JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Youth are rebelling against climate dogma: at 18-20, nearly half in US are skeptical

The X-Gens will be the maximal climate believers. The worm is turning with an uptick in skeptical thinking coming from the late-Millennials (born after 1994) who are just now starting to reach a voting age*. This group was raised on climate dogma and relentless propaganda, and the age-old rebellion of youth is starting to kick in. The big-scare-campaign may have missed its moment; it’s been pushed too hard for too long. Not only have the PDO and other natural cycles rolled into unfriendly cooler-wetter zones, but the generational wheel is rolling too.

It used to be that the older the survey group, the more skeptical it was. Youth are easily fooled by passion and namecalling. But new evidence suggests the rebellion factor is kicking in: 20% of 18-20 year olds in the US are implacable skeptics, and 23% are  unconvinced. After twenty years of propaganda 55% of the generation “believe”, and only 12% are passionate. More of the same is not going to increase that. There is real hope here.

Data comes from Harvard Public Opinion Project. (PDF, currently not publicly available)

H/t  GWPF

Harvard Political Review “For Young Voters, Climate Change Takes a Back Seat

Only 55 percent of survey participants agreed with the statement, “Global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants.” Twenty percent held the belief that “Global warming is a proven fact, and is mostly caused by natural changes that have nothing to do with emissions from cars,” and the remaining 23 percent who answered the question believe that “Global warming is a theory that has not been proven yet.”

Even more surprising, these numbers are the same across the board for participants between 18 and 29 years old, with 51-56 percent agreeing that global warming is a fact and is caused by fuel emissions across age groups. In fact, the age group that least agreed with the first statement was that of 18 to 20-year-olds. The assumption that younger adults are more liberal when it comes to global warming does not hold up; if anything, they are even more skeptical.

Consequently, young Americans are often unsupportive of government measures to prevent climate change that might harm the economy. Less than a third of those surveyed agreed with the statement, “Government should do more to curb climate change, even at the expense of economic growth,” and only 12 percent strongly agreed with it. Again, the youngest survey respondents were more conservative than any other age group, with only 28 percent of 18 to 20-year-olds in agreement and eight percent in strong agreement with that statement. In contrast, other age groups varied between 30 percent and 34 percent in agreement and 11 percent to 14 percent in strong agreement.

___________________

*The whole generational labels thing is a mess. People born in the 1980′s are variously known as Y Gens or Millennials. But people born after the early 90′s are called Millennials (apparently).

Other recent posts on polls:

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (63 votes cast)
Youth are rebelling against climate dogma: at 18-20, nearly half in US are skeptical, 9.1 out of 10 based on 63 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kmk6sqk

120 comments to Youth are rebelling against climate dogma: at 18-20, nearly half in US are skeptical

  • #
    pattoh

    Perhaps some of the 18 – 20 year olds are looking at their parents strugling in low paid service jobs or making the employment statistics by working one hour a week & joining the dots to the real economy where things are made.

    ” The would you like fries with that? ” coming from their parents generation more often than not would have to raise some questions about the future of the American Dream.

    80

  • #
    James Bradley

    Maybe they have observed no changes to the climate in the last 18 to 20 years.

    312

    • #
      Carbon500

      James Bradley: in reply to your comment ‘Maybe they have observed no changes to the climate in the last 18 to 20 years’, I have to say that the British climate has in my view stayed much the same over my 66 years of life in these islands.
      Meteorologist Williams James Burroughs in his book ‘Climate Change’ (2001) during a detailed data review comments on p186 that ‘…this analysis suggests that the changes affecting winter temperatures in the British Isles over the last 200 years or so are a matter of a shift in weather patterns rather than a significant warming or cooling of the northern hemisphere.’
      He also has a look at the Central England Temperature record, and comments that ‘the range of extremes is virtually unchanged.’
      It’s good to see that youthful rebellion is surfacing – as it should!

      311

      • #
        James Bradley

        Carbon500,

        Like you, I have not observed much difference in my lifetime and in respect to young Americans, neither have they, especially as the pause is now about 18 years long.

        152

        • #
          Carbon500

          James Bradley: I’m SO proud of the ‘thumbs down’ someone has given to the observations you and I have made! I notice no comment has been made as to the reasons – why am I not in the least bit surprised?

          92

          • #
            James Bradley

            Carbon500,

            Yes, I agree, if only they would leave critiques, I am thinking of writing an essay on ‘Mass Climate Hysteria’ and would appreciate the opportunity to quote direct examples inn an effort to explore why alarmists are fearful of nothing more than a media campaign on modeled projections based on contaminated data.

            The reaction from alarmists reminds me of the ‘War of the Worlds’ radio episode by Orson Wells and the mass UFO sightings in the fifties.

            122

            • #
              OriginalSteve

              The internet generation, has access to much more data and information, which is why oligarchies ( and govts ) the world over are scrambling to censor it….

              Whats being exposed is the systematic muzzling of information ( …knowledge is power…. ) to suit the powers that be.

              Consequently, we just need to make sure Sceptics always are there and have a voice. The more we speak about it in terms of scientific proof ( along with the proof ), and truth in science and exposing the heavy political underpinnings of the whole scam, then people arent fools – they will work it out.

              The warmist scam-istas ( “scam-istas” is that word? Maybe I just invented it…) have now opened up the last -gasp attemptt to silence debate by trying to move it into a “moral” argument – morals is values based, as such they are in true Left wing fashion, trying to redefine words to capture them, however how can you base values on a huge warming lie? Most people have some form of inherent understanding of right and wrong, and know deep down that the warmist “morality” they are pushing, is ultimately based on a pile of horse manure, which makes it a joke.

              They have miscalculated by pushing morals – they have strayed into an area they cannot win, so its game over.

              Thank you ball boys, thank you umpire.

              40

        • #
          Dennis

          Me too.

          20

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Good point though James, interesting to think that 18-20 year olds have provably experienced no climate change in their lifetime, that could be reliably attributed to anything other than natural variation. (not that any of us have… but this is stronger)

      That being the case, the numbers are no surprise.

      10

  • #
    Manfred

    Spoon-feeding in the name of we know best inevitably leads to status vomitus or at the very least, a badly bitten hand.

    120

  • #
    bemused

    A lot of the millennials have also gone through the phases of all those ‘save everything’ through music festivals and are realising they are all scams that achieve nothing other than making money for a few.

    They are also the ones most heavily involved in technology, which simply wouldn’t exist in a world run by climate worriers.

    And I also think they are realising that earlier generations had it very good once, but that appears to have been taken away from later generations, and wonder why.

    They are becoming the ultimate sceptics.

    190

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Maybe we should rename the millenials to be the “P-generation” – i.e. Pragmatists.

      10

  • #
    Glen Michel

    I wouldn’t put much in the way of accuracy on this.No one reads or reflects too much on matters.No one cares.A mixture of the compliant,the brainwashed and the bog standard nihilist.

    40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    It’s also the learning methods that have changed markedly with recent generations, where the baby boomers were educated with the “repetition is the mother of all learning” old school style recent generations have given way to a more abridged (dumbed down) learning method as the idea is you have a massive data base online or downloaded and simply reference this for answers.

    While the shortfalls of online facts or expertise is obvious to older generations one benefit for the young has been acquiring lot’s of current information (even MSM rubbish) with developing the ability to filter this content at a very fast rate, combined with the natural urge of youth to be cynical of anyone over 30 there is no surprise they’d figure out certain rich old people are full of it.

    A classic example is on those “Millionaire” type game shows where younger people are stumped with a classic general knowledge question but can tell you the number one song or online game of 2013, I don’t feel that old at 47 but do when young people have no idea when you reference anything that happened pre 1990!

    110

    • #
      ianl8888

      Yes

      I was astonished recently when a group of 30yr olds were genuinely perplexed by the word “pogrom”. They not only had no idea what it actually meant, they had never heard it before … so the centuries-long, so unbearably sad swell of bloody history behind the Palestine/Israeli boil was unknown to them

      And on a more trivial but more recent note, they were absolutely convinced that the “luxury car tax” was introduced by the Howard/Costello govt. I couldn’t ascertain if that was because they’d never heard of the Hawke/Keating govt

      Oh, and they may be somewhat unsure of the urgency of AGW but they are absolutely sure that coal, oil and gas must be chucked as soon as possible – for no specific reason except they’re obviously “bad for the environment”

      90

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Considering the equation of excessive exposure to garbage MSM bias equals an automated engineered garbage response it still perplexes me as to why adults would gravitate towards such inanity with an unprecedented amount of eclectic information at their fingertips.

        Recently I watched a movie called “Nightcrawler” starring Jake Gyllenhaal about a desperate man who literally walks into late night crime journalism, the movie is quite brilliant in portraying the realities of modern journalism and what drives them to air what many here would class as empty trash stories, one explanation is simply this is what people want to watch to briefly escape from their own mundane lives with an almost schadenfreuden pleasure in another’s misfortune.

        The games of the arena have long past but certain dark human needs have not.

        70

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          So right as usual Yonnie

          I had the misfortune to witness some of a woefully bad production recently called “the hunger games”, apparently its quite popular.

          What a completely bizarre world we live in when teenagers murdering each other for food, is considered entertaining. If the premise was the teenagers were going to engage in sex for food, the movie would have never been made. So why do we accept as entertainment, bloody murder, but not so called pornography? It really is a revealing reflection on the comments you made.

          We deeply desire disaster, fear, mayhem, war, famine, disease and anything that challenges us as creatures. This is why survivor shows are so popular. Everyone wants to think they could live for 6 weeks eating bugs and drinking their own pee. Because we subconsciously detest what soft creatures we have become.

          Im utterly convinced a massive part of the AGW fear attraction for many people is simply the notion that we are under imminent and deadly threat and the idea that they can contribute to averting it in some way. I find it both fascinating and entertaining to watch and follow.

          I also like ant farms… so the behaviour of most scuttling bed wetters is just the same thing only scaled up a little for me.

          10

          • #
            Truthseeker

            SG66, “The Hunger Games” series is actually about the evils of centralised control. The capital city put down a rebellion of “the districts” and re-inforces that control with the annual games between the “tributes”. As the series goes on, it becomes about breaking free from that control and fighting back.

            The gladitorial combat between the young tributes, including some children, is to highlight the evils of centralised control.

            You are correct that violence gets a pass censorship wise but nudity and sex are deemed too evil for public consumption. It is completely the wrong way around from any geniunely moral point of view.

            30

      • #

        Words, language might be rather important because this has and is changing rapidly.

        Apart from changes in upgrinding[sic] upbringing there is wild pressure from mass communication out of time zone… in say 1990 very few people dealt day to day outside of their own country. What I am doing here was impossible.

        Pogrom, yes, has a subtle meaning.

        A simple one that causes me repeated trouble is earnt, barely in dictionaries and yet is a perfectly good word, one that has earnt it’s keep. The alternatives are either not the same meaning or awkward.

