Our governments instilled climate change fear into our kids by deliberately politicizing science in schools.
Instead of teaching classical science that discovers what is, they’re being taught political beliefs that determined what should be done.
Instead of graduating with facts established by the scientific method, our kids are learning myths established by activists.
COP26 exposed that the political agenda of what should be done cannot be achieved. Despite that failure arriving as a slow-motion train wreck, our governments don’t seem to have a Plan B.
Here is a simple one: We should help our younger generations challenge the myths they acquired in school so they can discover what is.
Myth #5: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a Scientific Body
It’s right on their webpage: the IPCC is self-described as a “scientific intergovernmental body,” but in practice, United Nations (UN) politics override the science.
The founding resolution prejudices the science with the inclusion “the emerging evidence indicates that continued growth in ‘greenhouse’ gases could produce global warming….”
A better description of the IPCC is that they collect observations of what is, generate opinions of what will be, and produce reports of what should be done while being in harmony with their founding resolution:
- The IPCC does not conduct research. It requests submissions of climate research papers including computer climate forecast models and has complete discretion of what to accept or reject.
- The computer climate forecast models cannot meet the fact-determining requirements of the scientific method, and therefore represent the scientific opinion of future climate change.
- The scientists who conduct the research or develop the forecast models do not write the main summary IPCC reports designed for government policy-makers. That is done in collaboration with IPCC appointees who have final editing power.
Unsurprisingly, the main summary reports for policymakers imply widespread scientific consensus consistent with its founding resolution. Consensus has no place in science. Period.
Myth #4: Human Activity is the Major Driver of Climate Change
Mark Carney addressed climate change in his recent book Value(s). He stated:
“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that our current warming trend is extremely likely (with greater than 95 percent probability) to have been caused by human activity.”
The IPCC never said that, and Carney’s misquote perpetuates a myth already existing. As the UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, he should have been more rigorous in reading the reports of the organization he represents.
Value(s) supplies a reference, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, which states:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings…” [Emphasis added. Note: extremely likely is defined as 95% to100% likelihood].
At the time of this report referenced by Carney, the Earth had experienced about 0.85°C of warming, of which 0.6°C was after 1950, and the IPCC was at least 95% certain that at least half (0.3°C or greater) was attributable to human activity. That’s about one-third of Carney’s claim.
Others would state that is still too high. Dr. Steven Koonin, stated in his new book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, And Why It Matters, that human contributions to global warming are “small or subtle.”
Myth #3: Green Energy Works and is Indeed Green
In their 2020 documentary Planet of the Humans, Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs concluded that it is delusional to think that any form of existing green renewable energy will replace hydrocarbons.
Here is a summary of their findings:
- Wind and solar energy may be renewable, but the equipment to turn them into electricity is not even recyclable and disposal is a huge problem. They need to be replaced every 10 to 20 years using the most toxic industrial processes ever created and often the hydrocarbon energy used in mining and manufacturing exceeds the green energy produced. Both need 100% hydrocarbon-driven backup on active idle.
- Batteries could replace some small fraction of the hydrocarbon backup but battery manufacturing is also environmentally toxic and hydrocarbon intensive. Batteries also have a short service life and are toxic to dispose of.
- Biomass energy is generated through destruction. In the U.S. forests are incinerated; in Brazil, the Amazon is being destroyed to grow sugar cane; and in Indonesia, jungles are being cleared to grow palm oil.
Bill Gates published in his 2021 book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster that nuclear power is the only affordable green option we have available today.
He dismisses hydroelectricity as green because the carbon dioxide emissions from the manufacturing of the cement plus the methane that’s given off from the reservoirs behind the dams often exceed the greenhouse gas emissions of a coal-fired plant for the first 50 to 100 years.
Myth #2: The 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2050 Net Zero Emissions Targets Are Achievable
To meet the 2015 Paris Agreement objective of a CO2-emissions level compatible with a 1.5°C global temperature rise since preindustrial times, global carbon dioxide emissions will have to be cut by about 50% from 2018 levels by 2030.
The Paris Agreement is failing as demonstrated by the COP26 update on actual emissions reductions, the resurgence of fossil fuels in Europe to replace failing green-energy supplies, and the post-pandemic global resurgence of fossil fuel demand.
This puts many politicians in a bind, especially if elected on a platform that carbon dioxide emissions are an existential threat to humanity.
