A new lesson set called the Climate Change IQ (CCIQ) provides a good skeptical critique of ten top alarmist claims.
The format is succinct and non-technical. Each alarmist claim is posed as a question, followed by a short skeptical answer, which is highlighted with a single telling graphic.
Then there is a link to a somewhat longer answer, which in turn includes links to a few online sources of more information. Each lesson is also available in a printable PDF version, suitable for classroom use. This compact format is potentially very useful.
CCIQ comes from a long-standing skeptical group called the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP). Despite the name, DDP gives attention to pointing out scares that are not disasters waiting to happen.
Not surprisingly climate alarmism gets a lot of this attention. They also give out an annual award, including one to CFACT’s Marc Morano.
The ten topic questions are wide-ranging, including the following. Each speaks to a popular pro-alarmist news hook.
Is climate change the most urgent global health threat?
What would happen if atmospheric CO2 concentration dropped by half, say to less than 200 ppm? (I really like this one.)
Are human CO2 emissions acidifying the oceans and endangering shell-making animals?
Will Manhattan and Florida soon be under water if humans do not curtail the use of “fossil fuels”?
Do 97% of climate scientists agree that catastrophic climate change will result if humans do not curtail the use of “fossil fuels”? (This one includes the dynamite John Christy graph showing the rapidly growing divergence of climate model global temperature forecasts with real-world observations.)
Would lowering atmospheric CO2 prevent or mitigate hurricanes?
There is no cross-referencing among the topics and each can stand alone, despite their being numbered one to ten. Thus they can be presented in any grouping or sequence, including just using anyone. This is especially useful for commenting on alarmist news stories or blog articles. (However, it does appear that only the longer versions have unique URLs.)
It should be noted that the topics include political and policy issues, as well as scientific content. This may make some unsuitable for certain classroom uses, where these issues are not part of the curriculum. (A minor issue is that some of the specific policy details may soon become dated.)
For example, question 8 pointedly asks “Are government-sponsored climate scientists the only credible sources of information relating to climate change policy?”
To which the initial answer is “No, and government agencies are actually guilty of corrupting the data.”
Mind you this might do well in a lesson on scientific integrity.
So all things considered this is a great set of hard-hitting little lessons. They are suitable for use with children or journalists.
Read more at CFACT
Fake groups like the Center of Science for the Public Interests(CSPI)and the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS)are just a tiny minicule group of politiacly active Liberal Scientists like Bill Nye and David Suzuki their interests are purley polititcal not scientific
Nice simple and informative. Thanks. Also rakoois back. Be prepared for a barrage of bs.
The term Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming is actually very economical use of precise words. It’s something Rakooi cannot seem to learn.
Proving only that you, Rakooi, have not read one of the dozen or so references I sent you on another thread. Your mind is totally closed to reason and you are for sure not a scientist; you can’t even copy and paste properly. One last effort to make you see the truth: https://principia-scientific.org/the-zombie-science-of-the-greenhouse-gas-theory/ and make sure to read ALL the references. If you can not be bothered to do so, than also please do not bother to post your pathetic “scientific” proof of an atmospheric “greenhouse effect” – absorption bands do not prove anything other than the presence of certain gases. Are you too dim-witted to realise that sending energy back to its emitter can not possibly make that emitter any warmer than it was and will also not “slow down cooling”, another “scientific” excuse by climate alarmists. Over and out.
HANS SCHREUDER, I also noticed that RAKOOI couldn’t be a scientist. This is easier to recognize since I have degrees in both science and engineering and thirty years experience as an engineer. I suspect he doesn’t understand much of what he copies and pastes to this web site. It appears that RAKOOI never reads the responses to his comments.
Is Rakooi a Orc or a Troll in which case sunlight turns trolls to stone
“NO ONE IN SCIENCE talks about CATASTROPHIC Anthropomorphic Global Warming !” I have read more than one article author by those claiming to be scientists claiming that if drastic emission reductions are not made the sea level will rise 15 feet. I guess you don’t consider that to be a catastrophe.
I will repeat what many may be getting tired of. Of the warming on blamed on mankind forty percent was between 1910 and 1941 when carbon dioxide was much lower and not raising rapidly. When we did have a rapid raise in carbon dioxide we were in a warming pause. There is very poor correlation between carbon dioxide and the earth’s temperature history. There is excellent correlation to solar activity. Also consider that most carbon dioxide released is by nature. Man’s share is some where between one half to two percent.