11 March, 2011

Learning the Impact of Climate Change

I am in my second year attending a public high school in southern Hobart.  This is a review (requested by a follower) of my current Society and History (SAH) class, wherein we are participating in a six-month project on “the impact of climate change”.
For the first lesson we started out all sitting in front of the white-board brain-storming on what comes to mind when we think about climate change.  After the first few people called their answers, it became apparent that they believed everything that the Greens had been saying: that the polar caps will melt, and the sea levels will rise to flood all the low-level islands; that there will never be snow again; that all the polar bears will die out; that it was all the big oil companies’ fault; that this is happening and that everyone should go “eco” and drive a Prius, except for them.  My reaction thereto was that anthropogenic global warming was a hoax, another way for Greens, politicians and other greedy bastards to get even more money so that they can go get a new jet or a great big house right next to the sea.  The reaction of the class to my statement was, of course, to fall into an absolute silence of disbelief which my teacher broke by saying, in a sarcastic manner, that “There are some people, that [sic] don’t believe in climate change and think that it is a hoax or a con.”  Thereafter I was shunned for the rest of the day and most of the next.
The second lesson brought with it the first of many loads of complete bullshit into the class-room in the form of a PowerPoint presentation stating: that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, that it is not a natural occurrence but man-made, and that the evidence therefor is undeniable; that the deaths caused by global warming will double in just twenty-five years to 300,000 people a year; that the sea levels will rise by more than twenty feet; and that category four and five hurricanes have almost doubled in the last thirty years.  My reaction was to laugh, and to ask aloud whether people really believed that the sea levels will rise by twenty feet or more.  The class fell silent once again, relying on the teacher to put me in my place; she broke the silence by telling me to ask only positive questions.  She then continued the lesson by reading the PowerPoint presentation.  (Laughing in the middle of class, by the way, can get you a detention for disrupting the class if done too often.)
For the third lesson the PowerPoint was brought out again with even more questionable statements claiming that putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing: an increase in temperature by one degree; a rise in sea levels; more bush fires; more droughts; more animals to become extinct; malaria to become more widespread (so much so that it would spread to the Northern Territory); the Arctic Ocean to be ice-free by 2050; the extinction of the polar bear; and, my personal favourite, “China and Indonesia will be too hot to grow rice.”  My reaction was to cry out, “What?”  The teacher simply told me to be quiet then went on with what she was saying whilst the rest of the class glared at me—accept for a select few whom I have been able to convince that global warming is fake.
Most of my class, including the teacher, has been completely brainwashed into believing everything that the Greens have said on the impact of climate change.  The teacher has supplied no evidence for her statements, no proof, no scientific arguments except that “the majority of scientists” say so, and she has considered no contrary points of view.  
The SAH class, by teaching only one view of the impact of climate change, is not teaching society or history.


0 out of 10


UPDATE I:  The teacher so far has prevented students taking material out of the class, but I hope to procure some evidence of her claims (which some find unbelievable) as soon as possible.

UPDATE II:  Materials can now be seen at Impact of Climate Change.

UPDATE III:  Lately, during the SAH classes I have attended, we have been working on two or three tasks as well as our scavenger-hunt home-work task.  Other than getting us to walk to the library to work on the computers or telling us that we’ll be watching something for a portion of class, the teacher, during SAH, does little more than mark work or check her e-mail.  (I have no problem with this because it allows me to work on something that I am interested in or, if I really want, just relax.)  4 out of 10

UPDATE IV:  This week for SAH we had a relief teacher because our regular teacher had some personal things going on.  I wish I had this teacher for more then just a relief, because of just how relaxed he is and how he lets us work on what we want to work on.  If we have some SAH to work on, English work to finish, or even if we just want to read a book, we are allowed to, though only after we have finished this strange postcard to do with this bad book, Escape to Kalimantan—do not read:  1 out of 10—or at least if we say we have finished our postcard.  7 out of 10

UPDATE V:  This week we had only two lessons instead of three because we had an assembly instead.  For the other two lessons, I didn’t do much other than just muck around on the computer because the teacher was checking what work we had finished so far.  Since I had finished two of of my three tasks I was able to relax and, amazingly, to enjoy SAH, for a change.  When she came to check on me and look at my crossword and powerpoint on the history of cars which she said that was very good, I didn’t say that the two tasks took me only an hour to complete and had no reference to climate change within them even though she may have wanted some.  5 out of 10

UPDATE VI:  Today, one week before Easter break, we have stopped SAH altogether; at the moment we are just doing double English.  5 out of 10

UPDATE VIIIt is now three weeks since school has resumed and we still haven’t started any actual SAH work, forget the fact that we weren’t doing actual SAH before but religious mumbo jumbo, let’s just not do SAH at all.  We will just keep doing English when we are supposed to be doing SAH.  Are we going to do any actual society and history?  Hey, it’s not like history is important.  Who really cares what a bunch of people who lived before I was born did?  I mean, if they were so smart then how come they’re so dead?  3 out of 10

108 comments:

  1. Excellent work Alfred. By singling you out in the class and referring to you in the third person using a mocking or disparaging tone is effectively bullying you and I bet the school has some brochure that encourages you to report that sort of thing?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alfred, keep it up - debate is better than meek obeisance. You've probably seen this, but in case you haven't have a look at what your country's pre-eminent intellectual - Clive James - has to say on the rcent flooding and by extension climate change in general.

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/critique-march-11-the-drumming-of-an-army-clive-james-australia-floods-global-warming-dorothea-mackellar

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good on you. YOu are more important than you realise. THis indoctrination is occuring across the world. There is a generation of people growing up with atrophied brains, but with the ability to parrot the 25 worst disasters that will befall man.

    Just a suggestion. Maybe you should ask the teacher for an opportunity to make a presentation of your own, perhaps with a group of other open minded students, to the rest oft he class.

    Keep it highly fact based and draw out the areas of questionable data, where pure predictions are being dressed as "fact", the heavy reliance on global climate models and their abject and fatal proven shortcomings for predictive or explanatory purposes.

    Above all, keep reading and questioning, despite what you need to regurgitate in school to achieve a pass grade.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Suggested reading: Ian Plimer (Aussie), Heaven & Earth. A bit turgid but worthwhile. HE IS A SCIENTIST.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A lot of the things quoted are in excess of IPCC estimates. For example sea level rises estimates have declined in successive IPCC reports. No reputable scientist is quoting 20 foot rises.

    It's worth exploring this dynamic. The Greens claim catastrophic changes, the "consensus science" is comparatively sober, the skeptics dispute PART, not all, of the IPCC science. For example, the Bob Wards and Tim Flannerys claim that skeptics deny 200 year old science. This is clearly a strawman - the argument is about the feedbacks.