To avoid admission of certain failure by 2030, they have simply set a bigger target further down the road: Net-Zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Net Zero is purposely undefined to give maximum wiggle room.
Let’s check in again with Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance, on what net-zero emissions mean to him. Carney is also the vice-chair at the firm Brookfield Asset Management, which has significant global oil and gas investments.
According to the Financial Times:
“He told a Bloomberg conference audience in February that Brookfield was ‘net zero’ across its entire $600bn portfolio due to its ‘enormous renewables business that we’ve built up and all of the avoided emissions that come with that.’ ”
His declaration was met with broad skepticism as avoided emissions do not physically reduce actual emissions.
The unattainable 2030 goal of a 50% reduction in global greenhouse gases is subtly being ignored with the help of a new diversionary greenwashing myth; that Net Zero 2050 will result in actual physical emission reductions to zero.
Beware of an impending accounting scam that will be much worse than the current carbon-offset allowances and ethanol in gasoline. Simply not counting carbon dioxide emissions does not make the molecules disappear.
Myth #1: We Are Living in the Hottest Times Ever
Mainstream media would have a field day fact-checking the following quotes. I would imagine they would be classified as a myth perpetuated by climate-change-denying heretics with no scientific credibility whatsoever:
“There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than at present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5000 – 6000 BP) at least in summer, though carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to those of the preindustrial era.”
“The Early and Middle Holocene was characterized by a relatively warm climate with summer temperatures in high northern latitudes about 3 – 4°C above modern values.”
They are from the very first IPCC report in 1990. The report has since been taken off the IPCC website, and as far as I can ascertain it is the only report missing.
Perhaps while being scientifically correct and consistent with decades of multi-discipline studies, it was removed for political incorrectness. Over 95% of the last 10,000 years were warmer than today.
That’s my Plan B: Challenge the myths. You can help, one conversation at a time.
Ron Barmby (www.ronaldbarmby.ca) is a Professional Engineer with a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree, whose 40+ year career in the energy sector has taken him to over 40 countries on five continents. He recently published “Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria” (Amazon, Barnes & Noble) to explain in understandable terms the science of how both natural and human-caused global warming work. Climate Discussion Nexus agrees: “… very readable Sunlight on Climate Change: A Heretic’s Guide to Global Climate Hysteria we recommend for the concerned but open-minded young person on your gift list….”
The author has good intentions, and does cover some secondary myths. Unfortunately, he misses every primary myth that would apply to young people, and most adults too.
One needs to first address the primary myths that apply to young people, and most adults too. The secondary myths and junk science should be saved for another day.
The primary myths include:
(1) Not knowing the difference between climate science and “climate change”. Climate science uses data to study the present and past climate. “Climate change” is predictions of the future climate, with no data. Predictions that have been wrong for the past 64 years, starting with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957.
Especially important for young people:
— Adults often confuse their beliefs with facts. That includes scientists and teachers. Most common are predictions of the future, which are almost always wrong.
“Climate change” is nothing more than a prediction of the future climate. Made by people who have no idea if our planet will be warmer or cooler in 100 years.
Based on what is known about the history of our planet, today’s CO2 level is unusually low and today’s saverage temperature is about as good as it gets for humans and animals. We should be celebrating the current climate,
not making scary predictions of an imaginary coming climate crisis.
Many children like to hear scary stories. When they become adults, some like to tell scary stories. The coming climate crisis is nothing more than a scary story. The climate crisis is always said to be coming, but never shows up. It’s your choice to believe the climate crisis fairy tale.
I began reading about climate science in 1997. My belief in a coming climate crisis lasted less than one hour !
I was alarmed to read in the Toronto Sun, circa 1991, that Ontario Hydro chief Maurice Strong had used taxpayer’s money to buy a parcel of Honduran rain forest, as a carbon dioxide offset for our coal-fired sins. After that, I bought Lawrence Solomon’s “The Deniers”. The global warming scam was obviously a new revenue stream for socialists.
People like Jeff Bezos and Mark Carney are directly funding the propaganda machine. Where is the funding for truth?
“Where is the funding for truth?”
It is here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/punishing-climate-change-skeptics-1458772173
Sonnyhill; A main problem is that the science has been politicized, and unfortunately in politics it is the perception of truth that wins.
Richard; Thank you very much! Some of your points above are covered in great detail in my book, especially the climate forecast model failures and the political influence behind them.