        30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          The MSM has a tendency to push the shreikingly loud “NOW NOW NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” approach to things – millenials need to be taught to take theuir time, to sleep on things, to not be rushed.

          The main weapon of the warmist scamistas is the need to switch peopels brains of and od stuff – in effect getting people to suspend rational thought and resort to emotive rubbish on place of logic.

          I’d also encourage a counter-culture movement of switching off the one-eyed monster ( the blasted “smart-phone” / spyware device ) and go cold turkey for 8 hours a day. Nothing in the world is that important it cant wait until morning…..

          60

    • #
      Arsten

      As a millennial (an “early millennial”?) I find this line of reasoning hilarious. Every generation you will ever read about, even in those classical generations, say that the new generation is a problem, as they don’t do things like the preceding generation(s) did.

      The hilarity comes from the fact that they actually do it the same exact way, just with different tools. Your generation also does not retain specific knowledge outside of their area of focus, but instead retains the knowledge of how to find the information to solve a problem and then how to use that information once found. If you are in any technical field, even ones that have been around for many years, you don’t have many people who memorize everything about that field. Instead people will have a book or library that they can use to find the information when a situation arises for it. The frequency of that situation determines if you vaguely, clearly, or don’t retain the information you look up.

      The difference is that the elder generations use physical books. The younger generations use the internet. But the path to information and its’ use remains relatively the same.

      There has been a shift in what is considered esoteric, I’ll grant you, but that shift is fairly normal between generations, as well. Each generation sets the focus on the esoteric knowledge of the day for the generation they are teaching. In some cases, you get a focus on rote detail (names, dates, etc) and in some you get a focus on learning by doing (and some, like mine, get an insane focus on “feeling good about yourself”).

      The sad part is, pretty much every educational method works very well….depending on the individual. Instead of trying to identify and encourage individual learning styles, we instead institutionalize one for each generation and leave a segment of each out in the cold when it comes to education.

      131

      • #
        sam

        Very well said. It is the individual that succeeds not the village.

        40

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Agreed, however I find the lack of a classic education and lack of knowledge beyond the last 30 years ( the pogrom comment previously mentioned ) troubling.

          One trick I have noticed is the warmists frame verything in recent tterms – we arent encouraged to look further back ( which make good rational sense ).

          Even though my daughter is not yet 10, she will be homeschooled in French, the classics for reading, taught history, how to recognise propaganda, and to question EVERYTHING.

          Blind obedience only leads to slavery…..

          30

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Oh and she was spouting stuff about climate change the other days – I simply said “Your teacher is completely worong, and this is why…”

          I will counter argue against nonsense every time, and its also important that kids see that teachers can be wrong. The problem is that the Left through its infiltration of education policy making, now puts parents in the position to become “troublemakers” by properly correctng the Big Lie as needed. The kids of course get caught in the middle, but if they have to learn they are lied to by teachers, then so be it. Not my problem.

          The warnmists have started the fight….and we wont back off.

          Alea iacta est

          20

      • #
        Yonniestone

        “pretty much every educational method works very well”, there’s a huge difference between being able to reiterate information and being able to fully understand what is being reiterated, I agree this is not simply the realm of generation —? but you have to admit when in our known human history have we ever had this technology available to so many, surely social impacts will arise from simple adaptation to the environment their exposed to?

        Not putting younger people down (I actually train them) my above thoughts were more of a general observation of the recent times we live in, I agree that every older generation laments the direction of the ones succeeding but still the world turns….

        10

        • #
          Arsten

          There is a huge difference between trivia and understanding. But that’s a matter of individual experience. I can find you a hundred people who didn’t complete past the sixth grade who do algebra better than a hundred people who graduated from liberal arts colleges. Those same sets of people will variously know vs understand facts about any topic you wish to bring up. It’s fairly common to have a deep understanding about a subject you work or have an interest in versus a superficial understanding of topics you haven’t really thought about. All of this is at the individual level.

          In terms of social change with technology, I agree. But I draw a line between social and psychological systems. Social is peer-to-peer. Technology has created huge changes in this area, if only because from the “old rustic family farm” meme of olden times, we can only shorten the person-to-person distance. But those changes are very less prominent in the individuals’ manner of processing of information. If anything, we have shortened the time need to acquire the information and thus sped general dissemination of that information, but haven’t changed the underlying process of deep vs superficial understanding.

          10

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Arsten,

            You said:

            If anything, we have shortened the time need[ed] to acquire the information and thus sped [the] general dissemination of that information, but haven’t changed the underlying process of deep vs superficial understanding.

            I would suggest that you take a long, hard, in-depth look at Common Core and then come back and tell me that you still agree that they’re not trying to change the underlying process of deep vs. superficial understanding comprehension.

            Also . . .

            Understanding means to stand under. To accept what’s being told to you with your permission. Or, put in the reverse, you basically permit others to tell you what is and what should be. Think about what happens when two or more parties come to an ‘understanding’. Isn’t there the implication that an understanding means a compromise? Knowledge is not a compromise.

            When I was in school we were expected to comprehend what we learned not to understand it.

            Abe

            21

            • #
              Arsten

              I have taken a long, hard look at Common Core. My daughter goes through it, today, and I show her how to find information beyond their curriculum that is fairly concentrated towards passing a test and nothing more. I also extend the concepts that they initially teach.

              Being semantic about the language I used is fairly useless to a discussion, especially when you are concentrating on regionalized word differences.

              22

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Arsten,

        You said:

        As a millennial (an “early millennial”?) I find this line of reasoning hilarious. Every generation you will ever read about, even in those classical generations, say that the new generation is a problem, as they don’t do things like the preceding generation(s) did.

        As an early millenial that puts you under twenty, right? You do realize that you haven’t been alive long enough to have read a sufficient amount of in-depth reading material, books or e-media, to come to the conclusion that ‘every generation says the new generation is a problem’. There hasn’t been enough time for you, given the amount of data on that subject. You can’t possibly read that fast. I know this because I’m nearly sixty, and I’ve read enough material on that subject to know that I won’t be able to read even a good percentage of what’s out there.

        What I do have under my belt is nearly sixty years of experience to complement and compare what I have read with what I’ve seen with my own eyes and heard from others who were alive at the turn of the 20th century. That’s people who were alive over one hundred years ago.

        Yonniestone’s point about the method of learning employed today and those methods employed in the past is not only valid historically, but many others like myself can attest to it from living through it and experiencing it first hand.

        What is true about every generation complaining about the newer one is actually a 20th century phenomenon. I would recomend reading Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock, if you can find it. This well researched book’s thesis is that throughout history fundamental societal change took centuries to occur, but now each generation can experience societal changes of the same magnitude even faster than from one generation to the next.

        You said:

        If you are in any technical field, even ones that have been around for many years, you don’t have many people who memorize everything about that field. Instead people will have a book or library that they can use to find the information when a situation arises for it.

        This too is a mistaken belief based on your lack of time living on this earth. And I’m sorry if this sounds odd or even condescending. If it does, then that’s proof of what I’m saying. Let me explain.

        Up until around the late 50′s, early 60′s, it was well accepted that our elders knew better because they had lived and experienced what we, the younger ones, had not. This was true throughout history. Elders were respected because of the experience they had and the wisdom that derives from that experience.

        One part of that experience was the way we learn. The best way to retain knowledge is through repetition and application. A very simple example is, that it’s not enough to just memorize multiplication tables but one needs to also do multiplication problems. Another example is a surgeon. Can you imagine having to go on the net or to the library to look something up in the middle of surgery? One of my high school buddies became a cop. When he wanted to get his sargeant’s promotion he had to read and memorize a vast amount of data. Can you see a sargeant at a crime scene going to look up some detail or another about what to do right now to control the situation?

        An airline pilot? Search the net? Or do what you learned and memorized?

        Engineers, of which there are a good number right here on this web-site will attest that mostof what they do was memorized at first and then ingrained into memory through day in day out usage of what was learned.

        Of course every one needs to occasionaly look stuff up as a reminder or to double check. But the bulk of the knowledge in any of these fields, and virtually all others, is memorized first and reinforced through practice.

        This basic way of doing things is what’s changing in the schools today. Calculators were not allowed in the class room as late as the 80′s when I was in college. Today they are encouraged, leaving students unable to give change in a grocery store without the use of a calculator. (something I could do at age twelve in the electronics store where I worked in the summer). And not only me. I wasn’t special. Most of my friends could do any math including basic multiplication and basic division in their heads. Or if need be, on a scrap of paper.

        You said:

        (and some, like mine, get an insane focus on “feeling good about yourself”).

        Now this is absolutely true. If you can see that this is ‘an insane focus’ then there’s hope for you yet. The best way to feel good about yourself is through accomplishment. The best way to accomplish anything is by learning from others who have already accomplished. That’s the way of the world. It always has been and it always will be.

        Yonniestone and others like myself look around and we see how the most basic truths, not only about how to learn, but many other things as well, are being cast away by what’s called ‘the progressive movement’. To them there are no truths, only fads, and beliefs. A patently false view of reality.

        Abe

        61

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          correction.

          I missed that part at the end of the post where the word millenial is defined described.

          So now I see you’re in your twenties? My appologies for that.

          The points above still hold, though. An extra five to ten years will improve your comprehension of what I was describing. But it seems that’s still not enough, based on what you said.

          Abe

          30

        • #
          Arsten

          Yonniestone’s point about the method of learning employed today and those methods employed in the past is not only valid historically, but many others like myself can attest to it from living through it and experiencing it first hand.

          I see that you wish to use your decades of experience to further your projected experience in this area, but I suggest you look deeper and comprehend. :) The way we learn is individualistic and varies from person to person, but these methods we use are identical to the methods used from before 1885. Our biology has not changed in the intervening few generations to accommodate the technological enhancements of the last 100 years. I understand that at your age, everything seems different, but you are staring at the cover of a book, making assumptions, and then letting yourself be guided by your assumptions under the guise of experience.

          For instance, you begin with this:

          Up until around the late 50′s, early 60′s, it was well accepted that our elders knew better because they had lived and experienced what we, the younger ones, had not. This was true throughout history. Elders were respected because of the experience they had and the wisdom that derives from that experience.

          Very astute, but this hasn’t waned. What has changed is that as you have aged, you have noticed that the young are exuberant and quick to judgement. You went through it. Your grand parents went through it. Now you pass judgement on those younger than you because they don’t have what you, now, have. This same cycle has continued ad-nauseum. Go look up Socrates’ complaints about the youth of his day. They will sound very familiar. The tune changes with the circumstance, but the complaint is in the same spirit. The same complaints were made in the 19th century about children leaving the farm and destroying “the family” when they went to factories. “In my day, son, you stayed close to your family.”

          Most of the youth I train, today, has tremendous respect for those that came before them. They are quick to challenge, and quick to try and change whats’ established, but that is the case with all youth. It’s sorta what being young is for.

