Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
The BBC has been strangely silent about the EU’s u-turn on the banning of sales of new internal combustion engine cars.
The EU Parliament originally voted last year for the ban, which would take effect in 2035. However Germany and Italy led a rebellion to block the move, and demanded that ICEs should still be allowed so long as they were able to use “carbon neutral” e-fuels, as I noted last week.
The EU has now caved in to German demands, but curiously the BBC does not seem very keen for its readers to know!
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic requiring healthy people of all ages to wear face masks in public settings became a common governmental policy – especially in Western Europe.
The governmental need to portray elevated CO2 as dangerous to humans was recently pitted against the governmental need to require face masks be worn on healthy people.
During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic requiring healthy people of all ages to wear face masks in public settings became a common governmental policy – especially in Western Europe.
It was assumed at the time that wearing a surgical mask on one’s face in buildings, in crowded areas, on airplanes, at universities, etc., would prevent or reduce coronavirus transmission and death.
It did neither. In fact, the real-world data suggest that wearing a mask was positively correlated with both an increased risk of COVID-19 transmission as well as death across Western Europe (Spira, 2022).
“…the lack of negative correlation between mask usage and COVID-19 cases and deaths suggest the widespread use of masks…was not able to reduce COVID-19 transmission. Moreover, the moderate positive correlation between mask usage and deaths in Western Europe also suggests that the universal use of masks may have had harmful unintended consequences.”
Throughout late 2020 and nearly all of 2021, the routine exposure to elevated CO2 (~25,000 ppm and up) for hours on end experienced by mask-wearers was apparently viewed as a smaller “necessary evil” relative to the assumed risk of contracting COVID-19 and potentially dying.
And now research (Hurley et al., 2023 [pre-print]) has determined that even in a warm indoor setting (a university), hours-long exposure to 25,000 CO2 from wearing surgical masks “does not negatively impact the cognition of university students.”
This research is further supported by a 2021 study (Maniscalco et al.) indicating people exposed to 20,000 ppm CO2 for prolonged periods also experience “no adverse health effects.”
So apparently the intended effects of 2020-’21 governmental mask mandates – a reduction of COVID-19 transmission and death – had no or the opposite effect, and the presumed negative effects associated with prolonged exposure to elevated CO2 levels while wearing a facemask also was never realized.
After the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest Synthesis Report, multiple media outlets cautioned their peers against leaning too far into the catastrophe narrative, as it might be counterproductive for climate policy and, perhaps, inaccurate too.
After the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) latest Synthesis Report, multiple media outlets cautioned their peers against leaning too far into the catastrophe narrative, as it might be counterproductive for climate policy and, perhaps, inaccurate too.
Their warning is justified because despite decades of climate activists telling people that the Earth is about to end due to climate change, history and data show climate change is neither producing more extreme weather events, nor destroying society or worsening the conditions for human life. In reality, the planet is not showing signs of impending doom due to climate change at all.
Several articles, including in the U.K.’s Daily Mail, The Washington Post, Vox, The Tacoma Ledger, and Harper’sMagazine, have cropped up with the central message that climate change is a threat, but it might not be hopeless, or as severe and immediate as the mainstream media, including often their own publications, have been claiming over the past few decades.
In The Washington Post article “Why climate ‘doomers’ are replacing climate ‘deniers,’” a climate reporter writes that certain segments of the population are becoming “doomers” on climate change, believing that there is no hope for reaching climate targets. WaPo reports “some scientists and experts worry that their defeatism — which could undermine efforts to take action — may be just as dangerous as climate denial.”
Among the articles in an “Against doomerism,” issue of VOX, is one, titled “We need the right kind of climate optimism,” in which the author writes that exaggerating threats and scaring people into supporting your cause doesn’t work, “we need the right kind of optimists: those who recognize that the world will only improve if we fight for it.”
The author writes also that the world “has yet to demonstrate the political will to save itself; stories that give readers the misleading impression that things will be just fine are overcorrecting for our prior fatalism, and risk replacing it with complacency.”
The Tacoma Ledger takes a slightly different tack, insisting that “the planet is in the process of becoming uninhabitable, but we still have the time to change that.” In fact, the Ledger says that progress is being made towards reducing emissions and will continue.
The Daily Mail published an article, titled “The hysterical language and scaremongering we hear about climate change is self-defeating,” where Ross Clark debunks some of the most egregious claims of climate alarmists, including several that are often covered by Climate Realism like claims that flooding, drought, and hurricanes, are worsening. Clark’s piece is relatively level headed, pointing out “if you believe that human societies are doomed anyway — as 56 per cent of young people apparently do — what is the incentive to cut emissions?”
What these pieces get right, though not necessarily very clearly, is that fearmongering, exaggerating, and doomsaying about the impacts of recent warming are likely harming the mental health of many people, but especially young people.
With the exception of the Daily Mail piece, all of the articles still mistakenly insist that extreme weather is getting worse, and that billions will suffer and starve if the earth reaches 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. There is simply no scientific evidence, not even in the IPCC reports, that this is the case.
Data from the International Disaster Database show that human deaths from the impacts of extreme weather have been declining for decades as the earth modestly warms. (See figure below)
The articles warning of the dangers of doomerism, listed above, mark a shift in tone, though, for the most part, not in underlying substance. They make the case that the world is not doomed, because there is still time to stop dangerous climate change. Many of the pieces focus on the idea that, in truth, there is no specific “tipping point” at which time the world will cascade into cataclysm, as Climate Realism has repeatedly debunked here, here, and here, for instance.
Not only is there no tipping point for climate catastrophe, as these stories admit, there is also no evidence climate change is making the world worse for the planet or humanity. The articles are uniformly wrong about the latter point. Since its inception, Climate Realism would have had nothing to report on if journalists’ and politicians’ predictions about the harmful, life and planet destroying impacts of climate change had been coming true. They haven’t, which is the main reason doomerism is unjustified.
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.
While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
London, 28 March – Net Zero Watch has accused the wind industry and the government of colluding to mislead the public about the true cost of wind energy.
The Government has repeatedly assured us that energy bills would soon fall as a result of much lower prices for offshore wind power, set at recent Contracts for Difference (CfD) auctions.
However, a new Freedom of Information request to the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (now Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) and the Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC) has revealed that offshore wind farms and other generators are under no obligation whatsoever to take up their CfD options.
What is more, the Government has no power to either enforce them or impose penalties on those who don’t.
It is therefore almost certain that wind farm operators will simply not trigger their contracts. Instead, they are selling electricity on the open market at much higher prices, as two offshore wind farms are already doing. They are selling electricity at prices nearly double than they agreed in their contracts.
A series of research papers published by Net Zero Watch and others has shown that the true costs of offshore wind power are much higher than claimed, and that the low prices contracted at recent CfD auctions are simply nonviable.
Net Zero Watch is calling on the Government to impose a 100% windfall tax on all generators who refuse to honour their contracts.
Climate and energy analyst, Paul Homewood, said:
The Contracts for Difference scheme has been badly designed since the outset, and has already cost energy users £5.7 billion. For offshore wind farms, it is Heads I win, Tails you lose.”
Dominion Energy, the big Virginia utility, has finally admitted that net zero may not work. I have been writing about Dominion, which operates under the net zero Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), for awhile now. VCEA requires Dominion to shut down all gas, oil and coal fired power by 2045.
My point has been that VCEA cannot be done. Now Dominion has met me half way, saying in their new Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) that maybe it cannot be done. So far so good.
In their new, 2022 IRP the VCEA compliance plan is called Plan D. Here is how Dominion puts it in the Executive Summary:
“Plan D results in the Company purchasing 5,000 MW of capacity in 2045 and beyond, raising concerns about system reliability and energy independence, including over-reliance on out-of-state capacity to meet customer needs. Over time as more renewable energy and energy storage resources are added to the system, the Company will learn if Plan D can maintain a reliable system.”
To begin with, note that they hope to buy a whopping 5,000 MW of juice when things get tight with the renewables they are forced to use. This is truly funny because in their 2021 IRP they specifically said that buying juice was a bad plan because every nearby utility is planning on doing the same thing. Thus there will be no sellers of said juice. Now they plan on it!
It gets worse. As I have reported before, Dominion’s VCEA plans have nowhere near the battery storage required to make the planned renewables reliable. See my “Dominion’s VCEA Compliance Plan is Disastrously Unreliable” at
Plan D plays the standard trick of reporting battery storage in MW, which is designed to make batteries look like generators. MW is actually the discharge capacity, not the storage capacity. Imagine buying orange juice this way. Tropicana has twice as big a spout as Minute Maid but that is not what you are buying. You buy the juice not the pour speed.
So Plan D has roughly 27,000 MW of solar but just 9,000 MW of storage. Assuming standard 4 hour batteries this gives just 36,000 MWh of storage capacity. That stores the solar for just over 1.3 hours, which does not even come close to getting you through the night. Cloudy days? Forget about it.
So Dominion’s VCEA compliance plan assumes huge amounts of juice coming from somewhere else, which it won’t, plus battery storage that won’t get you through the night. Saying this “might not work” is laughable, but it is a big step up from ignoring the fact that it will not work, which is what all of America’s big utilities have been doing.
Keep in mind that the big utilities are making a fortune off of the bogus net zero game. They make a guaranteed profit on every approved dollar they spend on mandated renewables that do not work reliably.
The big utilities have zero incentive for blowing the whistle on net zero, but at least Dominion has said it might not work. But of course their ever so weak “time will tell” warning lets them keep on spending untold billions on unworkable renewables.
Speaking of spending billions there is another trick worth noting in the IRP. Another standard con called discounting future cost to present value.
Dominion says that VCEA compliant Plan D will cost just over 88 billion dollars. That is $88,000,000,000. A lot of money, right? Well not compared to the actual cost.
The way this works is you first figure a future cost, say what folks will pay in 2040. Then you do what amounts to reverse compound interest, taking a percentage off every year from then (2040) until the present (in this case 2022). This is the discounted value.
Obviously the discounted value is a lot less than what Dominion’s customers will actually have to pay when 2040 rolls around. What that amount is we are not told. But the total cost of Dominion’s VCEA compliance is likely to be more like 200 to 400 billion dollars, not a “mere” 88 billion.
The good news is that Dominion finally admits that the net zero VCEA might not work. The bad news is Dominion Energy will spend hundreds of billions of ratepayer’s money before the inevitable failure of VCEA becomes obvious.
A comparison of the genomes of methane-producing microorganisms (i.e., methanogens), reveals that temperature adaptation might not be genomically encoded, but rather enforced through protein regulation and finer scale adaptations in amino acids
A comparison of the genomes of methane-producing microorganisms (i.e., methanogens), reveals that temperature adaptation might not be genomically encoded, but rather enforced through protein regulation and finer scale adaptations in amino acids
MAGE: A 100X100 MICROMETER FIELD OF VIEW OF AN AGGREGATE OF METHANE-PRODUCING MICROORGANISMSview more CREDIT: PAULA PRONDZINSKY
The history of the Earth has been one of physical extremes—extreme atmospheric conditions, extreme chemical environments, and extreme temperatures. There was a time when the Earth was so hot all the water was vapor, and the first rain only fell once the planet cooled enough. Soon after, life emerged and through it all, life has found a way. Today life is found almost everywhere on Earth we have looked; it is difficult to find places where life does not exist. The remarkable ability of life to adapt to variable conditions is one of its defining characteristics. Of its many adaptations, the ability of life to adapt to varying temperatures is one of the most interesting. All of life relies on chemical reactions, which are by nature sensitive to temperature. And yet, life exists across a spectrum of temperatures, from the Antarctic ice shelf to the edges of submarine volcanoes. This begs the question, how does life adapt to different temperatures? To attempt to unravel this question, a research team, led by Paula Prondzinsky and Shawn Erin McGlynn of the Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) at Tokyo Institute of Technology, recently investigated a group of organisms called methanogens.
Methanogens are methane-producing, single-celled microorganisms that belong to a larger domain of “Archaea” (ancient, single-celled organisms that do not have cell nuclei and are thought to have been the predecessor to Eukaryotic cells). As a single physiological group, methanogens can thrive across a range of temperature extremes, from -2.5 oC to 122 oC, making them ideal candidates to study temperature adaptation.
In this work, the researchers analysed and compared the genomes of different species of methanogens. They divided the methanogens into three groups based on the temperatures they thrived in—thermotolerant (high temperatures), psychrotolerant (low temperatures), and mesophilic (ambient temperatures). They then constructed a database of 255 genomes and protein sequences from a resource called the Genome Taxonomy Database. Next they obtained temperature data for 86 methanogens which are in laboratory collections from the Database of Growth TEMPeratures of Usual and Rare Prokaryotes. The result was a database which linked genome content to growth temperature.
After that, the researchers used a software called OrthoFinder to establish different orthogroups—sets of genes descended from a single gene present in the last common ancestor of the species under consideration. They then segregated these orthogroups into i) core (present in over 95% of the species), ii) shared (present in at least two species but in less than 95% of the organisms), and iii) unique (present only in a single species). Their analyses revealed that about one third of the methaogenic genome is shared across all species. They also found that the amount of shared genes between species decreases with increasing evolutionary distance.
Interestingly, the researchers found that thermotolerant organisms had smaller genomes and a higher fraction of core genome. These small genomes were also found to be more evolutionarily “ancient” than the genomes of psychrotolerant organisms. Since thermotolerant organisms were found in multiple groups, these findings indicate that the size of the genome is more reliant on temperature than on evolutionary history. They also suggest that as methanogen genomes evolved, they grew rather than shrank, which challenges the idea of “thermoreductive genome evolution,” i.e., that organisms remove genes from their genomes as they evolve into higher temperature locations.
The researchers’ analyses also showed that methanogens grow across this wide range of temperatures without many special proteins. In fact, most of the proteins encoded by their genomes were similar. This led them to consider the possibility of cellular regulation or finer scale compositional adaptations as the root cause of temperature adaptation. To investigate this, they looked into the composition of amino acids—the building blocks of proteins—in the methanogens.
They found that specific amino acids were enriched in particular temperature groups. They also found compositional differences in the amino acids pertaining to their proteome charge, polarity, and unfolding entropy—all of which affect protein structure, and thereby its ability to function. In general, they found that thermotolerant methanogens have more charged amino acids and functional genes for ion transport, which are not present in psychrotolerants. Whereas psychrotolerants organisms are enriched in uncharged amino acids and proteins related to cellular structure and motility. However, the researchers could not pinpoint specific functions shared by all members of a temperature group, suggesting that temperature adaptation is a gradual process which occurs in fine steps rather than requiring large scale changes.
Altogether, “This indicates that the very first methanogens, which evolved at a time when the conditions on the Earth were hostile to life, may have been similar to the organisms we find on present day Earth,” explains Paula Prondzinsky. “Our findings could point toward traits and functions present in the earliest microbes, and even hold clues as to whether microbial life originated in hot or cold environments. We could extend this knowledge to understand how life could adapt to other kinds of extreme conditions, not just temperature, and even unravel how life on other planets could evolve.”
Reference:
Paula Prondzinsky1,2,*, Sakae Toyoda2, Shawn Erin McGlynn1,3,4*, The methanogen core and pangenome: conservation and variability across biology’s growth temperature extremes, DNA Research, DOI: 10.1093/dnares/dsac048
Earth-Life Science Institute, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, 152-8550 Tokyo, Japan
Department of Chemical Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, 226-8503 Yokohama, Japan
Center for Sustainable Resource Science, RIKEN, 2-1 Hirosawa, Wako, 351-0198 Saitama, Japan
Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, Seattle, WA 98154, USA
More information
Tokyo Institute of Technology (Tokyo Tech)stands at the forefront of research and higher education as the leading university for science and technology in Japan. Tokyo Tech researchers excel in fields ranging from materials science to biology, computer science, and physics. Founded in 1881, Tokyo Tech hosts over 10,000 undergraduate and graduate students per year, who develop into scientific leaders and some of the most sought-after engineers in industry. Embodying the Japanese philosophy of “monotsukuri,” meaning “technical ingenuity and innovation,” the Tokyo Tech community strives to contribute to society through high-impact research.
The Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) is one of Japan’s ambitious World Premiere International research centers, whose aim is to achieve progress in broadly inter-disciplinary scientific areas by inspiring the world’s greatest minds to come to Japan and collaborate on the most challenging scientific problems. ELSI’s primary aim is to address the origin and co-evolution of the Earth and life.
The World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI) was launched in 2007 by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) to help build globally visible research centers in Japan. These institutes promote high research standards and outstanding research environments that attract frontline researchers from around the world. These centers are highly autonomous, allowing them to revolutionize conventional modes of research operation and administration in Japan.
Barack Obama and his wife Michelle arrived in Australia on a private jet despite climate change having been the former US president’s “greatest priority”, says Sky News host Chris Kenny.
Barack Obama and his wife Michelle arrived in Australia on a private jet despite climate change having been the former US president’s “greatest priority”, says Sky News host Chris Kenny.
“First class commercial fares apparently are not good enough for them, so it’s the private jet caper,” he said.
“How does that square with saving the planet, how does that square with having the smallest possible carbon footprint?
“And then there were massive motorcades around Sydney today, they’ll hit Melbourne tomorrow, I think it is.
“I mean gas-guzzling motorcades, private jets, all so that Barack Obama can make a fortune on the speaking circuit … good on him, nothing wrong with making a quid I suppose, except the hypocrisy.”
Here I argue US funding for Ukraine is liberating resources British and European governments are using to undermine Republicans, and drive their radical green agenda right into the heart of the American political landscape.
Here I argue US funding for Ukraine is liberating resources British and European governments are using to undermine Republicans, and drive their radical green agenda right into the heart of the American political landscape.
The following recent article by George Soros outlines his hope US intervention will lead to a speedy resolution of the Ukraine war, and the collapse of the Russian Empire, allowing resources currently tied up by the war to be diverted to climate action.
Russian defeat is inevitable, and will allow world to focus on our real problem — Climate change
The countries of the former Soviet empire eagerly await defeat of the Russian army in Ukraine, and the world will be able to focus on climate change, writes George Soros
THU, 23 MAR, 2023 – 01:28 GEORGE SOROS
It is just over one month ago that I gave a speech on the eve of the Munich Security Conference. Since then, so many remarkable things have happened — and have happened so fast — that it is worth comparing my predictions of a month ago with actual developments.
The biggest changes have occurred in the global climate system. By this, I mean actual climate events and climate scientists’ understanding of those events. The main message I wanted to convey in Munich was that the global climate system is greatly dependent on what happens within the Arctic Circle.
…
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
The other domain where important changes have taken place is Russia’s war against Ukraine. Until October, Ukraine was winning on the battlefield. Then, Russia, with the help of Iran, introduced drones on a large scale. Their aim was to undermine Ukrainians’ morale by depriving the civilian population of electricity, heat, and water. This put Ukraine on the defensive.
…
The countries of the former Soviet empire, eager to assert their independence, can hardly wait for the Russian army to be crushed in Ukraine. At that point, Putin’s dream of a renewed Russian empire will disintegrate and cease to pose a threat to Europe.
The defeat of Russian imperialism will have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the world. It will bring huge relief to open societies and create tremendous problems for closed ones. Most importantly, it will allow the world to concentrate on its biggest problem, climate change.
What do people like Soros actually intend to do with all these resources they plan to liberate from the forced collapse of the Russian empire?
In 2017, we caught what I believe was a glimpse behind the curtain. Britain’s then climate minister boasted about her plan to use British Government resources to bypass the US federal government, to undermine support for President Trump’s energy policies.
UK bypasses Donald Trump to discuss climate change with US city mayors directly
Claire Perry, the Climate Change Minister, says British Government is now speaking to ‘other players’ in US about how to fight global warming
Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent Tuesday 25 July 2017 14:21
The UK has started bypassing Donald Trump over climate change, talking directly to city mayors and other officials committed to trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the new Climate Change Minister has revealed.
Claire Perry, who was appointed to the post after the general election last month, said that British ministers had not “missed an opportunity” to tell the US President that they were disappointed he had decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change, the news service Bloomberg reported.
She said she had been speaking to “other players” in the US, including the mayor of Houston, Sylvester Turner, who visited the UK last week.
Former UK climate minister Claire Perry may have let the cat out of the bag with her public boast of “bypassing” the Trump Administration, but I doubt she acted alone.
How would eliminating US funding for Ukraine help to rectify this outrageous situation?
I believe eliminating US funding for Ukraine would starve green activists in Europe of their indirect access to US taxpayer resources, resources I believe they are currently using to undermine US politicians who oppose climate action.
Soros himself pointed the way to this resolution, with his complaint that the Ukraine war is diverting resources away from climate action.
This is not about choosing sides in the Ukraine conflict, this is about preventing the misuse of US taxpayer funds.
Cutting off US funding for Ukraine would force Europe to fully pull their weight on defence spending, triggering an even greater diversion of resources away from European funded international climate activism, and would stop European actors from indirectly using US taxpayer funds to undermine and “bypass” US politicians who oppose their green agenda.
“Now that the European ban of the sale of combustion engine cars has been overturned, the government will come under growing pressure to follow suit if it wants to avoid destroying the British car industry for good,” said Dr Benny Peiser, director of Net Zero Watch.
London, 27 March – Net Zero Watch has welcomed yesterday’s EU agreement not to ban the sale of cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) after 2035.
Net Zero Watch is calling on Rishi Sunak to follow suit and abandon its 2030 ban of the sale of ICE cars.
According to the agreement conventional cars can continue to be sold and registered after 2035 if they only use fuels that are CO2-neutral. This will allow car makers to continue producing and selling conventional models indefinitely.
“Now that the European ban of the sale of combustion engine cars has been overturned, the government will come under growing pressure to follow suit if it wants to avoid destroying the British car industry for good,” said Dr Benny Peiser, director of Net Zero Watch.
The EU agreed in February to set the 2035 date for ending the sale of ICE cars, but Germany and a coalition of seven EU countries lodged last-minute objections and called for the use of e-fuelled ICE cars beyond 2035.
As a result, the EU has come to what appears t
o be a sensible decision to allow the sale and use of conventional cars that are fulled by synthetic and other CO2-neutral fuels.
For millions of Britons electric vehicles will not be a viable solution as they are much more expensive than cars with combustion engines. And electric cars will probably still be more expensive than conventional cars in seven years.
From the You can’t handle the truth! department comes this sad but predictable tale of closed minded pettiness. NSTA, is your position so strong and unassailable that you have to trample free speech rights to protect teachers from hearing alternate views? Does cancel culture now extend to the minds of educators?
From Greg Wrightstone, president of the CO2 Coalition who reports they were evicted from their paid and agreed to exhibit just minutes after the show opened. This picture shows them on their way out the door while the show is in progress.
He writes:
We had an exhibit booth and were attending the NSTA convention, but they were having none of it. We were thrown out of the NSTA annual convention yesterday for exposing their position on the teaching of climate change. Our science was not on the “Approved List” by them.
Their press release about attending:
Challenging the NSTA’s Position Statement on Climate Change
The CO2 Coalition has reviewed the National Science Teaching Association’s Position Statement on Climate Change and has found that it has serious problems, which we address in this assessment. Our objections to this document are many but can be separated into two major categories.
Reliance on “consensus” science and a rejection of critical thinking skills and the scientific method.
NSTA’s embrace of the hypothesis of “harmful man-made warming” despite its basis in flawed science and government opinions and its rejection of all contradictory science.
A primary role for the NSTA should be to develop critical thinking skills for students and to instill in them knowledge and use of the scientific method.
Students should be encouraged to review all facts on a subject (in this case climate change) and make up their own minds rather than be indoctrinated into an established political agenda.
Unfortunately, the NSTA has taken a strong position that is antithetical to the scientific method, critical thinking and open scientific debate. Its position is one of censorship of any scientist or science that does not support the NSTA-approved “science.” The NSTA Position Statement on Climate Change fails to delineate between real science and political science.
Background
In early 2021, a group of CO2 Coalition members decided to act on their concerns about the state of science education in America. They recognized that the teaching of science had strayed from the 400-plus-year-old scientific method and was less inclined to encourage inquisitiveness in students and more prone to require conformity to the opinions of teachers. At present, much of the instruction on climate change resembles an indoctrination into a political agenda rather than the provision of necessary tools for critical thinking.
It is our knowledge of science and commitment to the scientific method – not political narratives – that make the CO2 Coalition uniquely qualified to lead in the development of a fact-based program of climate-science education.
The CO2 Coalition is attending and exhibiting our findings at the National Science Teaching Association’s Annual Convention in Atlanta, GA (March 23 to 25, 2023). We are proudly promoting the teaching of sound science and the scientific method to those who wish to indoctrinate our children and grandchildren.
Sky News Australia
You must be logged in to post a comment.