    The IPCC acknowledge the science of feedbacks is poorly understood and the range of impact extends from negative feedbacks to massively positive. The teacher claims as consensus only those parts that reinforce her catastrophic narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Skeptics Handbook

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/sh1/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  7. Worth checking your countryman Andrew Bolt's blog:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

    Not to mention the peerless Clive James:

    http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/critique-march-11-the-drumming-of-an-army-clive-james-australia-floods-global-warming-dorothea-mackellar

    I liked your correct use of 'therefor' too. Very few British students would even know it existed!

    10/10

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well done, the brainwashing you so well describe is indicative of the need for those who wish the AGW to continue, thus allowing the scam to continue unquestioned by the masses. What better way than to indoctrinate the young and impressionable. The AGW scam in unquestionably political, not scientific.
    Some reading for you and others:

    Richard Lindzen: A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action (Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the GWPF's Academic Advidory Council)
    http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/2011/01/richard-lindzen-case-against.html

    and...
    US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' (Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.)
    http://itsfaircomment-climategate.blogspot.com/2010/10/us-physics-professor-global-warming-is.html

    Dive into our blog for more links.

    Best regards, ItsFairComment


    H/T Bishop Hill for linking to your blog

    ReplyDelete
  9. I found your post vivid and insightful. You might enjoy the cartoon and the comments shown here: http://climatelessons.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-hope-for-climate-sense-in-classroom.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Found you through a comment on Andrew Bolt - keep up the good work, young man!
    Fight the good fight!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Alfred S.,

    It is poetic injustice that the class is "Society and History". If your teacher had set the stage of the class as a study in human behaviour and then proceeded to use the age old tools of fear, uncertainty, and doubt to shape her pupils 'beliefs', then perhaps the class would be learning some valuable insights into 'society and history'. But alas from what you write it appears her ojbective is indoctrination and not education.

    You are indeed getting a lesson about 'society' that is much more valuable to you, than what your teacher thinks she may be teaching.

    I commend you and your parents for demonstrating a much broader awareness of 'society' than the person who stands in front of you in your classroom.

    Rod Anderson
    Otttawa, Canada

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stay a sceptic and exercise your scepticism. It's the only way to stay true. That Goebbels-like indoctrination is going on all over the world, as has been noted, but there's no need to yeld to outright, demonstrable lies.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well done Alfred, you are being taught propaganda not knowledge and you were savy enough to see it as it is. Sets you up well for whatever career you decide to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Stick to your guns Alfred! Well done - hope your folks are proud of you for standing up for what you believe in, and resisting the endemic terrorising of young folk with this garbage.

    Good luck to you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Alfred,
    You display a quality that I suspect your teacher will never be capable of recognising - the ability to think for yourself, well done!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well done Alfred. Standing up to a teacher and your peers and calling their bluff is very brave.

    Some ways of opening a discussion and not being shut down by your teacher may be to:

    1. Read above Jo Nova Skeptic Handbook.

    2. Appear interested, assure everyone you too want a clean green world, but...and then ask for evidence or for teacher to explain contradictory evidence - e.g. IPCC projects only 40cm of sea level rise, where did 20feet come from, some scientists say warming is not all bad, are computer models always accurate etc.

    3. You can say your farther researches this and says... and then contradict the teacher - she can dismiss you - you're a kid, but she will (or should) be more careful dismissing your father, and she may be less antagonistic to you.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ah, I'm glad for this kid's sake that the 10:10 people weren't there in the class at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nice post - thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  19. You might point out that malaria is not related to temperature. It was common in England during the little ice age (Shakespeare mentions it, that is the ague). The worst recorded outbreak was in Siberia.

    Remember just one "fact" comprehensively debunked introduces the element of doubt to anyone who has any critical faculties. If that is wrong, what else is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Man, you are so done. I'm old: my grade 20 (we called your grade) was 1970, and we were headed into a new ice age. The prediction was "Famine 1975!" (I wish I had kept the publication.)

    You are done because high school is about setting you and others into the proper consensus for a stable and productive life in society. It is a place where those who could not impact society by action - teachers - impact those not experienced enough to question them. The teachers you question have a technical problem of getting through their lessons, combined with a social problem of not causing trouble by being heretics themselves, added to a general poor knowledge of how to think for themselves. They are textbook thinkers and learners.

    Your reputation as a self-thinker will gather you few friends and poor reports, especially if you are dismissive of those who follow the party line. In part it is not the teachers' fault. The real fault is in their blind passion and lack of self-criticism. But the anger that befell Galileo is that which comes to all non-sheep who speak up.

    The only defense is to put a PowerPoint of your own together and, without arguing too strongly or (at all) personally, present it. After that it is keep your head down and live your life.

    Been there, done that, got the scars. The scars are only semi-optional.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Going against the supposed perceived 'orthodoxy' is tough, especially doing so in front of your peers in the classroom.
    Know this though, you are right and don't ever doubt yourself, let them laugh, he who has the last laugh, laughs loudest.

    And let it be known, the politicians through, the teachers were the ones' to mar the future of young Australians.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Alfred – I was also a “sceptic” in school. 55 years later, I remain a sceptic. So I’ll say “Welcome” to the fraternity. And congratulations on being one of those rare humans with the faculty of “critical thought.” As you’ve apparently already noticed, there’s sometimes a price to be paid for that. But there are rewards as well.

    Just one warning – do not “automatically” oppose a position just because it’s “Green”. Sometimes even a Green can have good idea. Not often, but it does sometimes happen. When they do, though, they also usually go wrong in the execution of that idea.

    I’ll also recommend a blog for your inspection and education - http://judithcurry.com/

    Dr Curry is a climatologist – and one I respect. Her blog is a gathering place for those of all views on climate. Some of them are scientists, some are engineers, economists, IT professionals, etc. You’ll find a variety of topics and a wide range of viewpoints, both sceptic and “consensus”. And, as usual, a lot of nonsense. But it IS educational and interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Alfred, you are welcome to use the powerpoint slide deck I put together. Facts, as they say, are stubborn things.

    http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2009/12/teaching-about-climate-change.html

    And congratulations for thinking for yourself. The Conventional Wisdom is nothing if not conventional. Thinking for yourself is sadly rare these days.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Also, there's an excellent Youtube video by Dr. Richard Muller (Chairman of UC Berkeley Physics Dept) here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI&annotation_id=annotation_916464&feature=iv

    He isn't a skeptic, but is extremely harsh about how Climate Change is presented, and the scientists behind ClimateGate in particular ("hide the decline")

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bloody hell. Climate scepticism in Tassie, and in the youth in which our future is yadda yadda yadda. It must break Bob Brown's green heart to think of it.

