crying kid

Topic Tags:

MAY 07 2025

Download PDF

The Cool.org parallel online universe in the school system makes clever use of films, videos and kids’ picture books to get an emotional response. Cool seems particularly concerned about rural resistance to giant turbines and thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines across paddocks and bush.

So teachers use a Cool template to show kids films with nice images and cute music where farmers rhapsodise about wind farms. Farmer Dimity Taylor runs sheep near Goulburn on NSW’s southern tablelands. A neighbour’s turbine is 1.2km from her farmhouse. She’s asked whether she’d prefer “cheaper, safer renewables” or “polluting fossil fuels and expensive, dangerous nuclear later on?” She answers, predictably, “Renewables, right now!”

For Part 1 and Part 11 of this series follow these links

She’s asked about “the giant, quiet neighbour [wind turbine] that is just ticking away and how it helps the community thrive”. She gushes, “I love living next door. It’s brought heaps of great stuff into the community. They fund all sorts of things, like the local pony club … that have really helped just invigorate the community.

 “Yeah, yeah, [I have] three little kids. I love that we get to live right next door to this great infrastructure, and they get to feel like we’re kind of part of this exciting transition, and we can see action on climate change right here next door.”

Do she mind looking at the wind turbines?

“They’re so beautiful, like they’re really majestic. On a sunset, they are just magnificent, like they reflect the colours of the sun, they’re just so gorgeous … In actual fact, it probably helps my mental health. Being able to see that we are doing something to transition to renewable energy economy and away from a fossil fuel economy.  Yeah, it has been shown to be the cheapest form of new energy that you can roll out.”

Dimity is not paid to host a turbine, but gets “a little bit of money” from transit of an underground cable. She imagines that her town is already feeling impacts of climate change, because it’s had fires, floods and droughts, so the community cash from wind farms has been handy. Instead of spending money on repairs after disasters, she thinks it’s better to have wind farm investments “to help eradicate the problem in the first place. I think that’s better use of funds.”

Tellingly, no-one tries to calculate for the benefit of classroom audiences just how many local floods and droughts have been averted by the turbines.

Dimity’s advice on new wind projects: “Oh, welcome it. But get involved. Communicate with the companies that are coming and really think about how you can maximize the benefits for your community.”

Another Cool-recommended “Good Neighbours” film features Simon and Susan Tickner, “food, fibre and wind farmers” on broad acres at Horsham in Victoria’s Wimmera. In the background of the shot is the Murra Warra Wind Farm, now with 99 turbines.

Interviewer: Transitioning our energy system to renewables? Pronto or taking ages?

Simon: Oh, pronto please. We don’t have time to stuff around.

Simon concedes that in early years developers had done “really, really poor” consultations with locals, who felt towers were being pushed on them. But liaison had improved dramatically. “Farming is helping keep the world fed and healthy, and with renewables and transmission we’re doing a similar thing. Come on, good!”

It’s unclear if Cool has any actual empathy with the farm sector. Cool gives Australia’s world-leading farm productivity a heavily negative emphasis. Cool’s “lesson” on Environmental Impacts of Agriculture starts by blaming farmers for 13% of national CO2 emissions. Cool laments land clearing, pesticides, chemical fertilisers, water pollution, soil degradation, erosion and salting. And Cool especially deplores what it regards as farmers’ over-use of water:

Water for the Environment: Farms use a lot of this [water] for their plants and animals, which means there’s not so much left for the environment. This is compounded when there are extreme weather events like droughts, and farmers need more of this stuff for their animals and crops, which leaves even less for nature.

It’s hard to know what Cool is advocating here, other than farmers’ bankruptcy.Another of Cool’s persuasive tools (three lessons, for primary kids and parents) is “Amy’s Balancing Act”, a picture book by ANU academic Dr Bjorn Sturmberg. It’s a fable about balancing Australia’s electricity grid, “for younger kids [and] perfect for starting conversations about energy and its impact on the climate.” Sturmberg modelled cute little Amy on Audrey Zibelman, former chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO). The book was launched at Federal Parliament in 2022 with hearty endorsements from Climate Minister Chris Bowen, the Teals and the Liberals’ Bridget Archer (who, by the way, has just lost her seat), symbolising the uni-party approach to net zero fantasies.

