Political Climate
Mar 24, 2019
Feds push climate alarmism to our children

By David Wojick

As our children skip school to chant climate alarmist slogans, you may wonder “Where do they get this stuff?” Of course they get some of it from their teachers, but these teachers get a lot of it via the U.S. Federal Government.

The sad fact is that a number of federal agencies either maintain or fund websites that specifically exist to push alarmist teaching materials. In many cases these alarmist materials are also federally funded. The Trump Administration has done very little to stem this flow of propaganda to our children.

Here is a partial list of Federal or federally funded websites pushing alarmist educational materials for kids:

1. Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN).

Bills itself as A collection of 700+ free, ready-to-use resources rigorously reviewed by educators and scientists. Suitable for secondary through higher education classrooms. CLEAN is funded by grants from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy.

2. US Global Change Research Program “Resources for Educators.”


The USGCRP is funded by 13 federal agencies. It also produces the hyper-alarmist National Climate Assessments.

3. NOAA’s ”Teaching Climate.” (A massive website)

NOAA’s Climate.gov website is completely alarmist. In fact they define alarmism as so-called “Climate literacy.”

4. NASA’s ”Climate Kids” (Another huge site)

Includes games and videos for young children. Here is part of the green message: “Some of the ways you can help may have to wait until you are a little older - like choosing an energy-efficient car, installing solar panels on the roof of your house, or choosing a green career.”

5. The National Ocean Service’s ”Talking to Children about Climate Change.”

Alarmist materials for teachers, beginning in elementary school.

6. ”Teaching about Climate Change” from Carlton College, sponsored by NSF

Carleton is another massive alarmist site that includes both teaching teachers how to teach alarmism and classroom materials for doing so.

7. ”Climate Change Live” with many federal “partners”.

CCL advertises itself as a “distance learning” site.

8. ”Climate Change Activities” from UCAR, sponsored by NSF.

UCAR is a consortium of universities that runs NSF’s multi-billion dollar National Center for Atmospheric Research.

9. ”Climate and Global Change” by the National Earth Science Teachers Association, sponsored by NASA and NOAA.

NESTA is solidly alarmist.

10. ”Climate Change” from AAAS, sponsored by NSF.

Includes alarmist material for all grades, including kindergarten.

11. Climate Change and Human Health Lesson Plans” by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH.

Promotes various health scares based on climate change alarmism.

In contrast to these federal propaganda sites, there is at this time no website that focuses on teaching children about skepticism and the real scientific debate over climate change. It is no wonder that they believe false alarmism.


Dear Dr. Joe,

Yes, it is disappointing that President Trump has not been able to change some of the outrageous behavior of federal government agencies.

The climate propaganda programs need to stop NOW.

Our local American Meteorological Society chapter still references the NASA climate propaganda site as their authority for hysteria, based on repeated recommendations from Phil Mote’s OCCRI at Oregon State University.  But I think that the Oregon AMS at least suspects that it may not be a good way to argue science.  Unfortunately, none of the officers of the local chapter have adequate training in science to be able to distinguish real from fake science, especially when the fake science is promoted by a young woman, Kathy Dello, who works for Mote.  Neither the President nor the Vice President of the chapter have formal training in meteorology.  Yet President Steve Pierce keeps referring to himself as a “meteorologist,” when presenting the weather on local TV.

Here is the comment that I left for the article below:

Propagandizing children is simply wrong, VERY WRONG.

Children need to be taught how to think not what to think. Climate science provides a wonderful opportunity to teach children how science really works and how to resist the overwhelming propaganda that they will be told is the Real McCoy.

First and foremost, science is not an exercise in consensus and authority. It is an exercise in careful logic and robust evidence. That is why the great physicist, Richard Feynman, characterized science as “a belief in the ignorance of the experts.” That is why the motto of the first scientific society, the British Royal Society, is “Nullius in Verba” or “Take no one’s word for it”. And that is why Aristotle characterized arguments from authority and consensus as ‘logical fallacies.’

