The Alliance for Climate Education begins ambitious campaign to educate America’s youth about Climate Change

Posted on

"The Alliance for Climate Education begins ambitious campaign to educate America’s youth about Climate Change"

The Alliance for Climate Education (ACE)””an Oakland-based non-profit””announced this week the start of its grassroots initiative “aimed at educating and empowering students to address global climate change.” These are noble goals, to say the least. It is hard to overstate the importance of informing the public about the realities of global warming and the consequences of not changing our energy consumption habits. ACE’s campaign will target high school-age youths””a smart strategy considering younger generations will inherit the climate that their parents leave behind.

There are other reasons why America’s youth are crucial to establishing a societal movement towards a clean energy economy. Young people are able to develop an intuitive understanding of global warming’s problems and solutions before their thoughts and habits are cemented in the modern routine of high-energy consumption. Youth movements can be especially potent forces in altering popular perceptions and influencing congressional representatives. Michael Haas, the founder of ACE, seems to understand this and has set his organization’s goals accordingly. He says:

ACE is built on the belief that young people can have a substantial near-term positive impact on the global climate crisis. The magnitude of the challenges facing our planet is great, and we are running out of time to act. I believe leaders around the world will listen to the collective voices of our youth.

Haas’ words have an effective mix of urgency and optimism needed to nurture an activist mentality. If ACE’s message only touted gloomy forecasts it could convince its audience that nothing can be done to stop catastrophe, but if too positive, it runs the risk of not prompting immediate action. Here are two sentences that exemplify this balance from their recent news release:

Overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that global warming is accelerating and requires immediate, sustained, and decisive action to curb its potentially devastating effects. ACE educates youth on this important issue, helps to channel their energy and passion into a single voice and common network, and empowers youth to make a significant impact on the future.

ACE will send “trained educators” to give interactive presentations in Bay Area high-schools in the coming months, reaching an estimated 10,000 students by the end of the school year. The organization will also award $2,500 scholarships to high-school juniors and seniors who “take leadership roles in curbing the acceleration of climate change.” Sounds like a good idea to me. Any meaningful, lasting change in how we consume energy in this country must be attached to an economic mechanism to be effective. So showing young people that they can actually make money by curtailing global warming is a great way to encourage their sustained interest and activism.

Along with scholarships for individuals, ACE will give grants to schools that lead efforts in fighting global warming. These incentives echo the effects of placing a price on carbon and making efficiency pay dividends for businesses.

Blakey Atherton, ACE’s Executive Director, says that students and teachers have shown tremendous interest in the new campaign. This swell in concern for climate change further bolsters the director’s enthusiasm. “Once they understand the changes taking place in our climate,” he says, “young people are motivated to act because they see that their ideas and solutions can counter the effects of climate change. Students understand that their future depends on actions taken today.”

Hopefully ACE will succeed in spreading good ideas and solutions among young people around the country. The non-profit will be expanding its program to a national level, aiming to reach two million students by the end of 2011.

– Carlin Rosengarten

Related Posts:

« »

43 Responses to The Alliance for Climate Education begins ambitious campaign to educate America’s youth about Climate Change

  1. Ron Cram says:

    Is this an education movement or an indoctrination movement? As Mike Hulme, professor of climate science at Univ of East Anglia, says “Climate change cannot be solved by artificially creating consensus.”

    One would hope this new education movement will also talk about how the earth’s oceans have not warmed since 2003 and how this is not possible if the earth’s energy budget were truly out of balance as claimed by Jim Hansen. One would also hope it would inform children of the warm and cool climate regimes identified by scientists and the prediction of a change to a cool regime which happened in late 2007. One would hope the children will learn about the recent peer-reviewed papers showing AGW will likely not be catastrophic. But I do not think any of that will happen. The religion of AGW is out of control. People continue to bow down regardless of what the science says. Many people, such as yourself, continue to make their living based on unsubstantiated alarmism. After all, fear sells.

  2. Gail says:

    Ron Cram, one would hope someday you will understand that the science of climate change is just as solid as the science of evolution. Or do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

  3. ecostew says:

    It is very clear that Ron Cram’s perspectives are not grounded in the peer-reviewed science as it relates to AGW.