    Good!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bravo!
    Take it on the chin.
    If it doesn`t break you ,it`ll make you tougher.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Well done Alfred. My two daughters have been in a similar situation except with understanding teachers but external exams that require them to tow the line to pass. They know what answers to write but also know that those answers are wrong.

    Can I suggest some ideas for you?

    1) Learn the FACTS and make sure you can produce references. The last thing you want to do is to make vague and unfounded statements. If you are called out on them you need to be able to back up your statements.

    2) Use the IPCC 'facts' to show that the claims being put forward are not in line with even the consensus. Try not to be confrontational; remember that you will be putting your teacher on the spot and embarrassing him/her. Also, by being respectful you are making it more difficult for people to say you are being disruptive. Just laughing or saying "it's a hoax" can be claimed as being disruptive and doesn't advance your cause.

    3) Keep telling your friends the facts too. It's not only classrooms where people learn.

    4) Consider asking your parents to talk to your teacher and request that a counter view be allowed in class. If this fails consider taking it up with the Head of Science or the Principal.

    5) Stay up with the play. I read about 10 climate-related blogs a day and have done since the Climategate affair in 2009. It's hard at first because there is so much backstory to many issues but, if you want to become really effective as a debater in this area, you need to learn the arguments, counter-arguments and the facts!

    6) Don't assume that, just because someone is against the consensus, they are right. The need for proof is universal; if they don't provide any proof then you should give them only limited credence.

    7) You might like to remember this statement I put into my slide shows. Science without debate is propaganda.

    You can see from the comments that you are not alone. Keep up the good work! :-}

    ReplyDelete
  28. Just a bit of trivia. Modern Chaos Theory, more specifically "The Butterfly Effect," was kick-started in the 1960s by one Dr. Lorenz, a meteorolgist who was modelling climate and came to the conclusion that - short of a manipulable alternate universe - modelling could not work.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Alfred – I was also a “sceptic” in school. 55 years later, I remain a sceptic. So I’ll say “Welcome” to the fraternity. And congratulations on being one of those rare humans with the faculty of “critical thought.” As you’ve apparently already noticed, there’s sometimes a price to be paid for that. But there are rewards as well.

    Just one warning – do not “automatically” oppose a position just because it’s “Green”. Sometimes even a Green can have good idea. Not often, but it does sometimes happen.
    When they do, though, they also usually go wrong in the execution of that idea. 

    I’ll also recommend a blog for your inspection and education - http://judithcurry.com/
    Dr Curry is a climatologist – and one I respect. Her blog is a gathering place for those of all views on climate. Some of them are scientists, some are engineers, economists, IT professioinals, etc. You’ll find a variety of topics and a wide range of viewpoints, both sceptic and “consensus”. And, as usual, a lot of nonsense. But it IS educational and interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Standing out from the crowd is the best way to nail chicks. Congratulations for using the Internet to question authority in public. All we had back in the 80s were a pair of headphones and Pink Floyd 'The Wall'. That, and lock picks.

    Here are the world's oldest single site thermometer records. They strongly suggest that history is not actually a hockey stick. At all.

    http://i49.tinypic.com/rc93fa.jpg

    -=NikFromNYC=-

    ReplyDelete
  31. Congratulations, Alfred, on being willing and able to think for yourself. Too bad if your classmates are demonstrating how rare that is-- but don't give up on them! You are giving them a good example, maybe some of them will even start asking "do we really know that?"

    ReplyDelete
  32. Nice one.

    You have the right to ask for evidence.
    You have the right to challenge authority.

    The bottom line is that even if it is real, climate change is a flyspeck compared to overpopulation.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well done. Check out this link:

    http://borepatch.blogspot.com/2011/03/why-npr-should-be-de-funded.html

    The first video on Borepatch's article is Prof Muller demolishing the "Hide the Decline" graph. Now if teacher would play that in class the response would be interesting. Of course she won't play it but send it to your friends. Raise legitimate doubts. What else is illegitimate science? There is a lot out there to explore.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Keep at it!

    Actually, you are lucky in that your teacher is using old and easy to refute talking points. We I you I'd start with "that the sea levels will rise by more than twenty feet".

    Respectfully ask your teacher for the reference for this number. If your teacher has one ask him or her if, in his or her opinion, the IPCC is a better reference? If the answer is yes then point to this :

    "Higher temperatures are expected to further raise sea level by expanding ocean water, melting mountain glaciers and small ice caps, and causing portions of Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets to melt. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise between 0.6 and 2 feet (0.18 to 0.59 meters) in the next century (IPCC, 2007). EPA http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/index.html

    (If your teacher has no reference point to the IPCC in any case.)

    At this point you have proven your teacher wrong on one factual assertion. Getting people to change their minds is a process. But it begins with the polite, non-confrontational, citation of facts contrary to the position they are asserting.

    Once you have one fact in the bag you move onto the next. Apparently you have six months. If you do your research, maintain a respectful attitude and get your contrary facts right, your teacher will begin to dread the "climate change" section he or she is required to teach. Your classmates will begin to realize that things are not quite so straightforward. Minds will begin to change and the whole ridiculous propaganda exercise will produce ten or twelve new skeptics.

    Day after day, fact after fact, all referenced.

    Oh, and by the way, you will have had an excellent and very useful learning experience.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well done! This is heartwarming to see from the next generation. Your teacher may wish to consider the impact of the banning of DDT on the increase in Malaria rather than any other extraneous factors.

    ReplyDelete
  36. From New Zealand. Well done! Are you aware that there are some important people at the University of Tasmania who would agree with you. Professor Aynsley Kellow in the Dept of Government, for example, was interviewed on ABC Radio in early December 2009 and had some scathing things to say about climate scientists. He also has a chapter in a 2007? book. Google his name. Ralph Hayburn, formerly University of Otago, Dunedin

    ReplyDelete
  37. Good lad Alfred! Education is about questioning and seeking answers. As long as you don't question the teacher, for they have no answers.

    On the bright side you're already smarter than your prof... she got a job, your's will be better! Business rewards brains, unions reward teechurs!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks for the plug Ralph! I've just arrived, jetlagged, in Baltimore for a conference and came across this post - only a couple of hours after you made it. That's globalisation for you!