Sturmberg said he was preparing the next generations “with the attitudes and knowledge to thrive and create a better world.” Bowen told kids in the audience, “We need to use clean sources of energy for you, because this is about making sure the planet’s clean for you when you grow up.” Cool’s lesson template for the book includes,

“Clyde [an old draughthorse] reminds me of fossil fuel power plants, the way they cause some pollution. Even though Clyde is good at delivering the mail, and fossil fuel power plants are useful for producing power, do you think it’s worth all that dust and pollution and tearing up the soil? How do you think you would feel living in that kind of world?”

In the book-inspired “Role-play activity information” for class, Group One roles are the good guys. Professor Sunny, the solar energy expert, provides ‘facts’ about the supposed decreasing cost of solar electricity, and how it can be stored for nights and cloudy days [via $10,000 batteries].

Engineer Mr Windy’s job is to “clarify misconceptions about wind turbines and wild life” [like mincing eagles]. Dr Factual, the climate scientist, “presents clear evidence of human-caused climate change” [based on self-fulfilling computer models].

Group 2 are Cool’s villains, namely

♦ Mr Coaly the coal miner, claiming renewables are unreliable, and spreading false information about wind turbines’ unreliability.

♦ Ms Guzzle the petrol-station owner, who insists electric cars are too pricey for most families, and “exaggerates the fire risks of solar panels on rooftops” [I thought the main fire risk is from batteries].

♦ Dr Skeptic the “climate change denier” argues that climate change is natural and not caused by humans [the sceptic case in fact is that human-caused warming will not be catastrophic as claimed, and CO2 is greening the planet and helping feed rising populations]. Denier Dr Skeptic also claims that wind and solar are more harmful to the environment than fossil fuels, which I’d heartily agree with.

While we are to believe that farmers rejoice at Minister Chris Bowen’s windfarm rollout, Cool is conscious that in schools, teachers’ doom-crying can paralyse kids emotionally and sap their value as green campaigners. To counter the psychological traumas of doomism, Cool recommends that teachers alert climate-despairing students to Kids Helpline, Headspace, Beyond Blue Youth, even Lifeline. As Cool concedes, apocalyptic factoids can leave schoolkids quaking:

 “You are not alone if you find this difficult to read; this is genuinely scary stuff. That’s why it is important to take some time to look after yourself when absorbing information like this; take a break and have a friendly chat with someone, watch something silly or give your pet a cuddle. And then remind yourself it is not up to you and you alone to fix this problem. People all over the world are already working hard to meet the challenges of climate change and to limit its impacts on people, the environment and the future [except in China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Vietnam, much of Africa and now Trump’s USA]. And then think about the things we can do – we can all do something!”

The Cool unit “Talking about Climate Change” warns,

Climate change can induce feelings of sadness, worry, anxiety and grief among many of us, particularly among those young people who have already experienced the effects of climate change, for example, through bushfires or floods. [Claiming local bushfires and floods are caused by the 1deg of warming in the past century is the main propaganda line of Tim Flannery’s Climate Council]. When discussing climate change with students, it is important to create a safe and positive classroom environment that encourages participation and cooperation without pressuring those who may not feel comfortable sharing their thoughts or feelings. Remember, just because a student in your class may have lived through an event linked to climate change [Cool means a bushfire, drought or flood, as per Dorothea Mackellar’s “My Country”], it is not their responsibility to educate the rest of the class about it.

Cool coaches kids on “ways to tell grown-ups what’s important to us. You don’t need to be a scientist to care about our planet! Try saying things like:

“I feel worried/hopeful/excited about. [fill in blank]..I’m trying to help by [insert]…This matters to me because. ]insert]..When you share your own story, it can inspire others to care too!”Social scientists have recommended not to overdo the doom at school. So Cool says teachers should make kids imagine they can personally tackle global warming. They can turn off lights, ride bikes and go easy on the air-conditioning: “When introducing a topic like climate change, it is important to maintain a position of hope.”

