The truth about Agenda 21!

Agenda 21? What is Agenda 21?

  • Agenda 21 kids book

Most people have never heard of Agenda 21. If they have heard of it, they likely believe it to be a vague United Nations program that will never see the light of day, or they believe it is imagined by conspiracy theorists. Yet, the principles contained in Agenda 21 are at the heart of many of our federal programs since the late 1990s. They reach every corner of the United States and impact millions of Americans who don’t even realize the document exists.

Although Agenda 21 was decades in the making, it was showcased to the world at the 1992 UN “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. It was there that President George H. Bush, along with leaders from 177 other nations, signed onto this “non-binding” UN action plan that was purportedly designed to assist governments at the local, national and international level implement the principles of so-called “sustainable development.” The “21” in the name refers to the 21st Century.

Agenda 21 made its way into the U.S. the following year when President Clinton quietly established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The PCSD codified Agenda 21 into U.S. policy through a program called Sustainable America. Today, nearly all federal programs dealing with land management, education, environment and much more are linked to Agenda 21 through Sustainable America.

Because of grassroots pushback, the federal government today rarely uses the term Agenda 21 or Sustainable America anymore – especially with any program it is promoting. Instead, programs which administer Agenda 21’s sustainable development principles are given warm and fuzzy titles like the America’s Great Outdoors InitiativePartnership for Sustainable CommunitiesObama’s Climate Action Plan and many more. Even the newest education fad,Common Core, is linked to Agenda 21, as are the new Next Generation Science Standards.

Google has over 300 million referenUN buildingces to Agenda 21, yet it’s hard for most people to get the truth about Agenda 21 because of the truckloads of smoke and misinformation generated by government bureaucrats and the progressive media. This UN program is indeed real and it is an affront to our personal liberties.\Agenda 21 is supposedly designed to make the world “sustainable” by limiting human activities that environmental extremists believe are harming the planet. That may sound fine to many people – until they understand what it means in practice. In order to protect the environment, Agenda 21 instructs governments to micromanage virtually all human activity – which the governments either severely restrict, or regulate to the point that such activity can be minimalized.

A good case in point took place in California recently, which as has been widely reported, experienced a major three-year drought. In mid-March 2014, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld federal guidelines that guaranteed minimal flow of the Sacramento River to benefit “endangered” Delta Smelt – totally neglecting the needs of local farmers. Most farmers are getting no water even though most of them have long-term contracts guaranteeing it to them.

Delta smeltIronically, the Delta Smelt have survived many severe droughts in the past when farmers got virtually all the available water from the Sacramento River. Yet today the smelt get the water and the farmers don’t – even though many of the farmers will not survive the cutbacks. Seeing the needs of nature as being in conflict with the needs of people is a principle that is at the very heart of Agenda 21.

This is no small matter. Thousands of workers are being put out of work in California, and up to 700,000 acres of prime farmland will be removed from production. Since one-third of America’s fruit and vegetables originate in California’s Central Valley, this means that food prices could jump as much as 3.5%. While that may not seem like much to the more affluent in our society, it could be devastating to seniors and the poor who may no longer be able buy essential fruits and vegetables.

Simply stated, the only way Agenda 21 can work is to deny private citizens their private property rights. This should surprise no one since the UN has maintained that “public control of land use is…indispensable” since the 1976 Habitat I Conference in Vancouver, British Columbia. Yet, recent research sponsored by the World Bank has shown that legally protected private property rights drastically reduce corruption, while establishing the foundation for wealth creation. This in turn also helps the environment as weathier nations spend more on environmental protection than poorer ones. The research stressed that “since these people do not have access to a comprehensive legal property system, they cannot leverage their assets to produce additional wealth.” The bottom line? “Nearly five billion people are legally and economically disenfranchised by their own governments,” reports the Bank.

The vast bulk of this is occurring, of course, in the developing world – but not all. The same thing is happening in the U.S. as Agenda 21 principles are adopted into policy. It has already had devastating effects. According to the Fraser Economic freedom wordsInstitute and CATO’s Economic Freedom of the World, the legal-system and-private-property-rights ranking for the U.S. plummeted from number one in 1980 to38th in 2011; which not unsurprisingly has occurred since Agenda 21 principles began to be implemented in the 1990s. The U.S. combined economic ranking in the world from 1980 to 2000 was second or third place behind Hong Kong and Singapore. It plummeted to 19th between 2000 and 2011—mostly due to federal spending, debt, skyrocketing regulations (especially from EPA) and, most importantly, loss of a stable legal system and property rights.

Is it any wonder the current “economic recovery” is so anemic. Certainly not all of the economic woes we have experienced since President Obama’s election can be blamed on Agenda 21 policy. But Agenda 21 is no doubt a big factor in ravaging the U.S. economy. Citizens can begin to restore America’s health by supporting rational candidates at every level of government that are committed to ridding this nation of Agenda 21’s “sustainable development” policy plague.

Mike Coffman

About the Author: Michael Coffman

Michael Coffman, PhD, is CEO of Sovereignty International and has worked to raise awareness about the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, one of the key goals of Agenda 21

 

Climate Alarmists Have an Agenda…..and it is NOT a Good One!

