a university physics course have you?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:57 am

So? Ad hom much, numnutz?

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 8, 2019 10:20 am

I am not the one who linked to Desmogblog.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 12:05 pm

‘Wojick was a “scientific advisor” for a now-defunct Greening Earth Society (GES), a group created by the Western Fuels Association, a large US coal industry association. ‘

I have great deal to do before I can read stuff like this and take it at its face value.

Yay, sure, they say he’s a person paid by coal industry.. but actually didn’t say so. Said he was scare-quote scientific advisor scare-quote close of a group no longer active, and claimed the group was “created by” an industry association.

That must be amoral. Good people, like Elon Musk, take money from the government and never advice groups claimed to have been created by industries.

Desmo is a well-paid hit job, ranked high by the alphabet because they can.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 11:14 am

Hello Jack

Thanks for pointing out that Wojick has a PhD in epistemology. That will help him deconstruct the “consensus” on AGW/CC

IMHO every scientist, in fact every graduate from a college or university should have to take a course in epistemology. It’s about understanding the nature of knowledge. It would allow them to appreciate the difference between:

(a) “knowing” something based on accumulated facts and data;
(b) “knowing” something because you want it to be so, based on your belief system;
(c) “knowing” something because somebody else says so;
(d) “knowing” something because a lot of other people say so;
(e) “knowing” something because a lot of computer models predict it;
(f) “knowing” something because if you don’t acknowledge knowing it, you will lose your job;
(g) “knowing” something because there is a book that says so, written thousands of years ago by authors who did not themselves witness what they wrote about, translated and mis-translated, copied and mis-copied hundreds of times, and which contains statements that are at odds with real-world scientific observations. And which are also at odds with other books written thousands of years ago……..

The last one is not related to climate change, but is one of my own concerns.

Reply to  Smart Rock
July 8, 2019 11:45 am

Well said. If epistemology were properly taught we wouldn’t have the tyranny of authority. But that might be asking too much. Authority facilitates intellectual laziness. It is far easier to follow than to think.

July 8, 2019 8:00 am

This information is in the public domain on the connection between teachers’ pension funds and large scale wind turbine facilities:

I hope this isn’t too far off topic.

July 8, 2019 8:14 am

I can hardly wait to read this website. I have great hope that it will rarely address the political side, but will Stick to the science side. This is because I have many liberal friends who will not read WUWT because it sounds too Trumpy. These are people who might be swayed by the evidence, but who reject any source that seems to be fed by the likes of Fox News.

I AM a conservative but to me Fox is just the right-wing version of CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR. I want science. There IS a valid question about why so many in the scientific community promote and support alarmism. I think there are some non-political ways to address this. For instance, there must be some scientists out there who have personally experienced or who know of scientists who have experienced being turned down for grants because their research might weaken the alarmist position. Factual reporting on such things could be a way to address this aspect without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. “I wrote a grant to examine (such and such). These (granting agencies) turned me down because (whatever).” Something like that. I know such reporting could jeopardize someone’s job, but there might be some out there who could address that issue. I also think such stories as Dr. Susan Crockford’s story would be very effective, where scientists have been egregiously attacked. But these stories must stop at reporting only facts. Let the reader come to his own conclusions about what motivated the granting agencies or the attacking scientists.

Stick to facts.

I would also like some brief reporting on the scientific method. Talk about why “the science is settled” is nonsense. Talk about Phil Jones’s statement “they just want to prove me wrong “ is nonsense … OF COURSE they want to prove you wrong, but only if you ARE wrong. That process actually adds to the knowledge base. That is what science is about … knowing what we know to be true and what we know to be not true.

My rant is over. Looking forward to readin this new site. I will give serious thought to contributing to the GFM.

Reply to  Ken
July 8, 2019 9:29 am

Ken, Fox is now changing and falling in line with CNN and the like. Fox is no more.

