Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Climate fraud

Look who’s got the Old Heave Yeo…

Yes it’s Trougher Tim the Trencherman who always eats his Greens and was making sure that you did too, especially if it added oodles to his bank balance.

Well done South Suffolk Constituency party! It does no harm to remind the over Great and Good to whom their responsibility is supposed lie, even in these times of Westminster being merely a sham front of puppets for the real string pullers in Brussels, now does it? That’s two useless wastes of space, salary and expenses de-selected in a week on the Conservative side. Any possibility of the same thing happening on the Labour and Lib/Dem side? None whatsoever.

And will it affect his bank balance, directorships etc  etc ? I seriously doubt it. He will probably be caught in a Channel 4 sting next year, peddling access to Ministers at the DoE for ten grand a pop or so, and still get away scot and pension free.

Chris Huhne, a convicted criminal, has hardly slunk away in shame, silence and contrition now has he? Nope, he has a column in the Guardian, and all his directorships intact too. Ah the Guardian! The thinking man at the BBC’s ethical Bible. So much more to be trusted with the truth than the Telegraph or the Mail, don’t you think? Winking smile

Oh, very good

Gilligans Iceberg

Antarticcongo

This is a meme which deserves promoting.

Guardian Science

Andrew Bolt on The Spirit of Mawsonscientific” expedition, now trapped in the millions of tone of ice they continue to assure us is melting.

The expedition of warmists now on a Russian ship trapped in ice is called “Spirit of Mawson” in honor of explorer Douglas Mawson who, a century ago, spent two years on Antarctica during which he lost two colleagues on a trek. Mawson himself survived only by eating his huskies and trudging back on feet that had lost the skin of the soles.

Guardian journalist Laurence Topham on the “Spirit of Mawson” now demonstrates how that spirit lives on in this ship of warmists, awaiting rescue by helicopter after a week trapped in ice they’d assumed was melting away: 


It is quite stressful… I miss banana and peanut butter milkshakes… I’ve got this really thin, small bed… I’ve hurt my back… I jammed my leg in the door last night… And it’s only going to get worse… Stranded in ice. Oh, God I’m going mad.

It is impossible to ponder on the travails of these brave investigators without weeping tears of laughter.

Standing ovation

This is wonderful. I truly wish I could have seen it. As a commentor says, “Never give a child a platform unless you want to be utterly humiliated.

Children are not stupid.

Warsaw: COP 19

After the power crazed and money grubbing insanity we saw in Copenhagen, Cancun, Rio and Bali, Warsaw heads to the same failure. This time though, at least some attendees are openly treating it with all the seriousness it deserves.

Australian diplomats have also thrown a wrench into the negotiations, as poor countries and activists accused them of not taking the talks seriously. The country did not even send high-ranking officials to the UN summit, saying that they would be busy repealing the country’s contentious carbon tax.

They wore T-shirts and gorged on snacks throughout the negotiation. That gives some indication of the manner they are behaving in,” said a spokeswoman for the Climate Action Network.

Hardly diplomatic of these diplomats. Appropriate, but hardly diplomatic.

Andrew Bolt suggests we send more popcorn.

One hundred billion dollars they want, each and every year. The UN can buy a lot of clients with that.

Quote of the day

A picture is worth a thousand words, so enjoy this essay.

Green triumphalism

happygreen_thumb

H/T Tim Blair

No more

It looks as if Australia and Canada are taking a lead on this.

FEDERAL cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week’s global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax.

Cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference.

Lets not pull any punches on this matter. It doesn’t matter what the problem is, the solution is always the same – more government, and less accountability. More EU, more UN and less democracy.

Someone is finally saying “enough is enough”.

This doesn’t bode well for future negotiations on Sustainability and Agenda 21. At least, not from the point of view of the collectivists.

(more…)

Well he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Given that the wit and wisdom of Mandy Rice Davies is becoming all the rage with the upcoming Andrew Lloyd Gargoyle’s production of Stephen Ward… The Musical (yes I’m trying and failing to get my head round that one frankly). John Selwyn Gummer (fangs are a memory) as was, Lord Deben, as now is…and Chairman of the Uk’s “Independent” Committee on Climate Change, has smugly waded into the Global warming debate condemning the Media for even bothering trying to find a balance in the conflicting views of a very complex subject. According to Gummy…

Evidence in favour of climate change is so strong, he said, that it could be compared to evidence linking smoking to cancer or evidence that the Moon Landing was not staged.

Not the best analogies I have ever come across your Lordliness. Gummy has a degree in History and probably hasn’t enough science to wire a plug properly, but he is so certain that man made Global warming is a fact that he wants all dissenting voices silenced. Yep that’s Democracy in action alright !

But I wonder why he is so certain given his complete lack of scientific knowledge? Could it be that he is a smug, self satisfied, venal troughing  bastard (just LOOK at that pic), filling his boots at the expense of the rest of us, just like Tim Yeo, Ed Davey, and that still on Licence old lag, Chris Huhne? Why yes it could!

Whatever the fuck happened to declaring a conflict of interest?

Warble Gloaming 95% Certain says IPCC

A landmark report says scientists are 95% certain that humans are the “dominant cause” of global warming since the 1950s.

The report by the UN’s climate panel details the physical evidence behind climate change. On the ground, in the air, in the oceans, global warming is “unequivocal”, it explained. It adds that a pause in warming over the past 15 years is too short to reflect long-term trends. The panel warns that continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all aspects of the climate system.

Totally unbiased reporting from the BBC

So yet again an IPCC report chooses to wrap itself in the fantasy of “scientific consensus” (whatever the fuck that is) and ignore reality in favour of another spin on the wheel. As their models disconnect from reality for a seventeenth successive year they are 95% certain that Warble Gloaming is anthropogenic in origin. (more…)

Warble Gloaming? Do you want Ice with that?

David Rose has a very fine article in the Mail today, which is sure to have Global Warming Doomsayers in a panic, and leave the BBC and the IPCC with omelette amounts of egg on their faces. The silence from the BBC is deafening and the IPCC has cancelled its latest three volume report while it desperately scrabbles for answers as to why global warming has stopped for the last 19 years, and the Artic ice, far from disappearing entirely as gleefully predicted, is already 60% larger than it was last year at this point in time.

As David Rose reports…

“Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter  climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.”

Could this be the beginning of the end of the massive climate fraud scam? I fear not yet awhile. Politicians capacity for self deception and never admitting they are wrong, is legendary. How many trillions will they waste and how much chaos will they wreak before the truth dawns on them?

Another nail in the coffin for Warble Gloaming

At the Earth’s surface, heat fluxes from the interior are generally insignificant compared with those from the Sun and atmosphere, except in areas permanently blanketed by ice. Modelling studies show that geothermal heat flux influences the internal thermal structure of ice sheets and the distribution of basal melt water, and it should be taken into account in planning deep ice drilling campaigns and climate reconstructions

(Link – Courtesy of Nature: Geoscience)

Global Warming my arse, where's that bloody fox?

Global Warming my arse, where’s that bloody fox?

Although I am not a scientist, I have always had a deep-seated interest in science and a great appreciation for the rigour of the scientific method, as such I find the abuse of scientific method to push specific agenda’s as the IPCC, CRU and others have done to be intolerable.

As each piece of additional scientific evidence weakens the argument against CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) by showing additional natural factors leading to cycles of both warming and cooling over decades / centuries / millennia, I keep expecting the scientific establishment to rise up and rid itself of this heresy, but I am serially disappointed.

This is the problem with scientific funding being controlled by those with their own agendas, especially overtly political ones such as the watermelons.

Speaking of which, heartily recommend James Delingpole’s book on the subject of “Watermelons”

An Offer they Couldn’t Refuse…

Well you can’t blame the Mafia for following the money can you? After all that other Europe-wide criminal Organisation is the one mainly promulgating the proliferation of these useless and costly wind-farms, and they haven’t had their books audited in 19 years. What the hell, it’s only someone else’s money! Roll up roll up and get a grant or five. Er.. that’s yours and mine by the way. If the EU was a private company it would be in receivership by now.