HOW THE IPCC MANIPULATES SCIENCE TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING

Kevin Mooney — Capital Research Center– April 15, 2014

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
How a U.N. group manipulates science to “prove” Global Warming (pdf here)
By Kevin Mooney

Summary: The most prestigious international group claiming we face a global warming crisis has a history of twisting the scientific evidence involved in the controversy. It is so duplicitous that it has even misrepresented the findings of its own reports.

Why do so many people believe in Global Warming theory? Global Warming theory isn’t just that the earth is getting warmer, any more than the theory of evolution is that things evolve or the theory of relativity is that everything is relative. There’s a lot more to it than just warming.

Global Warming theory (sometimes fudged as “climate change” theory), in the words of Green Watch editor Steven J. Allen, is “that the earth as a whole is getting catastrophically warmer due not to natural causes but to ‘greenhouse gas’ emissions—especially carbon dioxide (CO2)—from human industry, transportation, and energy generation, and that the looming catastrophe of Global Warming can be averted with policies that are compatible with peace, prosperity, freedom, and democracy.”

That’s a lot of believe, and it’s inconsistent with what we know about both physical science and human behavior.  Continue reading here…..

A-Year-After-UK-Bribery-Act-2010-How-does-Translation-Play-a-Role

Another Family Forced to Give Up Their Home!

Couple gets $1.3M in wind turbine settlement


MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — A Vermont couple whose Northeast Kingdom farm became a focal point in the fight against construction of a 21-turbine industrial wind project on Lowell Mountain said Monday that they were selling their 540-acre farm to Green Mountain Power for $1.3 million.

In announcing they had agreed to settle a lawsuit over a boundary dispute filed against them by GMP, Don and Shirley Nelson said they felt they could have won in court, but it would not have led to the removal of the now-operating turbines.

Even if victorious in court, it’s doubtful they would have received more than the $1.3 million they will get for the sale of their property and the legal case could have lingered for years, the Nelsons said.

“The Nelsons intend to move from their farm to a location well away from the turbines,” their statement said.

In a separate statement, GMP said the Nelsons will be able to remain in their home for up to two years and that they will retain 35 acres of land in Albany.

“The agreement meets the needs of the Nelsons as well as those of our customers,” GMP said. “Kingdom Community Wind is an important part of our growing investment in renewable energy in Vermont.”

The construction and operation of what has become the Kingdom Community Wind project generated fierce opposition from a number of people who claimed the project marred the pristine ridgeline for no environmental benefit.

The Nelsons were longtime opponents of the project.

The 2011 lawsuit grew out of a series of protests along the contested property line between the Nelsons’ land and the then-under-construction turbine site controlled by GMP. A number of protesters set up camp on land they claimed was owned by the Nelsons, but within a safety zone during construction blasting operations. The presence of the protesters caused brief delays in construction.

The Nelsons and GMP had disputed the property boundary of land GMP has under a long-term lease for the wind project. A trial had been tentatively scheduled for August.

In a separate statement, a group opposing the wind project called the Ridge Protectors said the Nelsons typify the Vermont dream of working hard, paying taxes and minding one’s own business.

“Now, we have to add, and be forced off your property by a foreign-owned corporation,” the organization said, referring to the fact that GMP’s corporate parent is Canadian. “Yes, they were paid for that property, but money runs a poor second to beauty, peace, quiet and a love for your land.”

Climate Alarmists have an agenda…..don’t be fooled!

Exploiting Human Misery and Distorting the Science: An environmentalist’s critique of “Years of Living Dangerously”

Guest essay by Jim Steele, Director emeritus Sierra Nevada Field Campus, San Francisco State University

In “Years of Living Dangerously” Hollywood’s Don Cheadle partners with Christian climate scientist Katharine Heyhoe to convince fellow Christians that they should trust the climate scientists who blame the misery brought by a Texas drought on rising CO2. Indeed in times of natural climate calamities, people suffer and become insecure as they confront nature’s awesome power.

Unfortunately that is when charlatans exploit their misery, making it truly a time of living dangerously. Quick interviews with ranchers who still believe the drought was caused naturally or by God was a feeble attempt to suggest it is religion that has blinded ranchers to the purported “science” of catastrophic climate change. Instead the documentary evoked memories of the 1956 movie “The Rainmaker.” Rancher Noah Curry tells Burt Lancaster (who is playing the Bill Starbuck the rainmaker), “We don’t believe in rainmakers!” Lancaster snaps back, “What do you believe in mistah? Dyin’ cattle?” Cheadle and Heyhoe were employing the age old rainmaker’s trick of exploiting natural catastrophes and human misery. I have documented similar ploys herehereherehereand here.  