Reply to  Ken
July 8, 2019 12:17 pm

Ken, time’s are a changin’ at Fox News and they are going to get inline with CNN*. But for years the Fox News news coverage is rated as most fair and balanced. That’s the news coverage. The prime time opinion shows are a different animal. By definition, opinion is not news. It should be fact based, but often isn’t.

* Why? What take a product that is unique and make it nearly indistinguishable from all the others?

Mark Broderick
Reply to  jep
July 8, 2019 3:57 pm

That is why they created the new “Fox Nation”…Check it out.

July 8, 2019 8:21 am

Did not Heartland already attempt this with both climate change and tobacco?

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 9:53 am

Love the way you tow the company propaganda line – climate change equals tobacco.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 8, 2019 12:08 pm

Paid troll? Desmo gets good money to do their hit job. Probably more than coal industry ever has used to undermine the AGW alarmism.

Reply to  Hugs
July 8, 2019 2:53 pm

Not paid. Unlike Happer’s testimony for Peabody, which he managed to hide.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 8, 2019 4:22 pm

… need a punchline.

What do you call a whore that doesn’t get paid?

Reply to  DonM
July 8, 2019 4:42 pm

They are called DonM.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2019 9:20 am

Ahhh! The dark money myth! And Jack fell for it.

What really happened?

“You son of a bitch, I haven’t taken a dime.”

Why doesn’t Paradigm Shift Jack take issue with the $2,000,000,000,000 trough from which alarmists gorge themselves? Why does Paradigm Shift Jack believe that alarmist testimony is not tainted by massive amounts of funding? Cognitive dissonance, or just a lying hypocritical scumbag?

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 10, 2019 7:53 am

C’mon Mr. Meoff, you can do better than that.

the answer is something along the lines of … getting stiffed twice and not knowing the difference.

The people and positions you are defending are taking advantage of you….

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 10, 2019 1:57 pm

Joel Snider
I have been suspicious for some time that the alarmists who show up complaining about alternative view points attend regular catechism classes where they take turns reading out loud from the New Yorker and the Atlantic. How else would one explain the use of identical terminology and repetition of memes that espouse progressive views and denigrate those who disagree with them. Hence the popularization of the word “denier.”

I suppose another possibility is that they are in the employ of those like Bloomberg or Soros and are provided handbooks with all the politically correct responses to guide them should they encounter something new.

We have seen some on this website who change ‘handles’ after they have destroyed their credibility. I also run across attack dogs on Yahoo who use the same words and approaches, such as calling me a “liar.” I suspect that there are just a couple of individuals with three or four aliases who try to make it look like there is a large number supporting the alarmist position. Rarely do I seen anything like a coherent defense of their position. Most commonly, it is just a link to something that they found in an online search. In most cases I doubt they have even read the whole article, let alone understood it.

Danley Wolfe
July 8, 2019 8:21 am

I just received a note from Heritage Foundation along similar lines trying to educate the general public in the face of many years of propaganda. The memo says:

Title: The truth about climate change.
“In the 1970s, Americans were told we were in a global cooling crisis and if something weren’t done, we’d enter a new ice age,” says Nick Loris, deputy director of Heritage’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow in energy and environmental policy. “When that didn’t happen, a few decades later we were told that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000.” As part of Heritage’s video series on “America’s Biggest Issues,” Loris explains if the climate is actually changing, if alarmists proposals would work, and what the government can do to keep a cleaner environment for America. Watch the new video.” The youtube video link is

Reply to  Danley Wolfe
July 8, 2019 9:14 pm

Science was 6:1 warming:cooling in the 1970’s. The MSM got it really wrong.

Reply to  Jack Dale
July 9, 2019 9:33 am

A flawed study! Wonderful!

What is more likely?

“A review of the climate science literature of the 1965-1979 period is presented and it is shown that there was an overwhelming scientific consensus for climate cooling (typically, 65% for the whole period) but greatly outnumbering the warming papers by more than 5-to-1 during the 1968-1976 period, when there were 85% cooling papers compared with 15% warming.”

Paradigm Shift Jack strikes (out) again!