          As for Toffler, he was talking about social change. It’s very true, through a combination of free communication across the globe and minors’ eagerness to embrace the odd, that the older generations can feel alienated. But that is social change and not how your mind processes information.

          Your further examples, oddly, reinforce what I was saying. You seem to have missed me saying:

          The frequency of that situation determines if you vaguely, clearly, or don’t retain the information you look up.

          So, lets take your example. A pilot, since I have experience in flying aircraft through my grandfather, who was a pilot for almost as long as you’ve been alive ( and he’s still alive :) ). Imagine that you are flying a Boeing 737 for 15 years. Now they are putting you into a Boeing 777. The cockpits will be similar, but you are a fool and risking the lives of everyone you are flying if you don’t go look up the console and safety detail on the Boeing 777. Why? Because, you have little experience in the 777. Your knowledge can’t possibly encompass the entirety of the aircraft that operate in the world’s skies, today. And here I did it easy, where I went from Boeing to Boeing and a lot of detail will be similar. I could have talked about controlling a biplane for 15 years for crop dusting and then told you to fly a 777. ;)

          What you retain is based on what you do after your early to mid 20s (give or take, based on individuals’ biological and environmental situation). Thus, if you are an engineer you did learn and what you use day in and day out is reinforced. But few engineers will tell you at 40 that they remember everything that they learned in college 20 years prior. Why? Because they didn’t use a lot of it and it fell out of their ears. That’s how the human mind works. They focused on what they were doing for their jobs and the unneeded information slowly grew vaguer until you need a reference to recall the specifics.

          In terms of your laments about calculators in schools, you even further reinforce the point: You were tending an old-style register that made you calculate your own change in a hardware store at 12. You did that constantly for awhile to learn it and to know it. It’s not that kids don’t know it, its that they don’t have the experience of running a till that requires the high-demand and hopefully constant-math of processing change. But you know what? If you take most people at any age and give them six weeks running that hardware store register, they will do it, too. That’s the key as you ignored me saying it and you then reiterated: Doing is learning. Stop doing and you lose that learning over time. It’s why you will see people who are still fit in their 50s trying to ride a bicycle, which they haven’t done since they were teenagers, having a difficult time of it. Its’ why you are hard pressed to recall the phone number of a friend you haven’t spoken to in 20 years.

          Now this is absolutely true. If you can see that this is ‘an insane focus’ then there’s hope for you yet. The best way to feel good about yourself is through accomplishment. The best way to accomplish anything is by learning from others who have already accomplished. That’s the way of the world. It always has been and it always will be.

          And, suddenly, we differ. The best way to accomplish something is by learning from failure. Simply following in the footsteps of those that came before isn’t an accomplishment.

          Now, with this wall of text, make sure you don’t overlook my point, again: The ways that they are teaching children have changed. The tools they can use to process that information have changed. The way that children learn and process information has not changed. There is a division between the social change and the brain. The social has changed tremendously, the brain hasn’t.

          11

          • #
            Yonniestone

            Thanks for the interesting discussion Arsten and Just-A-Guy, I lament the burden of a long day’s work kept me from responding further but happily came back to reading some good discourse, thanks again.

            20

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Arsten,

            You said:

            I see that you wish to use your decades of experience to . . .

            Conjecture. There is no way that you or any one else can prove what another person’s intentions are. What I was in fact doing was presenting my experience as evidence for my statements

            You said:

            to further your projected experience in this area . . .

            Irrational statement. An experience cannot be projected in the sense that you imply here. A person can project their feelings, biases, or flaws, but not their experiences. You may have been trying to say, ‘you’re trying to further your agenda by projecting your flaws onto others’. This is a conjecture but I’m not trying to push it off onto you or others as fact, like you’ve done above.

            You said:

            . . . but I suggest you look deeper and comprehend.

            Tu coque. In the form of an observation rather than an accusation. It’s like what we used to do as kids when argueing. “I know you are but what am I?” Childish, but to be expected fron someone who can’t put two rational sentences together. And you put a smiley after it! Wow! You must feel really proud of yourself!

            The last three statements are, admitedly, just my way if ridiculing your badly formulated arguments. Sue me.

            You said:

            The way we learn is individualistic and varies from person to person . . .

            This part is tru, but you use it to preface . . .

            You said:

            . . . but these methods we use are identical to the methods used from before 1885.

            . . . a naked assertion. You’ve made a claim, now back it up with evidence. If you say to me that this is what you’ve learned from your experience, then that could be the basis for a rational discussion. What you’ve done is present this as a fact. Not good the best debating form.

            You said:

            Our biology has not changed in the intervening few generations to accommodate the technological enhancements of the last 100 years.

            Complex question. In the form if a statement. There is no documented evidence that human ‘biology’ needs to ‘change’ in order to accomodate advances in technology. In fact, the opposite is true. Youngsters who have never seen a computer can figure out how to use one very quickly, as any rational and observant person can attest to.

            They sayif you give a person enough rope, they will eventual hang themselves. The moment you said, “. . .these methods we use . . .” betrayed your true intentions by identifying who you are. What?

            Yes. By saying, “WE”, you’ve shown me that you represent those that want to promote Common Core. CC is something you obviously embrace, that “WE” again, and now want to promote.

            As is now clear, your poor debating skills and your inability to contruct a rational argument, as evidenced by the comments I’ve quoted, now deem everything else that you’ve presented after that, not worth the time or the effort to consider, much less address.

            Thank you for playing.

            Abe

            00

            • #
              Arsten

              Interesting. You pretend to debate, but instead wish to “win” by declaring yourself a winner. Sounds like the IPCC.

              However, out in the real world, if you look at the context of what I say and don’t cut it up into partial sentences, you actually can comprehend what I have said. By “We” despite your accusation of someone who “promotes Common Core” I was illustrating that all humans function in this way. Sorry, I include you, me and everyone in the category of “human” and thus refer to it as a we. Maybe in time, you’ll have the experience to comprehend that.

              You are right that I brought no evidence to bear because, in a real debate, you make an assertion which is then challenged with evidence. So, show me the evidence that you have that supports your assertion that we have a biological difference in the brains of young people versus old people that can’t be explained by age. Or anything that refutes my assertions. Surely, your experience will give you an actual win, this day?

              Additionally, your assertion that “Youngsters who have never seen a computer can figure out how to use one very quickly, as any rational and observant person can attest to.” as your own support is ridiculous. You can replace “computer” with any subject and it’ll be true, especially in relation to someone older. Learning quickly is a hallmark of youth.

              00

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Arsten,

            Just to help you to tighten the noose around your own neck. He. He.

            You said:

            Imagine that you are flying a Boeing 737 for 15 years. Now they are putting you into a Boeing 777.

            Straw man. None of my examples, including the pilot, were presented as a case of someone with knowledge and experience in one task being presented with a different task to which they have insufficient prior knowledge and/or experience.

            Quite simply, I mentioned a pilot going about their business being presented with a situation, like for exampl, landing the plane. I did not imply nor can it be infered, that I believe that because a pilot can fly one plane they can therefore fly any plane.

            Same is true for the surgeon. I did not imply, nor can it be infered, that I believe that they can do a liver transplant, when they’ve never learned how to perform one, simply because they’re a surgeon who specializes in something else.

            And so on. And so on. With all my examples.

            Truly sad, this.

            Abe

            00

            • #
              Arsten

              Straw man.

              You fail to grasp what a straw man is (although you create one nicely yourself by saying “Straw Man”). You failed to rebut my points by not understanding what I was saying and then used a very shallow example in an attempt to rebut me. I took your example and expanded it to show what I was saying in the first place.

              01

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Spot on Arsten very well put.

        There is nothing new under the sun, only new people noticing old stuff.

        Modern green ideology is a 250 year old failed fear campaign, now resurrected by the sheer availability of electronic promotion to put the nonsense out there.

        When the internet first got going, every half baked scam that worked pre-internet was run again electronically with similar levels of success. There is truly one born every day and these days I think its more like 3.

        30

  • #
    Bulldust

    Meanwhile the Australian Academy of Sciences (no doubt suckling sweetly at the government teat) continues its hand-wringing bed-wetting ways:

    https://www.science.org.au/climate-change-challenges-to-health-think-tank-recommendations

    This was highlighted at he ABC without hesitation of course:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-30/human-health-to-be-impacted-by-climate-change-experts/6433308

    Meanwhile the youth is too busy trying to figure out why their AppleWatch is malfunctioning on their tattoo’d wrists.

    132

    • #
      James Murphy

      Not to mention this study where 75% of heatwaves can be blamed on climate change. I’m not sure what the blame the other 25% on…

      82

      • #
        Manfred

        …natural variation Jim, only 25% of heatwaves are the random result of natural variation, didn’t yah know??

        A number of UN committees came up with a number of slightly different ways of artfully propagandising the axiomatic term ‘climate change’ between the late 1990′s to early 2000′s, at the dawn of ‘The Pause’ — the commencement of an unpredicted, massively inconvenient nineteen year trendless interval in warming. So it came to pass, the unequivocally and explicitly stated direct and indirect anthropogenic cause was woven into two perfectly ordinary, well known words as a consequence of UN eco-marxist directive and politics, UN IPCC modelling, and importantly, the kollectiv realisation that in the absence of a statistically significant warming trend beyond normal variation, global warming was screwed as an idea and so would be their megalomaniacal aspirations.

        Immunisation by propaganda never was a reliable way to acquire herd immunity. There are always inconvenient exceptions that persist to ensure the reinfection of truth and rational thought.

        30

      • #
        MudCrab

        The other 25% is to blame on Tony Abbott! :P

        40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Had a little giggle at a failed alarmism attempt on the ABC yesterday though.

      They interviewed the winner of Tasmanian Winery of the Year and late in the interview the young tool with the microphone must have been told to get the AGW question in, so they obliged. The response of the winery owner was pure gold. A belly laugh followed by off hand dismissal of the notion climate change was about to infect the Huon Valley. Im surprised they even ran it.

      50

  • #
    TdeF

    To someone looking back even at 40, 18 years seems a short time and the ‘pause’ looks short. To someone who is 18, it is their whole lifetime. No wonder they are sceptical!

    Global Warming is so old fashioned, from their parents time, like the war. I mean the Kuwait war, Desert Storm, the first Iraq war, 1990. 25 years ago!

    120

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Interesting thoughts TdeF. Who knows in a few years it might be young sceptics calling old alarmists “stupid old white men” for a change.

      40

  • #
    el gordo

    A couple of years ago it was discovered that at least 10% of Australian teenagers were open to fresh ideas, and a majority of those who had already moved on to university had become stupid.

    ‘In Australia we find that knowledge about the role of fossil fuels in contributing to climate change is strongly related to education, sex and age. For people with Year 11 or below, 57% thought that it was true that fossil fuels contributed to climate change. This compared to three-quarters of those with a university degree. It is also interesting to note that 1 out of 10 respondents with Year 11 or below education answered that they “could not choose” whether they thought the statement was true or not.’