The “Cool.org Hope Framework”,  based on “Hope Theory” is

to use when discussing challenging issues to ensure psychological safety for teachers and students…Be sure to consider the age and ability of your learners, the suitability of your resources, and the broader networks that can help…It’s the ideal guide for the Take Action stages of our resources when we need to support our learners to step up and have choices in how they can best help the situation. 

In my interpretation, no matter how traumatised kids get, Cool would like to continue pointing them towards green activism.

Other Cool demands on kids – which few adults themselves adopt – are

Do you really need it? – Think carefully about all your purchases, and where possible, choose the greenest option.

Cut your energy use –Wear a jumper instead of increasing the heat in winter, and in summer only use the air conditioner when the fan isn’t cutting it. Switch to electricity from renewables – “Try gently encouraging your family to make the switch”.

Eliminate unnecessary emissions. This might include everything from clothes to electronics to gadgets to furniture.

Embrace veggies – why not try a day or two a week of meat-free meals?

Get involved – send a letter to a politician or join a group like Australian Youth Climate Coalition.

Be inspiring and spread the word – You never know who you’re going to inspire, so let the people around you know what you’ve been doing to tackle climate change, and let them know that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will also build healthier communities, spur economic innovation and create new jobs.

The rest of my Cool research found such a welter of nonsense I’ll just stack some highlights under headings.

EARTH DAY: April 22’s Earth Day sent Cool’s educators into raptures:

Celebrate Earth Day 2025 with the global rallying cry: OUR POWER, OUR PLANET. This year’s mission challenges everyone—educators, students, and entire communities—to embrace renewable energy solutions and help triple worldwide clean electricity by 2030 [I’m sure this will influence Xi Jinping]. Take part in Earth Action Day by pledging on social media, planning local events, or integrating eco-focused lessons into your curriculum. Each small step—whether you educate, advocate, or mobilize—advances us toward a healthier, more sustainable future.

Cool exhorted kids, “Now, the fight for a clean environment continues with increasing urgency, as the ravages of climate change become more apparent every day.”

I suspect even Cool realises that the WWF Australia’s lights-off “Earth Hour” has had its day, given householders’ new fear of blackouts. My search of Cool totted up 259 past Earth Hour lessons, including one called “Earth Hour – Action Stations!” where kids create advertisements in the form of a video, infographic, image, poem or story. “The advertisement should explain about how climate change is affecting your favourite food or farming region of Australia.”

FIRST NATIONS: Cool gives the cause of so-called First Nations a good workout, buttressed by the topic’s status as one of three cross-curricula priorities. High-school kids at Year 7-8 (12-13), get a double whammy of First Nations plus Sustainability – two of the three priorities. This lesson takes the form, “Impacts of Extreme Weather Events on First Nations Australians” – notwithstanding that 80% of Aboriginal-identifiers live in suburbia.

Kids are none-the-less required to investigate why First Nations are “among the most heavily impacted by climate change” (compared with whom?) and impacted by “associated extreme weather events”, which the IPCC says are generally not increasing. Somehow kids are to find and discuss “current strategies to reduce the impact of climate change on First Nations Australians.” As Cool says, “We listen and learn from First Nations peoples as they lead the way with their knowledge and aspirations for future generations.”

ENERGY CHOICES: In Cool’s frequent explanations of energy sources, the writers are quite dismissive of issues like wind turbines killing bats, eagles and other raptors, which in other contexts would have teachers hyper-ventilating to the kids. In one lesson Cool explains mildly:

Wind [turbine] impact: No emissions during operation. However, manufacturing, transportation, and installation carry some environmental costs. There’s also potential harm to bird and bat populations if not properly sited.

To get that straight, turbines only kill birds if badly sited, and then they’re only “potentially” minced.