The ranchers’ belief in natural drought cycles actually grew from life long experiences, and most will tell you the 1950-1957 drought was likely much more devastating. Even Heyhoe admits the cycle of floods one year and droughts the next is the norm for Texas. The research by ten NOAA climate scientists also supports the ranchers’ belief, and their climate models indicated that at least 80% of Texas’s drought was due to the cooling of the eastern Pacific Ocean associated with La Nina and the natural cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.1 In fact most climate scientists have shown that droughts and floods in the American southwest are the result of ocean cycles,2,3,4,5 but Cheadle and Heyhoe did not share such research. Climate models driven by CO2 had predicted extreme drying in the southwest during the 80s and 90s. But those model predictions failed due to misunderstanding ocean cycles.2 Actual observations revealed a trend of increasing precipitation during the 80s and 90s due to more El Ninos. The most recent drought has occurred as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) reversed again to its cool phase, just like devastating Texas droughts of the 50s that happened when the PDO entered its cool phase and promoted more La Ninas.

The NOAA’s models did suggest that perhaps 20% could be blamed on human caused climate change but researchers warned:

“There are various difficulties in interpreting such an analysis and assessing its relevance to understanding observations. First, no summertime warming over Texas in the long historical record has been detected, and we emphasized in this paper that the CMIP5 model-simulated Texas warming over the last century is inconsistent with observations…based on CMIP5 experiments, these estimates of changes in event probability drawn solely from CMIP5 must be viewed with great caution.1[emphasis added]

Instead of driving to west Texas, Cheadle merely had to look at the Plainview TX temperature trends found online from the US Historical Climate Network to confirm that had been no climate warming.

clip_image002

Instead, to counter the beliefs of those Christian ranchers who had actually experienced those natural drought cycles, Heyhoe and Cheadle highlighted a statistical virtual reality – a “hockey-stick graph” of global warming. But the global average temperature is a chimeraof many different climate dynamics and artificial adjustments. Droughts and heat waves are not global, but regional phenomenon. It is disturbing that Heyhoe, who has been hailed as a Christian committed to the truth in both science and faith, committed major sins of omission. The truth is there has been no climate warming in Texas. If Heyhoe was truly promoting objective climate science, she should have included the science of natural cycles and addressed why Texas had been getting wetter in the 80s and 90s and why it had not warmed during te 20th century.

But perhaps her misleading presentation was not all Heyhoe’s doing. One of the chief science advisors for this fearful climate documentary is the rabid CO2 advocate Joe Romm. Romm has previously teamed with the advocacy journal Nature to publish opinion pieces that CO2 is causing global “Dustbowlification”. Romm also uses his blog ClimateProgress to attack those scientists who have demonstrated that in fact natural ocean cycles have driven most droughts. That would explain the slanted drought presentation.

It is also the only reasonable explanation for the outlandish attempt to marry the civil war in Syria to rising CO2. Natural climate change does create insecurity. However Romm’s concern about the Dustbowlification proves slightly schizophrenic. While climate scientists have shown that the ocean surface temperatures are the best predictor of regional droughts, the extremes of the American Dust Bowl can only be explained when degradation of the landscape is also taken into account.6 Likewise the drought in Syria can not be understood without understanding how politics have altered the Syrian landscape. I thought NY Time’s journalist Thomas Freidman who has studied Middle East conflicts for decades would provide that historical background. But Freidman’s role was to marry the current Syrian drought to the simplistic notion that CO2 had caused climate change and thus the war, and landscape and political causes of stressed farmers were never brought to light.

The Syrian revolution has indeed been led by hungry displaced farmers. But to blame CO2 is simply climate fear mongering. To understand the enormous complexity of the problem I suggest reading “Unsustainable land use in Syria: Drivers of Unsustainable Land Use in the Semi-Arid Khabur River Basin, Syria”7 by Yale University’s Dr. Frank Hole. Scientist know this region’s climate is highly variable and we know from “archaeology and history that settlements in this semi-arid steppe have expanded on cycles of 200–300 years of good weather and retreated on cycles of 1000 or more years of poor weather and political instability.” Recently multiyear droughts happened in 1968–1971, 1997–1998, 1999–2000 and 2000–2001. “A drought in 1961 resulted in the loss of 80% of the camel population and nearly50% of sheep.” 7

“In 1940, the Khabur could be considered a self-sustaining steppe [a semi-arid grass and shrub land] for the pasturing of camels and sheep, with highly productive rain-fed agriculture, and equally productive gravity irrigation along stretches of the river. Fishing and hunting of wild gazelle were important contributors to the diet. Both are now extinct, with no foreseeable possibility of regeneration.” 7

A dramatic drying of this region began during the Little Ice Age, forcing many tribes to abandon fixed settlements and adopt a nomadic lifestyle. The vast steppe then became controlled by migratory tribes who pastured camels and sheep seasonally, holding the land in common according to well-established customary tribal law. The tribes migrated with sheep and camels to fresh pastures on an annual cycle, which allowed vegetation to regenerate and also support herds of gazelle. The closing of the border between Syria and Turkey in the 1940s curtailed some of the traditional movements of Syria’s nomadic tribes, which once migrated into the pastures of Turkey’s Taurus Mountains during summer.