    The Conversation

    80

    • #
      Peter C

      A couple of years ago it was discovered that at least 10% of Australian teenagers were open to fresh ideas, and a majority of those who had already moved on to university had become stupid

      A majority of those who had already moved on to university had become stupid! How could that be?

      Jo introduced me to Penn and Teller recently.

      Here they are telling us about the value of a College education, or lack of value. College education teaches conformity. group think and intolerance of new ideas.

      Maybe the 10% who are open to new ideas never went to college or university.

      81

      • #
        el gordo

        There is no way of knowing if they went onto university and conformed to groupthink. The ‘could not choose’ answer maybe a sign of rebellious youth who sincerely don’t understand the science.

        21

      • #
        MudCrab

        “College education teaches conformity”

        A year or so back I was at a little writer’s festival event and wandering the small press/self published stalls. Got talking to a man who had done some historical fiction and he asked if that was the sort of thing I was interested in.

        I said no and made a joke about ‘those who study history are doomed to have their fiction ruined’.

        He asked if I had studied history and I explained only as a generalist and only as a sort of extended hobby.

        He then told me I should go to uni to study history because ‘They tell you what books to read.’

        Okay…

        (I didn’t buy his novel.)

        20

    • #
      James Murphy

      It would be interesting to know what sort of university degrees people had.

      My fellow Geology and Geophysics people were (and are) not the rapacious (and mythical, in my experience) ‘lets destroy everything to dig up minerals’ people, as portrayed by the Greens. They (we) do have an interest in, and care about nature in general, but they aren’t taken in by the idea that CO2 production is an evil which can only ‘fixed’ by handing money over to Carbon Credit shysters.

      I don’t really see how anyone could be a halfway decent geologist and not have some underlying interest and respect (I am sure there is a better word for this, but it escapes me) for the world they live in, and an understanding of just how much the world has changed since it coalesced out of a mass of stuff floating in space. Not to mention a vague sense of proportion when it comes to what we do know, versus what we don’t know about how this planet works.

      30

  • #
    Leonard Lane

    I think all of the points made by the previous comments are good. But, these young people are getting old enough to think about the future and see how bleak it is compared with American dreams of their parents and grand parents.
    There has been no net gain in employment of American citizens since 2000. Under Obama about 100 million illegal and legal immigrants will have entered the country since he was elected president in 2008. Disney is firing hundreds of IT specialists and replacing them with foreigners here on HB-1 visas. On the other end, the cooks, janitors, bricklayers, construction workers, etc. are being pushed out of the job market by illegal aliens. One in 5 families have no one that works. Unemployment benefits now last for 99 weeks, nearly two years, and during that time the dependence building and why work philosophy seems to blossom.
    These kids born since 1994 cannot look to the future as their previous generations. The radical leftist Obama Administration has wrecked or is wrecking future prospects for these young people.
    I do believe their only chance to have a prosperous future at all educational levels is to rebel against socialism and dependency on the government and try to make it on their own. I sincerely hope that this skepticism of global warming is a first step toward regaining their place among the private work force in America.

    140

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      How about putting education on the “free market”?

      Then we will get the education we want, not the education some bookworms want us to get.

      50

    • #
      TdeF

      As a non American, I have to say Obama seems to be the first anti American president in history. By encouraging failure in everything, immigration, foreign policy, competition, social cohesion, leadership, self belief and focusing on things which do not matter and playing so much golf, a modern Nero. Like so many on the left around the world, it is all about seeming, not doing, pandering to fringe groups while neglecting the core business of the job, leadership. The rolling disaster in Libya from the murder of the ambassador onwards is symptomatic of the administration’s head in the sand approach to world affairs, even total denial. With another extreme environmental activist in John Kerry, amazingly even worse than Al Gore in the Clinton Administration, priorities are all wrong. The Middle East disaster will not be fixed by nice weather and giving nice Iran permission to build nuclear weapons is beyond belief and this weakness is already being exploited in Yemen and the Straits of Hormuz.

      60

      • #
        James Murphy

        From my perspective as another non American, I can’t help but wonder if it’s just sheer incompetence, and the result of the work of ‘career’ politicians, lobbyists, and advisors, or if it is wilful damage on a global scale.

        As much as I understand that Americans don’t really appreciate foreigners complaining about their government and commenting on their politics, well, the problem is that, like it or hate it, the US is powerful and influential, and can dictate the global direction on many matters.

        40

        • #
          TdeF

          Obama had no such quibbles when he openly and rudely criticized our Prime Minister when speaking in Brisbane at the G20 summit last year. Considering the long standing alliance for a century and so many interests in common, he was not only blatantly rude and undiplomatic, he was obviously interfering in local politics and completely wrong with his Barrier Reef warming alarmism. Even if he was right on CO2 warming, it would be the US and China and Europe and India who are the major offenders, not tiny Australia with 2% of the CO2 and 0.3% of world population. It would be good if his own house was in order before he used his position to push his warmist agenda and blatantly support his old leftist political friends in Australia. As for supporting ISIS and appeasing Iran while trying to pick a nuclear fight with Russia, words fail. He cannot be representative of educated US opinion, I hope.

          40

          • #
            TdeF

            Really, why should we in Australia pay a CO2 tax when 95% of the world’s CO2 comes from North of the Equator. Logically the US should be paying us for their right to pollute our backyard and destroy our Barrier reef. Our entire CO2 output is 10% of the US output and 5% of China or India, but we get the lecture on allegedly damaging the Barrier reef so his tourist children cannot enjoy it in years to come. Offensive nonsense.

            20

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Ted, TdeF:
        Thank you for your comments.
        Ted, I agree education needs to come from under the government and also the public employee unions. The public employees unions and the government do their work with public taxes–but they are not doing the will of the people. Sad situation.
        TdeF you are correct Obama’s mother was a communist and his father way a Kenyan anti-colonialist, Muslim, and a communist too.

        His father died up early so he spent some time in Indonesia as Barry Soltero, and again in anti-American crowd. Later he lived in Hawaii under the influence of his leftist grandmother and a “strange” uncle who also influenced Obama and may have done other things to him that helped form his life.
        In sum these influential people in his life gave him a hatred for colonial powers, a desire to make all countries equally poor, it also gave him a communist/socialist philosophy that led him to hate America.

        40

      • #
        Dave in the states

        As an American I agree with everything you have written. He is a disgrace.

        30

  • #
    tom0mason

    Younger members of the population have been subjected to the continuous barrage of climate propaganda from an early age.
    When they were younger they probably accepted this higher authority knowledge but then there come the rebellious years of the teens and older.
    What have these youngsters in the US seen in there short lives — not recent winters getting warmer but colder with summers probably not as hot as they remember them in their childhood.

    61

  • #
    cedarhill

    There’s just something about move all that ice, snow and sleet off your iPad and iPhones that annoy the youngsters indoctrinated in the lefts educational system. Oh, and have you ever tried to text, wearing mittens over gloves, with a scarf and a sky mask in a driving blizzard on your way to class in the morning. That doesn’t eve count having to shelve those $300 sneakers until “the hottest” actually occurs. Frostbite is a bigger concern than sunstroke.

    31

  • #
    Peter C

    Which of the following comes closest to,your view of Global warming?

    For me it is:
    C. Global warming is a theory which has not been proven yet.

    B. global warming is a proven fact, which is mostly due to natural causes……..
    Is a poor alternative, because it is undefined ; global warming since when? proven how?

    20

    • #

      Methinks AGW is a hypothesis which has not the supporting data to be elevated to theory.

      70

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal in Oz

      I reckon they needed a fourth option, which I will label the “Prime Minister’s Option”:
      “CAGW is a load of crap”.
      At least then I could have recorded a valid opinion.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      20

  • #
    Dariusz

    I think we should get astonished that more than 50% still believe in the GW crap. This shows that a large section of the rebellious young are followers. Where is the youth,s drive for change that dominated the sixties? Or that decade was anomalous and the conformity is dominant in human history?
    I did my bid when I was young in the early 80-ties overthrowing communism. Now the young look at me as an oddity. In fact they don,t want not know or hear. Leave alone ” I want to get blinded on the weekend attitude” dominates everywhere.
    10% of young are open to the new ideas? I suspect that this 10% is mostly radical green and the rest of them don,t care. The greens and the left think that are rebellious and subversive. Yet when I look at them and their energy I pity them.

    41

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The whole generational labels thing is a mess. People born in the 1980′s are variously known as Y Gens or Millennials. But people born after the early 90′s are called Millennials (apparently).

    It’s indeed a mess. It’s part of the larger trend toward group identity, which is no good for anyone. Only pollsters who feed data to clients looking for audiences vulnerable to their particular agenda and those who have a dysfunctional need for something to believe in or to belong to, have any use for it.

    From Gen-this-or-that to hyphenated-American, it’s not good. :-(

    Just my opinion for whatever it’s worth. I don’t like to be classified that way.

    Whatever happened to the old fashioned idea that you take each person on the basis their character, not by what year they were born in, what their politics are or what cause they may or may not believe is good or bad? We used to teach our children that their elders knew something from having lived through a big part of their lives and therefore should be listened to. Now we teach our children that their elders are screwing up the planet, their lives and anything else we can throw into the mix. By now we’ve probably screwed up Mars and Venus too.

    We have become Gen-Nutcase if you ask me.

    Sorry for the rant. But it’s time for a change of attitude around the world. I’m not looking for it to happen any time soon.

    80

    • #
      Winston

      A very perceptive comment, Roy.

      The collectivists have had their greatest success in exploiting this very facet of human nature.

      Whether dividing us into the left right paradigm, the sceptic versus alarmist paradigm, the democrat versus republican: this is false dichotomy that presupposes that such divisions accurately categorises individuals, where in reality it merely reduces us all into conformity to the totality of a particular group’s belief system.

      This has the effect of dehumanising and de-individualising us all, where purely for convenience we fall victim to this as a form of mental shorthand to simplify a complex world into an us and them tribalism. It is false reductionism for convenience, and is insidious and divisive and belittles us all. Much of the blame for this can be levelled at modern psychology that has exploited the tendency to categorise individuals into artificial boxes of conformity for the supposed sake of rationalising approaches to therapy as though we conform to a generic template.

      I would like to say I have not been guilty of this, but unfortunately I cannot. I am very grateful that your insightful comment has reminded me of that important distinction.

      60

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Roy Hogue,

      My appologies for not reading all the comments before replying above to Arsten and then again below in a general comment. If I would have read everything first, I would have quoted you instead of taking credit for myself. ;)

      Abe

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Abe,

        If the truth be known, all too often I don’t get the time to read all the comments either. So no apology needed.