In contrast, coal, which is now having a global renaissance, is the epitome of planetary evil.

Impact: Significant greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants like sulfur dioxide. Mining practices, especially mountaintop removal have large ecological impacts [I thought that was for Queensland wind farms?].

The script includes a picture of a coal-power complex emitting opaque orange pollution – perhaps dating from the era of William Blake’s ‘dark satanic mills.’ I doubt any human could survive there five minutes. Given the minimal pollution from the new-generation High Efficiency/Low Emissions (HELE coal-fired plants), this illustration does not seem totally ethical. Cool’s wind turbine pic, by contrast, is a symphony of blue and white.

For 10-12yos, there’s the lesson, How Do Energy Sources Work and How Are They Misunderstood?

“Students will explore how renewable energy can be locally owned, and benefit people and the planet. As nominated members of the town council of Energyville, they will work in groups to choose the best energy source for this new town and develop a fact-checking guide to assist the mayor in making a reliable and informed decision.”

Cool’s Solar Power Fact Sheet says solar creates “almost no pollution” although some might be [my emphasis] created in making and transporting the panels. The bulk of them are from China, assisted by slave labour, but Cool doesn’t mention that, nor mention when the used panels and their toxic additives are due for landfill. The screed finishes on a triumphant note: “On top of that, if you could capture it all, the amount of energy received from the sun in one hour could power the entire world for a year.” These Cool authors are not very sophisticated.

Not one Australian in a thousand can explain this country’s mish-mash of renewables subsidies and official fatwas against gas stoves and non-electric cars. But Cool educators breezily expect young teens in class to understand “Australia’s clean energy policies” –including the Electric Vehicles Incentives; the Emissions Reduction Fund; the “National Energy Productivity Plan” (whatever that is or was), and Feed-in Tariffs from roof-top solar (which are now an official embarrassment as the grid destabilises). Oh yes, and kids must also get on top of something called “The First Nations Clean Energy Statement”. One Cool lesson rhapsodises,

 Australia is charging ahead in the clean energy race! Discover how government policies drive change, boosting renewables, cutting emissions and empowering communities. Who knew saving the planet could come with perks?

My project to keep track of Cool’s work in schools had to end somewhere, so I’ll sign off while my faculties and sanity are still intact. I’ve chatted to some kids about climate and they dispense Cool’s memes like they’re badly-programmed robots. Australia, what have you become? 

Tony’s latest book from Connor Court is Anthem of the Unwoke – Yep! The other lot’s gone bonkers. $A34.95

via Climate Scepticism

https://ift.tt/0ILRxSl

May 7, 2025 at 03:25PM

60.13908 -1.18432 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4. Installation date varies even from the same source – Digital Temperature records archived from 1/11/1921. Manual records from 1901 – (possibly)

This review is both one of the Lerwick site and also acts as an introduction to aspects of data analysis being carried by both the Talkshop and other “associates” similarly working on historic nationa temperature data analysis. The prime initial purpose of the Surface Stations Project was to assess existing and former Met Office weather stations quality and suitability in contributing data to the national historic temperature record. Running parallel to this are my own, and several others, efforts to provide an alternative historic temperature record to that provided by the Met Office. Very much a collaborative project, this will be based on hard, verified data using scientific objectivity and avoiding any preconceived political or ideological motivation. All are welcome to join, “peer review” or just have your say.

This latter objective is “work in progress” but I feel it is worthy of introducing the concept and how this is currently developing. Lerwick provides a good example to demonstrate many points.

Firstly to clarify this site and dates, there was a weather station known as “Lerwick” operated by the Scottish Meterological Society with archived data of photo-copied manual records held under the “Scottish Red Book”. It seems difficult now to confirm its exact location as the given coordinates are not specific enough to pinpoint it, however, it does appear to be to the south side of the town in close approximation to the current site.

What can be confirmed is that the current digitalised records run from 1/11/1921 at the current site which was allegedly established at the request of the Norwegian government following representations made by Roald Amundsen. Oddly there seems to be different dates offered for this site’s start date and from when records actually which will be discussed later.