The American DustBowl had been created in part when the government subsidized wheat prices to meet the demand during World War I. This resulted in a loss of native buffalo grass that sustained the semiarid American west. An area the size of state of Ohio was quickly ploughed to plant wheat. When prices fell and governments no longer guaranteed farmers a high price, many abandoned the land. Without natural vegetation to hold the soil, when the natural cycle of droughts began the Dust Bowl ensued. Similarly the “demand for grain during the Second World War encouraged expansion of Syrian agriculture. In the early 1950s, when the new Syrian State abolished tribal land tenure, that agriculture, supported by mechanical ploughs, expanded on to virgin steppe but most proved to be unproductive.” Much of the land degradation has been the result of deep that ploughing that removed native vegetation and exposed soil to wind and water erosion, as well as destroying much of its organic content. It is no coincidence that many of Syria’s revolutionary leaders are failed cotton farmers who once depended on the whims of government subsidies.7

Syria’s Khabur River is a principal tributary of the Euphrates and flows entirely within Syria. However it is largely fed from limestone springs that are recharged by precipitation that falls in the adjacent Turkish mountains. Huge increases in the use of groundwater for irrigation in both Turkey and Syria have left the fields dry that depended on drawing irrigation water from the springs and upper course of the Khabur River. Furthermore recently built dams in Turkey now control the flow of water into Syria and the amount of water allowed to reach Syria and Iraq is now wielded as a political weapon. 7

As refugees dramatically increased Syria’s population, they added greater and greater stress on a landscape already in serious decline. While regional strife increased the flow of refugees into Syria, it also limited the flow of incoming water. “In 1987, Turkey guaranteed a minimum water flow of 500 cubic metes per second and Syria, in return, promised to cooperate in security matters. A few months later, Turkey complained about terrorist activities and accused Syria of supporting. Turkey allegedly hinted at a cut in the flow of Euphrates water to Syria over Syrian support for Kurdish terrorists. In January 1990, Turkey completely stopped the flow of the Euphrates [emphasis added]. The official justification for the interruption was to fill the lake behind the Ataturk Dam and the interruption was intended to be only for one month. Behind the scenes, this interruption was an indirect threat to Syria for its continued support of the PKK. Turkey did not care about Iraq’s reaction as Syria and Iraq were bitter enemies; however, Turkey’s actions united both Iraq and Syria against it.”10

The myriad of factors stressing the revolutionary farmers is very complex. Obviously blaming Syria’s water woes on CO2 is a simple-minded ploy. But one could still argue that “unprecedented climate change” had exacerbated any problems created by bad government and landscape abuse. However as in Texas, there are no unprecedented climate trends other than those created locally by landscape abuse. Historical records of droughts in Turkey’s Anatolia and neighboring countries corroborate the data furnished by tree-ring widths to indicate that cycles of major droughts and famine events have occurred in 1725, 1757, 1887, 1890–1891, 1893–1894 and 1927–1928, long before rising CO2 could play a role. As seen in Fig. 5 the lack of recent precipitation is a minor bump in the road when compared to records over the past 350 years.9

clip_image004

And as in Texas, based on proxy data there has been no “global warming” in this region either. Tree ring researchers striving to put recent temperatures into a historical context concluded, “Low-frequency variations, which were associated with the medieval warm period and the little ice age, were identified in the winter-to- spring temperature reconstruction, however, the twentieth century warming trend found elsewhere could not be identified in our temperature proxy record.”8 [emphasis added]

clip_image005

The third segment of the documentary exposed how government corruption was destroying the Indonesian ecosystem. However anyone concerned about deforestation should ask why Harrison Ford failed to mention the most powerful driver of Indonesia’s disappearing rain forests and the endangerment of the Orangtuans. It is not climate change, but climate fear mongering. Politicians have used climate fear to justify government handouts in the form of subsidies for planting more corn in America, sugar cane in Brazil and palm oil in Indonesia. These subsidies have upset world food markets and destroyed efforts to protect wild lands. In the 2013 research article “The EU Biofuel Policy and Palm Oil: Cutting subsidies or cutting rainforest?” by The International Institute for Sustainable Development, they report the European Union alone has provided $11 billion dollars in biofuel subsidies and the bulk of that has subsidized palm oil for the biodiesel industry. I loved Harrison Ford for his ability to provide such gripping Hollywood illusions as Indiana Jones, but I am deeply troubled by his current role in distorting climate reality.

The emotional, virtual realities created by modern technology can indeed be dangerous. The speed of modern communication and the ease by which our fears can be exploited demands that we become better critical thinkers. The baby boom’s motto of the 60s to question authority is more important now than ever. We all can fall victim to our own predilections and be blinded by our beliefs. Only respectful debate can free us from our illusions. Unfortunately people like Joe Romm who are pushing climate catastrophe, also argue that the debate is over. Increasingly alarmists demand that skeptics should be banned from public forums and seek to “deny the deniers the right to deny”. They want us to only believe that the Hollywood illusions presented in “Years of Living Dangerously” are the real truth. Yet their sins of omission and the distortion of published science illustrates why, now more than ever, more climate debate is needed.

Literature Cited

1.Hoerling et al (2013) Anatomy of an Extreme Event. Journal of Climate, vol. 26

2. Dai (2012) The influence of the inter-decadal Pacific oscillation on US precipitation during 1923–2010. Climate Dynamics, vol

3. Seager, R. et al. (2008) Drought in the Southeastern United States: Causes, Variability over the Last Millennium, and the Potential for Future Hydroclimate Change. Journal of Climate, vol. 22, p. 5021-5047.