    Alfred: well done for questioning orthodoxy. One of the reasons I started questioning eco-orthodoxy (as a long-standing environmental activist) was that caricatured accounts of problems and solutions lead to nonsensical (and costly) public policy decisions. Look at the desalination plant in Victoria or what seems to have been a mistake in keeping water levels high at Wivenhoe dam - both because of a mindset that the future would be dry, that the risks of drought were greater than those of deluge. That kind of thinking runs through the AR4 report of WG2, IPCC on impacts that I contributed to as a reviewer.

    I saw too environmental educationists planning to 'embed the right values' (as if we know the facts and how we should act) rather than engender sceptical reasoning and the institutions we need to manage such problems. This was one of the reasons I wrote my 2007 book - 'Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science.'

    A critical point: you need to be a bit more nuanced. Climate does change and man almost certainly is having an impact. The real issue is how much and what we should do about it. Answer: not as much according to observational data as the modellers would have us believe. Read Jo Nova's Handbook for a sceptical take - but also apply the same standards of scepticism to her work (as with any material).

    You'll make a scholar yet!

    Aynsley Kellow

    ReplyDelete
  39. Good on you, Alfred. You can obviously see through BS pretty clearly. A word of caution: as a younger man I too had a finely honed BS detector. Regrettably, I also had a short fuse; all too keen to pick a fight and satisfied with nothing other than outright victory. I have learned that this is not always necessary. The quality of argument one puts up, the manner in which one conducts oneself - there are just as important. Stick to your guns, but with good humour and backed by rigour. All the best, mate.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Courageous, Alfred, good for you!

    You get a mention in Saturday's UK Daily Telegraph.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079645/alfred-s-australian-schoolboy-climate-hero/

    ReplyDelete
  41. Alfred, congratulations on your stance.

    As for the scare story that the "polar caps will melt" try this world famous arctic scientist and his view :

    Dr Syun Ichi Akasofu founding Director and Professor of Physics, Emeritus, of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks from its establishment in 1998 until January of 2007. Dr Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles.

    http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/

    Dr Akasofu, in his peer reviewed work, has evidenced that recent Arctic warming is entirely consistent with what would be expected of the earth's recovery from the Little Ice Age.
    Here is one of his papers :

    http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf

    "it is shown that the Earth has been warming from about 1800–1850 to 2000 at approximately the same rate, so that there is no definitive proof that “most” of the warming after 1975 is due to a manmade greenhouse effect (Figure 2b). This is simply their hypothesis. It is well known that CO2 molecules can cause the greenhouse effect and that its amount in the atmosphere is increasing, so it is natural to hypothesize that CO2 is one of the causes of the warming trend. However, it is not appropriate to conclude a priori that the 0.6°C rise is mostly due to human causes without carefully subtracting the contributions of natural changes. Natural causes are almost ignored in the IPCC study except for some obvious causes (e.g., solar changes and volcano effects). The results presented in this paper show that natural changes are substantial and, further, that there is nothing unusual about the present temperature rise."

    ReplyDelete
  42. Alfred,

    The next time they try to tell you that the Pacific Islands are in danger of flooding, refer them to these links by the world's most distinguished sea level scientist, Dr Nils Axel Morner :

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

    "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud"

    "Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden.He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission
    on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years."

    2.Evidence submitted to a Parliamentary Select Committee, by Dr Morner, showing that sea level is not rising:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm


    3.Video evidence from Dr Morner’s visit to the Maldives (in the Youtube engine type:The Maldives Are Not Sinking):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8jOENwyklg


    4.An article in the Spectator (June 2010) quoting Paul Kench of the University of Auckland and Arthur Webb of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, who’s research findings further supports Dr Morner’s evidence.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6057668/pacific-islands-defy-apocalyptic-climate-change-scenarios.thtml

    Dr Morner's critique of some of the scientists that have contributed to previous IPCC reports :

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/05/21/sea-level-rises-what-sea-level-rises/


    "Morner was a former reviewer on the IPCC report and when he was first made a reviewer he said he was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one.”

    ReplyDelete
  43. Alfred,

    As for "malaria to become more widespread", give this to your Teacher :

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm


    Memorandum by Professor Paul Reiter, Institute Pasteur; Paris

    THE IPCC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION. EXAMPLE: IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH

    "I am a specialist in the natural history and biology of mosquitoes, the epidemiology of the diseases they transmit, and strategies for their control. My entire career, more than thirty years, has been devoted to this complex subject. My research has included malaria, filariasis, dengue, yellow fever, St Louis encephalitis and West Nile encephalitis, and has taken me to many countries in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Pacific. I spent 21 years as a Research Scientist for the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At present, I am a Professor at the Institut Pasteur in Paris, and am responsible for a new unit of Insects and Infectious Disease. .........."

    ReplyDelete
  44. Alfred,

    As for the Polar Bears, try this :

    "Polar Bears & Global Warming - Dr Mitch Taylor"

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I63Dl14Pemc&feature=player_embedded



    “Canada’s growing polar bear population ‘becoming a problem,’ locals say (January 8th, 2010).”

    http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmental-news-in-orlando/canada-s-growing-polar-bear-population-becoming-a-problem-locals-say#ixzz1DSxcHqcF

    “Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

    “Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off.”

    “Polar bears ‘thriving as the Arctic warms up’”


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html

    In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today.

    “There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears,” said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals

    ReplyDelete
  45. President Nasheed of the Maldives talks about the Maldives being “carbon neutral by 2020” but his Government is supporting a project to construct 11 new airports on the Islands:

    http://www.maldivestourismupdate.com/2009/07/11-new-airports-to-be-constructed-in.html

    Also, here are two peer reviewed scientific papers, by Dr Nils Axel Morner, showing that Maldives sea levels are not rising:

    http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/ccsa/2004/00000013/00000002/art00004

    Ask your teacher to refute this these papers.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I sincerely hope my son grows up to be like you. Smart, questioning of 'authority' and principled.

    He's only 5 so I have a long time to teach him.

    Bravo.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Well done Alfred.Keep thinking for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well done. There is a mass of evidence on the internet and in books that should convince any reasonable person that AGW is a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well done Alfred. If only there were more young people like you with minds of their own who are prepared to look at the facts rather than the propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  50. G'day Alfred,

    Did you know that a fellow Tasmanian, the late Prof John Daly, was an eminent scientist who repeatedly challenged the fiction of sea level rises;

    http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/hobart-msl.htm

    Today, you can go to the Isle of the Dead in Port Arthur Tasmania, and see a tidal marker etched into the sandstone by a British Antarctic surveyor in 1841.

    Daly used this as irrefutable evidence in his arguments, which were so effective that Daly's untimely death was described as "cheering news" in the leaked Climategate emails from the University of East Anglia in 2009.