  4. Donna Eyman says:

    I hate to rain on your parade, but the ‘peer review’ statement is all wet. There are many more reputable scientists who can prove that climate change is a natural chain of events that will happen no matter what man will/can do. Sun spots and the jet stream and many other factors enter in to the equation than simple computer models can reveal. After all ‘garbage in and garbage out’ is very much true especially when people are making extraordinary money by brainwashing people to come over to their view.
    This will lead to the bankrupcy of our nation.

  5. John Hollenberg says:


    You are exhibit A showing why this education program is needed. If the youth remain as hopelessly uninformed as you are, and accept the anti-science indoctrination you are suggesting, they will end up in a heap of trouble in 50 years.

  6. ecostew says:

    And Donna exhibit B when it comes to AGW.

  7. Gail says:

    Ron and Donna, maybe it will all be easier for you to comprehend if you can see pictures:

    Other videos from the same source are educational, too. Also.

  8. Jim Eager says:

    Ron wrote: “One would hope this new education movement will also talk about how the earth’s oceans have not warmed since 2003…”

    Why would anyone expect an educational project to talk about an outright falsehood such as this?

    Unless, of course, one were seeking on ideological or financial grounds or out of plain old ignorance to deny reality, hide the truth, and prevent action to address climate change.

    And Donna, please do provide links to the peer-reviewed literature where these ‘many more’ reputable scientists ‘prove’ that climate change is a natural chain of events.

    We’ll be waiting, as we have for the past 20 years.
    But we will also be acting, because the scientific debate is long since over and the public policy debate is nearing its climax.

    Like it or not, CO2 is going to be regulated, either by legislation or by regulation.
    Kick and scream and hold your breath all you like, it no longer matters.

  9. Ron Cram says:

    [JR: All of this is quite, quite wrong. The science has become far stronger and more alarming about the future we face on a path of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions — see “An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water.”

    You all seem to think I am uninformed about AGW science. Not true. You are the ones who are uninformed. Since 2007 a number of peer-reviewed papers have been published showing AGW will not be catastrophic and that much of the recent warming (from 1976 to 2007) was natural. If any of your believers in AGW know how to use Google scholar, please look up the 2007 by Stephen Schwartz from Brookhaven National Lab. He came up with a much lower than expected climate sensitivity to doubled CO2. Also in 2007, Petr Chylek from Los Alamos National Lab published the first of a series of papers showing that climate sensitivity to aerosols was overestimated and explained how that meant sensitivity to CO2 was also overestimated. Something has to explain why the atmosphere has not warmed up as much as expected. After all, according to the CRU at East Anglia 1998 is still the warmest year on record. But of course atmospheric warming is a really poor metric for monitoring climate change. Much better is ocean heat content. After all, the oceans are the largest store of energy on the planet. If the earth is overheating, it will be seen there first and most unequivocably. The oceans did warm in the 1990s and Jim Hansen and others pointed this out quite convincingly. See Hansen’s paper on the radiative imbalance and “heat in the pipeline.” Unfortunately, Hansen is not beating on this drum nearly as much since the ARGO network has achieved global reach and we now know the oceans have not warmed since 2003. See Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Josh Wills’ peer-reviewed paper on ocean heat content. It shows no warming even after all the necessary adjustments to the data. Wills tries to argue this lack of warming is not a problem because “some” models can also show several years of no warming. But I will say this: Any model that does not show warming is not doing it right. According to AGW theory, if the earth has a radiative imbalance it will show up year over year in warmer oceans. It has to! Where else could the heat be going?

    Perhaps you all did not hear about the Japanese scientific panel that released a report saying AGW is an unsubstantiated hypothesis? Read about it

    Perhaps you did not read the peer-reviewed paper by Roy Spencer regarding his observation of a newly discovered negative feedback over the tropics he identified as the Infrared Iris Effect hypothesized by Richard Lindzen of MIT? Perhaps you do not know the GCMs that are supposed to model earth’s climate still do not have this negative feedback programmed into them? Perhaps you have not read the 2002 peer-reviewed paper by Bratcher and Giese which talked about the climate regime shifts from warm to cool in 1942 or so and from cool to warm in 1975? Perhaps you did not know about their prediction for a new climate regime shift “soon?” Perhaps you did not know that many scientists have identified the rapid shift in weather in late 2007 as this climate regime shift? The 20th century was warming because it had two such warm climate regimes. Since these regimes last about 30-40 years, the 21st century will have two cool climate regimes and only one warm regime. By 2100 we could have cooler temps than we have right now.

    Yes, it is true you would expect some warming from increased CO2. But no one really knows how much. The negative feedbacks are not well understood. Cloud feedbacks especially so. Any climate scientist worth his salt will admit that.

    It is a shame people come here and think there is no debate in the scientific community about AGW. It just is not so. In recent years, the skeptics have been winning.

  10. Ron Cram says:

    Jim, you misrepresent my words. Josh Willis is a fine scientist. He was instrumental in finding the error in the fall rate of the ARGO floats. Ocean cooling, as reported earlier, was not real. Or at least, significant ocean cooling was an instrumental error. However, even after the corrections and adjustments there is no warming of the oceans since 2003. That is what I said.

  11. Bullwinkle says:

    It’s no shame Ron. You are just flat out wrong. You are spouting long debunked denier nonsense. It won’t work here.

  12. ecostew says:


    The cherries you picked are worse than sour – they are rotten fruit.

  13. Jim Eager says:

    Ron, the Japan Society of Energy and Resources is not a panel comprised of climate scientists, it is a panel of scientists and academics from the energy and resource industry. What would you expect them to say?

    And Schwartz’ paper on climate sensitivity has been thoroughly shredded by the climate science community.

    That you would actually cite them totally undermines your credibility.

    Not that it matters any more.

  14. Petro says:

    Ron Cram is just another bozo denying reality. Go away, your place is in WUWT with the deckheads there.

  15. oxnardprof says:

    This is a very important project. I just concluded my lectures on climate change as part of a course on air pollution.

    I offer the following anecdots / observations on how my students (college-level, with hard science backgrounds):

    1. One student asked if it was true that the Prius had a larger ecological footprint than the Hummer, due to the batteries. Nickel production was also of concern to the students from environmental pollution due to mining.

    2. How could the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap raise sea levels so much, if 97 % of the water on Earth is in the oceans?

    3. Another student read that carbon dioxide levels follow temperature changes, so how could carbon dioxide be the cause if increases in temperature?

    4. Al Gore’s film is a little too political. Actually, the references to 2000 and the Bush Administration’s inaction on climate change need to be upadated to the current administration’s encouraging actions. I frame the film with a discussion of the so-called ‘nine errors’ and provide reading such as the column in this blog on that topic.

    Most students are concerned about the material I present, but a disturbing number have seen the denialist comments, and take them to heart. I plan to increase my discussion on this issue next year, as well as develop a new course on sustainability (in my mind at its foundation is handling climate change).

    In summary, the education of the young the area of climate science is necessary, and that education should include action to encourage change. that action must be political as well as practical. I hope that a good proportion of this program will include areas with doubting, hesitant, recalcitrant (pick an adjective) legislators, and only not those areas with supporting legislators.only

  16. Ron Cram says:

    Jim, the Schwartz paper was not “debunked” by the climate science community. James Annan and others found some issues that needed fixing and Schwartz fixed them in a subsequent paper. It raised his climate sensitivity somewhat but it was still very low. I would remind you that Schwartz’s estimate was based on observations during the warm climate regime. An estimate during the cool climate regime, when the PDO is in its cool phase, could be dramatically different.

    What do you mean Japan Society of Energy and Resources is not comprised of climate scientists? Do you know anything about these people’s credentials? Obviously not. Shunichi Akasofu is very well respected climatologist. I do not know the others as well, but Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC).

    Jim, by the way, I apologize if I sounded harsh earlier. I was actually pleased you looked up something to see if I was right or not. Most people will try to pretend they never read what I wrote so they can keep their earlier ideas without having to think critically. If you look up all of the peer-reviewed research I have introduced here, I think you will find it interesting.

    And Petro, I am not denying reality. I’m trying to confront you with it. There are reasons why scientists are becoming more outspoken against AGW. The evidence against it being catastrophic is piling up. Schwartz is still concerned about AGW, but now thinks “we have time” to get a solution. But I don’t think he has ever confronted the shifting climate regimes as discussed by Bratcher and Giese and others. The work of Petr Chylek on aerosols proves aerosols were not responsible for the cooler temps from 1942 to 1975, therefore the change had to be natural. And temps cooled during a period of rising atmospheric CO2. Rising CO2 and cooler temps, try to wrap your head around that if aerosols are not the reason.

    [JR: There is so much wrong here, hard to know where to begin. Most of this has been debunked here, at RealClimate, or Skeptical Science. Aeresols were indeed a major reason that warming slowed sharply — a big volcano or two helped also. The literature is quite clear on that — and the evidence has gotten much stronger since scientists actually predicted the temporary cooling impact of Pinatubo.

    As regular readers know, people who keep repeating long-debunked disinformation are put on moderation.]

  17. Ron Cram says:

    Oxnardprof, I would be happy to hold a debate with any professor on your campus about the evidence for AGW. Are you interested?

  18. ecostew says:


    You simply ignore the larger body of peer-reviewed AGW climate science for a few cherries. Why would a climate scientist care to debate you as you have no credibility as a peer-reviewed climate scientist.

  19. Robert says:

    One thing that I am beginning to appreciate is how deeply embedded carbon is in the system. I have measured and minimised our domestic consumption and this averages:

    21 KWh/day (electricity)
    43 KWh/day (gas)
    64 KWh/day (Total)

    Split between the 4 people in our house this is 16 KWh/day/person. The EU average is 125 KWh/day/person, so the domestic part is just 12% of my total carbon footprint. I have little control over the rest of it I guess its used by companies and public services on my behalf.

    If you are going to start educating students make it clear that it won’t be enough to change a few lightbulbs. Our entire way of life needs uprooting. No more green beans flown in from the next continent. No more flying all over the world for awayday weekends. No more Drax power stations consuming 36000 tonnes of coal a day. No more 4 litre urban tractors…

  20. caerbannog says:

    2. How could the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap raise sea levels so much, if 97 % of the water on Earth is in the oceans?

    Looks like oxnardprof needs to brush up on his grammar-school math.

  21. caerbannog says:

    It is a shame people come here and think there is no debate in the scientific community about AGW. It just is not so. In recent years, the skeptics have been winning.

    Since 2002, *thousands* of peer-reviewed papers relevant to global-warming have been published. Yet Mr. Cram, on the basis of fewer papers than can be counted on one hand (two hands tops), concludes that the skeptics have been winning?

  22. Oliver says:

    From the article:

    “If ACE’s message only touted gloomy forecasts it could convince its audience that nothing can be done to stop catastrophe, but if too positive, it runs the risk of not prompting immediate action.”

    To me this says that the consensus opinion includes forecasts that run from catastrophic to much more mild, but the message should be appropriately ‘shaped’ prior to being passed along to high school students. I think it would be more appropriate to pass along the whole story. Education should be about training students to become critical thinkers, no?

  23. Jim Beacon says:

    Ah, well, it’s obvious that Joe’s appearance on David Letterman’s “Ain’t Climate Change Funny?” segment is having the primary result of attracting deniers to this blog. Since it is a personal blog dedicated to informing and educating people about Climate Change Progress, I see no point in allowing deniers to post here and spread their disinformation. As Ron Cram demonstrates, these deniers appear to want to engage in intelligent debate on the issues, but all they really end up doing is just citing junk science websites and claiming that 99.9% of the world’s scientists are wrong and participating in some kind of liberal conspiracy to brainwash the rest of us (although they are always very hazy on what motivation 99.9% of the world’s scientists could possibly have for engaging in such a 30-year long conspiracy).

    Nothing anyone can say — no proof anyone can offer — will change the minds of these deniers because they are either incapable of original thought and will simply continue to parrot the comforting lies they want to believe, or they are clinging to a political philosophy which requires that they ignore the real science because the conclusions the real science result in violates the basic foundations of their philosophy and/or they are simply being paid by corporate interests to create continuing false debate and doubt any place on the internet they can in order to delay and mitigate reductions in profits that might happen if enough people finally understand the genuine pressing need for immediate CO2 reductions.

    Their comments, if allowed to stay published, get indexed by the search engines and so will keep on turning up in search results months and years from now, giving the continuing impression, particularly to young people who are new to researching the issues, that there is not a 99.9% scientific consensus on the issue and that there are solutions which do exist and must be implemented.

    Since this is an informational and educational blog, I see no point in allowing these people to violate its intent and use it to spread their disinformation and lies, whether they are doing it intentionally or are just willfully ignorant of the true facts. Their posts should be quickly deleted — or, preferably, not allowed to appear in the first place (because the search engines will index them and put them in cache storage within 24 hours or less). I know Joe has more important things to do with his time than screen every comment before it is posted. Still, if the all the new attention this blog is getting is going to cause this kind of comment pollution, perhaps he could find one or two people he could trust to be given moderator privileges and start screening posts before they are published? I hate this idea, I really do, but the alternative seems to be to allow the comments sections to become a staging grounds for misinformation and lies, which is completely counter-productive to the reason Climate Change Progress exists in the first place.

    It’s a tragedy it has to come to this, but the deniers are not giving up, they are not “coming around” and they are becoming more widespread and effective at creating doubt, confusion, delay and dangerous compromise on needed solutions.

  24. Gail says:

    Jim Beacon, I am of two minds on this. I know a troll when I see one and we might be silly for feeding them or even allowing them to post in the first place. But for those unfamiliar with the debate who might read these standard denier points, and then the reasoned rebuttals to them, with their attendant useful links, perhaps it is an educational exercise? I don’t know how this indexing by search engines works – does it display just a particular comment, or the full thread with rebuttals?

  25. Human beings can contribute to global warming and climate change by polluting and cutting down rainforests, but humans can not control the climate or change it. The climate system is very complex and has many variables and components. Human beings do not control all the variables and components or the Planet Earth.

    Any organization or person that is saying things like “we can solve the climate crisis” or “we can stop global warming” are making statements that are impossible to accomplish.

    [JR: This is utterly false. The “climate crisis” is a shorthand for humanity’s overwhelming of natural forcings, which will lead inevitably to catastrophic impacts. “Global warming” as you use it here is also a shorthand for that same outcome. And yes, we can stop it, since we are the cause.]

    To actually “stop global warming” or “solve the climate crisis” human beings would have the ability to control the following to name a few:

    The Sun

    Volcanic Activity

    The Weather

    The Atmosphere

    All Human Activities

    The Oceans

    We should try to be the best protectors of the planet as much as we are capable and adapt to and prepare for the changes in the Earth’s Climate that are inevitable.

  26. paulm says:

    It smells trollish around here….

  27. Jim Beacon says:


    Exactly how the Google and other search engines index sites (and how they rate different sites or parts of sites when presenting search results to people) is an ongoing mystery. But in the most basic and not very exact terms: The more ‘traffic’ (people viewing) a particular bit on a website, the more “credit” that bit will eventually get on the search engines mysterious indexing and ranking system. And so a link to that particular bit will end up being shown more often to someone on a search results page (and that bit will appear ‘higher’ in the results… maybe even on the first page or two). This causes that bit to get even more people clicking on it and viewing it, which causes its rating to climb even more.

    This blog has received a lot of media attention and recommendation of late (a good thing) and so is receiving a lot more viewer traffic and reader comment (also a good thing unless we’re talking about denier propaganda being posted here under the guise of ‘comment’). That means that the search engines rating for the Climate Progress blog, which was already good, will keep improving, resulting in more and more links to various pages/articles/comments on this site being shown on more and more search results pages (and in those links being more prominently placed on the first few pages of the search results).

    Again, that’s a good thing, so long as the links to Climate Progress pages being shown on the search results are to real, valid scientific information. But if more and more deniers are allowed to post more and more comments filled with misinformation and anti-science propaganda, and more and more readers post comments ‘debating’ them, then links to *those* comments will also be returned more and more often on the search results pages (and given higher prominence).

    That’s the bad thing, obviously, because it perpetuates the impression — particularly among those new to researching these issues, such as young people — that there is a real, genuine scientific disagreement and uncertainly on the nature of the problems and the solutions to them. By continuing to perpetuate this impression (by whatever means, that doesn’t matter, the key is to keeping getting the propaganda out there), the deniers “win” because they’ve achieved their goal: to create among some of the public (voters) a continuing sense of confusion, uncertainly, and the need for caution and delay before implementing “expensive solutions we can’t afford and which may not work”.

  28. Jim Eager says:

    Well, true, we have no control over the sun, which, by the way, varies by only around 0.2 W/m2 insolation over the 11 year sun spot cycle, compared to a steady 2.3 W/m2 for the measured increase in greenhouse gases.

    Nor do we have any control over volcanic activity, but then it emits less than 1% as much CO2 each year as human activity does, and in fact volcanic aerosols actually cool surface temperatures.

    The atmosphere is precisely what we are in fact altering by the emission of greenhouse gases, CFCs and aerosols.

    Human emissions of greenhouse gases are also altering the ocean by changing it’s chemistry, heat content, and volume.

    The weather, averaged over time, is what climate is, so by definition, changing climate by increasing the level of greenhouse gases will mean a change in weather patterns.

    And finally, human activity is exactly what we do have control over, specifically the burning of fossil carbon fuels and the production of CFCs and other synthetic greenhouse gases, and land use changes that have a negative effect on climate.

  29. Gail says:

    One thing is certain, the troll has succeeded in getting this discussion completely off-topic which is a pity. The question of how to educate students about climate change, and what role they can play to affect energy policy, is something I struggle with every day as a parent. It’s difficult to avoid the impression from the fast accelerating feedbacks that we are quite possibly dooming our youth to a very unpleasant future. But of course, we do not want them to despair.

    The last time I tried to talk to my oldest daughter, who is a skilled dressage rider and drives a carriage competitively as well, she said “Yeah I get it mom, we’re going to be eating the horses.” Now for her to immediately make that association is horrific because she lives and breathes for her horses.

    Of course on the bright side she said perhaps when there’s no more fuel for tractors the horses will increase in value.

    My second daughter is going to hike Mt. Kilamanjaro this summer. I tried mentioning that air travel has a huge carbon footprint and in fact there are wonderful places to hike closer to home but she stubbornly said, “I want to see the snows before they are gone.”

    And my youngest will be headed to a remote research outpost in Indonesia, to gather data for her senior thesis on coral reefs. I suspect that there isn’t much to do other than document their demise, but she’s happy, so I don’t say that to her.

    I would be interested to see other people’s thoughts on communicating issues around climate change to young people, the ones who have their lives in front of them and so much at stake.

  30. Nancy says:

    I think there are a lot of young people – especially those working with Bill McKibben’s on college campuses – that are getting politically active. In our town, some high school students started a climate action team. The 9th grade science students learn how to do an energy survey of their homes and compute their family’s carbon footprint using a special curriculum the earth science teacher developed. They learn where electricity comes from and how it is used. They take KillAWatt meters home for a week to determine how much electricity an appliance uses as part of the project.

    Parents need to teach their children, too. It breaks my heart when I see a 16 year old driving a gas guzzling SUV. I’m afraid it is all too common around here.

  31. Alex J says:

    Charles, it’s ultimately heat that drives climate (including circulation and precipitation patterns). So if fossil CO2 forcing has a cumulative effect on temperature (with the help of amplifying feedbacks), we are influencing climate. Of course we’re not “controlling” it. Control implies we can manipulate regional effects, and flip a switch when we don’t like what we see in our neck of the woods. Entropy in weather, thermal inertia in the climate system, and the irreversible nature of certain feedbacks would preclude that. It’s a bit like careening down a hilly road with no brakes or steering to speak of.

  32. paulm says:

    Hit it right on the button Gail.

    This is definitely one area that the progressives need to step up the effort. After all its the world they will inherit and also guess what if the kids come home talking about CC the parents will listen. Some of those parents will be GOP and some will be corporate big wigs.

  33. Jay Alt says:

    Ron you are ‘well informed’ as far as denialist blogs will tell you, which doesn’t get you far on this blog.

    Joe blogged on the weird calculation of climate sensitivity by Stephen Schwartz here –

    The bullet points lists many studies which use robust and independent methods to calculate sensitivity. They show Schwartz failed to do his homework. And I can look out my window and see we’re not in an Ice Age. That most likely wouldn’t be true if climate sensitivity was so low as Schwartz suggests (And he does only suggest it rather than claim it to be so).

  34. caerbannog says:

    Just wanted to post a followup with an apology to oxnardprof. I read his post in too much haste and misinterpreted his students’ misunderstandings as his own. So I’d like to amend my earlier post to read, “looks like oxnardprof’s *students* need to review their grammar-school math”.

  35. EMTguy says:

    The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), yet to be ratified by the United States, confers special rights to children. None of the rights specified in the Convention include the right of children to be lied to in school. The teaching of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) as a fact based on “settled science” when indeed it is not settled science should be a crime. Even without the UNCRC, common sense dictates that serious misleading of schoolchildren in matters of this magnitude should be forbidden.

    A scientific theory becomes settled science when it has been repeatedly proven to be true. The claim that ACC is “settled” because a “consensus” of scientists say so is preposterous. Consensus is a political, not scientific, term. Besides, consensus in this case is voiced by the 52 core scientists of the IPCC and is refuted by tens of thousands of scientists world-wide.

    The vaunted collection of computer models produced by the IPCC lies in shambles for the simple reason that they are incapable of backcasting the actual climate of the last decade which has experienced no warming and some actual cooling while CO2 levels continue to rise.

    In the United Kingdom, the manifold lies in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” were not treated kindly by the Courts. The edict that the slide show be shown to all school children in the UK was sharply rebuked by the High Court which ordered that the film not be shown unless accompanied by material that exposed and corrected the lies.

    It is yet to be seen whether the courts in this country would allow the teaching of unproven pseudo-science in public schools. I would certainly hope not.

  36. Nancy says:

    EMT Guy:

    I hope Joe removes your post. It is full of denier nonsense.

    We must teach our children the facts about climate change, both at home and in schools. Denying children the information they need to understand the importance of caring for our home planet is no less than a sin. I am pleased that our town’s schools teach about climate and energy.


  37. EMTguy says:

    Nancy –

    Please detail the “denier nonsense” in my post.

  38. Nancy says:

    I don’t feed trolls.

  39. Gail says:

    I’m with Nancy. It is impossible and unnecessary to detail the denier nonsense in the post because the entire thing is riddled with lies. And here’s the main thing. There isn’t an original thought in it. It looks like it was lifted from some formulaic source titled “Standard Denier Talking Points for Dummies who Can’t Think for Themselves and Can’t Admit AGW Exists Because Then Their Ideology Would be Undermined and Their Heads Would Explode.”

    Trash it, Joe, plz!

  40. EMTguy says:

    OK, Nancy bombs out.

    Gail, are you up to naming some of the “lies?” I’m reminded of The Church examining Galileo.

    Joe, if you are not receptive to dissent, by all means “trash it.” Then, the true value of this blog is verified.

    [JR: I love dissent. That’s what I mostly do. But what I don’t do is disinformation. That’s what you do, which is why you’re now on moderation. The job of disinformers is to confuse the uninformed and waste the time of those who are informed. That’s why we don’t put up with it here.

    BTW, Galileo was the scientist struggling to tell the truth against an ideological-based status-quo power structure, so I’m afraid you have the analogy exactly backwards.]

  41. caerbannog says:

    EMTguy said,

    ….is refuted by tens of thousands of scientists world-wide.

    Name some. And list their qualifications. Note: Before you wave around the OISM petition or something similar, remember that engineers are not climate scientists. The same holds true for medical doctors, dentists, and veterinarians.

  42. Gail says:

    THANKS JOE! I’m so glad you did that. I was exhausted just thinking about having to wade into the nuances of the London court decision. “Sharply rebuked?” Oh, pulease!

  43. Tomas says:

    Taking the approach of trying to silence those who disagree or question global warming is not working. Nothing is being done and people are less concerned about it than they were ten years ago. If you think this debate is about science, you are wrong; it’s about economics and social policy and whatever the science says is not going to help. BTW, I am not on your side. I don’t dispute the temperature record, but do question our ability model the future climate and to confound that with predicting the economic consequences that allegedly follow. Furthermore, there is nothing you can do. Bjorn Lomborg is right; mitigation is a better approach. Kyoto was a complete failure and even if it had worked, it’s effect on warming would be imperceptible. You can refuse to listen to the “deniers”, but it won’t help you.