Now then ladies and gents- would you like to invest in the Rabatron Perpetual Motion Machine company? Or the Rabbini North Sea Olive Groves Corporation? Bargain prices for early takers… Winking smile

Phil Ossify

Phil Plait (sic), an astronomer and climate alarmist who bizarrely states to possess The entire universe in blog form is a self confessed zombie slayer. His zombies are very scary because they take the shape of ideas of climate change denial. Because climate change deniers and their heretical ideas are born from the festering boils on Satan’s scaly backside and it is the bounden duty of the righteous to kill dissent the facts evil unbelievers.

Thus he tilts at his own personal windmill wind turbine when he attempts to slay this anti-AGW beast 0f an idea, armed only with a Warmist approved crib sheet and a small group of sycophants acolytes.

As someone who speaks out against those who deny climate change…

But he doesn’t mean climate change, does he. He means Anthropogenic Global Warming. Only an imbecile denies the existence of climate change. AGW sceptics don’t deny climate change. They do, however, question the extent to which human activity affects the climate. And that gets right up Phil’s nose.

again

Oh, those wacky professional climate change deniers! Once again, they’ve banded together a passel of people, 90 percent of whom aren’t even climatologists…

Clearly Phil doesn’t do irony well. Or perhaps understand it either since he’s an astronomer and not a climatologist. He obligingly supplies a link to the offending document but doesn’t go quite so far as to pointing out which parts of the nearly fact free opinion piece are bilge and which parts are nonsense. Or, for that matter, which fact or facts he considers to be correct. Given his in-your-face, post normal science credentials I’m assuming the facts he’s happy with are the very facts under dispute by the signatories. After all, who wants to read about the claims of that international relations and public administration guru august scientist, Ban Ki-Moon, a world renown climatologist, being being brought into disrepute by all those upstart physicists, chemists, geologists, engineers and meteorologists?

And then there is that pesky “cherry-picked” graph that David Rose, a Daily Mail journalist, used to demonstrate the ongoing lack of warming that came to a halt in 1997.

The first graph clearly incenses Phil.  Not because the data is wrong, which it isn’t, but because it begins in 1997.  You see it is difficult to put a nice, straight, upwardly trending line through truncated data that clearly shows a flat line.  So Phil helpfully supplies a second graph, one whose plotted data begins somewhere in the mid seventies, so he can draw his neat, upwardly mobile line.

But wait.  Didn’t the previous cool period end sometime in the mid seventies?  You know, the same cool period that had climatology Cassandras predicting an imminent ice age?  Wouldn’t the exclusion of that data give the false impression that the climate was warming prior to the vague starting date of Phil’s preferred graph?  Did he think no one would notice his own cherry-picking?

…and again

Ah, yes. Hot from the University of Consensus, Not Facts.  It seems that I am forced to repeat myself so here goes.

Fact: CAGW sceptics do not deny the reality existence of global warming.

Fact: CAGW sceptics do not deny that man does alter the climate in a certain way, albeit in a mostly localised way (UHI, agriculture, pastoralism etc) and has done for thousands of years. It is interesting that Phil uses the word reality rather than existence because clearly his reality does not inhabit the realm of real world data. Even his own alarmist side has finally acknowledged that global surface temperature stopped rising sixteen years ago. Phil desperately needs to keep up to speed on the recent developments otherwise he could end up sounding like a fool.

Uh oh.  Too late.

…and again

Apparently a burning issue within the alarmist camp Phil’s reality is who labelled what.

Seriously…

…and again….

Carbon dioxide is eeeeeeevil! And Mariana Ashley agrees.

Mariana Who?

Oh, that Mariana Ashley.

Mariana Ashley is a freelance blogger who primarily writes about how online education and technology are transforming academia as we know it. Having spent a good portion of her professional career trying to reform high schools in East St. Louis, Mariana is particularly interested in how online colleges in Missouri make higher education a possibility for students of all backgrounds.

I see she’s very shy about touting her degree in climatology.  Or Phil is a shameless hypocrite.

I knew exactly what Marshall Shepherd, the 2013 president of the American Meteorological Society, meant the moment he talked about having to slay the “zombie theories of climate science.

Strangely enough AGW sceptics have the same problem. As for zombie slaying, it seems that Marshall received the idea first. Phil borrowed his slayership from Marshall just like he’s borrowed the rest of his warmist mantra from fellow alarmists.  I have yet to encounter an original idea in Phil’s posts.  All his arguments are from discredited, climate groupthink authority.

These are ideas that cannot be killed, no matter how thoroughly they are debunked. They always rise to shamble again, reanimated by the deniosphere.

Yes, the idea that honest data and falsifiable empirical evidence trumps climate modelling and name-calling does have that peculiar undead quality. It simply refuses to lie down and die in the face of stupidity.

The Hockey Stick is broken.

True.

…the world hasn’t warmed in 16 years…

Also true.

Antarctic ice is growing.

At a rapid rate.

These ideas are all wrong, demonstrably so, but they are still walking the countryside, looking to eat innocent people’s brains.

These facts are all correct, demonstrably so. Even the most senior of warmists have conceded that warming has ceased. They are all deniers now. Except Phil and his cheerleaders of course.

The only way to slay these undead specters is to keep hammering them, repeating the facts, getting the word out there, and making the message palatable to the folks who may not have all the information they need to make an informed decision on global warming.

Phil’s problem is that people are discovering the information they need to make an informed decision on global warming. Unfortunately for Phil it isn’t the right kind of information. Hysteria and alarmism tend not to make any kind of message palatable especially when it is becoming increasingly expensive to keep warm in winter. I award Phil an F for his communication skills.

Which brings us back to Shepherd. He gave a great TEDxAtlanta talk where he takes on the teeming mass of climate change denial zombie ideas.

The science has moved on, even for the warmists. Watch the video and decide for yourselves which side owns the teeming mass of climate change zombie ideas.

I love this guy. He’s reasoned, genial, and calm.

A veritable paragon of warmist virtue, I’m sure.

My favorite part was at 11:34 into his talk, when he says weather is your mood, but climate is your personality.

Which is as meaningless as saying weather is your toast but climate is a full English breakfast. But hey, Phil was impressed so you should be too.

This one is important because the deniers love to say, “what global warming?” every time it snows. Incredibly, though, this type of claim seems to work; people tend to believe more in global warming after a hot summer and less after it’s cold. Slaying that particular zombie would go a long way toward more folks accepting that global warming is real.

Yes, how silly of people to point out the bleeding obvious mistake  summer and winter for regular seasons rather than what they really are; runaway global warming.

Tied to this is the idea that we can’t be certain what the future holds. Climate models aren’t perfect, so we can’t be 100 percent sure how much the world is warming.

Because the climate models predicted more snow, not less. They predicted that temperature is not driven by increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. And they also predicted the ongoing sixteen year halt in warming. Except no, they didn’t predict any of those things.  They can’t even simulate past climate.  We might be able to guess what the future holds but in truth we have no idea really. Nor do climate models. The only certainty is uncertainty and guesswork.  You’d think that Phil would understand that.

However, when it comes to knowing that climate change is real and we’re in for trouble, the models are already good enough.

Hardly.

The hockey-stick graph is quite real and has withstood years of slings and arrows flung at it by the deniers.

Right up until the moment it was defenestrated by the corrupt and biased UN IPCC for being too embarrassingly wrong for even it to stomach.

And in fact the models are getting better all the time; it’s getting hotter, and in the next few decades we’re in for a hell of a time.

The only thing getting hotter is Phil’s warmist fever.

We need to be doing something about this, and now.

Think of the cheeeeldren!

We need to be investigating nonfossil fuel energy sources far more, really leaning in on finding more efficient uses of the fossil fuels we do have to use, and legislating ways of making sure there are incentives for people and companies to do so.

Using fossil fuels more efficiently will benefit everyone. Making them unaffordable in order to fund unreliable renewable energy that needs fossil fuel back-up is insane. State “incentives” to replace reliable fossil fuels with hideously expensive and inadequate green energy is killing people and industry. Bad idea. Very bad idea.

But instead we have to waste our time fighting the horde of zombie denials and trying to be heard above the well-funded and very loud groups who rely on distraction and false doubt to spread their viral ideas. This is the zombie apocalypse, and, unfortunately, it’s all too real.