        Sometimes I have to read what Jo said, decide what, if anything, I want to say, do it and then get on to something else, another thread, for instance, to see if anyone has replied to one of my comments there. Following what everyone says can be a full time job.

        Thanks for the complement though.

        Roy

        00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It’s good that skepticism is growing. But that 55% still worries me. They have swallowed the climate change line and we’re at the point where it’s started to influence our lives, sometimes very seriously as in OZ, the UK and the EU in general.

    Not good quite yet. Let us hope for progress.

    71

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Young adults have generally been more idealistic than their parents meaning that they are usually more gullible than their parents.

    I was pleasantly surprised by these results, as it suggests they are much less gullible than I would have expected.

    I am always amused whenever I debate with young adults the subject of ‘climate change’. They are genuinely shocked to learn: a) The satellite data shows no warming for the past 18 years, b) how the land based data sets are always homogenised to cool the past and warm the present, c) Antarctic ice extent is at record levels, d) the polar bears are thriving, e) The climate models bear no resemblance to reality, f) why the much trumpeted 97% figure is in reality closer to 1%, g) the ethics of the Hockey Stick, h) the realisation that natural climate cycles have been around for many hundreds of millions of years, i) the Arctic ice cap is recovering well from its low point of 6 years ago, j) CO2 is a trace gas making up only 0.04% of the atmosphere, k) sea level rises are not accelerating, l) the glaciers began melting over 150 years ago, m) rising CO2 levels are beneficial, greening the planet and enhancing plant growth.

    Well, that’s enough for now, the point is this when you tell most people about the ‘science’ of climate change, they are generally shocked by the duplicity of those involved.

    61

  • #
    Robert O

    It is the typical survey where the questions are contrived to give a biased result.
    Why even mention global warming?
    Based on your own experience, do you think:
    1. the seasons are getting colder?
    2. or are they getting warmer?
    3. or are they much the same?

    One could go a little further; why do you think this? A longer skiing season, more snowfalls, more hotter days etc.

    10

  • #
    Dave in the states

    This illustrates the problem that the warmists face for pushing their agenda going forward. Some youth are becoming truly educated despite the control of education by the left. A truly educated person learns to think for his/her self and has learned how to learn. That person is now capable of critical thinking, and self teaching, and knows the scientific method. That person can be literate on a wide range of topics regardless of credentials.

    The better the job they do at truly educating, the less control they have on the outcome.

    I seen this with one my nieces a few years ago. She became very interested in science in grade school and attended a science camp. My brother was worried that she would come back brainwashed. That wasn’t what happened. She came home a skeptic.

    The desperation and intolerance we see from the AGW crowd is evidence that they are not winning the debate. Hence they are desperately trying to push their agenda through, through political force, and by what ever means they can, while they still can. They can not allow any doubt, by anybody, anywhere.

    As is always the case, a majority of the population is ambivalent about any given topic, or just carries a casual interest in passing. Getting this demographic to become interested requires more information. The more they try to convince people of man made climate change the more skeptics they will create.

    Additionally, many people, even kids, come with a built in BS meter as standard equipment from the factory.

    51

  • #
    Ruairi

    A new U.S. survey concluded,
    From the wide range of questions included,
    That today’s youth have learned,
    To be much less concerned,
    About climate;and much less deluded.

    181

  • #
    Tom O

    I would guess that at 20, even they can remember that it was warmer “back then” than it is now. When you suffer through a cool summer and a long cold winter and are told that “last year was the hottest year on record,” I suspect you start to realize that what you “feel” and what you are told are so different you have to look at reality.

    50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    Around this area

    Chiefio has a look at the Soon and Baliunas paper and proposes a new index

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/willie-soon-and-the-woman-scorned-index/#comments

    IMO the index might have potential for rating other beat-ups too

    10

    • #
      lmwd

      Another Ian

      Thanks for that link. Looking forward to reading that paper.

      Chiefio makes this interesting point.

      Throughout the paper it is so heavily filled with citations that you would have to attack darned near everyone to tear it down.

      I find this a good strategy when dealing with alarmists also. They like to single out one scientist at a time and smear – like pack behaviour, they pile in to bring an individual down. They can’t attack numerous scientists though, without starting to look unhinged and revealing their deliberate strategy. At that point their criticisms lose credibility.

      20

  • #
    sophocles

    I first heard and paid attention to the warming propaganda over twelve years ago. I picked it up and read it. It didn’t make sense when I compared it with the squealing about global cooling and the incoming ice age in the early 1970s. I had read that famous Time magazine article back then. I started to dig into this via the Internet. It didn’t take at all long to find out enough to start seriously questioning the CAGW meme. Another year or two later and I was a confirmed sceptic and convinced CAGW was scamming us.

    Note the time it took me. I was working full time and this research had to happen around the edges of my work and home lives.

    The present youth generation has grown up far more wired and Internet connected than many of us may actually realise. They can use the search engines out there with a fluency and speed I openly envy. They can’t be bothered with a dumb cell phone. They run several email addresses, one for the world (also given to parents), one for mates, and one for really special friends. With Text Messaging more frequent than speech and their multiple email boxes requiring continuous monitoring, it has to be a larger and more powerful smart phone. They live on the Internet, at home, at school and at work (for those lucky enough to have work). Their smart phones are their portal to their society. And this spans all economic and socio-political levels. Those kids are plugged in. All the time. And, yes, it’s not all games.

    They can and do read, and they can and do think. I’m not at all surprised a majority can be rated as climate sceptics. I hope it continues to grow.

    61

    • #
      tom0mason

      The twenty-somethings should read some history, read how it all started back in the Nixon era –

      [In the late 1960s and early 1970s ...]
      The views on long-term climate change, however, were split. Some scientists projected a warming trend and others focused on the gradual cooling as suggested by the global surface temperature record from the 1940s through the 1960s. The cooling theory attracted the interests of many scientists, including glaciologists.

      In January 1972, geologists George Kukla of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences and Robert Matthews of Brown University convened a working conference of top European and American investigators in Providence, Rhode Island, to discuss “The Present Interglacial, How and When will it End?”

      They summarized their results in Science (October 1972). Kukla had by this time accepted a visiting scientist position at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. In a rather bold move, they followed up their Science article with a letter to President Nixon calling for federal action based on the main conclusion of the conference:

      “ . . . a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon. The cooling has natural cause and falls within the rank of processes which produced the last ice age. This is a surprising result based largely on recent studies of deep sea sediments.”

      Kukla and Matthews concluded their letter with the following concern:

      “It might also be useful for Administration to take into account that the Soviet Union, with large scientific teams monitoring the climate change in Arctic and Siberia, may already be considering these aspects in its international moves.”

      The White House assigned the Kukla-Matthews letter to the Bureau of International Scientific and Technological Affairs of the State Department. They circulated the letter to the highest level Federal interagency body concerned with atmospheric sciences, the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences (ICAS), for “review and appropriate action”.
      The ICAS then established an ad hoc Panel on the Present Interglacial to respond to the letter.
      ______________________________
      Members of the ad hoc Panel
      ¯
      Dr. David M. Hirschfield (Chair)
      Department of Agriculture
      ¯
      Mr. Joseph O. Fletcher
      National Science Foundation
      ¯
      Dr. J. Murray Mitchell, Jr.
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration
      ¯
      Col. John S. Perry
      Department of Defense
      ______________________________

      http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outreach/proceedings/cdw29_proceedings/Reeves.pdf

      10

      • #
        tom0mason

        There have been a few other times when the climate was of high topical public interest –

        A timeline of articles:

        1) “Prospects of another glacial period; Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again“, New York Times, 24 February 1895

        2) “Fifth Ice Age Is on the Way”, Los Angeles Times, 7 October 1912

        3) “Sees Glacial Era Coming: Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age”, New York Times, 7 October 1912

        4) “Mac Millian Reports Signs of New Ice Age”, New York Times, 18 September 1924

        5) “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise”, New York Times, 27 March 1933

        6) “A warmer Earth evident at poles”, Gladwin Hills, New York Times, 30 May 1947 — “A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today.”

        7) “Is the World Getting Warmer?”, Albert Abarbenel and Thomas McCluskey, Saturday Evening Post, 1 July 1950

        8) “Our Changing Climate … the world has been getting warmer in the last half century”, New York Times, 10 August 1952

        9) “Climate – the Heat May be Off”, Fortune, Francis Bello, August 1954 — “Despite all you may have read, heard or imagined, it’s been growing cooler – not warmer since the Thirties”

        10) “The Coming Ice Age“, Betty Friedan, Harper’s Magazine, September 1958 — “A true scientific detective story”

        11) “A Warmer Earth Evident At Poles”, New York Times, 15 February 1959

        12) “Carbon Dioxide and Climate“, Scientific America, July 1959

        13) “Atmospheric Aerosols: Increased Concentrations during the Last Decade”, James T. Peterson and Reid A. Bryson, Science, 4 October 1968

        14) “Expert Says Arctic Ocean Will Soon Be Open Sea”, New York Times, 20 February 1969

        15) “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age”, Washington Post, 22 April 1970

        16) “Climate Modification and National Security“, R R Rap, RAND, October 1970

        17) Inadvertent Climate Modification: Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate, MIT Press, 1971

        18) “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Rasool and Schneider, Science, 9 July 1971

        19) “The Effect of Atmospheric Aerosols on Climate with Special Reference to Temperature near the Earth’s Surface“, J. Murray Mitchell Jr., Journal of Applied Meteorology,August 1971

        20) “The Present Interglacial, How and When Will it End?”, Science, October 1972 — Summary of conference held in January 1972 at Brown U.

        21) “Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age”, Science Digest, February 1973

        22) “Ominous Changes in the World’s Weather”, Tom Alexander, Fortune, February 1974

        23) “A Perspective on Climatic Change”, Reid A. Bryson, Science, 17 May 1974

        24) “Another Ice Age?“, Time, 24 June 1974

        25) “Report of the Ad Hoc Panel on the Present Interglacial”, the panel was created by the US government’s Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences, August 1974

        26) “A study of climatological research as it pertains to intelligence problems”, CIA, August 1974 (36 pages) — PDF posted at Climate Monitor website here.

        27) “Potential Implications of Trends in Population Growth, Food Production, and Climate”, CIA, August 1974

        28) “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output”, New York Times, 8 August 1974 – Picture of article.

        29) “A Reassessment of Atmospheric Pollution as a Cause of Long-Term Changes of Global Temperature“, J. Murray, Mitchell Jr., in Global Effects of Environmental Pollution, edited by S. Fred Singer. Dordrecht: Reidel. (1975).

        30) “Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action”, National Academy of Science, 1975 (I cannot find a copy)

        31) “Climate Changes Called Ominous”, New York Times, 19 January 1975 — Picture of article.