4. Cook, E., et al., (2004) Long-Term Aridity Changes in the Western United States. Science 306, 1015-1018.

5. Herweijer,C., et al., (2007) North American Droughts of the Last Millennium from a Gridded Network of Tree-Ring Data. Journal of Climate, vol. 20, p. 1353-1376.

6. Cook, B., et al., (2011) Atmospheric circulation anomalies during two persistent North American droughts: 1932–1939 and 1948–1957. Climate Dynamics, vol. 36, p. 2339–2355

7. Hole (2009) Unsustainable land use in Syria Drivers of Unsustainable Land Use in the Semi-Arid

Khabur River Basin, Syria. Geographical Research March 2009 47(1):4–14

8. Heinrich (2013) Winter-to-spring temperature dynamics in Turkey derived from tree rings since AD 1125. Clim Dyn 41:1685–1701

9. Akkemik (2005) A preliminary reconstruction (A.D. 1635–2000) of spring precipitation

using oak tree rings in the western Black Sea region of Turkey. Int J Biometeorol 49:297–302

10. Hipel (2014) Strategic Investigations of Water Conflicts in the MiddleEast. Group Decis Negot (2014) 23:355–376

11. (2013) The EU Biofuel Policy and Palm Oil: Cutting subsidies or cutting rainforest?” The International Institute for Sustainable Development

De-programme your kids when they come home from school….

Schools “climate-brainwash” children, reveals report (United Kingdom)

Apr 9, 2014

school

.
Editor’s note
:  If you’re not familiar with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), you’re missing out.  Click here for their statement, “Who we are.”  Clickhere for their Board of Trustees.  And here for the Academic Advisory Council.

Basically the GWPF is a group of former high level U.K. government officials, Members of Parliament, and a host of scholars from heavy-weight universities, worldwide, who are alarmed at the hysteria and brainwashing being orchestrated by energy corporations (read:  Wall St. banks) who have much to gain.  (Note:  The GWPF does not accept money from any energy company or donor representing the interests of an energy company.  In other words, it is not a front for Big Oil or Big Wind or Big Nuclear, or Big Anything for that matter.)

The GWPF does not deny climate change; indeed, its members cover the entire spectrum, from those who are convinced it’s chiefly human-caused to those who think the whole thing is moonshine.  Listen carefully to what I’m saying:  The GWPF is insisting on real science, not agenda-driven science.  It is insisting on rational decisions, not “climate dogma,” as we chart our future.  Their goal is to tone down the rhetoric, strip ideology out of climate science, and remove the corporate financial agenda and government power-grabbing from the whole climate conversation.

As a retired professional historian, I agree.  History is loaded with paroxysms of mass hysteria about one “belief system” or “cause” or “noble ideal” after another — with results that were always disastrous.  That’s not all:  Someone always got very wealthy and powerful from championing that noble ideal or doctrine or to-kill-for worthy cause.  Someone always morphed into a tyrant and became completely corrupt, and did incalculable damage, from being the “savior-in-chief” of humanity — whatever the issue du jour.

I warn you:  Don’t let this happen!  I see the GWPF as a sane voice in the gathering madness of “Oh my god, the earth is about to incinerate as a result of human misbehavior, and governments and corporations and schools need to do something about it, NOW!”  This is a recipe for dictatorship.  Tyranny.  Big Brother.  Totalitarianism.  The likes of which humanity has never seen.

Anyhow, the GWPF has just issued a stunning document on how children in British public schools are being brainwashed (greenwashed) about global warming.  Again, I caution you:  The GWPF is not taking a position “yea” or “nay” on global warming; it’s stripping the discussion of junk, agenda-driven science, corporate interference, and political opportunism and imperialist ambition.

“Imperialism”?  Yes, as with natural gas fracking becoming a weapon, a tool of public policy over who supplies Eastern Europe, especially the Ukraine, with fuel.  When matters of empire, politics, ideology, or corporate profit enter the debate — be it wind energy, fracking, solar power, oil, nuclear — science and reason immediately become corrupt and, frankly, dangerous.  Readers of this blog have witnessed this aplenty in the wind energy uproar — rife with ideologically-driven science and medicine.

greenwash
.

“Climate Control:  Brainwashing in Schools”

— by Andrew Montford & John Shade
.
_ (Click here for PDF of the report, here for its appendices, and here for a link.)

Children are being treated as political targets by activists who wish to change society in fundamental ways. This is unacceptable whether or not they are successful — from the Introduction, p. 10.

A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body — John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty.”

The problem isn’t that Johnny can’t read.  The problem isn’t even that Johnny can’t think.  The problem is that Johnny doesn’t know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling — Thomas Sowell, “Inside American Education.”

.
Foreword
 by Professor Terence Kealy, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham

Politicians and political activists have always wanted to control the schools, for obvious reasons. St Francis Xavier of the Jesuits may or may not have said ‘give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man’ but too many politicians have wanted the child until he or she is seventeen, just to make sure.