And Phil calls himself a scientist…

Even Pravda gets it

Or should that be, Pravda gets it because it has so much experience of it?

For years, the Elites of the West have cranked up the myth of Man Made Global Warming as a means first and foremost to control the lives and behaviors of their populations.

Alright, I think the rest of that paragraph shows the ‘Elites’ to be a bit more informed and Machiavellian than I am willing to give them credit for, but still.

Knowing full well that their produce in China and sell in the West model and its consequent spiral downward in wages and thus standards of living, was unsustainable, the elites moved to use this new "science" to guilt trip and scare monger their populations into smaller and more conservatives forms of living. In other words, they coasted them into the poverty that the greed and treason of those said same elites was already creating in their native lands.

Personally, I go with the desire for control, China is just a red herring.

Update: Another posting from the same site. It’ll be a chilly day in the netherworld before the Guardian, Pravda’s British sibling, expresses these sentiments.

Irrationality in science is every bit as extreme as we see in media events, perhaps more so because of the increased demands in science. Very little science is visible to the public. The carbon dioxide issue is an example of science which has come to the surface of public concerns, and it shows a lack of objectivity which can only be called religion and a lack of standards to a point of outright fraud.

Govt. propose removal of AGW from under 14s curriculum, Guardianistas outraged

Oh dear, so sad, too bad. I am motivated to play a tune on Nick’s micro-violin.

Debate about climate change has been cut out of the national curriculum for children under 14, prompting claims of political interference in the syllabus by the government that has failed “our duty to future generations”.

Climate change? Let’s inject some honesty here, Juliette. When you say climate change you actually mean Anthropogenic Global Warming. You know, that humungous politico-scientific scam that has finally been falsified to the point that even warmist scientists pro-AGW climatologists activists are admitting their evidence climate models were not merely wrong but very wrong. All the accruing, real life evidence to the AGW contrary has a lot of warmists on the run; at least the ones who are astute enough to see which way the empirical wind is blowing. To be frank, I see this draft, should it be adopted, as a welcome reversal of the political interference that forced AGW into the curriculum and propagandised our kids, scaring them stupid with visions of a greenie auto-da-fe. And this was initiated by the very same government that spectacularly failed in its duty to ensure that future generations weren’t burdened with the biggest debt in UK history.

The latest draft guidelines for children in key stages 1 to 3 have no mention of climate change under geography teaching and a single reference to how carbon dioxide produced by humans impacts on the climate in the chemistry section. There is also no reference to sustainable development, only to the “efficacy of recycling”, again as a chemistry subject.

What’s this? An outbreak of common sense regarding sustainable development? Can’t have that…

The move has caused alarm among climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue.

Yes, all those brainwashed pre-fabricated neo-inquisitors little activists lost to the cause. What a tragedy.

“What you seem to have is a major political interference with the geography syllabus,” said the government’s former science adviser Prof Sir David King. He said climate change should be taught alongside the history of – successful – past attempts to curb chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), which is blamed for the depletion of the ozone layer, and air pollution caused by coal fires and cars.

And King, who took the Labour coin as its chief scientific advisor, wasn’t politically motivated by his paymaster’s agenda at all.

“If all of these aren’t issues for geography classes, then where should they be taught?” asked King. “It would be absurd if the issues around environmental pollution weren’t core to the curriculum.I think we would be abdicating our duty to future generations if we didn’t teach these things in the curriculum.”

Assuming that carbon dioxide is a pollutant – which it isn’t.

The draft contrasts with the existing curriculum: under the heading of geography, there are several mentions of the interdependence of humans and their environment and the impact of that on change, including “environmental change”. The current syllabus explicitly discusses sustainable development and “its impact on environmental interaction and climate change”.

The current syllabus is explicitly biased when it comes to the warmist interpretation of “climate change”. No sensible person would argue against a balanced curriculum. So what does that make you and your pals, Juliette?

“It’s just hollowed out argument,” said John Ashton, the government’s climate change envoy until last summer, and a founder of the independent not-for-profit group E3G. “Climate change should have as much prominence as anything in teaching geography in schools.”