Michael in Dublin
July 8, 2019 8:38 am

The children are likely to be even more confused because few schools teach children to think deeply and reason carefully. If children do not learn to ask relevant questions and understand logical answers supported by verified facts they are in no position to recognize flawed arguments. I am inclined to think that children should be taught how to reason logically in much simpler matters than climate and that this should only be tackled at a tertiary level.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 8, 2019 12:05 pm

Children are naturally curious. They are instinctively critical thinkers. But they are easily intimidated. If they are taught to fear the impulse to question will be lost. I have two small children. The first principle I impress upon them is not to fear. Critical thinking then follows naturally. The most important thing is to teach our children to get a grip on reality.

July 8, 2019 8:38 am

Last night on 60 Minutes in the US, the plans by a drunk Russian living in a squalid post-Soviet outpost to build a “Pleistocene Park”, complete with Wooly Mammoths brought back from preserved DNA was treated not as science fiction. It was treated as the kind of bold thinking we’ll need to cure our climate change ills. The best part for me was that the mammoths are needed to knock down the trees that shouldn’t be growing where they are and make it colder in the arctic circle.

Thanks for fighting this kind of idiocy.

Snarling Dolphin
Reply to  Pittzer
July 8, 2019 10:24 am

60 Minutes has gone gaga for climate change. Absolutely gaga.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Snarling Dolphin
July 10, 2019 2:02 pm

It has been my impression that the more a Hollywood movie is promoted on TV, the more likely that it will be a real stinker.

It does seem that lately all the Media has been pushing absurd potential bad effects. Usually, there are good and bad effects. So, my natural Doubting Thomas behavior makes me wonder why it is so one-sided! Agenda?

Harry Passfield
July 8, 2019 8:47 am

Boys at school would understand it better if they were presented with the analogy of the school swimming pool and the atmosphere.

If little Jimmy jumps in the pool and releases 0.006% (rough equivalent of MM contribution to CO2 in atmosphere) of pee into the pool will the other bathers feel warmer?

Reply to  Harry Passfield
July 8, 2019 11:42 am

Little Jimmy Wales?

Reply to  Photios
July 8, 2019 12:13 pm

There’s no little whales nor little Wales, say the Cymry.

Robert W Turner
July 8, 2019 9:02 am

Ever since education in this nation was usurped by the de facto Democrat Party DoE, our world ranking in all STEM related subjects has dropped and continues to lose pace. And since public education isn’t a right, but rather a mandate that you are going to pay for regardless of whether you want it or use it, there is little choice for parents that can’t afford to pay for both a proper education and the public brainwashing system that is public schools.

July 8, 2019 9:05 am

Educating your kids to debate is far from the first step.

The first step is to prove that adults often do not know what they are talking about, especially when predicting the future.

That fact is best demonstrated by presenting past climate predictions that were 100% wrong, perhaps starting with Al “the Climate Blimp” Gore’s predictions, or maybe some of the over population predictions from the 1960s.

Prove how often predictions of the future are wrong (almost always).

Demonstrate how predictions of the future are often linked to political demands: “We must act now — you must do as we say, without question”.

The coming climate change crisis is not science based.

It is nothing more than repeated wild guess predictions of a bad news climate future, that bears no relationship to the actual, intermittent, good news global warming in the past 300 years.

Wild guess, always wrong, predictions of the future climate are not real science.

We have over 60 years of claims that CO2 global warming will be dangerous, with an elevated level of hysteria over the past 30+ years.

Ask the kids how many decades of “crying wolf” about the future climate are required before we should stop listening to the hysterical leftists, and start scolding them for scaring children with their 100% wrong climate predictions.

I guess the most basic education is to teach the kids that there are good people in the world, and evil people.

Leftists are among the evil people, always trying to control others, by any means necessary, ranging from lying about climate change … to death ( is the leftist / Marxist / Communist history of death in the 20th century even taught in public schools today) ?

Was it ever taught that Democrats supported slavery, and the KKK, in the US, while Republicans fought to end slavery? I doubt it.

