Climate change misinformation is flooding into British schools, funded, it would appear, by the dark green money of elite billionaire foundations. Schoolchildren are encouraged to plot implausible temperatures rises of 11°C, taught that alkaline oceans are ‘acidic’ and encouraged to write letters to policymakers claiming “our house is on fire” in the style of Greta Thunberg.
The material is being distributed around schools by a London-based operation called Climate Science. An introductory video says its mission is to bring “high quality climate education to every school, company and individual in the world”. Such aims of course do not come cheap. Among the lobby group’s “partners, supporters and friends” are green activist funders such as Schmidt Futures – the family foundation of former Google boss Eric Schmidt – and the Grantham Institute at Imperial – partly funded by green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham.
Give me the child until seven, and I will give you the man, said Aristotle, a phrase understood down the ages, not least by the Jesuit Christian order. Blind faith is more readily accepted by minds whose critical faculties have not been fully developed. And there are few ideas in today’s climate political agenda that require more faith than the forecasts of climate models. How exactly do we know about future climate change and the frequency of extreme weather events, asks Climate Science. “It’s all down to climate models,” is the answer, adding: It’s “pretty cool” to get a glimpse of a potential future, isn’t it?
The school briefing notes suggest that climate models “have been used to make accurate projections for the past 50 years, and have advanced significantly during this time”. Of course, as we have seen in the Daily Sceptic, those “accurate projections” do not apply to temperature forecasts. In fact, it would more accurate to say that they have never produced an accurate forecast in 50 years of trying. Far from becoming more accurate, they are becoming almost laughably inaccurate.
The above graph was produced in a recent paper by the physicist Nicola Scafetta. It analysed 38 of the main models and found that most had overestimated global warming over the last 40 years. Many of them should be “dismissed and not used by policymakers”, he concluded. The thick green line shows the actual temperature measured by accurate satellite recordings. Interestingly, the models started to go haywire at a time when the warming scare was gaining political traction and critical debate on the science started to be discouraged. The World Climate Declaration has been signed by almost 300 university professors, led by a Nobel physics laureate Professor Ivar Giaever. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the Declaration. “In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.”
Meanwhile, back in British classrooms, schoolchildren are being told that we can “expect to see an increase of 4.5°C in global temperatures by 2100 and an increase of roughly 11°C by the end of 2200”. To ram the message home, children must plot the graph below.
There is of course no mention that it is unknown how much temperature will rise if carbon dioxide is doubled in the atmosphere. Scientists debate a range from around 0.5°C to 6°C. Recently, the estimates have tended to fall away from the upper end, not least because global warming has been running out of steam for over two decades. Some scientists argue that the warming properties of CO2 diminish on a logarithmic basis past certain concentrations as the gas becomes saturated in the atmosphere. If, and it is an if, CO2 doubles in the atmosphere by 2200, even the most extreme estimates of temperature rise come nowhere close to 11°C.
Further misinformation is contained in the statement that average temperatures over the last 10,000 years have risen “very gradually” by no more than 1°C. Living things are said to have had time to adapt to gradually changing conditions. This entirely misses the point that over the last 10,000 years there have been a number of warming periods when temperatures were higher than they are today. Last week we noted evidence that suggested the high Austrian Alps were up to 7°C warmer in summer between 4,000 BC and AD 70 than today. Humans, of course, are capable of adapting quickly to temperature changes much higher than an almost unnoticeable 1°C.
Corals are tricky territory for climate alarmists these days since the Great Barrier Reef is currently reporting 35-year record levels. But they are said in the schools material to have been “harmed by the effects of climate change”, although there is no evidence that observed long-term changes in the climate have caused recent significant damage. In fact tropical corals have been around for 500 million years and grow in waters between 24-32°C. Recent bleaching was mostly caused by temporary spikes in water temperatures, easily attributed to natural El Niño oscillations. Instead, Climate Science puts an emphasis on ocean “acidification”, although an entry level chemistry course would note that oceans are not acidic but alkaline.