        32) “A change in the weather”, George F. Will, op-ed in the Washington Post, 24 January 1975

        33) “Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities“, John F. Douglas, Science News, 1 March 1975

        34) “The Cooling World”, Newsweek, 28 April 1975 (posted with permission at the Washington Times here; or read this image)

        35) “Scientists Ask Why World Climate is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead”, The New York Times, 21 May 1975

        36) “In the Grip of a New Ice Age”, Nigel Calder (was editor of New Scientist), International Wildlife, July 1975

        37) “Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”, Wallace S. Broecker, Science, 8 August 1975 (abstract)

        38) The Cooling, Lowell Ponte (Prentice Hall, 1976)

        39) Interview with Professor Reid Bryson in Mother Earth News, March/April 1976 — Wikipedia entry for Bryson.

        40) “The world’s climate is getting worse”, BusinessWeek, 2 August 1976

        41) “Global Cooling?”, P E Damon and S M Kunen, Science, 6 August 1976 (abstract)

        42) “What’s Happening to Our Climate”, Samuel W. Matthews, National Geographic, November 1976 (text; image)

        43) The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, (Ballantine Books, 1977)

        44) “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment“, National Academy of Science, July 1979

        45) “The Ice Age Cometh?“, Time, 31 January 1994

        46) “The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea”, Lloyd D. Keigwin, Science, 29 November 1996

        47) “The end of the present interglacial”, W.S. Broecker, Quaternary Science Reviews, 1 August 1998

        From a timeline at Fabius Maximus where there are links to many of the original documents.

        10

  • #
    Alan McIntire

    I’m not TOO pleased with the result that 55% believe the CAGW propaganda. Maybe their views will become more reasonable after they’v been out of school, and in the workforce,several years.

    20

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Alan McIntire,

      By then it’ll be too late. Real peer pressure actually takes full force in the workplace. Especially if you now have a family to support. Can’t risk that job by going against the grain.

      cf. climate scientists.

      Abe

      31

  • #
    William

    My old university (UQ) is running an online re-education camp: Making Sense of Climate Science Denial – Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial

    https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#!

    About this course

    In public discussions, climate change is a highly controversial topic. However, in the scientific community, there is little controversy with 97% of climate scientists concluding humans are causing global warming.

    Fortunately sceptics ) or climate change deniers as the Fairfax media report calls them are enrolling – hopefully they will be able to counter this propaganda course!

    70

  • #
    Peter

    It is not hard to see why the younger generation think the way they do. If they watch the news lately and listen to people about the current weather on the East coast of Australia. Everyone at my work is convinced it has never happened before and man made warming is causing it.

    30

    • #

      “Everyone at my work is convinced it has never happened before and man made warming is causing it.” Groan … Up here in the north it might be a bit easier in one respect; these things usually have names. I start by saying “This is not climate change. It is climate sameness”.
      (Frosty silence followed by a hiss of rage.)
      http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/sevwx/facts/ecl.shtml#freq
      “The Bureau has a detailed database of these lows beginning in 1973. Each year there are about ten “significant impact” maritime lows. Generally, only once per year do we see “explosive” development. Looking at all the lows between 1973 – 2004, there is no evidence of a trend.”
      April 2015, June 2007 (no one remembers the Pasha Bulker?), July 2005, March 2005, October 2004, July 2001, August 1998, August 1996, May 1974, August 1857.

      40

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    %55 is still a majority. Enough to elect someone into public office. Enough to enact legislation. Way too much, if you ask me.

    Abe

    30

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    Jo said:

    *The whole generational labels thing is a mess. People born in the 1980′s are variously known as Y Gens or Millennials. But people born after the early 90′s are called Millennials (apparently).

    And I was under the impression that millenials were born on or after 2000. :(

    Abe

    30

  • #
    DonS

    Well Jo I’d like to be as positive about this result as you but unfortunately I suspect that if you asked the same people if they believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible you would get a similar, if not larger, than 20% result.

    It’s not about convincing the extremes but arguing the middle over. The 55% shows that the great government funded Green propaganda machine continues to do its work. With the UN climate conference coming up it is doubtful that any sceptical views will make it into the MSM for a while. Not that they get much of a run at the best of times.

    Cracking that 55% figure will I think take a long, long time even if global temperatures remain stable.

    30

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      DonS and Jo,

      Take the hypothetical situation: You have a class of middle school students for three years, 8th, 9th, and 10th grades. You teach them how to think and analyze any and all subjects using proper logic and rational thought. (proper as in Popper)

      Now, present them with a summary of global warming – climate change. How many will believe and how many will reject? Will your numbers reflect what this survey has found?

      Nuff said.

      Abe

      20

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Cracking that 55% figure will I think take a long, long time even if global temperatures remain stable.’

      It cannot remain stable for too much longer, so that’s when we get our chance to explain what is going on.

      ‘It’s not about convincing the extremes but arguing the middle over.’

      That’s true, but it may require unusual severe cold weather to win them over and its something the MSM cannot ignore because it effects us here and now.

      10

      • #
        DonS

        Agreed el gordo stability will not last but I was thinking that if, after 17 years of insignificant change in global temperatures, the upward trend of the last 300 years resumes then it will be harder to convince people it is natural and not human made given that only one side gets full coverage in the media.

        Also no amount of unusual weather will win them over because climate scientists no longer talk about global warming, it has changed to the more useful catchall, climate change. Too hot/too cold, too wet/too dry, less ice/more ice, more cyclones/fewer cyclones… it is all climate change and it is all our fault.

        Lets see how many questions the MSM ask about the recent record cold temperatures in the US and the past 3 years of unusually cold Northern Hemisphere winters at the next UN climate summit. I would guess none, because under the climate change banner there is no need to ask questions.

        All weather events can now be used as portents of doom and only foolish old deniers would question the consensus of the morally superior and intellectually god-like at the top our most august institution right. Well if they want to keep their access to the best social gatherings that other peoples money can buy they won’t ask any questions.

        00

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    Of course youth are skeptical, because the physics is WRONG.

    Here is a copy of an email just sent to Bill Shorten and most Australian politicians plus several international scientists …

    Dear Bill

    I write as one who has published two peer-reviewed physics papers and a book all on the climate debate which I have studied extensively.

    I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt (using correct physics) that all that the 0.04% of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere can do is to cool (not warm) the surface, but by less than 0.1 degree.

    I have personally offered a $5,000 REWARD for anyone who can prove the physics I present to be substantially wrong and to produce a study similar to mine but showing that the most prolific “greenhouse gas” water vapour warms, rather than cools as I have shown. Rain forests are not 40 degrees or more hotter than dry deserts.

    My question is …

    Are you, Bill Shorten, prepared to give me a personal hearing (somewhere in Sydney where I live, or Canberra) in the presence of other persons suitably qualified in physics but not having a pecuniary interest in maintaining the world’s greatest ever fraudulent hoax which is all based on fictitious fiddled physics?

    Sincerely

    Doug Cotton

    72

  • #
    pat

    30 April: CarbonBrief: Roz Pidcock: What the UK public thinks about climate change and energy – in seven charts
    Each year in March, the UK government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) carries out anationwide poll, asking people for their opinions on climate change and how the UK gets its energy. The 2015 results are in.
    The poll started in March 2012, so there are only four years of data to compare…
    1. Climate change drops down list of top challenges, but concern remains high
    The percentage of people ranking climate change as one of the top-three issues facing Britain dropped to 15% in 2015, compared to 22% last year (thick green line below). Five per cent of people put climate change top of the list – above the NHS, unemployment, crime and education, for example – compared to 8% last year (thin green line)…
    You can find the full dataset, here. (LINK)
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/what-the-uk-public-thinks-about-climate-change-and-energy-in-seven-charts/

    30 April: CarbonBrief: Sophie Yeo: UK must reform climate policies to become global leader, say economists
    In a briefing on the key environmental policy issues ahead of the 7 May general election, three academics from LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance look at the policies that aim to reduce the UK’s emissions and examines their successes and failures.
    The headline figures suggest an impressive record on tackling climate change in the UK, say authors Ralf Martin, Jonathan Colmer and Antoine Dechezleprêtre…
    ***In fact, without the recession in 2008 forcing down emissions as the economy shrunk, the UK would not have have hit its domestic target for 2012. This means there is “no room for complacency” in forming future climate policies, the authors write…
    Energy suppliers have faced further costs from the renewable obligation, which forces them to source a certain amount of supply from renewables, and thecarbon price floor, which is a levy on carbon emissions in addition to the EU’s emissions trading scheme.
    Emissions from households are not explicitly priced, though they are indirectly impacted by policies such as the green deal.
    The report sets out the implications of this mass of policies as follows:
    ***”Many firms now pay a carbon price three times for the same amount of carbon: all firms pay for the electricity they consume via the EU ETS, as well as implicitly via the renewable support schemes; most firms also pay for the CCL, which nets out at about £10 per tonne of carbon; some firms pay in addition for the CRC allowances, which, at present prices, adds another £12 (£15 from next year onwards).”…
    Recommendations
    The report offers a number of policy recommendations on how the government could improve in these areas.
    The first is to introduce a carbon tax that addresses consumption-based emissions, with imported goods facing an additional charge to take into account the difference in the price of carbon between the UK and the product’s country of origin.
    However, the authors quickly acknowledge that this is unlikely, as there is little appetite for such a tax among policymakers – not to mention that it could also potentially violate the rules of the World Trade Organisation by undermining efforts to liberalise global trade.
    They also suggest creating a uniform carbon price by abolishing exemptions and increasing the amount paid by those currently facing lower prices.
    This would reduce inefficiency and raise additional money that can then be poured into the research and development of clean technology, says the report…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/uk-must-reform-climate-policies-to-become-global-leader,-say-economists/

    31

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      pat,

      An observation on Sophie Yeo’s ‘report’ about what ‘economists’ say.

      More money! Let’s take more money! Let’s take so much money that ppl will have to either freeze or starve to death! That’ll teach them!

      Abe

      30

    • #
      tom0mason

      Q: Why did God create ‘climate scientists’?

      A: In order to make ‘economists’ look good.

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      One for our New Zealand friends -

      When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs.
      The first replied 190. “Wonderful,” exclaimed Einstein. “We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity”.
      The second answered 150. “Good,” said Einstein. “I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand’s nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace”.
      The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, “So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?”

      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      And lastly on the economics of science, engineering and knowledge -

      Engineers and scientists will never make as much money as business executives. Now a rigorous mathematical proof that explains why this is true:

      Postulate 1: Knowledge is Power.
      Postulate 2: Time is Money.

      As every engineer knows,

      Work
      ———- = Power
      Time

      Since Knowledge = Power, and Time =Money, we have

      Work
      ——— = Knowledge
      Money

      Solving for Money, we get:

      Work
      ———– = Money
      Knowledge

      Thus, as Knowledge approaches zero, Money approaches infinity regardless of the Work done.
      Conclusion: As very economist knows, the less you Know, the more money you Make.
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      I thank-you, I’ll just get my hat…

      60

    • #
      tom0mason

      Is that the same Sophie Yeo as who’s father is Tim Yeo’s?
      Tim Yeo MP and as the Daily Mail reported 3 years ago

      Jolly Green Hypocrite: Tory MP earns £140,000 from green firms and wants to carpet Britain wind farms (except in his own back yard

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2189492/It-wonder-Tim-Yeos-branded-Jolly-Green-Hypocrite.html

      Like father like daughter!

      10

  • #
    pat

    not only the youth are rebelling:

    29 April: The Hill: Timothy Cama: House panel passes bill to delay, weaken EPA climate rule
    The House Energy and Commerce Committee voted Wednesday to delay the Obama administration’s landmark climate rule for power plants and let states opt out of complying with it…
    The panel voted 28-23 to send the bill to the full House for a vote…
    *** Whitfield called the regulation “a federal takeover of the electric generating and distribution system, which has never occurred before.”
    Under the bill, the rule would not be able to take effect until all court challenges to it have been exhausted…
    Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he has problems with the EPA’s rule, but he could not support the GOP’s bill.
    “I prefer that we sit down and craft a bill that addresses the many challenges we face, not only domestically, but as a world leader,” Green said…
    http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/240494-house-panel-passes-bill-to-delay-weaken-epa-climate-rule

    can find no NYT, WaPo, Guardian, BBC, ABC or other MSM coverage, apart from this Bloomberg piece which conerns itself mostly with Democrat & Environmental groups’ outrage!

    30 April: Bloomberg: Andrew Childers: House Committee Moves Bill Allowing States to Opt Out of Clean Power Plan Compliance
    The bill would allow states to defer compliance with the Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33) until after legal challenges to the rule are exhausted.

    ***The bill would also allow state governors to opt out of compliance with the rule if doing so would increase electricity rates or jeopardize reliability***…

    Whitfield said his bill is necessary because the EPA typically provides states with three years to develop compliance plans for other Clean Air Act regulations, but states would only have 13 months to develop strategies to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
    “We’re not even trying to repeal this regulation,” Whitfield said. “We’re simply saying it’s so outside the bounds of expectations that we should allow the courts to render a decision before states are put in this position.”
    Allowing states to decide for themselves when to comply with Clean Air Act requirements would set a dangerous precedent that could cripple efforts to reduce air pollution, 88 environmental groups said in an April 28 letter (LINK)…
    Democratic Amendments Defeated ..etc
    http://www.bna.com/house-committee-moves-n17179925967/

    21

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Definitely in the 23% here.

    Also looking forward to Hunt vs Butler on QA for the title of biggest facile alarmist. Should be entertaining to us, infuriating to deep greens and complete nonsense to anyone with actual science qualifications.

    Just love the standard of debate….

    20

  • #
    pat

    NOTE: ***Over 95pc of coal reserves in the US, Russia, and the Middle East would be stranded. LOL.

    illustrated by the usual chimney/black smoke night-time pic.

    29 April: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: G20: fossil fuel fears could hammer global financial system
    Top energy watchdog says two thirds of all assets booked by coal, oil and gas companies may be worthless under the ‘two degree’ climate deal
    World leaders are increasingly concerned that a $6 trillion wave of investment into the nexus of oil, gas, and coal since 2007 is based on false assumptions, leaving companies with an overhang of debt and “stranded assets” that cannot easily be burned under CO2 emission limits.
    The G20 has asked the Financial Stability Board in Basel to convene a public-private inquiry into the fall-out faced by the financial sector as climate rules become much stricter…
    Diplomatic sources have told The Telegraph that the investigation is being pushed by France and is modelled on a review launched by the Bank of England last year…
    The International Energy Agency warns that two thirds of all declared energy reserves become fictional if there is a binding deal limit to C02 levels to 450 particles per million by the year 2100. This amounts to a nominal $28 trillion of stranded assets over the next two decades, according to a study by Kepler Cheuvreux. ..
    ***Over 95pc of coal reserves in the US, Russia, and the Middle East would be stranded. ..
    Rachel Kyte, the World Bank’s vice-president for climate change, said the G20 inquiry aims to find out how much damage a “burst carbon bubble” could do to institutional investors…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11563768/G20-to-probe-carbon-bubble-risk-to-global-financial-system.html

    ***climate change a “national security threat”!

    30 April: RTCC: Ed King: US State dept labels climate change “strategic priority”
    Tackling global warming ranks alongside terrorism, promoting economic growth and building open and democratic societies
    Climate change will be one of four foreign policy priorities for the US up to the end of the decade, secretary of state John Kerry announced on Tuesday.
    Unveiling the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, a key policy document that directs State Department thinking, Kerry said climate and clean energy lay at the heart of future planning…
    ***Branding climate change a “national security threat”, the QDDR recommends countries that have a key role in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and those with influence are targeted by diplomats…
    The review’s launch comes at a ***frenzied time for international climate diplomacy, months before a global climate pact to limit warming is set to be signed off in Paris…
    Last week France foreign minister Laurent Fabius linked migration and conflict to rising temperatures, suggesting it could “stoke conflict over the control of vital and scare resources.”
    On Tuesday the Vatican’s science academy issued a statement urging the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics to play a “decisive role” in mobilising public opinion behind a low carbon future.
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/29/us-state-dept-labels-climate-change-strategic-priority/

    20

  • #
    pat

    dumb and dumber.
    how is it the MSM is able to continue with the “CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER” meme, without feeling embarrassed?

    is there no body in Australia willing to challenge such a ridiculous term, given there’s no-one on earth who denies Climate Change, and quite a few CAGW sceptics even agree with GW or AGW?

    1 May: Brisbane Times: Natalie Bochenski: Climate change deniers sign up to UQ course tackling climate change deniers
    PHOTO CAPTION: John Cook from UQ’s Global Change Institute interviewing Sir David Attenborough for a segment in their ‘Making Sense of Climate Change Denial’ course. Photo: Supplied
    Co-ordinator and climate communication research fellow John Cook said they were thrilled with the enrolment numbers, which included students from 152 countries.
    Mr Cook said organisers were not surprised that a few dozen climate change deniers had enrolled and were trying to discredit the course from the inside.
    “It is ironic and somewhat precursive, because we’re explaining the techniques of denial, and then when our course is being attacked or I’m being questioned, all those same techniques are on display,” he said.
    “It’s happening in the forums of the course right now, we’re seeing a small minority of the students who reject the science posting their arguments against it.”
    Mr Cook said the bulk of students were enjoying the first week of course material.
    ***”We have a really powerful video of climate scientists talking about the persistent harassment they receive, the emails, the complaints to their universities, freedom of information requests for their personal details,” he said.
    “Just sharing those experiences was quite eye-opening for a number of students.”…
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/climate-change-deniers-sign-up-to-uq-course-tackling-climate-change-deniers-20150430-1mwt52.html

    40

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Looks like they need a funding cut.

      41

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      And my apologies for the double post, but as a student of body language I am enjoying the picture of Sir David and Mr Cook.

      Cook’s position, particularly his hands, say superiority and intimidation. While David is quite closed to John and his gesture is one of “Im not particularly interested in your point of view, but I would like to get mine across strongly.”

      While the look on John’s face is one of fawning admiration and his forward leaning posture shows genuine interest. His hands are either the true emotional state or contrived, because they seem out of context considering its unlikely JC thinks he knows more about this than DA…. but having said that…. maybe not.


      “Steepling can indicate confidence and a sense of superiority over others. It hence can say ‘I know something that you do not know.”

      http://changingminds.org/techniques/body/parts_body_language/hands_body_language.htm

      10

  • #
    pat

    another inconvenient CAGW story that NYT, WaPo, Guardian, Fairfax, ABC don’t seem to be in a rush to publish!

    is Australia in or out? conflicting stories.

    30 April: Reuters: US and Japan miss deadline on cash for UN green climate fund
    By Alister Doyle and Megan Rowling
    The United States and Japan will miss a U.N. deadline on Thursday to firm up promises to provide billions of dollars for a new U.N. fund intended to help developing nations tackle global warming, the fund said.
    The Green Climate Fund (GCF), which wants to decide on a first set of projects to aid developing nations before a Paris U.N. climate summit in December, said donors had signed deals of almost $4 billion, 42 percent of a total promised in late 2014
    The signed deals, which lay out a firm timetable for when promised money will be paid, are below the minimum level set by donors, of 50 percent of the total by April 30, to start full operations by the GCF…
    Top donors the United States, which promised $3 billion, and Japan, on $1.5 billion, were not among nations that have signed deals, according to a GCF overview. Cheikhrouhou (Hela Cheikhrouhou, executive director of the Fund) said no new deals were expected later on Thursday…
    It has not ruled out funding fossil fuels, if they help towards cleaner energy use.
    The Fund raised $9.35 billion at a pledging conference in November but new cash promised since then, including by Australia, has raised the pledged total to $10.2 billion…
    Separately, Cheikhrouhou told Reuters that the fund was “an essential ingredient of a successful agreement” in Paris…
    ***Cheikhrouhou said emerging economies needed to invest about $2.5 trillion a year in sectors such as energy, transport, agriculture and industry and an extra $450 billion to ensure they were green.
    http://news.yahoo.com/us-japan-miss-deadline-cash-un-green-climate-135126347.html

    30 April: RTCC: Ed King: US, Japan and Canada miss Green Climate Fund donation deadline
    Officials say Paris climate deal depends on effective GCF, but without cash warn they cannot invest in developing countries
    The head of the UN’s flagship Green bank has warned it cannot start work as planned because leading backers including the US, Canada and Australia have not delivered funds.An April 30 deadline for governments to send contributions passed with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) several hundred million short of a US$4.7 billion target…
    This means it will have to delay plans to back green energy projects in developing countries ahead of this year’s UN climate summit in Paris…
    The analysis published today by the GCF reveals the US is overdue on $1.5bn, Japan $750m and Canada $130m…
    Janet Redman from the Institute of Policy Studies called for the US government to speed up its delivery, accusing lawmakers on Capitol Hill of favouring fossil fuels over green energy…
    Wind, solar and energy efficiency projects are likely to dominate the fund’s early investments, but no decision has been taken on ruling out fossil fuel projects, to the anger of Green NGOs…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/30/us-japan-and-canada-miss-green-climate-fund-donation-deadline/

    20

  • #
  • #
    handjive

    “% of people ranking climate change as one of the top-3 issues facing Britain dropped to 15% in 2015…22% last year”

    30 April, 2015, carbonbrief.com: What the UK public thinks about climate change and energy – in seven charts

    10

  • #
    ROM

    I would take issue with a part of Jo’s headline; ie Youth are rebelling against climate dogma

    I would suggest that “Youth are rejecting climate dogma”

    The world is moving on from the climate wars at an increasing pace.
    With that the world is caring less and less about the supposed impact of mankind’s CO2 emissions on the climate, a failure which is becoming ever more obvious as the alarmist climate science just simply fails in it’s totality with each and every one of it’s predictions

    What is being left behind is a highly adversarial sub culture of which we on blogs such as Jo’s and all the other climate related blogs are an integral part of, that will continue to fight the climate wars until most of us are in our graves.

    The 1960′s generation created the environmental movement and have sustained the Greenpeaces and WWF’s and etc they founded with their donations as they progressed up through life with increasing wealth,
    Take away those donations and the 1960′s born generations bureaucratic manipulations to channel tax payers funds to those now radical hard left environmental NGO’s and they would collapse overnight.

    The 1970′s born generations took up alarmism particularly emotional fear based alarmism on a grand scale with the supposed global cooling and then the Ozone hole that was going to allow solar UV to fry mankind and every other living thing.

    When that got “solved” [ ??? ] by “banning” CFC’s the next big alarmism was the “Climate Catastrophe” all of course due entirely to mankind’s sinfulness in putting lots of that CO2 that was tied up in vast quantities of a couple of hundreds of millions of years old plant matter otherwise known as coal which we proceeded to burn to make ourselves nice and comfortable.

    Now the next and current generation born in the 1990′s is just refusing to take up the same causes as Dad and Mum fought for and supported to their own parents considerable angst as they in their turn refused and wouldn’t support the causes their parents espoused, an attitude towards the past causes which their own kids today are now espousing to their own very considerable angst.

    Nothing has really changed in human behaviour since our entire society’s attitudes towards the role each generation can now play in this ever changing world was formulated in the great migration from the farms to the factories at the start of the Industrial revolution.
    Prior to the Industrial Revolution the kids were expected and did follow in the footsteps of their parents be it peasants on the land or in the merchant and craft guilds of the Middle Ages.

    With the great shift in mobility as the farm to city migration got under way and the old society was forever disrupted and changed, the new society was always changing and will continue to do so for as long as the present social structure exists.

    Parents and the older generations created clubs, organisations, movements and etc to fill the roles they expected out of life.
    Parents and the older generations have always made and no doubt will continue to make the same basic and major mistake with the change over in every generation.
    They expect and often demand that the next generation take up where they left off in the same organizations clubs, industries and etc.

    But the next generation, the kids are just like their parents who probably deeply disappointed their own parents in turn.

    The kids, the new 1990′s born generation are out there creating their own organisations and clubs and societal structures which might be very different indeed to those of their parents let alone that of their grand parents.
    And there will not be the slightest doubt that they too in turn will expect their kids one day to take up those creations of their generation which their kids in turn will also reject in favour of their own generation’s societal structures.

    So I am not in the least surprised to see the next generation rejecting the societal created structures, the fear inducing alarmism of the 1970′s and 80′s born generations.
    And it is from those same young new generation rejectors of the past memes who become the creators of the next advances in our human society as they have rejected the same old, same old of their parents.

    They replace those parental mores and memes of the past with new ones of their own construction and the world moves on to yet another stage in human progress.
    The alarmism of the climate catastrophe meme will slowly die away as it’s proponents depart this mortal coil until in the history of future generations it becomes just another great human semi-comic tragedy consigned forever to the dust bin of failed history.

    70

  • #
    pat

    i would call this writer Hannah Parry & Uni of Melbourne’s Andrew King “youth” from the pics i’ve seen online, but this is jumped on by MSM immediately. why?
    Karoly is in the mix.

    1 May: UK Daily Mail: Hannah Parry: Brace yourself for heatwaves: Man-made climate change will lead to more record-breaking temperatures across Europe
    Summers today are now 22 times more likely to be hot than a century ago
    Detailed analysis of the Central England Temperature (CET) charts – the world’s longest instrumental temperature record dating back to 1659 – showed human activities have a large influence on heatwaves across the country, scientists have found…
    Published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the discovery is all the more remarkable given it is such a small area of the world.
    Dr Andrew King, of the University of Melbourne, said: ‘When you look at average annual temperatures over larger regions of the world, such as the whole of Europe, there is a lower variability in temperatures from year to year compared with smaller areas.’
    ‘As a result of this low variability, it is easier to spot anomalies…
    His team used climate simulations to calculate the likelihood of very warm years when there is just natural forces on the climate and no human influence, such as burning fossil fuels, and then when there is both these and human influence.
    The change in the likelihood of warm years due to human influences on the climate was then calculated…
    The model based method suggested at least a 13 fold increase due to human influences on the climate, whilst this rose to 22 times using the observation approach…
    As to whether these results can be seen to be representative of areas outside of central England, Dr King said: ‘I would expect that other areas near the UK would produce similar results.’…
    ‘For example, we performed a similar attribution study for Europe as a whole and found a 35-fold increase in the likelihood of extremely warm years using model simulations.’
    Commenting on the research, Dr Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the Met Office Hadley Centre, said: ‘This new research adds another piece of evidence that human-induced climate change is increasing the chances of record-breaking temperatures around the world including in the UK.
    ‘At the Met Office we produced similar research late last year showing how climate change had made UK record breaking temperatures about 10 times more likely.’…
    COMMENT by Kathy: If the ‘scientists’ spouting this drivel took the time to read the comments here, they would realise that no one believes them.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063475/Brace-heatwaves-Man-climate-change-lead-record-breaking-temperatures-Europe.html

    England faces major rise in record hot years due to climate change …
    The Guardian-54 minutes ago

    Heatwaves ‘more likely’ in England
    BBC News-2 hours ago

    Record breaking temperatures ‘more likely in future’
    ITV News-5 hours ago

    Public Release: 30-Apr-2015 England set for ‘substantial increase’ in record …
    EurekAlert (press release) – ‎5 hours ago‎
    Lead author of the study Dr Andrew King, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of Melbourne, said

    2 mins 55 secs: 30 April: Youtube: Andrew King – England temperatures increasing because of climate change
    posted by Science at Melbourne
    Video Abstract by Dr Andrew King for from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, for the paper “Attribution of the record high Central England temperature of 2014 to anthropogenic influences” by Andrew D King, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, David J Karoly, Sophie C Lewis and Heidi Cullen in Environmental Research Letters. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054002
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBttxI1H5w0

    from the IOP Science Link in the Youtube description: Funded by: ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. Grant number: CE 110001028.
    EUCLEIA. Grant number: 607085

    extend to see Hannah’s total output. how on earth is she equipped to write the CAGW nonsense re Andrew King/Karoly?

    Journalisted: Hannah Parry
    http://journalisted.com/hannah-parry

    10

  • #
    el gordo

    There would be less heretical sceptics if they could only get them younger, at that impressionable age.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/expert-wants-climate-change-study-introduced-in-younger-school-years-20140123-31bs5.html

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    You have to say the Australian BOM instant radar is very useful in planning. Not so much their reports, which can be indicative but quite wrong.

    Two years ago I cancelled a function because of the 90% chance of rain. Not a drop fell anywhere in the huge city of Melbourne. You can accept that, almost but it is clear that years of experience in forecasting can count for very little with the weather.

    What is harder to swallow is that the BOM on the same page advertise their CLIMATE 2014 report. How can an organization which cannot tell the weather tomorrow with any certainty and so much much data and a page of disclaimers start predicting the climate long term with any certainty? We know what the climate of Australia is and we know it is locally variable over a huge continent and over decades but where does anyone get that future knowledge of what is going to happen where? Or is this just cashing in on the whole Global Warming Climate Change scare business opportunity? If so, where was the prediction of the massive rains in NSW last week or even of the drought ending rains? Why was Wivenhoe filled to 190%, risking the lives of everyone in Brisbane? If we cannot even get the category of a cyclone within 2, what hope cyclone intensity in twenty years? The BOM needs to take a step back from Climate Alarmism and just get the weather reporting and short term predictions right.

    30

    • #
      Robert O

      This a valid point, if BOM with all their gadgetry cannot predict the weather accurately within a few hours, why are they able to predict 10, 20, 50 years hence. My experience is they get it right most of the time, but sometimes it happens earlier of later as systems speed-up or slow down, and occasionally they get it wrong.

      20

      • #
        el gordo

        BoM is not bad a week out, they predicted this second east coast low five days ago, but their seasonal forecasting is woeful.

        The models they use for weather forecasting are different to the climate prediction models, just in case someone asks.

        And I agree with TdeF that the Klimatariat and BoM should get a divorce, the marriage has demeaned BoM.

        00

  • #
    pat

    u have to admire the precision!!!

    1 May: CTV: AP: Seth Borenstein: Global warming to push 1 in 13 species to extinction: study
    It won’t quite be as bad in North America, where only 1 in 20 species will be killed off because of climate change or Europe where the extinction rate is nearly as small. But in South America, that forecasted heat-caused extinction rate soars to 23 percent, the worst for any continent, according to a new study published Thursday in the journal Science…
    University of Connecticut ecologist Mark Urban compiled and analyzed 131 peer-reviewed studies on species that used various types of computer simulations and found a general average extinction rate for the globe: 7.9 percent. That’s an average for all species, all regions, taking into consideration various assumptions about future emission trends of man-made greenhouse gases. The extinction rate calculation doesn’t mean all of those species will be gone; some will just be on an irreversible decline, dwindling toward oblivion, he said…
    Urban’s figures are probably underestimating the real rate of species loss a little, said scientists not affiliated with the research. That’s because Urban only looks at temperature, not other factors like fire or interaction with other animals, and more studies have been done in North America and Europe, where rates are lower, said outside biologists Stuart Pimm of Duke University and Terry Root of Stanford University…
    A separate study in the same journal looked at 23 million years of marine fossils to determine which water animals have the biggest extinction risk and where. Marine mammals, such as whales, dolphins and seals, have the highest risk. The Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, western Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean between Australia and Japan are hotspots for potential extinction, especially those caused by human factors, the study said.
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/global-warming-to-push-1-in-13-species-to-extinction-study-1.2353320

    10

    • #
      James Bradley

      Pat,

      Seems like a natural balancing force in action, less species = less nasty CO2 expired into the atmosphere once you get past the decomposition phase then it means less CO2 expired into the atmosphere.

      Isn’t anthropomorphic climate science wonderful.

      It has an answer to everything.

      00

  • #
    Dave in the states

    It is a terrible thing to be lied to. As each generation comes of age they have hope for the future. The 20 somethings now had grasped on to the “hope and change” promise of Obama. What hope and change was, was whatever you wanted it to be. Underlying it all however, was an ambiguous meme that the climate was in danger and that bold action was called for. everybody said so. Now it is becoming clear that was a lie or at least an over simplification to the point of being deceptive. Moreover, it now becomes clear that bold action on climate is not only unneeded, and will not be effective, but will probably destroy the economic engines of the societies they live in. So much for hope for a better future.

    20

  • #

    Don’t underestimate the untrammeled minds of the young.

    It’s only “education” that closes their minds.

    10