Roger welsh
July 8, 2019 9:28 am

The gigantic problem for responsible parents and children, is the “social media”.

All teachers, what ever their politics, should strive for showing how “balance” should be considered.


The flood of all information is a nightmare.

Good for any soul to impart a balance using facts for all

Danley Wolfe
Reply to  Roger welsh
July 8, 2019 11:22 am

Speaking of social media… apparently nowadays social media is the place to get hte lastest & most reliable source of information re science (laughter). American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), publisher of Science magazine, used to be the premier source of scientific publications in the US and worldwide. An example of how far it has slipped, AAAS now pushes its own “dialogue” social media and I am right now being hounded by them to join in the “social media” discussion community. I am getting emails asking me to tell all about myself, what I do, what things I like, … maybe call me a humbug but my focus and interest is in real science not signing up and chit chatting on an AAAS social media… the tone of the emails I have received make it clear this is social media agglomerattion.

In Feb. 2015 Rush Holt was named CEO of AAAS and executive publisher of the Science family of publications. Following from wiki: “As a Congressman, Holt maintained liberal viewpoints, and voted accordingly, on major issues … he supported abortion rights, opposed the privatization of Social Security, and supported a public health care option … and supported the environment. In 2009, the National Journal rated him as one of the most liberal members of the House of Representatives. Holt’s rankings released by various interest groups reflect his liberal views. Since 2009, he has been rated 100 percent in accordance with the interests of the following interest groups, among others: American Public Health Association, Americans for Democratic America, and NARAL Pro-Choice America. Holt was a member of the New Democrat Coalition and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. ….(H)e served as co-chair of the Energy Task Force in the New Democrat Coalition. He received a grade of 100% on the progressive Drum Major Institute’s 2005 and 2007 Congressional Scorecards on middle-class issues, and he was consistently scored well by that organization.
So, hey, y’all run out and let’s all sign up for the science social media bandwagon. Not the way we did science when I was in graduate school and working in research organizations.

Reply to  Danley Wolfe
July 8, 2019 3:00 pm

Speaking of social media… apparently nowadays social media is the place to get hte lastest & most reliable source of information re science (laughter).

Is not WUWT social media?

July 8, 2019 9:37 am

My son was lucky. His high school science teacher told the class “I have to show you this film (AIT with Al Gore) but it isn’t science”. LMAO. That was great because it started a conversation with me and my son about the issue and science in general.

1) Ask them if they can follow the science in detail? Unless you have a degree in stats or are a certified math freak with lots of spare time most people can’t.

2) Ask them what do you do when you can’t follow the science in detail? Not just climate but any science?
A) Just believe one side or the other? NO! Belief is for religion not science.
B) Go along with what the majority of scientists say? NO! Consensus is for politics not science.
C) Follow the predictions. YES. That is what science is based on. Falsifiable and repeated predictions.

So regardless if you agree with a position a scientist is taking get predictions with dates and values! Then keep track and see what happens. It is actually kind of fun.

I always start by “assuming” CO2 will continue to rise at 1-2 PPM because China and India have said so and that is where it will be determined. From there I want to know over the next 20 years will it get warmer or colder and by how many degrees C?

I love to show them the one minute video of Dr Feynman explaining the scientific method.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  TRM
July 8, 2019 10:23 am

What a great comment. I shall remember that when my grandson asks. Thanks, TRM.

Bruce Cobb
July 8, 2019 10:45 am

Back in the 60’s and into the 70’s, teens and young adults rebelled against “the man”, or basically, the status quo. Regardless of whether or not you agreed with their politics, and their somewhat naieve view of things, that spirit of rebellion, and of questioning was a healthy thing. So what has happened now? Big Green has become “the man”. Why aren’t they rebelling against that? Have kids become sheep now?

James Schrumpf
July 8, 2019 10:49 am

What’s up with NOAA that the temperature data set online access has been down all week? Anyone have any information?

