Thursday, 14 July 2016

Students taught Climate Advocacy NOT Climate Science

David Russell Legates is a Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware. He is the former Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the same university, and a former Delaware State Climatologist. (Source)

Professor David Legates has many published papers and well as opinion pieces.

In an opinion piece this week, David wrote
For almost thirty years, I have taught climate science at three different universities. What I have observed is that students are increasingly being fed climate change advocacy as a surrogate for becoming climate science literate. This makes them easy targets for the climate alarmism that pervades America today. 
Earth’s climate probably is the most complicated non-living system one can study because it naturally is an integration of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, hydrology, oceanography, and cryology and also includes human behavior by responding to and affecting human activities. Current concerns over climate change have further pushed climate science to the forefront of scientific inquiry.
This blog has long lamented the fact that school students are abused by being taught climate propaganda and not the truth about climate science. The irony is, a student leaving school last year or this year would not have experienced any global warming.

IN Australia, a high school student is usually forced to watch Al Gore's SciFi film An Inconvenient Truth two or three times.

Professor Legates continues:

In the past, I have been invited to speak at three different universities during their semester-long and college-wide focus on climate science literacy. At all three, two movies were required viewing by all students to assist them in becoming climate science literate: Al Gore’s biased version of climate science, An Inconvenient Truth, and the 2004 climate science fiction disaster film, The Day After Tomorrow. 
This past spring, the University of Delaware sponsored an Environmental Film Festival featuring six films. Among them only An Inconvenient Truth touched at all on the subject of climate science, albeit in such a highly flawed way that in Britain, students must be warned about its bias. The other films were activist-oriented and included movies that are admittedly science fiction or focused on “climate change solutions.” 
For these films, faculty members were selected to moderate discussions. Scientifically based faculty could have been chosen from the university’s College of Earth, Ocean and the Environment. Instead, the discussion of An Inconvenient Truth was led by a professor of philosophy and one movie—a documentary on climate change solutions that argues solutions are pertinent irrespective of the science—was moderated by a civil engineer.

Read More from Professor Legates - 


  1. This is tragic for Earth science. When I did my M.S. in Earth science ten years ago, my supervisor was a geologist who specializes in the Quaternary. As head of department he has decided not to provide climate courses.

    The reason seems to be that he relies on grants from various US Government agencies that he would not get if it were known that he believes most climate change is natural and that most modern warming is simply recovery from the Little Ice Age.

    This would have discouraged me because I signed up for earth science after reading Elizabeth Vbra's book Paleoclimate and Evolution, Yale.

    But as it turned out, with free access to pay-walled climate literature, I was able to access enough papers to work out for myself what was exaggeration and what was scientifically sound.

    That was ten years ago. Google now points to non-pay-walled sources of peer-reviewed papers (click "All n versions").

    In my opinion, since then the scientific case for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has become weaker following the publication of peer-reviewed papers by scientists who do not rely on US Government grants.

    I cite only one.

    Formerly climatology was regional, as defined by Koppen and others, notably Trewartha.

    The paper by Belda et Al (2014) is probably the best to date in reconstructing the Koppen-Trewartha climate classification map from modern datasets.

    Belda confirms what H.H. Lamb said about climate chant between the beginning and end of the 20th century: there was not much change.

    Lamb wrote, "In fact, from about the beginning of this century up to 1940 a substantial climatic change was in progress, but it was in a direction which tended to make life easier and to reduce stresses for most activities and most people in most parts of the world. Average temperatures were rising, though without too many hot extremes, and they were rising most of all in the Arctic where the sea ice was receding. Europe enjoyed several decades of near-immunity from severe winters, and the variability of temperature from year to year was reduced. More rainfall was reaching the dry places in the interiors of the great continents (except in the Americas where the lee effect, or ‘rain-shadow’, of the Rocky Mountains and the Andes became more marked as the prevalence of westerly winds in middle latitudes increased)." (end of quote) Climate,

    H. H. Lamb, History and the Modern World Edition 2, Routledge, 1995

    The Belda maps show the climate regions of the world (except Antarctica) for two periods, 1901-1931 and 1975-2005, based on a 30 minute grid, average area about 2500 km2, (About 50,000 grid cells cover 135 million km2, the land area of the Earth except Antarctica.)

    Between the two periods separated by 75 years, 8% of the cells changed climate type. When you plot a scatter diagram of distributions for the two periods, you will find there is little divergence from the straight line passing through the origin and with slope unity. R-squared is 99.5.

    The paper does not discuss error bars. However, the CRU (UK) has revised the climate data to remove wet bias, an adjustment that would increase R2, indicating even less change than these maps show.

    In any other field of Earth science, using data with similar precision, we would claim confirmation of the null hypothesis that the two data sets separated by 75 years are not significantly different.

    So yes, the Earth has warmed a little and most people worldwide are better off than their parents and grandparents. The people benefiting the most are those on the margins of steppe to desert and those on the margins between ice and tundra.

    Climate classification revisited from Köppen to Trewartha, Belda, M. et al, Climate Research, 2014

  2. It's clearly indoctrinate the young, this is how the advocates are trying to win. By brainwashing

  3. Everyone uses 288K for the global mean surface temperature of the Earth, in agreement with the Standard Atmosphere. The only trouble (for the credibility of climate science) is that the Standard Atmosphere, with that surface temperature, is over a century old. And the global mean temperature "measured" today is LESS than 288K, despite the supposed "global warming" of the last century.

    And the Standard Atmosphere has been precisely confirmed by my 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison.

    So the bottom line, whether any earth scientist in any field wants to admit it, is that there has been no global warming since the development of the Standard Atmosphere model a century or more ago.

    There is no getting around it. There is no valid global climate science, and no competent climate scientists, unless and until they confront and accept my Venus/Earth comparison as the definitive correction to climate scientist.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!