The site itself has not been significantly relocated, however, there have been more than one numbered Stevenson Screen used over the period of operation. DCNN 0043 & 0044 with data from both sets have been recorded and archived for a considerable overlapping period also discussed later.

The site is now currently Met Office assessed as a lowly Class 4 with its attendant inaccuracy due to siting of +/- 2  °C. This, in itself, is surprising as Lerwick ranks as one of the Met Office’s most important sites with a surprisingly large number of attendant staff – again more later. It is vitally important to note that when Tim Channon reviewed this site in 2012 he was perfectly okay with a Class 1 rating or possibly a pernickety Class 2. Studying his review In detail brought up many more queries than it answered and is well worth reading AND the attendant comments.

Checking out Tim’s close up aerial imagery above from 2012 is notably quite different from now as below.

All the additional housing close to the screen is actually to house Met office staff – consider this from Shetland.org

https://www.shetland.org/blog/the-weather-its-all-about-location

“But it’s also a seismographic recording station, measuring earthquakes all over the world, and is one of only two stations in the UK – the other is in Cornwall – recording ozone levels. The observatory also monitors data from around 150 unmanned sites around Britain. Staff moved into a new, £1.2m building in early 2014.”

As the above link demonstrates a lot goes on at this site but also notice the remark about most homes in Shetland ” bearing in mind that most houses are below the 30m contour and enjoy rather more shelter than the observatory.” The Observatory is at 82 metres so consider this 2023 image.

Then look at all the lack of any homes south of the “Burn of Sound” in this image from 2003

I cannot go further back than 2003 on historic aerial imagery but a quick Street view trip around most of the roads to the north of “burn of sound” shows all new build units likely from the 1990s and above that traditional 30 metre contour.

Another point to note from the Ordnance Survey contour mapping is that “Sandy Loch” is anything but a traditional feature being an artificial reservoir. Online imagery reveals former homes emerging at low water levels. This entire area is certainly not as natural as may be thought of on casual inspection.

The summary of this part is that Lerwick was once probably an open site away from any general extraneous heat sources and on reasonably flat ground though was a somewhat exposed coastal one. Now, however, modern building developments on both the immediate site and local environs are progressively degrading its initial quality. The Met Office has tacitly accepted this by its low CIMO assessment of Class 4.

The second part of this report moves on to the data that I am proposing to select from good quality and representative sites only AND the interesting comment that the late Roger Andrews (a regular contributor to Euan Mearns Energy Matters Blog and indeed also to the Talkshop amongst others. The comment regarding Lerwick was:

i was puzzled by this remark, on a personal level my research so far has indicated that “Station quality” is the primary consideration. In whatever way others may opt to subsequently manipulate data should never be the deciding factor – original data is always the prime starting point and accuracy is the 100% critical factor. Roger may have had his views but in this instance he did not support them with any evidence. I have no wish to speak ill of the remark but it is beholden on the Talkshop to provide a credible alternative based on facts not “gut feel” however strongly felt that may be.

Whether or not the Lerwick record “shows only 0.1C of overall warming” has to be tested. At this point I asked former professional auditor Dave Woolcock for his assistance. Dave is very experienced indeed in handling bulk data sets and number accuracy is very much a key factor in financial accounting. Spotting “errors of omission” is equally as important as spotting “errors of commission.” Dave has downloaded every single weather station’s data from the CEDA archives (a monumental task) and gone through the figures analysing accuracy and completeness. This is not a simple task at all as anyone who has studied these figures can testify to.

It may surprise many to realise that the Met Office data collection and averaging systems are nothing like as sophisticated as they may assume. For example, a station recording manually once a day at 9:00 am (the majority once were) has its highest recording logged for the day before the reading was taken whilst the minimum is automatically assumed to be from that day. This is purely an assumption and most certainly often not the case for example where an overnight warm front came across the site. Other sites subsequently recorded twice daily ( 09:00 am 21:00 pm) with different max/min date assumptions made. Quite how the Met Office “fills in” for the frequent missing days data seems to be anyone’s guess. Often when transitions are made from one reporting type to another both separate sites are recorded meaning records go from once to thrice daily – in the case of Lerwick this happened for several years. Which readings are used and how the issue of daily “throwback” is handled becomes difficult – a financial auditor cannot get away with this sort of highly opaque accounting but apparently this inexact “Climate Science” has a special dispensation to be vague. conversely Dave in his analysis is determinedly scrupulous and logs the exactitude of even single missing data points – accuracy is King.

What does the Met office data show us about climate averages over the SIXTY {deliberate bold} year period 1960 to 2020 for Lerwick? Bear in mind it would be extraordinarily strange to be “Grid Squaring” a site like Lerwick on Mainland, Shetland – there are no other Mainland, Shetland stations to cell average it with. Surely nobody could consider any other site would be “well correlated” with such a unique and distinct site.

1961 to 1990 30 year average below.

And here is the period subsequent for 1991 to 2020.

What these two datasets are showing is an increase of 0.6°C from an annual average maximum of 9.2°C for 1961/1991 to 9.8°C in the latter period. Average minimum has increased from 4.76°C to 5.6°C – an increment of 0.84°C. All of this is claimed for just 60 years. However, closer inspection of just these Met Office numbers reveals some peculiarities. The month of June seems not to have fully got the message with increments of just 0.11°C and 0.52°C in maxima and minima respectively. October seems to be equally reticent with just 0.18°C and a mere 0.32°C whilst just turning that calendar page one day sees November boasting 0.9°C and an amazing 1.24°C increments in maximum and minimum. Clearly this deadly Anthropogenic Global Warming likes to take holidays in early summer and late autumn or perhaps there are other explanations – more later in future posts on this seasonal variation.

So to Dave Woolcock’s detailed analysis. For accuracy I will post his initial finding’s reply to me. Yes it is technical but I would not wish to add any error by paraphrasing.

I will post more below but just to focus in on Dave’s summary assessment.

” For tMax over 101 years the data show 0.61 degrees C warming” And yet the Met office manages to show 0.6°C in just sixty years above.

“For tMin over 101 years the data show 1.35 degrees C warming (over twice as much as
tMax)” The Met office derives 0.84°C also in 60 years which on a linear progression would almost exactly equate to Dave’s calculation.

This divergence in maxima recorded with the Met office running hotter is a point I have extensively made in my reports – the reason will be further focused upon in future reports but for now further graphics from Dave demonstrating his meticulous approach. Dave has supplied numerous excel spread sheets and all his data which would be too lengthy to display in full here. However, these are available for scutiny/peer review.

Given that we are unquestionably emerging from the Little Ice Age and temperatures are returning to levels prior to that event, I simply cannot see any “hockey sticks” in the above. Conversely a gentle upward and non-alarming trend is just discernible.

This post is primarily to demonstrate that the Surface Stations project has an ultimate purpose and, though it will take a long time yet to cover all relevant surface stations, the process of analysing is already well under way. I will post other such similar interim reports along the way associated with weather stations highlighting the points found.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/0rFakMC

May 7, 2025 at 03:14PM

Banning geoengineering over Florida makes an important political point, but it doesn’t actual protect anyone.  The atmosphere is constantly moving, and geoengineering anywhere affects the whole planet. “Florida is not a testing ground for geoengineering. We already do not permit … Continue reading →

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/w31uBie

May 7, 2025 at 02:58PM

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. For the uninitiated, while Politico is allegedly a news organization, it has a history of supporting Progressive and Leftist causes.

To be fair, the summary lead at the top of the article is pretty good: “A common refrain: Climate policy hurts the poor, and the continued use of fossil fuels is a boon for humanity.“ But, at best, today’s Politico article entitled, “Meet the 4 influencers shaping Chris Wright’s worldview” is a mix of truths, half-truths, and misleading innuendoes. The article is by Scott Waldman. The four alleged influencers of Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s views on climate science and energy policy are, in order, Bjorn Lomborg, me, Alex Epstein, and John Constable.

I will let the others speak for themselves. What follows is, verbatim, the article addressing my influence on Sec. Wright. I don’t need to comment on everything because some of it is true. I will only offer clarifications where appropriate. Why? Because there are a lot of untruths circulating about me and unless I address them from time to time, those things become part of a narrative that is difficult to dislodge.

Quotes from the article are in italics; my response & clarifications are in bold:

Spencer, whose work was cited as a resource in Wright’s report, is a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and is listed as an adviser to the Heartland Institute, which promotes climate misinformation. I used to give talks at Heartland conferences, but haven’t in recent years. I don’t have a formal relationship with them. I don’t speak for Heartland Institute, but I thoroughly disagree with the claim that they promote “climate misinformation”. That shoe fits Politico much better.

While some of Spencer’s work on atmospheric temperatures and other areas of study has been funded by NASA and the Energy Department, he has attacked federal climate researchers as being biased because they receive taxpayer money, and he has claimed that people alive today won’t experience global warming. On the first point… true. On the second point, I believe what I have said is that most people today will never notice global warming in their lifetimes because it is too weak (about 0.02 deg. C per year) compared to natural climate, seasonal, and day-to-day weather variability. In my book, people who believe they have witnessed human-caused global warming are about as delusional as flat-Earthers.

Spencer also served as a visiting fellow for the Heritage Foundation, which produced the Project 2025 policy proposal that has guided the first months of President Donald Trump’s second term.

The groups Spencer has been affiliated with have received millions of dollars in donations from foundations that oppose regulations, but he claims the American public has “been misled by the vested interests who financially benefit from convincing the citizens we are in a climate crisis.” That includes environmental groups and journalists, in his telling. And I stand by that claim. Look at the artwork at the top of this article, and see if you can figure out what it implies.

“Climate change is big business for a lot of players,” he wrote in a Heritage Foundation publication. “That includes a marching army of climate scientists whose careers now depend on a steady stream of funding from governments.” True. And I have said my career also depends upon that funding.

For years, Spencer has worked with organizations that have received funding from an interlinked network of fossil fuel companies — a multitrillion-dollar global industry — as well as wealthy foundations with billions of dollars in holdings that support groups opposing climate and energy regulations. What are you implying, Scott? That I’ve been paid off by this multitrillion dollar global industry? I know that’s what you are doing. But they have never funded me. At most, I have giving an occasional invited talk, which I receive honoraria for when offered (standard practice, and the same has applied to environmental organizations I have spoken to).

He states on his website that he has not been paid by oil companies, but a court filing in 2016 revealed that he received funding from Peabody Energy, the coal giant that for years spent millions of dollars on funding climate denial groups. That was one of my invited talks: As I recall, it was a Peabody board of directors meeting, and they wanted someone to provide a counterpoint to a Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) talk given at the same meeting. Peabody never funded me to do work.

Spencer has appeared before Congress a number of times, typically as a Republican witness attacking climate policy and downplaying climate risks. He served as the climatologist for the late conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh, who regularly promoted climate denialism on his show. Again with the “climate denialism” mantra? You really don’t have a second gear, do you, Scott? I don’t deny “climate”. I don’t even deny recent warming. I don’t even deny that recent warming is probably mostly due to humans.

Like Lomborg, Spencer claims climate policy will hurt the poor even as science has overwhelmingly shown the effects of global warming would disproportionately affect the world’s most vulnerable populations. “Science” has shown no such thing. Opportunistic researchers have indeed made such claims, though. But Lomborg, Epstein, and Roger Pielke Jr. are better at refuting those claims than I am.

He authored a book entitled: “Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.”

Spencer did not respond to a request for comment. True. I long ago learned which media outlets cannot be trusted to represent what I say fairly.

via Roy Spencer, PhD.

https://ift.tt/pJmFAT5

May 7, 2025 at 12:22PM