Humans are said to release “nasty gases” into the air and this “sours” the ocean. The corals become stressed, die and turn white. In fact, corals don’t die first, they bleach and this process is almost entirely due to changing water temperatures. ‘Nasty gases’ of course is a way to demonise CO2 among the younger generation, despite the gas being vital to all life on Earth. The ocean is in fact very alkaline and numerous exchanges, many little understood, influence its pH value. In addition, slightly higher temperatures release CO2 from the oceans.
Needless to say, schoolchildren are encouraged to engage in “climate activism”. This is despite the fact that many activists are said to be in danger of “persecution”, and receiving “threats” from animal farmers, fossil fuel and mining interests. Further information on these threats is not provided. Could it be that the butcher will stop delivering sausages, BP will turn the heating off and Rio Tinto will cease paying dividends into parents’ (and teachers’) pension schemes? Children are also advised to pick an activist from a list including Greta Thunberg and George Monbiot, and fill a poster board full of their good works. Letters to policymakers should stress the emotional, they are told. It is said to be important to learn how other writers present their arguments so children can use these techniques in their own writing. One of the “pillars” suggested is Thunberg’s claim before the World Economic Forum in 2019 that: “Our house is on fire, I am here to say, our house is on fire.”
As with the Jesuits, so with the new climate religion. Belief is everything. “There are no grey areas when it comes to survival,” the children are told.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Here is some of the green propaganda intended for pushing into the young minds of Australian pupils via prepared curricula in schools. It is quite disgusting. Trigger warning, it has to do with children experimenting with the faeces of each other under a guise of awareness of modern medicine. Here, the promoter is not an anon billionaire, but the taxpayer funded national broadcaster, the ABC.
Please send a thankyou to author Tony Thomas, an experienced senior, but now retired, journalist with the right stuff. Geoff S
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/thier-abc/2023/01/an-abc-lesson-in-need-of-flushing/
“Green Climate Propaganda Flooding into British Schools”
But it has been for years – through the national propaganda organisation, formerly known as Auntie BBC
Many moons ago the BBC started by hosting the lecture materials etc for the Open University. Later it created ‘Bitesize’ for GCSE examinations:
“Education for all is core to the BBC’s mission and purpose. Our vision as BBC Education is to transform lives through education.
We do this in four ways:
Our flagship website is BBC Bitesize which provides educationally approved, curriculum relevant self-study and home-learning to 5-16 year olds.
The BBC Teach website supports teachers by working with the best of the BBC’s brands and programmes to create curriculum related content for the classroom.
Tiny Happy People supports parents and carers in developing language and communication skills of their 0-4 year-old children.
Educational campaigns address societal needs and educational deficits. They are delivered with partners and aim to change behaviour. Recent examples include our environmental initiative The Regenerators and Moodboosters, which aims to get primary children moving to improve their mental health and wellbeing.
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/whatwedo/publicservices/learning
And what does the BBC tell people about climate change, global warming etc? Remember Harrabin’s stitch-up? That seminar in 2006
Bitesize
Scientists created two climate models using data on carbon dioxide level increases:
due to natural sources only
due to both human activity and natural sources
The second model better matched the observed temperature changes.
This adds to the evidence that the observed warming of the Earth is because of human activities changing the composition of the atmosphere.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zsxy8mn/revision/3
And the general public
World temperatures are rising because of human activity, and climate change now threatens every aspect of human life.
Left unchecked, humans and nature will experience catastrophic warming, with worsening droughts, rising sea levels and mass extinction of species.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
These billionaires are Johnny come-lately’s
The BBC is 99.9% confident in its assertions and they are teaching children that [useless] models are evidence.
Radical Leftwing billionaires are a problem. They are using their money to try to take away the personal freedoms of the rest of us.
They are a problem but the damage has already been done
Exactly. Somebody has got to grasp these nettles and find out what their motives actually are.
What they’re doing is tantamount to Grooming
From the quote from the BBC:”Educational campaigns address societal needs and educational deficits. They are delivered with partners and aim to change behaviour.
1/ What are ‘societal needs’ and ‘educational deficits’ and who decides what they and what to fill these deficits with.
Are they real or imaginary deficits?