For instance, we don’t argue that the world is round, because everyone agrees that it is. We simply present a photo of Dr. Harrison Schmitt standing on the moon with a round earth in the background. (Schmitt is the only scientist to ever walk on the moon. He has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and works with me as a Director of the CO2 Coalition.)

Yet most of the arguments in favor of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming insist that people believe in the coming apocalypse, because 97% or 99% or all scientists do. What nonsense! Why do you suppose they do that in lieu of the evidence? That’s easy.  They don’t have convincing evidence!

All they have is a vague correlation between rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and slightly rising atmospheric temperatures since World War Two. Although atmospheric CO2 apparently rose continuously during this period, the global temperature anomaly only rose for two of the seven decades and only after a notable shift in the Pacific Ocean called the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977. Could our oceans be responsible for the shift? Sure! It is easy to show that our oceans contain 99 to 99.9% of the mobile heat on this planet.

But what about the infallible ‘Climate Models’ that are supposed to be able to predict our climate out a century using mathematical methods similar to weather models? With weather models barely accurate out a week, it should seem preposterous that the similar climate models work out to 5,200 weeks! And indeed the climate models badly fail verification tests.


My colleague, Professor of Mathematical and Theoretical Physics Gerhard Gerlich, perhaps said it best:

“To derive climate catastrophes from these computer games and to scare Mankind to death is a crime.”

It is especially criminal to involve children in the climate fraud.

Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (Physics)
Corbett, Oregon USA

Mar 20, 2019
Media Touts ‘Clear Sign of Human-Caused Climate Change.’ Here Are the Facts.

Marc Morano

Daily Signal

Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein has made another attempt to convince the public of global warming, but his latest analysis has climate scientists once again refuting his claims.

On Tuesday, Borenstein cited AP analysis that found hot temperature records in the U.S. were being broken twice as often as cold temperature records. He concluded that this is “a clear sign of human-caused climate change.”

Borenstein wrote:

The AP looked at 424 weather stations throughout the Lower 48 states that had consistent temperature records since 1920 and counted how many times daily hot temperature records were tied or broken and how many daily cold records were set. In a stable climate, the numbers should be roughly equal. Since 1999, the ratio has been two warm records set or broken for every cold one. In 16 of the last 20 years, there have been more daily high-temperature records than low.

The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>

He went on to cite various climate scientists:

The AP shared the data analysis with several climate and data scientists, who all said the conclusion was correct, consistent with scientific peer-reviewed literature and showed a clear sign of human-caused climate change. They pointed out that trends over decades are more robust than over single years.

He concluded:

The analysis stopped with data through 2018. However, the first two months of 2019 are showing twice as many cold records than hot ones.

But the scientists he cited don’t speak for all climate scientists. Some, in fact, are dismissing his “clear sign” analysis.

Climatologist John Christy told me that Borenstein framed the data wrongly:

The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is declining. Record-low events are simply declining more rapidly than record highs. The drop in record lows is associated with development around the weather stations, which causes low temperatures to increase more than highs for a variety of reasons.

Most climate change activists cite the greenhouse gas theory-that man-made gases are causing changes to the Earth’s temperature. Christy noted that this theory predicts an increase in frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Yet the exact opposite is happening in the U.S. ‘the frequency of those temps is declining’.

The cause? Christy says it’s likely “urbanization and natural variability.

He added: “I’ve actually done this same analysis for the 682 [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] stations with at least 105 years of record since 1895. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895, thanks to many records set from the 1920s to 1954.”


He continued:

The AP… is spinning the story by only noting that record lows are fewer than highs now - but the real story is that in the U.S., both extremes are falling. This is consistent with the decline in number of days greater than 100 [degrees] Fahrenheit (or 105 Fahrenheit or 95 Fahrenheit, etc.). The differential decline in record temps is inconsistent with [greenhouse gas] theory, which predicts an increase in record highs and higher TMax in general.


Note: the decline in both heat and cold records was shown even in Borenstein’s post.


Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. expressed skepticism of the AP analysis as well:

Without assessing the role of increased urbanization and other land-use changes… changes in atmospheric aerosols overhead, microclimate around observing site, changes in heights of observations, and concurrent trends in surface air humidity, it is not robust to attribute any changes in extreme temperatures to just human-added atmospheric CO2.

He added: “We have published on each of these subjects but work remains mostly ignored.”

Borenstein’s claims are also countered in the peer-review scientific literature. A 2018 analysis found that multiple recent studies and long-term data refuted claims that there had been an increase in heat waves. In addition, a 2013 paper published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology found that U.S. extreme heat waves have decreased since the 1930s.

It’s also important to note that recent temperatures are not at all unusual, with 2018 continuing a several-year cooling trend. The media-hyped “hottest year” claims do not hold up to scrutiny. Princeton physicist Will Happer ridiculed such claims and explained that “alleged record warmings are tenths of a degree or less, comparable to the statistical error”.

Borenstein, the chief climate reporter for the Associated Press, has a long history of promoting dubious climate claims and essentially lobbying the public to “believe” that man-made climate change is a dire emergency and that government “solutions” are needed.

He has repeatedly recycled Antarctic melt fears despite contrary evidence, and unscientifically claimed that “climate change” has made the Earth “weirder” and “downright wilder.”

Americans who rely on the Associated Press for climate news and information are being misinformed. The AP is serving up nothing short of rank climate propaganda.

Mar 14, 2019
Open letter to anyone marching for ‘the climate’ today

By Brian Dingwall


Hi kids,

Many of you will be marching today, demonstrating for an issue you believe to be very important.

Many years ago, I was young, well informed, and absolutely convinced I knew enough to make good decisions for the future of the world, and couldn’t understand just how obtuse all the oldies were, how they just didn’t know the stuff I had just learned.

Malthusian economics drove most of us, the Club of Rome had reported, and to my subsequent shame, I confess that in 1975 I voted for the Values Party....I wanted a better world, I knew resources were on the verge of running out, the population was out of control, and we were polluting our one and only planet. It was, I thought, time for the change that was so desperately required.

The Values party did not get in, to our surprise the resources did not run out, Simon won his bet with catastrophist Erhlich, as countries became more wealthy they cleaned up their environments, particularly water, farmlands, and air.

China is now wealthy enough to be doing exactly that right now, following in the footsteps of Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. We certainly never see the famous foaming rivers of industrial Japan anymore.

Economists now understand that the ultimate resource, the human imagination, never runs out.

So is it likely to be with climate change. I urge you to never abandon your skepticism, for a critical mind is your most important asset.

Be able to articulate exactly what evidence has persuaded you to your opinion. Opinions though, are not evidence. Consensus is not evidence.

The world has many historic consensuses that have turned out to not be so. So far, I don’t mind sharing with you, I have yet to be persuaded.

My background is in science, with a smattering of economics, and statistics and I well understand the case for catastrophic climate change. I find it unconvincing.

As do a raft of well qualified experts in many fields, even Nobel prize winners, and I urge you to find out who they are, and why they have reservations.

There are two sides to this debate, but only one is well resourced, so you have to work a bit harder to find the arguments of the skeptical scientists.

One of the very great tragedies of the whole issue is that since 1990, it has been very difficult for scientists to garner resources from governments to research natural climate change, but we can be certain that the forces that wreaked great climate changes in the past are still active, and may be a much greater magnitude than those wreaked by CO2.

For today please reflect on these things:

All the CO2 being released today is simply being returned to the atmosphere whence it came, and is now available to the biosphere, which we can see is already flourishing as a result. Global temperatures have increased (about 0.7C degrees in last 100 years) ever since the little ice age, and continue to but at nothing like the rate predicted by climate models.

We live from the equator to (nearly) the poles, and hence are particularly adaptable, and will adapt to minor temperature changes and have in the past through climate optima, and little ice ages.

Much of the land surface of the earth is too cold for habitation or agriculture, some warming of the northern latitudes of Canada and Russia for example will be welcomed.

Here in New Zealand, we produce food for the world, with one of, if not the lowest “carbon footprints” of any country. Should you actually succeed in killing this industry, that production will be conducted elsewhere, at a higher carbon cost...so the improvement as you see it, in New Zealand’s emissions will be more than offset by extra emissions elsewhere...we will be adding to the problem, not mitigating it.

It is also very important that each of you understands that for any complex problem, there are a range of decisions, trade-offs, to be considered. Do we understand all the benefits that follow from the use of fossil fuels? How many of these are we prepared to sacrifice? What would a fossil fuel-less world look like for you (hint: I don’t think you would like it very much).

Have you read or even heard of the “moral case for fossil fuels”, and do you understand the extent to which they feed and clothe the world, provide us with our tools, and our leisure, empower our devices, and enable our travel at present? House us and clean us?

You are not informed if you only read one side of the case. I happen to believe in free markets, the economics of von Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Simon, McCloskey, and many of the moderns but I have also read Marx, and various of the collectivist economists, you must know what all the opinion leaders are saying and why.

So do seek out “lukewarmers” like Curry, Lewis, Christy, Soon, Balunias, they will lead you to a raft of others “the counter-consensus” that you, like me, may find rather more convincing than the orthodox climate church.

Personally I have learned that what I knew at your age (vastly more than my parents knew, of course) was not always right...now captured in the expression “it’s not what we don’t know, it’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so”.

We once believed in leeches, blood-letting, that washing our hands was not important, that continents didn’t drift, that stress causes ulcers, a daily aspirin is good, and that there is always an imminent catastrophe on the horizon that never materializes.

The question is whether what we know for sure that the specific climate change you worry about is human caused, will have a measurable and substantial impact, and is real. What climate change would have been quite natural? Will we look back in years to come and think “we believed what?”

Have we included accurately in our models the impacts of short and long term natural oceanic cycles, cosmic rays impact on cloud nucleation, clouds, the sun and sunspots, what, if anything, is there still that we don’t know that we don’t know? Can we get initial conditions right?

Always examine closely the logic of the case...we have only one world so all we can do is create computer models of the climate, and wait to see if nature tells us the models are a good approximation of the real world suitable for projecting future climates...and if climate is a 30 year average of all our global “weather” then we probably have to wait at least two preferably more periods of 30 years simply to validate the models so 100 years or so.

So far the projections and predictions have been wildly wrong, the polar ice is healthy, the Manhattan freeway is not underwater, sea-level rise is not accelerating, and snow is far from “a thing of the past”. As climate scientist and keeper of one of the satellite records ironically observes “the models all agree the observations are wrong”.

And the economics don’t work, as Nobel prize winner Nordhaus teaches the cost of mitigation is an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the problem, so the cure is worse than the disease.

Don’t take my word for it, or anyone’s. Read for yourselves, go to source. Do not trust any scientist who calls a peer scientist a “denier”. Understand peer review, and that a peer reviewed paper is more often than not just the opening salvo in a chain of events that may or may not ultimately expose a scientific truth.

Be very careful of any theory where the accepted facts (historic temperatures, and the location and number of the thermometers)) change regularly to suit the narrative.

And finally, enjoy your day, be yourselves, trust your own judgment, read widely, and look behind the data to the motives of the players.

There is a (slim) chance you are right, but even if you are, trust in human ingenuity, that fabulous engine of change, to ensure survival not of the world as we know it, but of an even better world than previous generations enjoyed...we will not revert to sleeping with our food animals on dirt floors with unpainted walls! As humans have done for most of our time on earth.

Page 4 of 633 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »