A new lesson set called the Climate Change IQ (CCIQ) provides a good skeptical critique of ten top alarmist claims. The format is succinct and non-technical. Each alarmist claim is posed as a question, followed by a short skeptical answer, which is highlighted with a single telling graphic.
Then there is a link to a somewhat longer answer, which in turn includes links to a few online sources of more information. Each lesson is also available in a printable PDF version, suitable for classroom use. This compact format is potentially very useful.
CCIQ comes from a long-standing skeptical group called the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP). Despite the name, DDP gives attention to pointing out scares that are not disasters waiting to happen. Not surprisingly climate alarmism gets a lot of this attention. They also give out an annual award, including one to CFACT’s Marc Morano.
The ten topic questions are wide ranging, including the following. Each speaks to a popular pro-alarmist news hook.
Is climate change the most urgent global health threat?
What would happen if atmospheric CO2 concentration dropped by half, say to less than 200 ppm? (I really like this one.)
Are human CO2 emissions acidifying the oceans and endangering shell-making animals?
Will Manhattan and Florida soon be under water if humans do not curtail use of “fossil fuels”?
Do 97% of climate scientists agree that catastrophic climate change will result if humans do not curtail use of “fossil fuels”? (This one includes the dynamite John Christy graph showing the rapidly growing divergence of climate model global temperature forecasts with real world observations.)
Would lowering atmospheric CO2 prevent or mitigate hurricanes?
There is no cross referencing among the topics and each can stand alone, despite their being numbered one to ten. Thus they can be presented in any grouping or sequence, including just using any one. This is especially useful for commenting on alarmist news stories or blog articles. (However, it does appear that only the longer versions have unique URLs.)
It should be noted that the topics include political and policy issues, as well as scientific content. This may make some unsuitable for certain classroom uses, where these issues are not part of the curriculum. (A minor issue is that some of the specific policy details may soon become dated.)
For example, question 8 pointedly asks “Are government sponsored climate scientists the only credible sources of information relating to climate change policy?”
To which the initial answer is “No, and government agencies are actually guilty of corrupting the data.”
Mind you this might do well in a lesson on scientific integrity.
So all things considered this is a great set of hard hitting little lessons. They are suitable for use with children or journalists.