In this impressive paper Andrew Montford and John Shade have shown how effectively eco-activism appears to have captured our schools’ curriculums. It is of course true that the greenhouse effect is based on good physics, but even better physics recognises that the globe is a complex system and that many different effects – not just the greenhouse effect – will influence the climate. And since we cannot yet model the world’s climate with confidence, we must be suspicious of the certainty with which eco-activists seek to influence the schools’ curriculums.

Eco-activism is, as Montford and Shade have shown, only the most recent example of attempted curriculum-capture by political activists, so we need to construct institutions to protect the schools from such capture. Montford and Shade have invoked the horrible examples of education under the communist regimes of Eastern Europe or China, and in so doing they point the way to the only solid future – democracy.

Educational researchers such as EG West (Education and the State, 1965) and James Tooley (The Beautiful Tree, 2009) have shown how the nationalisation of the schools in England and Wales during the 19th century was a mistake, which neither increased the expenditure per pupil nor fostered social justice – it only handed the schools over to John Stuart Mill’s ‘dominant power in government.’

But the nationalisation of the schools is now effectively irreversible, so how can we protect the curriculum within it? One harbinger is provided by the UK Statistics Authority, which is funded by government but which reports not to a minister but directly to Parliament. Thus its independence is optimised. Perhaps we now need a Curriculum Authority, reporting to Parliament via a select committee, because by its nature a legislature can foster a wider range of views than can the executive branch of government.

In the meantime, let us echo the call from Montford and Shade for an independent review of our current climate curriculum, because if – as the title of their paper suggests – schools are indoctrinating rather than educating, we have a problem.

.
Executive summary

We have found examples of serious errors, misleading claims, and bias through inadequate treatment of climate issues in school teaching materials. These include many widely-used textbooks, teaching-support resources, and pupil projects.

We find instances of eco-activism being given a free rein within schools and at the events schools encourage their pupils to attend. In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think. In some instances, we find encouragement to create ‘little political activists’ in schools by creating a burden of responsibility for action on their part to ‘save the planet’, not least by putting pressure on their parents.

The National Curriculum has recently been reviewed by the government, but the proposed changes seem unlikely to prevent such practices.

Surveys show that many children are upset and frightened by what they are told is happening to the climate.

Teachers and administrators have a fairly free hand to choose textbooks, other materials, visiting speakers and school trips for pupils provided they fit in with curricular goals. This raises the risk that some may select alarming and politi- cally loaded sources in order to win children over to the ‘environmental cause’. This ‘cause’ is often presented through the notion of ‘sustainability’, a poorly- defined catchword covering political and personal actions for which funda- mental criticism is rarely entertained.5 Many campaigning NGOs and other organisations with vested interests such as energy companies proffer teach- ing materials and other resources for use in schools. Some of it is presumably being used.

There are clear grounds for very serious concern. We therefore call upon the Secretary of State for Education and his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to undertake urgent inquiries into climate change education in our schools. Only a systematic evaluation of what is going on can determine the extent of the indoctrination as well as the emotional and educational harm to pupils that is undoubtedly resulting.

 

 

Can’t trust the climate fear mongers!

nomoreliesblog

Debunking the lies that support the wind farm scam

Search

The global warming flapdoodle …

 

and the global COOLING evidence

Global warming has been the cry of government climate scientists since the 1980′s. But actual government data proves global cooling has taken over from warming during this century, as per the official U.S. satellite records (see graph).

2014 02  NOAA temperature anomalies graph
Global land and ocean temperature anomalies as at February 2014
Anomalies are with respect to the 20th century average
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global

  
What’s interesting about this graph? Well, first we see that, since 1977, the world temperature has been consistently hotter than the 20th century average. But if we look more closely, we can see that the heat has been abating since 1998.

This data has been collected by NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) which is part of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), a scientific agency of the US Administration. NOAA is an international leader for temperature data. The two others are NASA’s GISS in the US, and the UK’s University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climate Research Unit), working jointly with the Hadley Center (of the Met Office).

The GISS webpage cannot be accessed presently at:http://www.data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp, but HAD-CRUT did publish their graphs for February, which confirm the new cooling trend:http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

Government-financed scientists, who collect and interpret the data, have in the past done their best to “hide the decline” (Climategate). Today, unfortunately, climate science continues to be corrupted by billions of dollars of government money. NOAA are arguably less corrupt than the other two, but they are still very much so in the way they present things. On their webpage below we can read: “Arctic winter sea ice extent is 5th smallest since 1979″. It would have been more objective to say: “… is larger than in 2012, and the 5th smallest since 1979″.

NOAA arctic sea ice winter 2013 5th smallest on record
NOAA: “Arctic winter sea ice extent is 5th smallest since 1979″



The following title, on the other hand, was objective: “Surface melt on Greenland Ice Sheet back near average in 2013.”
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/2013-arctic-report-card-surface-melt-greenland-ice-sheet-back-near

NOAA Greenland melt back to average in 2013
NOAA: Greenland melt back near average in 2013

 
Anyway, what’s interesting is that we are witnessing a reversal of the warming trend. This was expected by “climate skeptic” scientists, who’ve been arguing for years that cooling and warming follow the variations of solar activity, not the emissions of CO2.