July 8, 2019 10:50 am
July 8, 2019 2:19 pm

Can someone please point me to the gate breakers?

I cannot find them on the sites mentioned.


July 8, 2019 3:16 pm

There are a couple of major flaws with the steroid analogy cited in the referenced news article. The “teacher” tried to impress on the students that observing increased home run hitting in baseball players who used steroids was the same as observing increases in extreme events in weather, and that the demonstration of conclusion of increases in one somehow implied the demonstration of conclusion of increases in the other.

First, steroid effects on muscle strength can be, and have been, measured in controlled experiments, replicated in vitro and in vivo with a large number of identical complete systems concerned (humans and animals). Since the experiments are controlled, direct measurements of the effect of the drugs at various levels compared to no drugs can be made and quantified. In particular, replicated, controlled experiments have shown the graduated, quantitative behavior that supraphysiologic doses of steroids, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass and muscle size and strength in normal men. These results are directly applicable to, and have been measured concerning, strength requiring tasks such as home run hitting. The fact that accumulation of the home run statistics over a fiduciary period is done is irrelevant to the hypothesis. The conclusion could just as easily be demonstrated experimentally with a batting cage and a motion sensor.

Second, the attribution of extremal events to an existing, but irregular, low level trend is one of the weakest claims currently in climate science. Extremal events by their nature require very long periods of time to detect changes, and every study that has looked at such events concludes there is simply not enough time yet to detect any change statistically. Secondly, the climate of the earth is a one-off system and it is impossible to do a controlled experiment as has been done for steroids. One cannot study a physical earth exactly like ours with some parameter different in controlled steps, such as levels of C02 or any other factor, and compare to ours. So the analogy to steroids and athletics is false and misleading on several counts. A computer simulation does not count as an experiment, since it can only return values based on what has been programmed into it, which despite current usage in some communities, does not constitute an “experiment.”

She is grossly misleading them on the conduct of science. There are better ways to address it.

July 8, 2019 3:28 pm

There is one analogy that might be made with something scientific, right here on this blog.

With the new moderation time lag, this is a great simulation of what it would be like having a computer chat with someone near Jupiter.

July 8, 2019 3:52 pm

Wow. Judging by the flak, this one is right on target 👍
Having undertaken a few pro bono “interventions” (aka de-programming, de-brainwashing) with success, I am likely to get more requests from anxious parents who have children becoming fearful, disengaged, even suicidal because of all this climate change lunacy.
I know that skepticism is hard-wired into humanity, otherwise we would never have progressed from the trees and the caves. Most adults I know are aware that the climate change meme is a pack of lies, not necessarily because they are well versed in the subject, but because they know when they are being lied to.
I am also reassured by the number of young people who understand what is going on, in spite of everything they are fed by schools, the media, social media. But there remain many who do not seem to have the gene or faculty, and need help.
Thanks Paul and David. I’ll be contributing, and I will be claiming it as a work-related expense.

John A Klug
July 8, 2019 10:00 pm

In school, I remember the worst weather disasters were the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, and the North Sea flood of 1953. Of course now we are told thousands died in the Puerto Rico hurricane Maria, so maybe it is comparable to Galveston?

July 9, 2019 10:37 am

Post says:
Incredibly, many have been federally funded for years, and some are still funded by Trump Administration federal agencies!

Not incredible at all — the deep-state bureaucracies (the swamp) are entrenched Juggernauts. Don’t blame Trump for that — he’s one of the few fighting it.

Johann Wundersamer
July 13, 2019 7:51 pm

“It’s therefore hardly surprising that we are now seeing children marching in the streets and calling for “climate action” and “climate justice.” Worse, their teachers do not only excuse their truancy. They encourage it, giving course credit for these actions, or even saying student activism on climate and fossil fuels is more important than their reading, mathematics, history and other course work.”


“Worse, their teachers do not only excuse their truancy.”

The baddest children we ever had. 16 year olds lifelong told, they were always right. They had nothing to learn and the others always will be wrong.

Natural born pests.

%d bloggers like this: