Elite Billionaire Foundation Funds Wave of Green Climate Propaganda Into UK Schools

From everyday skepticism

VIA CHRIS MORRISON

Misinformation about climate change is flooding UK schools, seemingly funded with dark green money by elite billionaire funds. Students are encouraged to plot an irrational 11°C rise in temperature, taught that alkaline oceans are ‘acidic’, and encouraged to write letters to policymakers declaring their “home ours is on fire” in the style of Greta Thunberg.

Materials are being distributed across schools by a London-based operation called Climate Science. An introductory video says its mission is to bring “high-quality climate education to every school, company and individual in the world”. Of course, such goals do not come cheap. Among the lobby group’s “partners, advocates and friends” are environmental donors such as Schmidt Futures – the family foundation of former Google boss Eric Schmidt – and the Grantham Institute at Imperial – supported partially funded by green billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham.

Give me the child to seven years old, and I will give you the man, said Aristotle, a phrase understood through the ages, especially in the Jesuit Christian order. Blind faith is more readily accepted by minds whose critical faculties are not yet fully developed. And there are few ideas on today’s climate political agenda that require more credence than the projections of climate models. Climate Science questions how exactly we know about future climate change and the frequency of extreme weather events. “It’s all about climate models,” was the reply, adding: “It’s great” to get a glimpse of a potential future, isn’t it?

The school’s summary notes suggest that climate models “have been used to make accurate predictions for the past 50 years and have advanced significantly during this time”. Of course, as we saw in daily skepticism, those “accurate forecasts” do not apply to temperature forecasts. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that they never made an accurate forecast in 50 years of trying. Not getting any more accurate, they’re getting ridiculously inaccurate.

The chart above was created in a recent paper by physicist Nicola Scafetta. It analyzed 38 key models and found that most had overestimated global warming over the past 40 years. Many of them, he concluded, should be “discarded and unused by policymakers”. The dark blue line shows the actual temperature as measured by accurate satellite records. Interestingly, the models start to get tangled up at a time when the fear of warming is gaining political attention and the fierce debate about science is beginning to be discouraged. The World Climate Declaration was signed by nearly 300 university professors, led by Nobel Prize-winning physics professor Ivar Giaever. “We should free ourselves from naive belief in immature climate models,” the statement said. “In the future, climate research must place more emphasis on experimental science.”

Meanwhile, back in classrooms in England, students were told that we could “predict a 4.5°C increase in global temperature by 2100 and an increase of around 11°C by the end of 2200”. . To send a message home, children must draw the chart below.

Of course there is no mention of not knowing how much the temperature would rise if carbon dioxide were to double in the atmosphere. Scientists debate the range from about 0.5°C to 6°C. Recently, estimates have tended to fall below the upper limit, especially since global warming has been exhausted for more than two decades. Some scientists think that the warming properties of CO₂ decreases on a logarithmic basis over certain concentrations as the gas becomes saturation in the atmosphere. If, and it is an if, CO₂ doubling in the atmosphere by 2200, even the harshest estimates of temperature rise fall nowhere near 11°C.

Further misinformation is contained in the claim that the average temperature over the past 10,000 years has increased “very slowly” by no more than 1°C. Living organisms are thought to have had time to adapt to gradually changing conditions. This completely misses the point that over the past 10,000 years there have been several periods of warming when temperatures were higher than they are today. Last week We have evidence that suggests that the high Austrian Alps were up to 7°C warmer in the summer from 4,000 BC to AD 70 than they are today. Of course, humans are able to adapt quickly to temperature changes much higher than the almost insignificant 1°C.

Today, coral is tough territory for climate alarmists as the Great Barrier Reef is now reporting 35-year record levels. But in the school document, they are said to have been “harmed by the effects of climate change”, although there is no evidence that the long-term changes in the climate observed have caused them. recent significant damage. In fact, tropical corals have been around for about 500 million years and thrive in waters with temperatures between 24-32°C. Recent bleaching is mainly cause by a temporary spike in water temperature, easily attributed to nature El Nino oscillate. Instead of, replace, Climate Science emphasis on “acidification” of the ocean, although an entry-level chemistry course will note that the ocean does not Acid but alkaline.

It is thought that humans release “unpleasant gases” into the air and this “sours” the oceans. Corals become stressed, die and turn white. In fact, corals don’t die first, they bleach, and this process is almost entirely due to changing water temperatures. ‘Unpleasant gas’ is of course a way to kill CO₂ among the younger generation, although gas is vital to all life on Earth. In fact, the ocean is very alkaline, and many metabolic activities, less well understood, affect its pH value. Also, slightly higher temperatures release CO₂ from the oceans.

Needless to say, students are encouraged to participate in “climate activism”. This is despite the fact that many activists are said to be at risk of being “persecuted” and receiving “intimidation” from animal breeders, fossil fuels and mining interests. Further information about these threats was not provided. Is it possible that the butcher will stop delivering hot dogs, BP will turn off the heaters, and Rio Tinto will stop paying dividends on the parent (and teacher) pension scheme? Children should also choose an activist from a list that includes Greta Thunberg and George Monbiot, and fill out a poster board full of their good deeds. It is said that letters to policymakers should emphasize emotions. It is important to learn how other writers present their arguments so that children can use these techniques in their writing. One of the proposed “pillars” is Thunberg’s statement before the World Economic Forum in 2019 that: “Our house is on fire, I’m here to say, our house is on fire. “

As with the Jesuits, so with the new climate religion. Belief is everything. The children were told: “There are no gray areas when it comes to survival.

Chris Morrison is the daily skepticism‘S Environment Editor.