2/ Answer my own question with “blah blah…and aim to change behaviour”
Tell me more:“What sorts of behaviours need changing, who decides and why is a journalistic organisation charged with doing so?
You’ve gotta be on your toes because the implication there is that there’s something wrong with the children – that their behaviour is somehow abnormal or errant.
So why is that.
Children, for purposes of their own continued survival, are obliged to make their parents happy. To copy them. To become true reflections of them.
In which case, why is the BBC and The Groomers looking to change the children – why not go after the root cause of the children’s errant behaviour?
i.e. The parents?
Leave that aside for a moment….
What they’re saying, despite all the rhetoric about ‘Thinking of the children‘ is that children are horrible destructive little shits and need to be re-educated.
By us. With what we say. Because we think they are ‘wrong’
The more you think on that, the worse it gets.
There goes the monster that is borne of starvation.
And they, BBC and other groomers, live with themselves by projecting the monster onto other people’s kids.
At schools and thanks to BBC Bitesize, at home also
As if student-loans, money-printing and rampant inflation weren’t bad enough
Therein is why the kids are falling apart mentally – trying to reconcile the actions of their genuine and loving parents with those who are supposed to be ‘In loco parentis‘
Kids ain’t stupid. They absorb everything even from before they’re born.
And once they have a reasonably well assembled and functioning brain (36 months maybe) but before it’s completely finished, they have it sussed and say to themselves:
“Sod this. I don’t want this world”
So while they still can, they throw a little switch and escape via Autism
i.e. They ditch science, politics, Reeding, Riteing and Riffmatic to concentrate on arts & social skills.
in epic ever increasing numbers now
While really clever science folks take the piss out of them.
poor little greta and all her peers – but look on in awe at how she handled those German cops
(The Good Lord had words on that didn’t he: The meek shall inherit etc etc.
Lets hope they build their numbers fast enough that there’s something left or worth inheriting)
aim to change behaviour
It’s a religion (i.e. behavioral protocol). That said, principles matter.
“The thick green line shows the actual temperature measured by accurate satellite recordings.”
The usual sceptic trick. The “actual temperature” is the UAH measure of the lower troposphere. The data shown is the models rendering of surface temperature. These are different things.
Plus, of course, UAH is an outlier. RSS gives far more warming in the lower troposphere.
In fact Scafetta’s paper kind of recognises this, and shows a similar plot with a genuine surface measure, ERA5. Here is what he then gets:
There are a few red streakers at the top. But observations are now firmly in the mainstream.
Can you model that, NIck?
“Clearly, the RSS, NOAA, and UW satellite datasets are the outliers when it comes to comparisons to radiosondes and reanalyses, having too much warming compared to independent data.
But you might ask, why do those 3 satellite datasets agree so well with each other? Mainly because UW and NOAA have largely followed the RSS lead… using NOAA-14 data even when its calibration was drifting, and using similar strategies for diurnal drift adjustments. Thus, NOAA and UW are, to a first approximation, slightly altered versions of the RSS dataset”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
“Thus, NOAA and UW are, to a first approximation, slightly altered versions of the RSS dataset”.”
Yes. They all use the satellite that was reading too warm. The one that UAH eliminated from its dataset because they deemed it was recording inaccurately.
As noted, the UAH data correlates with the Weather Balloon data.
The UAH data is the only data that can be trusted. The surface temperature data is science fiction.
“Clearly, the RSS, NOAA, and UW satellite datasets are the outliers”
UAH is right! The others are all outliers, even though they agree.
“Thus, NOAA and UW are, to a first approximation, slightly altered versions of the RSS dataset”.
What part of this quote don’t you understand?
So we are in a position where modelled surface temperature warming agrees with measured surface warming. But the lower troposphere actually did something different, which “disproves” the CMIP6 surface results? But was it actually different? Well, RSS, UW and NOAA largely agree with the surface measures, but UAH says not. Case closed.
“Clearly, the RSS, NOAA, and UW satellite datasets are the outliers when it comes to comparisons to radiosondes and reanalyses, having too much warming compared to independent data”.
Case closed.
