[LIST OF POSTS ON THIS SITE]

1. A Newsweek article dated 4/25/2019 features a video by David Wallace Wells saying that “by the end of the century, if we do not take action on climate change, the damage from climate change will surpass twice as much as all the wealth that exists in the world today”. In a related article Newsweek had a somewhat scarier assessment that the current warming trend will take us to such an extreme climate condition that we have to go back 50 million years to find climate conditions as extreme. This statement is false. For example, as described in a related post [LINK] , if we go back just 120,000 years to the previous interglacial called the Eemian, we find much more extreme climate than in the current interglacial, the Holocene. Most of the climate change fear mongering arguments can be understood in the context of what one would expect to see in nature’s own interglacials. Yet known natural interglacial phenomena are being sold as evidence of unnatural human caused climate change.
2. The article goes on to promote the ugly and reprehensible use of school children in the activism against fossil fuels and claims that the fossil fuel industry’s influence with government is to blame for the recent calls by government officials to prevent elementary school teachers from preaching climate catastrophe to their very young child students. The most visible child climate change activist is Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg. She recently publicly admitted to having been indoctrinated into fearing climate change by elementary school teachers. In her words, “I first heard about this when I was 7, 8, or 9 years old. In school the teacher explained what climate change was and how it was caused and they showed us pictures of starving polar bears”.
3. Elementary school teachers have a fixed and well defined curriculum of things like language, grammar, arithmetic, and so on. This curriculum does not include climate science and these teachers are not qualified to teach climate science. The syllabus of courses they teach is well defined and it is their job to follow that curriculum. They are not allowed to bring their own personal causes, religions, or other beliefs to preach to their very young students or to indoctrinate them in causes they happen to believe in. This sad and ugly chapter in climate activism that involves child abuse and child exploitation should, in itself, disqualify the climate change movement.
4. The text goes on to state that ” This assault on our children (that is restricting teachers to the curriculum) is reprehensible for so many reasons. To start with an obvious one, it is keeping kids in the dark about an urgent global problem that will affect the rest of their lives. Yet, the reading writing and arithmetic syllabus of elementary school education does not include these topics nor does it give the teacher the freedom to preach environmentalism as he or she sees it. In fact what is reprehensible about the indoctrination of school children and their deployment in climate activism is that it is or it should be illegal to use children in this way to further one’s activism needs because it is surely a case of child exploitation.
5. The Michael Mann statement continues with the reference to fear mongering climate change impacts stating that “We’re already seeing the harm of floods, fires, heat and drought, but it’s the next generation that will bear the brunt of climate change. The least we can do is give our kids the tools to rise to the immense challenge they will face as the climate change generation. Actually, the very least we could do is not lie to them about it.
6. Yet, it is an indefensible position that elementary school students as young as seven years old can be taught climate science that even climate scientists don’t full understand. Most of the extreme weather fears that they peddle is without empirical evidence. Also, the fundamental relationship on which all of AGW theory rests is climate sensitivity and the extreme state of uncertainty in its empirical values is an unsettled question in climate science. Yet another weakness in climate science is that it is a product of errors in statistics as explained in a related post [LINK] . If climate scientists themselves can’t get the science right, how can we expect elementary school teachers to teach it?
7. The claim that climate change has caused extreme weather and made tropical cyclones more destructive is without empirical evidence. The famous paper by MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel that climate change has increased the destructiveness of North Atlantic hurricanes contains gross methodological and statistical errors that one would expect to see only at the undergraduate level. The Emanuel paper is discussed in a related post [LINK] .  The failure of climate scientists to provide evidence for the claim that climate change is making tropical cyclones more extreme is discussed in two related posts [LINK]  [LINK] . Evidence of tropical cyclones “in pre industrial times” (that is prior to AGW) that are worse than what we see today in post industrial times, is presented in a related post [LINK] .
8. The attribution of extreme weather events to climate change after the fact with what is called “Event Attribution Science” is not science but a combination of circular reasoning and confirmation bias described in related posts [LINK] [LINK] .
9. Rather than be the accusers of the fossil fuel industry as evil activists who are trying to keep elementary school teachers from teaching climate science to elementary school students, climate scientists should look in a mirror. There, they will see the evil of child abuse and child exploitation to further their activism against fossil fuels.
10. The scary reality of climate change is that someday these charges and related lawsuits will be brought against the perpetrators of these crimes against children to shore up a failed case against fossil fuels that their own science is unable to defend.

[LIST OF POSTS ON THIS SITE]