    Your challenge to the climate propaganda taught in our schools for decades demonstrates you understand the difference between learning HOW to think, not just being taught WHAT to think. It's a life-lesson that ensures integrity will always be part of your character in your quest for the truth.

    The encouragement from these responses and the wealth of information offered to you will surely aid you in that quest. Congratulations.

    Blackswan Tasmania.

    ReplyDelete
  51. The globull warming brainwashing is worse than we thought.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I would just like to add to the general congratulations. It is hard to stand up and be counted, so I am just adding to the comments as another person who is supportive of your position. You are not alone....however your teacher and class might have tried to portray your position.

    You may want to use the information in the following link:

    http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

    A good introduction.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Alfred, I have a question:

    You go to school in Tasmania and they're talking to you about measurements in feet?

    It's been 25 years since I was in the year level you're in now, but when I was in Year 8 in Victoria (that's what we call it here - I don't know what they call it in Hobart) everything, and I do mean everything was in metric. I knew Tasmania was considered a little bit behind, but I didn't think it was by that much.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I see you haven't presented a stitch of evidence for your account of your class.

    No matter. You account demonstrates that you are clueless about the science of climate change and, more importantly, about the scientific method.

    You're readily transparent, a kid proudly displaying the arrogance of ignorance for all to see.

    Take some science and critical thinking courses. And pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
  55. What a great posting. Keep up your courage, but maintain as much poise as you can. Compare previous ICE ages, AND THE WARMING PERIODS that ended them. Manhattan once had mile high glaciers covering it that carved out the Hudson River valley. WHAT WAS IT THAT MELTED the glaciers?

    Involve discussion of Scientists that mention the Sun Spot cycles, and Solar Flares and the effects of the big yellow ball in the heavens and IT's impact on climate.

    Then speak about the dangers of censoring true scientific debate, and personalizing and demonizing the dissenting opinions. And the religiosity of the Greens, and their treating Global warming as a religious doctrine that demonizes dissent as heresy.

    AND THEN CAP IT OFF WITH READING THE E MAILS THAT CAME OUT OF CLIMATEGATE, OF THE SCIENTISTS OF EAST ANGLIA, THAT CONSPIRED TO EXCLUDE DISSENTING OPINIONS FORM THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS.

    And as difficult as it is, try to rise above your teacher's combative attitude, and be as calm and respectful as possible. Do not give her ammo to shoot you with.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Alfie,simply cut to the chase,download the IPCC reports chapter by chapter,and follow up references as you see fit. Take your time,and it will take time. Another useful work is "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Dr Spencer Weart,a good online history with many real science links.

    Don't waste time with Jo Nova and other false prophets.They are usually trying to mislead with selective quotation and the odd fabrication. Plimer's book is full of basic errors. Climategate is an irrelevant diversion that you will only understand once you've read the basic science and got some idea of the history of AGW. It's politics,not science. Remember,there may be no practical political or social response to anthropogenic climate change,but that does not falsify the science. Some problems are intractable.

    Once again,cut out the middle man,and do not trust interlocutors. Read the works that have started it all, the IPCC Reports.

    ReplyDelete
  57. It seems you have a lot of supporters out there. This from NZ:

    http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/bullying-into-belief/

    Congratulations on getting into Bishop Hill and the Telegraph!

    ReplyDelete
  58. Alfred,

    Don't beleive what people say, watch what they do! (Their actions will tell you what they are really thinking)

    If you want what someone has then do what they do! (Learn from others experiences)

    Repeating the same behaivour and expecting a different outcome is maaadd. (Don't sit their hitting the enter button gwtting the same error message, try a different key for gaaawwds sake)

    A person is smart, people are mindless zombies. (Self explanitory really)

    Change is the opportunity to stop making mistakes. (Most are worried by change. If you don't change you will continure the mistakes you ARE making)

    Don't beleive a thing you are told, by ANYONE. Check for your self, then check again. You will become your own person if you do.

    Don't waste time listening to those telling you what to beleive or how to think.

    If what you are hearing makes sense, it will be easily varifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I would say from what you have presented on what your teacher has showed you and your class, Alfred her major resource would have been The Down To Earth Guide to Global Warming. This book and presentations are put together for Scholastic by Laurie David and Cambria Gordon. Laurie David was Al Gores right hand when he made An Inconvenient Truth and the book, etc has been put together from the same flawed information. Your teacher is only regurgitating what is being presented as facts to her by these charlatans. Many above have provided many good references that debunk this waffle from the Gore and IPCC. Do not expect that your teacher will accept these however as she is convinced that they are in the pay of Big Oil. I weep for your generation and the tidal wave of misinformation that they are fed by many a left wing illuminati. The Earth will be poorer for it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ignore BJE - he's one of the trolls who inhabit James Delinpole's blog.

    ReplyDelete
  61. If your teacher is making claims about oil companies, ask her whether she thinks the involvement of Goldman Sachs in carbon trading is for charitable motives :

    http://www2.goldmansachs.com/services/advising/environmental-markets/business-initiatives/trading-and-cap-markets.html

    We continue to act as a market maker in emissions trading, weather derivatives, renewable energy credits (RECs) and other climate-related commodities, and look for ways to play a constructive role in promoting the development of these markets. By making markets through which these commodities can be easily traded, we enable more liquid markets. This in turn helps our clients manage their risks, such as greenhouse gas emissions, more effectively and reduce carbon emissions at a lower cost.

    In Europe, we have been market makers in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme since its inception in 2005. In 2007, we established a North American Environmental Commodities Team that facilitates the purchase and sale of carbon offsets, RECs and other new climate-related commodities."

    ReplyDelete
  62. Nick:
    'Once again,cut out the middle man,and do not trust interlocutors. Read the works that have started it all, the IPCC Reports.'

    You are joking, I take it? With all the evidence of manipulation in the Climategate e-mails? 'We will stop this getting into the IPCC', etc? The IPCC IS a 'middleman.' Look to the observational evidence. No need to call Jo Nova a 'false prophet' - just provide observational evidence of the missing hotspot predicted by the models. No observed increase in water vapour means moderate warming from doubling carbon dioxide, most of which has occurred. Look to the science: assess falsifiable hypotheses against observational evidence.

    Aynsley Kellow

    ReplyDelete
  63. Now we have some idiot recommending that Alfred not take any courses in science and critical thinking.

    One can never underestimate the intelligence of climate science deniers.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "bjedwards said...

    Now we have some idiot recommending that Alfred not take any courses in science and critical thinking.

    One can never underestimate the intelligence of climate science deniers."

    Ah, a 'warmist' trying to damp down the scandal of the indoctrination of children with falsehoods to perpetuate a scam of global proportions.Tells you everything.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Alfred, could you post on the blog (if you can get them) material that either you or you teachers use for “the impact of climate change” 'lessons'. Then we(readers)could review them ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  66. "Silencing the scientists: the rise of right-wing populism."

    by Clive Hamilton on March 2, 2011

    http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/silencing-the-scientists-the-rise-of-right-wing-populism/

    Alfred is just a kid. He can learn on his own why he shouldn't believe the intellectually dishonest trying to peddle politically motivated anti-science nonsense. Those include James Delingpole and Bishop Hill who take advantage of the gullible like Alfred.

    Thankfully, people are beginning to catch on how much right-wing charlatans have misrepresented and deliberately lied about climate science.

    Got that, ItsFairComment?

    ReplyDelete
  67. bjedwards,
    Alfred is perfectly capable of working it out for himself: reason and evidence will guide him. He already, I think, has the ability to see past those, like Clive Hamilton and yourself, who seek to win arguments using pejorative terms like 'right-wing', 'intellectually dishonest', 'charlatans', 'gullible', . . .

    One of the lessons in life Alfred has already learned is that those who jettison reason and evidence in favour of insults probably do not have reason and evidence on their side.

    Do you know where the evidence of the missing hotspot is bje? It's a central prediction form the models. Where is the evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Alfred, great to see critical thinking is still alive in the schoolroom (just) and I admire your courage to contradict.

    Your teacher has an impossible task to contain independent research given the almost real-time climate metrics available on the internet. If the acceleration (not just normal rise) that AGW prescribes is actually happening, it will show up in the metrics but over the last decade the observations of global temperature (except the highly suspect outlier GISSTemp), sea level (SSL), surface sea temperature (SST) and ocean heat content (OHC) have not shown an acceleration and are even indicating deceleration. The prescribed accumulation of upper tropospheric heat has not eventuated either.

    For you and anyone else interested, I've collated links to natural climate driver papers and articles (alternative climate driver hypotheses apart from AGW):-

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNnA4UAEwc6gpqCC9_Rh4y9B4lcly5TtDMEG30-77uY/edit?hl=en

    I wish you well in your education and whatever endeavour you choose to pursue, the world needs young people like you with critical thinking and communicating skills.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Check out UN Agenda 21, Sierra Club, Club of Rome, Bucharest.....

    Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
    - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme

    “When we’re finished, you’ll wish you had the rights of a tree.”
    ~ Maurice Strong on the Earth Charter view on human rights

    “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our
    economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
    - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
    “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
    - Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

    “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
    - Professor Maurice King

    “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
    - David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

    Bottom Line...Critical Theory was developed by The Frankfurt School...cultural marxists...Eco Fascism is the new post-communist delivery system for the Left's doctrine of mediocrity and hatred.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The volcanic eruption in Iceland last year, (since its first spewing of volcanic ash), in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet – all of you.

    Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow, and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans, and all animal life.

    I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of:
    Driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs...

    Well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

    The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.

    There are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this mixture at any one time - EVERY DAY.

    I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano, Mt Pinatubo, erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.

    Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

    And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

    Just remember that our government is trying to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.

    Isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just “Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming so called experts, got caught with their pants down.

    And just keep in mind that we might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on us, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make us poorer.

    It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.

    But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

    PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Someone replying to me as "anonymous" above illustrates the hopeless denialism of those impervious to reason, logic, evidence, and science. This chap completely ignored the politically loaded language and canards our student used in his screed above, not to speak of the ignorance of science "Alfred" displays.

    Let's us not forget that "Alfred" has yet to provide us a stitch of corroborating evidence that any such thing happened in his "class"'.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Question everything. The muppets in your class will amount to nothing if they don't develop an enquiring mind.

    ReplyDelete
  73. The name of your school, location, and your teacher's name is sufficient.

    ReplyDelete
  74. bjedwards,
    There you go again with the abuse! You just can't help yourself, can you. The 'Denier' word this time. "You" have not provided a scrap of "evidence' that you are not some troll dispatched by the Moonbat. The kid raised questions, is all. Who is denying what? If you don't believe him, why are you bothering to insult him?

    ReplyDelete
  75. bjedwards wants to identify a schoolboy’s school? Sick.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Good man Alfred. It's a shame a teacher should take less interest in the facts for a lesson than a pupil, but I can guess the outcome of referring the topic for review by the Head Teacher. Some are happy to keep their heads down and not question anything, but you're obviously happy to challenge the claimed consensus. Keep it up.

    ~
    Sheumais,
    Scotland

    ReplyDelete
  77. Now one commenter is getting desperate declaring that Alfred "is just asking questions" when anyone with basic reading skills can see that Alfred is doing no such thing. That tactic got 9/11 Deniers nowhere either.

    Then, Alfred added above that: "UPDATE: The teacher so far has prevented students taking material out of the class, but I hope to procure some evidence of her claims (which some find unbelievable) as soon as possible." I replied that the name of his school, location, and teacher's name is sufficient since it is verification of Alfred's account of what he did in class that is at issue. Let us verify on our own if Alfred can't.

    Apparently, backing up Alfred's own claims scares the bejesus out of some of you - while known climate science deniers Delingpole and Bishop Hill accept it at face value.

    ReplyDelete
  78. BJ Edwards, this is a blog written by a child at school. There is every reason to be optimistic for his prospects, but none whatsoever for yours. If bullying children is what floats your boat, you and I should meet. Leave him alone and do not post anything else here.

    Sheumais,
    Scotland

    ReplyDelete
  79. Well done to you, young man, from the UK. I started looking into this global warming stuff a few years ago, and I found that the more you examine it the shakier it gets. Good luck, Dave.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "bjedwards said...

    Someone replying to me as "anonymous" above illustrates the hopeless denialism of those impervious to reason, logic, evidence, and science. This chap completely ignored the politically loaded language and canards our student used in his screed above, not to speak of the ignorance of science "Alfred" displays.

    Let's us not forget that "Alfred" has yet to provide us a stitch of corroborating evidence that any such thing happened in his "class"'.
    March 14, 2011 1:37 PM "

    'Warmists' are akin to religious zealots...

    Even when they are proved wrong, the warmists will never admit it. They simply move the goalposts — which is how global warming morphed into ‘climate change’. You can’t argue with them. That’s because ‘climate change’ isn’t a ­science, it’s a religion. Sceptics are trashed as heretics. The climate change lobby is a curious mix of cultists and cynical opportunists."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1342032/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-You-dont-need-weatherman-know-way-wind-blows.html

    ReplyDelete
  81. I live in Hobart and identified what school Alfred attends because there is only one high school in Southern Hobart which has a red shirt as part of the school uniform.
    I shan’t reveal what school that is lest “bjedwards” hang around outside the school gates with bags of sweets seeking 14 y.o. boys.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Warmist" is a political term, not a scientific term. That's why commenter ItsFairComment cannot possibly refute the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrating AGW is real.

    It's also why Alfred should beware of the charlatans claiming that climate change science is a conspiracy of the thousands of the worlds scientists over a thirty-year period.

    There is nothing worse than unethical, intellectually dishonest people like ItsFairComment, James Delingpole, and Bishop Hill polluting the Earth with fairy tales.

    ReplyDelete
  83. So "anonymous" who lives in Hobart has stepped up to the plate to provide us with verification of Alfred's account of what he did in class. I am sure the school administration will be grateful to know what is going on in their classes with verification of Alfred's account, wouldn't you agree, "anonymous"?

    I won't be surprised if "anonymous" won't contact the school to verify Alfred's account, however. Fairy tale believers are like that.

    ReplyDelete
  84. "bjedwards said...

    "Warmist" is a political term, not a scientific term. That's why commenter ItsFairComment cannot possibly refute the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrating AGW is real.

    It's also why Alfred should beware of the charlatans claiming that climate change science is a conspiracy of the thousands of the worlds scientists over a thirty-year period.

    There is nothing worse than unethical, intellectually dishonest people like ItsFairComment, James Delingpole, and Bishop Hill polluting the Earth with fairy tales.
    March 15, 2011 12:41 AM "
    --------------------
    The warmists’ 10 biggest fibs
    Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun (Australia)
    "Professor Bob Carter identifies 10 dishonest slogans in the global warming debate:.....
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_10_biggest_fibs_the_warmists_use#80544

    And thanks for the compliment... "ItsFairComment, James Delingpole, and Bishop Hill " wonderful. Enjoy your religion "bjedwards" .

    ReplyDelete
  85. There's more than one of us Anonymice, BJ! And we're messin' with your mind. You've spent too much time wrasslin' those Truthers, you must have forgotten how to engage in polite conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  86. No denier in history whether they are 9/11 deniers, round-earth deniers, Creationists, vaccine deniers, Moon-landing deniers, Holocaust Deniers, or you climate science deniers deserve anything but the derision you have earned.

    Just look at ItsFairComment for a denialist in action. Pathetic.

    See http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php for all the details.

    ReplyDelete
  87. It's a measure of ItsFairComment's desperation using Bob Carter's list to try to attack the overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrating AGW with politics.

    This is why deniers try to mislead students like Alfred to declaring such nonsense as "anthropogenic global warming is a hoax".

    Have you no shame, ItsFairComment?

    ReplyDelete
  88. your site is unreadable. is this how you want it. please respond as I am very supportive of the climate change article.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hello Alfred. One of the commenters above (Richard C (NZ) refers to the "the highly suspect outlier GISSTemp". This is because GISSTemp figures have a very marked upward spike in the last two decades.
    This comes from adding a wholly fraudulent double ramp to many of the raw figures from the stations. I set up a class exercise to study this. Here[1] is an example from that exercise. You can easily do it yourself. All you need is the Internet and a spreadsheet program like Excel. Simply download a pair of files of annal mean temperature data (example below for Dublin Airport, Eire, which emerged from the class). Even without a spreadsheet you can see that the homogenized data is markedly different to the raw data. Specifically, the peak around 1990 (of 11 degC RAW) has been knocked down to 10 (HOMOGENIZED), but the current temperature is 8.5 in both. In other words, somebody has added a rate of rise of about 1 degree per twenty years, or about 5 degrees per century. It is difficult to see in the graphs, but if you download the data as text files (the link is on each graph; the column is "metANN") and stick the two columns into Excel, align the years, and subtract one from the other you get the graph in [1]. Simples.

    Some people have been adding together all the data again, whereupon the random year-on-year flucutations tend to cancel out (1/sqrt(N) and all that), but the adjustments don't cancel, leaving you with a whopping big bogus upward spike at the end.

    Unless there's a good reason for this adjustment, it's called either "fraud" or a "mistake", depending on the intention, but it's only numbers in a database. If it were money, or people were to be asked to part with money on the basis that the data correctly represents reality, it would be "criminal fraud".

    [1] http://suffolkboy.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/dublinairport.gif?w=640&h=397
    [2] Raw: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039690003&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1
    [3] Homogenized: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039690003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hey Alfred, great work.
    CO2 only represents 0.039% of the atmosphere and humans only contribute 3% of that total and Australia only contributes 1% of that.
    Perhaps you can print this chart out and post it on your classroom's wall and get your teacher to explain it to the class. Link below...
    http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/graph.html#anchortop

    ReplyDelete
  91. Suffolkboy is one of those arrogant people who thinks he has singlehandedly overturned the entire body of climate science.

    It's the nature of the beast.

    You'll find an accurate description of his profile here:

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php

    "What is Denialism?"

    Here we will discuss the problem of denialists, their standard arguing techniques, how to identify denialists and/or cranks, and discuss topics of general interest such as skepticism, medicine, law and science. I'll be taking on denialists in the sciences, while my brother, Chris, will be geared more towards the legal and policy implications of industry groups using denialist arguments to prevent sound policies.

    First of all, we have to get some basic terms defined for all of our new readers.

    Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one's viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions.

    Examples of common topics in which denialists employ their tactics include: Creationism/Intelligent Design, Global Warming denialism, Holocaust denial, HIV/AIDS denialism, 9/11 conspiracies, Tobacco Carcinogenecity denialism (the first organized corporate campaign), anti-vaccination/mercury autism denialism and anti-animal testing/animal rights extremist denialism. Denialism spans the ideological spectrum, and is about tactics rather than politics or partisanship.

    ReplyDelete
  92. "bjedwards said...

    Suffolkboy is one of those arrogant people who thinks he has singlehandedly overturned the entire body of climate science."

    .....please go here:
    [1] WUWT website, (Watts Up With That), was recently voted “Best Science Website” in the 2011 Bloggies Awards.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    And..be good lad and turn the lights out when you leave the room, as everyone's gone home.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I thank everyone for their comments. Much of the information I have received will prove most helpful.
    I will continue posting these reviews every week or so until bjedwards renounces CAGW, apologizes to me, and asks my forgiveness. Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Here is something for your teacher to read in class, Alfred. Then you can try to refute the science. If you have the courage to do so, that is:

    Nature | Editorial

    "Into ignorance"

    Journal name: Nature, Volume:471,Pages: 265–266
    Date published: (17 March 2011)

    "Vote to overturn an aspect of climate science marks a worrying trend in US Congress."