As solar radiation has been declining lately, it is not surprising that world temperature should be declining as well. Never mind the ritual IPCC flapdoodle* – political gesticulation meant to scare us into accepting carbon taxes and subsidies to the wind farm scam. Politicians won’t give up dishing out money to the wind industry, as part of it is returned to finance their electoral campaigns. They LOVE that “green” revolving door.

* flapdoodle: nonsense. Originally, “the stuff they feed fools on”, 1833.

In fact, we are half-way into solar cycle 24 (the sun’s activity follows cyclical patterns, the shortest lasting 10-13-year). Solar cycle 24 happens to be the weakest in 100 years. We are presently near or past its peak, and from the graph below you can see how low it is in comparison to the previous cycle.

Solar cycle 24 to Feb 2014
NOAA: Solar cycle 24 is peaking much lower than the previous one

 
As we pass the peak, more cooling is to be expected. If solar cycle 25 is weaker still than # 24, temperatures could drop to the level of the Little Ice Age, a cold period from 1550 to 1850, which saw the Thames frozen solid, and crops rotting in the fields from too much rain. This prompted many Europeans to emigrate to America. In France, which was Europe’s grain basket, starving Parisians took to the streets asking for bread. Soon they developed a fancy for the guillotine, and executed their rulers. This begs the question: will history repeat itself?

If a “little ice age” would happen now, with 7 billion people on earth plus 75 million added every year, skyrocketing food prices and mass starvation would ensue. Yet, foolishly, our governments keep wasting money on ineffective wind turbines to cool (sic) the climate. Perhaps they do deserve the guillotine after all?

This article is also published here: http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-global-warming-flapdoodle-and-the-global-cooling-evidence.htm

Carbon Dioxide has many benefits!

Via.GREENIE WATCH.

11 April 2014

Report: CO2 Is Not a Pollutant, Provides ‘Beneficial Impacts’ to Planet

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring chemical compound that benefits plants and thus, the planet and its inhabitants, according to a lengthy report released Wednesday by the free-market Heartland Institute.

“Carbon dioxide is an aerial fertilizer that provides many beneficial impacts,” said Craig Idso, one of the lead authors of the report, when CNSNews.com asked him to name the most salient finding of the 37 scientists from 12 countries who contributed to it.

“You can look at thousands of studies – real world data studies that have actually been conducted that demonstrate beyond any doubt that higher levels of CO2 are going to increase the productivity of plants,” Idso said.

“They’re real,” Idso said of the benefits of CO2. “They’re not imagined. They’re not projected. They’re real, and they’re occurring now.”

On December 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final regulation listing CO2 as one of the greenhouses gases that is considered a pollutant that “endangers public health.” The regulation is part of what the EPA says is required under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA relies heavily in its environmental assessments on the climate change reports produced by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which issued its fifth report in September 2013.

Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, said the IPCC report has been “largely discredited” by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s (NIPCC) “Climate Change Reconsidered II” series of reports, including a 1,000-page report on the physical science of climate change that was released in 2013.

Fred Singer, report co-author and an atmospheric and space physicist and climate change expert, said at the press conference that the models used by IPCC do not reflect the real-world data about the planet and its warming and cooling trends.

Idso provided dramatic examples of how CO2 impacts plants, showing images of small and underdeveloped plants that were exposed to a small amount of the compound compared with thriving plants with generous leaves and blossoms and expansive root systems.

“One of the overall important findings of our report is that atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant,” Idso said. “It is a colorless, odorless, tasteless gas that offers many biosphereric benefits.

“Probably chiefly known among all of these benefits is that elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 tend to increase the biomass and productivity of nearly all plants and ecosystems on earth,” Idso said.

Some of the other findings in the biological impacts report summary include:

* The ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content is causing a great greening of the Earth.

* Rising levels of CO2 are increasing agricultural productivity around the world, therefore increasing food security.

* Terrestrial ecosystems have thrived around the world where temperatures have warmed, including amphibians, birds, butterflies, other insects, reptiles and mammals.

* A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/report-co2-not-pollutant-provides-beneficial-impacts-planet

 

 

Climate Science is never settled!

Lovejoy’s 99% ‘confidence’ vs. measurement uncertainty

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

It is time to be angry at the gruesome failure of peer review that allows publication of papers, such as the recent effusion of Professor Lovejoy of McGill University, which, in the gushing, widely-circulated press release that seems to accompany every mephitically ectoplasmic emanation from the Forces of Darkness these days, billed it thus:

“Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty.”

One thing anyone who studies any kind of physics knows is that claiming results to three standard deviations, or 99% confidence, requires – at minimum – that the data underlying the claim are exceptionally precise and trustworthy and, in particular, that the measurement error is minuscule.

Here is the Lovejoy paper’s proposition:

“Let us … make the hypothesis that anthropogenic forcings are indeed dominant (skeptics may be assured that this hypothesis will be tested and indeed quantified in the following analysis). If this is true, then it is plausible that they do not significantly affect the type or amplitude of the natural variability, so that a simple model may suffice:

clip_image002 (1)

ΔTglobet is the measured mean global temperature anomaly, ΔTantht is the deterministic anthropogenic contribution, ΔTnatt is the (stochastic) natural variability (including the responses to the natural forcings), andΔεt is the measurement error. The last can be estimated from the differences between the various observed global series and their means; it is nearly independent of time scale [Lovejoy et al., 2013a] and sufficiently small (≈ ±0.03 K) that we ignore it.”

Just how likely is it that we can measure global mean surface temperature over time either as an absolute value or as an anomaly to a precision of less than 1/30 Cº? It cannot be done. Yet it was essential to Lovejoy’s fiction that he should pretend it could be done, for otherwise his laughable attempt to claim 99% certainty for yet another me-too, can-I-have-another-grant-please result using speculative modeling would have visibly failed at the first fence.

Some of the tamperings that have depressed temperature anomalies in the 1920s and 1930s to make warming this century seem worse than it really was are a great deal larger than a thirtieth of a Celsius degree.

Fig. 1 shows a notorious instance from New Zealand, courtesy of Bryan Leyland:

clip_image004

Figure 1. Annual New Zealand national mean surface temperature anomalies, 1990-2008, from NIWA, showing a warming rate of 0.3 Cº/century before “adjustment” and 1 Cº/century afterward. This “adjustment” is 23 times the Lovejoy measurement error.

 

clip_image006clip_image008

Figure 2: Tampering with the U.S. temperature record. The GISS record from 1990-2008 (right panel) shows 1934 0.1 Cº higher and 1998 0.3 Cº lower than the same record in its original 1999 version (left panel). This tampering, calculated to increase the apparent warming trend over the 20th century, is more than 13 times the tiny measurement error mentioned by Lovejoy. The startling changes to the dataset between the 1999 and 2008 versions, first noticed by Steven Goddard, are clearly seen if the two slides are repeatedly shown one after the other as a blink comparator.

Fig. 2 shows the effect of tampering with the temperature record at both ends of the 20thcentury to sex up the warming rate. The practice is surprisingly widespread. There are similar examples from many records in several countries.

But what is quantified, because Professor Jones’ HadCRUT4 temperature series explicitly states it, is the magnitude of the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties in the data.

Measurement uncertainty arises because measurements are taken in different places under various conditions by different methods. Anthony Watts’ exposure of the poor siting of hundreds of U.S. temperature stations showed up how severe the problem is, with thermometers on airport taxiways, in car parks, by air-conditioning vents, close to sewage works, and so on.

His campaign was so successful that the U.S. climate community were shamed into establishing a network of several hundred ideally-sited temperature monitoring stations with standardized equipment and reporting procedures. That record showed – not greatly to skeptics’ surprise – a rate of warming noticeably slower than the shambolic legacy record. The new record was quietly shunted into a siding, seldom to be heard of again. It pointed to an inconvenient truth: some unknown but significant fraction of 20th-century global warming arose from old-fashioned measurement uncertainty.

Coverage uncertainty arises from the fact that temperature stations are not evenly spaced either spatially or temporally. There has been a startling decline in the number of temperature stations reporting to the global network: there were 6000 a couple of decades ago, but now there are closer to 1500.

Bias uncertainty arises from the fact that, as the improved network demonstrated all too painfully, the old network tends to be closer to human habitation than is ideal.

clip_image010

Figure 3. The monthly HadCRUT4 global temperature anomalies (dark blue) and least-squares trend (thick bright blue line), with the combined measurement, coverage, and bias uncertainties shown. Positive anomalies are green; negative are red.

Fig. 3 shows the HadCRUT4 anomalies since 1880, with the combined anomalies also shown. At present, the combined uncertainties are ±0.15 Cº, or almost a sixth of a Celsius degree up or down, over an interval of 0.3 Cº in total. This value, too, is an order of magnitude greater than the unrealistically tiny measurement error allowed for in Lovejoy’s equation (1).

The effect of the uncertainties is that for 18 years 2 months the HadCRUT4 global-temperature trend falls entirely within the zone of uncertainty (Fig. 4). Accordingly, we cannot tell even with 95% confidence whether any global warming at all has occurred since January 1996.

clip_image012

Figure 4. The HadCRUT4 monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies and trend, January 1996 to February 2014, with the zone of uncertainty (pale blue). Because the trend-line falls entirely within the zone of uncertainty, we cannot be even 95% confident that any global warming occurred over the entire 218-month period.

Now, if you and I know all this, do you suppose the peer reviewers did not know it? The measurement error was crucial to the thesis of the Lovejoy paper, yet the reviewers allowed him to get away with saying it was only 0.03 Cº when the oldest of the global datasets, and the one favored by the IPCC, actually publishes, every monthy, combined uncertainties that are ten times larger.

Let us be blunt. Not least because of those uncertainties, compounded by data tampering all over the world, it is impossible to determine climate sensitivity either to the claimed precision of 0.01 Cº or to 99% confidence from the temperature data.

For this reason alone, the headline conclusion in the fawning press release about the “99% certainty” that climate sensitivity is similar to the IPCC’s estimate is baseless. The order-of-magnitude error about the measurement uncertainties is enough on its own to doom the paper. There is a lot else wrong with it, but that is another story.