“agrees with measured surface warming”
Great to know they have built all the urban warming and agenda-driven homogenisation warming adjustments into their surface model. !
How could they do otherwise. ! 😉
The others are AGENDA-driven. Collaboration will make them agree.
RSS uses “climate models” to “adjust” their fabrications. How stupid is that !!
Stokes opines, But observations are now firmly in the mainstream.
Really? The green line still looks well below the model projections, at least to my eyes. Do the surface measurements take account of the UHI effect?
That graph is an anomaly graph with a base period of 1980-1990. What makes that period significant?
It is exactly the same period is the graph (also from Scafetta) featured in the head post.
I knew you were going to say that. Yes it is the one Scafetta used, but my question to you is what makes that period significant. It either is or it isn’t.
If you don’t find any significance in it than say so. Or tell us why it is significant.
Why ask me? The graph was featured in a WUWT post. I just pointed out that there was a different, more revealing graph in the same series, by the same author.
But FWIW, the period can’t start before 1980, because no UAH. And the extent really doesn’t matter. The only purpose is to put all the plotted curves on the same base.
The second paragraph answers the question. Thanks.
I am sure you know Nick that RSS began making “administrative” changes to their reported satellite lower troposphere temperature in 1990. These changes currently add +0.16C to their reported temperature and continue to add more. They are clearly not associated with satellite changes as they all go up, never down as the corrections to UAH data do. See climate4you.com for details.
It’s so much harder to ‘adjust’ satellite data, though, isnt it, Nick?
A what was that word you used? Outlier? So science by consensus of models rather than reality is your metric?
I think that says all that anyine needs to know about the value of your opinion
“It’s so much harder to ‘adjust’ satellite data, though, isnt it, Nick?”
Satellite “data” are adjustments from beginning to end. There is no observation of temperature at any location. A weighted average for the lower troposphere (where is that?) is calculated from modelling of microwave brightness.
Here are Spencer and Christy describing just a small part of the process of creating this “data”:
““The LT retrieval must be done in a harmonious way with the diurnal drift adjustment, necessitating a new way of sampling and averaging the satellite data. To meet that need, we have developed a new method for computing monthly gridpoint averages from the satellite data which involves computing averages of all view angles separately as a pre-processing step. Then, quadratic functions are statistically fit to these averages as a function of Earth-incidence angle, and all further processing is based upon the functional fits rather than the raw angle-dependent averages.”
These are SCIENTIFIC adjustments…
… whereas the surface data fabrication, is urban heat data adjusted further using an agenda-driven methodology.
You, of course, are totally incapable of telling the difference between “science” and “agenda”
The “mainstream” as in popular consensus? One step forward, two steps backward.
Not that long ago Myles Allen, since an IPCC lead author, was a co author of a paper about climate models. Here are some quotes
“Here, our focus is solely on complex climate models as predictive tools on decadal and longer timescales………..Complex climate models as predictive tools for many variables and scales, cannot be meaningfully calibrated……….It is therefore inappropriate to apply any of the currently available generic techniques which utilise observations to calibrate or weight models to produce forecast probabilities for the real world”
“Statements about future climate relate to a never before experienced state of the system; thus it is impossible to either calibrate the model for the forecast regime of interest or confirm the usefulness of the forecasting process”
“Finally, model inadequacy captures the fact that we know a priori, there is no combination of parametrisations, parameter values and ICs which would accurately mimic all relevant aspects of the climate system. We know that, if nothing else, computational constraints prevent our models from any claim of near isomorphism with reality, whatever that phrase may mean.”
Stainforth, Allen, Tredger and Smith ‘Confidence, uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions’ Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2007) 365,2145-2161
Are Myles Allen and his co-authors wrong?
“Not that long ago Myles Allen”
Well, 2007. But they conclude:
“There is much to be done but information from today’s climate models is already useful. The range of possibilities highlighted for future climate at all scales clearly demonstrates the urgency for climate change mitigation measures and provides non-discountable ranges which can be used by the impacts community (e.g. Stern 2006). Most organizations are very familiar with uncertainty of many different kinds and even qualitative guidance can have substantial value in the design of robust adaptation strategies which minimize vulnerability to both climate variability and change. Accurate communication of the information we have is critical to providing valuable guidance to society.”
Come off it Nick.. you are only making a FOOL of yourself… again.
You KNOW the surface temperatures are heavily urban affected, from sparse non stable data. which is then further mutilated by agenda driven homogenisation schemes.
None of the surface data sets represents any sort of REALITY. !
The surface data is much more reliable than the satellite measures. But anyway, it’s just wrong to test the CMIP6 surface predictions using data from a different location, which you know differs from measures of the surface.
The analogy I used is of testing predictions of GDP growth in China using observed GDP growth in Japan, on the grounds that Japanese statistics are more reliable.
The villains in Winter Games would recognize the “dark green money” here described as being the only money that matters. And they make effective use of it. Thanks to all who’ve been reading and commenting on the novel. Some have pointed out it would make a good movie, and if enough buy and read it perhaps that will happen.
I have two grandsons for a couple of hours after (state) school 3 nights a week.
The eldest does his homework while he’s with us.
To be truthful I don’t see an awful lot lot of indoctrination in what he does, he may not tell me everything because he knows my views. He has been been taught about the intermittency of wind and solar but not any of the other issues, but I tell him while he’s doing the work.
To be honest I’m more concerned that he is still sufffering from the effects of the lockdown when he didn’t go to school and I wasn’t around to educate him on anything. There doesn’t seem to have been any action by anyone to rectify the problem it;s been left to parents and grandparents. Fortunately I’m technical and my wife is a linguist.
I had recommended this article on my science and energy blog a few days ago but it did have two minor problems:
THE CLIMATE COMPUTER GAMES:
Once again the climate computer games are criticized as if they were ever intended to make accurate predictions. They are all programmed to scare people, except the Russian INM model. Those pesky Russians! Obviously colluding with Trumpo again!
In fact, the CMIP6 models used for TCS in 70 years, rather than ECS in 200 to 400 years, and using the RCP 4.5 CO2 scenario, rather than the RCP 8,5 CO2 scenario, predict a global warming rate similar to what actually happened from 1975 to 2015. Zeke H. did that for his article to claim the models are very accurate. I can’t remember his surname except the “H”. Climate Howlers repeat his “study” like trained parrots.
That’s just a “more of the same” prediction with TCS and RCP 4.5. Which is possible. But, in the past century, extrapolating the climate for the next 30 to 50 years, based on the climate in the past 30 to 50 years, never worked. In fact, it would have been more accurate to predict the next 30 to 50 years of climate change would NOT be like the last 30 to 50 years of climate change. Sort of a reversion to the mean effect.
THE CHART OF TEMPERATURES FOR THE PAST 50 MILLION YEARS
The chart implies the temperatures are accurate when they are only very rough educated guesses … with no likely margin of error bar. And there are data shown for the year 2050, which do not exist. Why does the chart show 2050?
If I taught the children, I’d tell them the climate will get warmer, unless it gets colder. And the climate has been changing your whole life, and you probably never even noticed. Winters are still cold, and summers are still hot. So don’t worry about the climate. And don’t worry about nuclear war either. If there is such a war, you will be perfectly safe if you hide under your desk, as we were taught by our teachers in the 1960s. You can always trust teachers. … I’d last five minutes as teacher before they fired me.
24 good climate science and energy articles I read this morning, in my daily lis,t with titles and links: Honest Climate Science and Energy
Hiding under a desk might be a good idea.
There is a book called “Hiroshima” that tells stories of people who were very close to the nuclear explosion, but were shielded in some way from the direct effects, and ended up surviving.
Yes, there are still people who think that fallout will kill anything that doesnt get flash fried or blown to bits. The reality is that fallout is the least of your worries if you survive a nuclear weapon.
There are people who seem to believe that nuclear weapons turn everything in massive radius into instant super heated gases.
Yeah… no.
During testing in Australia back in the day they decided to get a tank – Centurion Mk3, then a modern in service vehicle – park it in the blast area, start the engine and retire to wait for the big boom.
So, 400m away from a 10kton blast? Should be completely destroyed, right?
No.
The engine had stopped. It had run out of fuel. The tank had physically moved, the facing surfaces grit blasted and most of the external fittings forcibly removed. It was determined that the crew would have probably died from the blast although the armour MAY have protected from the radiation provided they had kept the hatches shut.
So basically the refilled the fuel tanks and drove it out of the test area.
It sat around the corner of a base for a few years, finally got dealt with, upgraded to Mk5 standards and spent 18 months fighting in Vietnam (where ironically it took more damage than in the atomic tests).
Post retirement it served as a gate guard in Darwin but the most recent accounts suggest it is now at RAAF Edinburgh in South Australia.
Remember, 400m away from the blast.
Nuclear weapons are not magic.
“There is of course no mention that it is unknown how much temperature will rise if carbon dioxide is doubled in the atmosphere. Scientists debate a range from around 0.5°C to 6°C.”
Which to me is the definitive proof that climate science is not settled.
Yes, the alarmist climate scientists can’t tell us how much warmth a certain amount of CO2 would add to the atmosphere. They are ruining our economies based on guesses.
The science is definitely not settled.
+0.5 to +6 is malarkey, not science.
They need more decimals to be mo’ scientific.
+0.525C to +6.195C would make sense to me.
That would be real science.
Of course, preceded by the usual “Scientists say”.
If scientists said that, I’d panic and head from Michigan to Alaska to beat the heat
By comparison, the mass of a proton is 1.67262192 × 10-27 kilograms.
That’s REAL science. Not much debate about it.
The range is still pretty much in line with the magnitude of their “adjustments” though.
So it must be “science” 😉
Teachers aren’t flooding into British schools though – they are on strike today.
Those poor students!!!
” … how much temperature will rise if carbon dioxide is doubled in the atmosphere … Some scientists argue that the warming properties of CO2 diminish on a logarithmic basis”
A little high school algebra here shows that the mere invocation of atmospheric doubling produces a logarithmic relationship.
The fundamental relationship is the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” which is given by IPCC as 3K +/- 1.5 or some such (not worth looking up they are clearly using a political not empirical number.) for each doubling of CO2 concentration. Empirical work by scientists such as Judith Curry and Roy Spencer gives lower values.
Taking 280 ppm as the preindustrial CO2 concentration, 560 ppm is one doubling. That would, accepting the IPCC value, add 3K to the preindustrial global average temperature of ~288K (15 C) to make the average 291K (18 C).
The next doubling would be 1120. That would be 4 times as much as the preindustrial base but only 2 doublings.
To calculate how many doublings a concentration is we divide it by the base (C/280) and take the base 2 logarithm of that ratio.
So the global warming equation is T = Tbase + ECS*(log2(C/280)).
If you graph that relationship with T on the y axis and Concentration on the X axis it will produce the familiar hump shape of a logarithmic relationship. https://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/precalculus/logarithmic_functions/
A logarithm is the inverse of an exponential relationship (e^x). Exponential relationships go to infinity faster than algebraic relationships (e.g. x^2) because they are always accelerating.
Logarithmic relationships are always decelerating and go to infinity more slowly than algebraic relationships (even y=x).
So it is not the case that “scientists argue that the warming properties of CO2 diminish on a logarithmic basis”.
It is the simple arithmetic of the hypothesized relationship between CO2 and global temperature. To get to 11 degrees of warming you would need to get to concentrations in excess of 2000 ppm. No one believes there is anywhere near that much fossil fuel of any type available on this planet.
This is why hysteria is unwarranted even if you accept the IPCC’s hypothesis as “settled science”.
Ah, but the issue is allegedly, that once you get to a certain temperature, positive feedback will set in and tip you over the edge.
Despite the fact that no actual positivee feedback in the climate has ever been demonstrated. And the paleogical record indicates that its never been recorded either. Despite extreme levels of CO2 in extreme past ages.
absolutely correct. if such a positive feedback mechanism existed, then it in the course of the last 4.5 billion years, it would have been triggered and the system would have run away. It hasn’t, QED
Here’s a story tip:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-says-climate-change-is-bigger-threat-humanity-nuclear-war
Biden says climate change is bigger threat to humanity than nuclear war: ‘We’re going to have a real problem’
Biden invoked the possibility of ‘Armageddon’ during an October speech at a Democratic fundraiser”
There’s the Trafficer-in-Chief, Joe Biden, ramping up the climate change hyperbole.
Of course, there is NO evidence that CO2 is anything other than a benign gas, essential for life on Earth, but here we have Biden comparing it to nuclear war.
It’s pretty dispicable considering Biden and the other climate alarmists are scaring the children to death with their insane rants about the Earth’s climate. There’s no evidence for the dire consequences they claim are coming but that doesn’t stop them from making the claims. It’s child abuse, among other things.
Why isn’t there a rivalry of elite Billionaire foundations of diverse viewpoints covertly funding competing propaganda? Whenever there is a bandwagon, there is a gravy train. And who is the gravy train? Not all Billionaires (e.g. hydrocarbon cartel elites) are unified in their political views. Their networking is motivated by money and power but there usually is a central core of power and money that is driving it. Mere goodness and truth are not immense motivators.
They are pretty much united in their contempt of the ordinary citizen, Biden is no different from Putin, he has just got less guts.
And Biden is just a sock puppet for 0blahblah and he is the same for the shadows which pull his strings. Ad nauseam.
Hey Leo,
Propagandizing children is nothing new and the goal is social control and the question always has to be who benefits via money and power. In our world, I don’t think everything lines up along political lines…we are globally centralized by a few hundred or less elites…what is their gig?
I should have said who or what is the gravy train. The mystery is worth trying to unravel. The Medical Industry has shown contempt by using governments to sell us masks and vaccines that only work a little if at all. The hydrocarbon industry has showed contempt of the little guy by lobbying for carbon taxes at the state level with riders to prevent people from growing off grid or becoming their own energy producers. Both the greens and the hydrocarbon elite has shown contempt of the little guy by doing everything they can to keep natural gas in the ground in NY and PA. The tech industry is the same by making their products addictive and mind controlling… and by censorship. The only way to buy back power is consumer action, vote with dollars cause voting for politicians is a crap shoot… and the power of our elected officials is is less and less representative. Everything now is sideways, covert, networked by strange bedfellows. The false and totally leveraged exterior is saving the planet but money and power will always the core motivation of the elite. Unfortunately, all this messing around has unforeseen consequences…it’s always has. When the problem requiring a solution is always money and power….. then all sorts of bad problems and consequence arise. Ideas and philosophy shapes us but it doesn’t drive us…. not in this world. Consumer action is the only thing that will empower us little guys….not yap. But we are so confused and dependent we don’t know what to do but yap.
Elon bought twitter out of a desire to restore freedom of speech on twitter. Nice but what is twitting going to do to empower the little guy. Yapping about politics may or may not get better or best politicians elected but the real power of the little guy is his wallet.
Indoctrinate the little kiddies with the principles of Lenin and Mao….Forward comrades….give them the little Green Book….with the Red Star inside.
And no copper for you either
EPA vetoes controversial Alaska mining project in effort to protect salmon population – ABC News (go.com)
story tip
Exactly, don’t be green, it’s Green, not green, follow the green[backs].
Yep we definitely need more Climate Jugend and Green Shirts.
Nicola Scafetta’s graph does not look like there’s a dramatic difference between models and measure. But the average model warms at double the rate of the measured temperature. That’s a pretty dramatic error. And the differences between models are as much again. That’s a pretty dramatic sign that they aren’t much use.
But it’s always difficult for logic to compete with money.
As the world turns…
BP May Cut Renewable Energy Spending. Its Stock Could Catch Exxon and Chevron. (yahoo.com)
At some point individuals need to be held personally responsible. Weed out those individuals and hold them responsible.
Irony.
Saint Greta of Scowl has taught kiddlings that school is something you strike from. So her poor simps will miss out on these exciting courses.
In days gone by, people with lots of money used to build schools to spread education to more children. Now they engage in child abuse.