    "It is hard to escape the conclusion that the US Congress has entered the intellectual wilderness, a sad state of affairs in a country that has led the world in many scientific arenas for so long. Global warming is a thorny problem, and disagreement about how to deal with it is understandable. It is not always clear how to interpret data or address legitimate questions. Nor is the scientific process, or any given scientist, perfect. But to deny that there is reason to be concerned, given the decades of work by countless scientists, is irresponsible."

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7338/full/471265b.html

    ReplyDelete
  95. Onya, Alfred!

    bjedwards is yet to learn that those who resort to ad hominem arguments or arguments from authority usually do so because of the weakness of their own positions. Go to the evidence. Ignore the ad homs!

    And, bjedwards: apologise to the boy.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Well done Alfred. You have the support of many.
    It is good to know that not every student in our state schools has succumbed to the relentless brainwashing by our ignorant p/c teachers.

    ReplyDelete
  97. And bjedwards, why don't you just go and swing on a windmill! Your gullibility is beyond belief.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Patto007,

    It must be nice to live a life unburdened by reality.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Respect Alfred.

    Ignore bje, she is a nasty piece of work we have to deal with regularly over here.

    Take comfort from the fact that her bile and outright bullying are indicative of her realisation that she cannot make an intelligible case for her maunderings.

    ReplyDelete
  100. You have my utmost respect Alfred, for refusing to submit to bullying and peer pressure. I hope that your continued studies help you to understand the deeper truths on both sides of the climate debate. No one has all the answers, so perhaps the best thing to do would be to apply yourself and study the sciences. You will then be able to critically examine he evidence and make up your own mind.

    Also, I applaud you for not banning bjedwards and deleting all her comments. Leaving them here for the entire world to see is the right thing to do. There are bullies everywhere and she is a prime example. Many of us support you and realise that you have been bullied enough already.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I note with interest how desperate climate science deniers are here. to keep Alfred from learning the true nature of climate science denial.

    It's the nature of the beast.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Keep up the good work Alfred, thinking for yourself is one of the greatest aids to learning that you can develop.

    With regards to the irrational, like bjedwards, I can give you a few simple clues to identifying them. (1) Being right is more important than anything else (2) When all else fails they resort to calling you names and (3) they must have the last word.

    Good luck and keep on with your reading and research.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Well done, Alfred! Keep up the great work. Teachers like yours are an example of why I left the teaching profession before my career even began. They are doing nothing but blatantly brainwashing their students into following this new green religion.

    To reiterate what others have said, the ignorant preachers of doom, gloom and destruction will always try to bring you down, but remember: You are right! Stick to what you believe in and keep up the wonderful work. I look forward to reading more! :)

    ReplyDelete
  104. @bjedwards, you are really a nutcase. It looks as your only three neurons don't make connection at the proper time. You said something very foolish:

    "I note with interest how desperate climate science deniers are here. to keep Alfred from learning the true nature of climate science denial."

    Sceptics don't deny climate science. The don't deny climate change. They only point out the flaws in AGWer's hypothesis and claims. You are in DENIAL of natural climate change, you are in deny of real scientific facts and believe in what PlayStation® type climate models say. Nice, expensive video games, but now they are reaching the stage of "Game Over!".

    Alfred is much smarter than you were at his age. We can see that in any of your posts.

    And you are nothing but a TROLL. Take care, the garbage man is looking for you.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Eduardo,

    The overwhelming peer-reviewed science demonstrates AGW is real. REAL science ignores you.

    You cannot refute that. You know that, I know that. There is no point in misrepresenting climate science to Alfred or anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Some people, overly credulous when accepting fictions from the IPCC or Al. Gore but overly sceptical when criticising Alfred’s review of his SAH class, have cast doubts on Alfred’s account because he refers to the teacher claiming that the seas would rise by 20 feet. See for instance, Bill’s comment above: he asks, “You go to school in Tasmania and they’re talking to you about measurements in feet?” Yes, Bill, that’s because the teacher—from laziness, or incompetence, or both—was relying on a discredited American source.
    The source of the teacher’s claim is now at our Impact of Climate Change site.

    ReplyDelete
  107. In Lies We Trust
    When truth becomes conspiracy, reality becomes an illusion.
    The world as we know it, is an illusion based on lies and deceit.
    If the world seems insane, it’s because it is run by insane people.
    Good guys finish last, so where do you think all the bad guys are.
    Money makes the world go round, so money talks and people can be bought.
    Jobs at all cost, cost us all.
    So stop going along to get along, because it is wrong and it does cost us all.
    They say (the psychopaths) there is a sucker born everyday.
    Blind trust will be humanities undoing, so stop be-LIE-ving blindly and question everything.
    They lie and we be-LIE-ve, because we trust.
    Stop trusting and be-LIE-ving anything that is mainstream. It’s all being manipulated.
    So start knowing and stop be-LIE-ving. Do your own research.
    You may think you are free, but really you are only free to conform.
    We were all born into slavery. Freedom is nothing more than an illusion.
    Truth is knowledge. Knowledge is power. Knowing the truth will set you free.
    Ignorance is not bliss, it is how we are all being used and abused.
    People say they love their (grand)children.
    Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words.
    This world is in a sad state of affairs and needs fixing.
    We all have free will and you are not powerless.
    We can choose to sit idly by, while the world crumbles around us
    or we can all grab a cause and get involved.
    If we all joined in one cause, we could change the world overnight.
    Be the change you want to see.
    “It does not take an army to fight evil.
    All it takes is for individuals to do one good deed at the time.”
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing"
    So if you do nothing, nothing will happen.
    Alone we have the power of none, but together we have the power "ONE"
    You can make a difference now by sharing this message.
    Deal with reality, before it deals with you.

    How Will the 99% Deal with 70 Million Psychopaths?
    What can we do collectively to contain and manage this small minority of psychopaths. Can we contain the 70 million psychopaths in the world today?
    http://www.cognitivepolicyworks.com/blog/2012/07/24/how-will-the-99-deal-with-70-million-psychopaths/


    Psychopaths Rule Our Entire World – Politicians and Bankers are all Psychopaths

    http://helpsaveourkidsfuture.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/psychopaths-rule-our-entire-world-politicians-and-bankers-are-all-psychopaths/

    ReplyDelete