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.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
A near neighbour was incredulous when we voiced doubts about “climate change”. He is around 30, so the indoctrination is already well set.
In the 1980s a KGB defector, Yuri Bezmenov, wrote Love Letter to America, detailing how the KGB spent only 20% of its budget on spying. The rest was spent on funding subversive groups, often unknown to the members, who were undermining Western culture. He talks about The Four Stages of Ideological Subversion.
You can read Bezmenov’s book free (it’s quite short) here:-
https://archive.org/details/BezmenovLoveLetterToAmerica/page/n1/mode/2up
Bezmenov said the first target was the educational system, and that it would take at least 20 years. This is the organisation that Putin rose through. There is no reason to suppose the SVR have dispensed with its success. And just look around at what’s happening today.
Ukraine might be winning the military war, but Putin, a believer in hybrid wars, is winning the culture war. And it is a war.
Humans are said to release “nasty gases” into the air and this “sours” the ocean.
Another chestnut making a comeback: Originally (in the 1980s), this nasty gas was nitrogen dioxide and it was said to cause acid rain aka to sour the oceans.
Acid rain and also holes in the ozone layer caused by hairspray! Whatever happened to them!
Well, the Montreal Protocol banned almost all production and use of CFCs, but we still have hairspray
The interesting bit about that (the ozone layer thingy) was that it was said to be the cause of catastropical global warming in the early 1990/ late 1980s. And that despite today’s Save the climate!-clowns nowadays claim they had already know about the dangers of CO2 pollution in the 1970s.
What I was trying to get at, though, was that the climactericans (pun intended) are reusing their 1980s stories here: Souring the oceans means oceans becoming acidic and this, in turn, must lead to acid rain (evaporated ocean water falling from the sky). And always nasty gases, they can just never make up their mind what the nasty gas actually is.
Aside: This is eerily similar to the chemtrails stories, BTW, which are also about humans releasing nasty chemicals into the atmosphere which will certainly kill us all given enough time. One can only wonder what the precise difference between climate scientist and conspiracy theorist is here.
I’m willing to be corrected on this but I don’t think the ozone hole and global warming have ever been the same thing – even though CFCs have been implicated in both effects.
I already posted a link to that a while ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epi91coSM_w
That’s a German song about the terrible hole in the ozone layer. Translated into English, the lyrics could be:
Imagine that, In 50 years
There’ll be lions in the moorlands
And at the beaches of the North Sea[*]
We’ll be lying in the shades of palm trees
Only grandpa can still remember
Winter & rain & snow
Oh the future will be so gorgeous
Because of the hole in the sky
We’ll be driving around in cabriolets
Wearing only T-shirts and shorts
And life will be just like a Coca Cola spot
Nothing to worry about, nothing to fear anymore
Just the sun tanning us ever more beautifully
Day after day
Oh the future will be so gorgeous
Because of the hole in the sky
Which will keep growing & growing forever
If we only want it
It’s from 1991 and that’s clearly a description of catastophical global warming to me. I also remember this from other songs of the time, eg, Paul F. Cowlans (Englisch singer/ songwriter) Long Hot Summer (1992).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJD9JkI4F9U
That’s again about the hole in the ozone layer, although he also mentions the greenhouse effect and poison rain, apparently unable to make up his mind what’s precisely supposed to kill us.
[*] Arthur Conan-Doyled called this the German Ocean. Is that another case of something German becoming windsored for political reasons?
Lord Macaulay used the ‘German Ocean’ expression in his history books, from which I inferred that it was standard usage in the 19th Century.
Yes–How is that Energiewende working out for the Germans?
Merkel off.
wink
Meanwhile the Muppet International Airport in Davos is overflowing.
I once had a discussion with a husband and wife who were Zoologists. The subject of global warming came up. Both said that the climate was changing due to human “pollution”. I asked “What kind of pollution?”—The husband thought for a second and then said “CO2”———So I asked “How much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and how much comes from humans?”——–There was an embarrassed silence and then the husband replied—“Eh, well I don’t know the exact numbers as such”. His wife then said “We are both scientists you now, so I think we know what we are talking about” ——-Really? If I did not know what a welding rod was, perhaps it would not be good idea to discuss the subject of welding. ——–The lesson here is that people hear what the media have to say. They hear things like “All scientists agree”. They see every bit of extreme weather beamed to their homes via cable TV. They see politicians enacting policies to supposedly limit the “global temperature” (whatever that is supposed to be), and they hear about the “climate emergency” and they ASSUME there is one. ———-But these two scientists should realise that in science (if that is what it is really about) then you question everything, and if something cannot be falsified then it IS NOT SCIENCE.
I get the feeling I’m the bloke in ‘Idiocracy’, the film where he wakes up after a hundred years to find that the country is governed by morons.
We’ve not built a power station in thirty years.
The armed forces have been run down and the money they DID get was wasted on two aircraft carriers that we can’t afford to buy aeroplanes for.
We’re being taxed up the wazoo.
The country was shut down for nearly a year on account of a bad cold going around.
We allowed 500,000 gimmegrants into the country last year, that’s a net figure.
The Chancellor who printed £500bn and wasted ALL of it is now Prime Minister.
There are unexplained deaths occurring all the time, and nobody seems interested in finding out why.
We borrow £bns and hand it out to foreign countries, who then cosy up to the Russians.
The government is obsessed with reducing carbon dioxide, a gas which consists of just 0.04% of the atmosphere and is essential to all life.
To be honest, I’m surprised that there is anybody economically active still left in the country. The idiots have taken over.
Eloquent with a touch of humour
Thank you… I put the comment up here because I posted it on the Telegraph (Iain Dale’s article) and it was instantly removed. How dare they?
Taking one for the team in reading the Torygraph
You’re not allowed to call them gimmiegrants. They’re all doctors, civil engineers and potential future prime ministers/chancellors/chairmen of the Con Party don’cha know.
Actually, using the word “Africa” often gets a comment removed or to not appear. I know this because I did comments again and left out the word “Africa” and Lo and Behold the comments miraculously appeared.
You get that problem of comments being removed or not actually appearing in the first place on News Online Websites like The Express or Mail, and Telegraph etc, not because you broke any of their rules regarding profanity or because you said anything offensive. You see this happening most often on controversial issues about race or gender, or the Royals etc. On climate I have found it does happen and only maybe 80% of what I might say actually appears. The other 20% mysteriously never appears or gets removed, with the excuse that “Due to a number of complaints……… etc etc”. —- So I do know what you are talking about. ——–I have NEVER had that problem here on Daily Sceptic. So, if we are not using profanity or offending someone’s sensibilities then why do they remove the comments??????????
The Telegraph.
Now there’s an interesting one. I regularly used to post comments on The Telegraph’s website. I’d usually get responses and upticks.
The, late last year, I noticed that no-one was responding to any of my comments, nor giving me upticks. That has continued to the present day.
I managed to find a phone number for them, and asked if I’d been shadow-banned. I was assured I had not. I asked if it was because they’d given me a deal when I last threatened to cancel my subscription, £1.99 per month for six months. They assured me it was not because of that.
When they came for a renewal of my subscription this year I took the opportunity to ask again. I was told I’d have to email their moderators to ask. I did so. I’ve never received any reply, whatsoever, despite a second email.
I cannot believe I have not been shadow-banned. Am I the only person in this situation?
I have NOT renewed my subscription. I find that I can still read The Telegraph by accessing their site through TOR
I don’t believe that the people actually in charge are idiots, though they obviously employ plenty.
I believe that the objective is the destruction of European Christian ( but with a huge amount of pre-Christian influences) civilisation. Their policies then make sense.
I agree, but remember depopulation is also a fundamental part of the Agenda.
They are clearly not idiots in the sense that they could not pass an arithmetic test. But they are mostly United Nations and World economic Forum LACKEYS that put those political agenda’s FIRST and the people who vote for them LAST.
It’s worse than that. CO2 = 0.04% of the atmosphere but human emissions of CO2 are only 4% of that figure. The rest is entirely natural. The idiots have taken over for sure, but we are bigger idiots for letting them do it.
This is probably a naive question but who gets to decide what information can be used in schools and what cannot. If a group advocating the advantages of slavery or the positive effect of adopting a policy or eugenics tried to push materials into schools they would presumably get very short shrift and such information would be pronounced dangerous and not allowed in schools.
Who is it that decides what information is acceptable and can form part of the curriculum? There has been quite a lot of tension in the USA over parental involvement on school boards, we do have parent governors in the UK although they struggle to have much say on curriculum matters. Maybe we need to open up these curriculum matters to a wider spread of parental and community scrutiny. On these types of issues there needs to be a policy of presenting both sides of the argument; Education not Indoctrination as Ron Desantis would say.
There’s no education intended here, it’s pure indoctrinaton supposed to impregnate young children’s brains with a comprehensive all-things-woke description of the world. Eg, people may be more or less vulnerable to climate change depending on their gender.
Absolutely, these people are child abusers and perverts
On PC and Woke issues there is no “other side of the argument”. ——–Climate Change is NOT science. It is “Official Science”. You will be free to discuss black holes or evolution, because no one is trying to reorganise the global economy based on those theories, but when it comes to the climate, you are interfering with a political agenda.
I wonder if teacher says:
“Of course all the people pushing Climate Change, The King, Al Gore, Greta, Tony Bliar, all fly around in private jets. They are all hypocrites. The know it’s nonsense.”
*******
First Friday Freedom Drinks For all freedom lovers everywhere to meet.
Friday 3rd February 7pm
The Foundry Bell
London Rd,
Wokingham RG40 1RD
Directions from M4 – A329(M) – A329
Directions from M3 – A322 – A329
Chris Morrison’s otherwise intelligent reports on matters environmental would be a lot more valuable if he could keep his unrelated personal prejudices out of it. Anti-Christian bigotry being the most noticeable one.
Perhaps in his mind ‘X is like Christianity’ is a first-class argument that X must be bad, but other people may be fair-minded and well-informed, and thus bored by the tangential mini-rants.
I’m sure that somewhere within various education acts the use of propaganda is forbidden. But when a teaching union is on strike today their responsibility to educate our children properly is obviously an irrelevance.
The same union which forced the government to close schools on the basis of zero evidence on the risk to them of catching a cold from pupils.
The headmaster of our daughter’s school reminded us to “respect the right” of these bits of pond life to strike. Gutless bar steward
So where does all of this stuff about an allegedly changing climate all caused by human activity come from? —-It comes from the United Nations/ World Economic Forum. When we teach children about greenhouse gasses and global warming are we also teaching them about “Sustainable Devlopment”? Do we tell them that this is all about creating a world run by an unaccountable technocrats, that started out wanting to give us green energy to save us from global warming, but is now about running the world to save us all from ourselves by controlling every aspect of our lives? When they teach them about this alleged climate catastrophe about to engulf us, do they also teach them that this is not based on any empirical science as such, and that it is mostly based on the output from climate models full of assumptions that so far have all been totally WRONG? —–Nope, probably not. Have the pupils at primary schools heard of Greta Thunberg? Most certainly they have, but have they heard of The Club of Rome, and its Limits to Growth? Nope, almost certainly not.—- At one time our children went to school to learn HOW TO THINK. They now go there to learn WHAT TO THINK.
If you place your baby or young child in State Approved Childcare/Nursery you are giving them plenty of opportunity to warp their minds before age 7.
Take a hit on your income, care for them yourselves until at least age 5 and instil in them YOUR values, not the Globalists’.
My wife tells me that home schooling has burgeoned in the last couple of years. Is it any wonder?
Thumberg. “International Truant of the Year”. Nobody’s listening darling. Remember, an empty vessel makes the most noise
Look at that dear, sweet girl. How could anyone bring themselves to be critical of someone with such a tender, loving face.
.
Svenska Dagbladet, February 2019
In English: Swedish start-up used Greta Thunberg to bring in millions
Ingmar Rentzhog, an entrepreneur who claims he found and helped develop the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg into a world phenomenon, also used her name to bring in almost SEK 10 million in venture capital for his company – without her knowledge, SvD has found.
“We had no information about that”, says Svante Thunberg, the teenager’s father.
https://www.svd.se/english-version-swedish-start-up-used-greta-thunberg-to-bring-in-millions
.
Once more I feel the need to post a graphic, because ‘visuals’ can make an impression on even the most insulated intellect.
I fear I must resort to the most basic of junior school science lesson graphics.
I’d like to hear from a climate activist who can prove the elementary carbon science visual to be misinformation, and therefore a bit too radical to include in our childrens junior school edification / curriculum.
You can imagine my delight when my daughter returned home from school recently full of excitement about taking part in an upcoming city wide choir competition, here in the North East of Scotland. That was until I asked for a rendition….Needless to say it became somewhat challenging to remain enthused when i heard the lyrics.
Turns out the participating schools each need to sing the same song chosen by the competition organisers along with one of the individual schools choosing (yes you guessed it, the school opted for another song with a similar theme)
I can confirm the indoctrination of the younger generation is happening as we speak.
Picture the scene…class after class standing up singing the same message of fear time and time again. Is it any wonder the younger generation are sh*tting it about so called ‘climate change’.
If you can stomach it…here it is;
Climate change song;
The time is now.
INTRO
Three! Two! One! The time is now!
CHORUS
It’s time to wise up,
Get our act together,
This is so much more than,
Changes in the weather,
And we say no no no more wasting time,
And we say no no no more wasting time,
The time is now (oh oh oh oh oh oh),
The time is now (oh oh oh oh oh oh).
VERSE 1
Whoop whoop whoop, sound the alarm!
We gotta stop doing our planet harm.
Too many years of human excess,
has put our climate under too much stress
The good news is it’s not too late,
but there’s no time to procrastinate.
The time is now for drastic action,
If we wanna stop a global chain reaction.
Try to see the bigger picture,
So much bigger than you and I alone,
If we all just make some changes we,
Could be the ones to turn it all around.
CHORUS
It’s time to wise up,
Get our act together,
This is so much more than,
Changes in the weather,
And we say no no no more wasting time,
The time is now (oh oh oh oh oh oh),
The time is now (oh oh oh oh oh oh).
VERSE 2
First thing to do is stop deforestation,
A major cause of habitat obliteration.
Trees make oxygen that we need to breathe,
No more trees means no more me.
Time to stop burning those fossil fuels,
If we don’t want to be fossils too,
Burning fuel causes air pollution,
It’s time to embrace a greener solution.
Large scale farming plays a big part,
Billions of cows means a whole lot of farts:
We need change it has to be drastic,
Cut the production of single use plastic.
Three million years human evolution,
Two hundred years industrial pollution,
One! One last chance for a green revolution
CHORUS
It’s time to wise up,
Get our act together,
This is so much more than,
Changes in the weather,
And we say no no no more wasting time,
And we say no no no more wasting time.
CHORUS
It’s time to wise up,
Get our act together,
This is so much more than,
Changes in the weather,
And we say no no no more wasting time,
And we say no no no more wasting time,
The time is now (oh oh oh oh oh oh)