If you listen hard enough you can hear the sound of this rent-seeker’s P45 being printed out. How I love the sound of greenie wailing and gnashing of teeth. It’s so cathartic.

The shift of any mention of climate change from geography to chemistry “makes me more concerned, not less”, said Ashton. “What’s important is not so much the chemistry as the impact on the lives of human beings, and the right place for that is geography.”

Because who cares what atmospheric chemists and physicists have to say. Science has no place in climatology. Yes, I can see that now…

The proposed changes, which are still under consultation by the Department for Education (DfE), were broadly welcomed by other groups, including the Geographical Association which represents more than 6,000 geography teachers, and the Royal Geographical Society.

So the geographers are happy about the proposed changes. That kind of puts a spanner into the greenies gears, surely.

“In the past, in some instances, young people were going to start on climate change without really knowing about climate,” said Rita Gardner, the RGS director, who does, however, want climate change taught at GCSE and A-level. “What we have got [in the new draft] is a much better grounding in geography, and it has the building blocks for a much better understanding of climate change and sustainability.”

That’s all good and dandy. I don’t have a problem with climate change being on the curriculum but let’s make sure it’s based on science and not on faith, okay? And let’s hear both sides of the sustainability ideology. And how it measures up to the fact that if CO2 is such a dangerous pollutant why are we about to burn millions of tons of US trees in a ludicrous attempt to decarbonise ourselves back into the pre-industrial era?

A DfE spokesman said the idea that climate change was being excised from the national curriculum was nonsense: “All children will learn about climate change. It is specifically mentioned in the science curriculum and both climate and weather feature throughout the geography curriculum.”

Three cheers for the science curriculum. So long as it isn’t dumbed down with AGW bias as it currently is.

Supporters of the government’s move pointed out that geography teachers could still teach specific issues such as “how human and physical processes interact to have an impact on and form distinctive landscapes”.

Putting the geography back into geography and (hopefully)removing the pro-AGW activism. What’s not to like?

Other potential lead-ins to climate change include specified teaching about ecosystems, the accumulation of toxic materials in natural life, and the difficulty for some species in adapting to changes in their environment.

Yes, but let’s not limit that accumulation of toxic materials to non-toxic CO2, eh? And please let me witness the struggle of greenies as they twist in the wind (sic) to prevent changes to their cosy little authoritarian environment.

A source at the Liberal Democrat-led Department for Energy and Climate Change said they were relaxed about the changes: “There’s nothing from the DfE that says climate change is off the agenda or will never be taught. Sensible teachers will look at that as the broadest of signposting.”

So how come the LibDem-led DECC refuses to look at the broadest of signpostings that AGW is one huge crock of the proverbial?

However, the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC) said climate change was too important to be left to the whim of individual teachers.

Christ on a pogo stick! If the Guardian scrape the bottom of the activist barrel much harder they’ll run out of barrel.

“It appears climate change is being systematically removed from the curriculum, which is not acceptable when this is the biggest challenge our generation is going to face, the biggest challenge future generations are going to focus on,” said Camilla Born, an international expert at UKYCC.

Sadly hyperbole isn’t being systematically removed from the greenie rhetoric which is clearly too big a challenge for those suffering from a failure of logic and the ability to read the draft correctly.

Critics also point out that the danger of waiting until GCSE courses to teach about climate change in any depth is that only a minority of pupils study geography at that level.

But strangely those same critics fail to point out that despite brainwashing children to the greenie cause, the majority dump the main subject pushing the AGW BS hypothesis at the first available opportunity. Looks suspiciously like the kids are far smarter than the greenies want to believe.

Sarah Lester, a policy researcher specialising in climate change education at the Grantham Institute of Climate Change at Imperial College, London, said also rejected the argument that pupils first needed to learn the “building blocks” before they were taught about climate change. Such issues were already taught in the three sciences, even religious education and citizenship – and “all come together in geography”, said Lester. “I don’t think that’s what’s being done: I think it [climate change] is just being stripped out of the curriculum.”

Ah, the fragrant aroma of warmist rent-seeker panic. Shame it can’t be bottled.

%d bloggers like this: