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.
David posts link to Doctors for Emergency Preparedness, a silly fringe group let by Jane Orient and Art Robinson. Neither have any climate science credentials whatsoever. Amateurish website riddled with errors, disinformation and the usual talking points.
The real question that begs to be asked first is: Are you a climate scientist or merely another crepadarian?
I didn’t write the article. The relevant point is that the website that was used as the substantive focus of the above article is not run by a science organization and none of the principals of DDP have any expertise in climate science whatsoever. That’s not an attack on character, it is just stating a fact.
In that case….no problem…….
Isn’t Howard Hayden one of the DDP principals? He is a leading skeptical physicist.
See my http://www.cfact.org/2017/12/20/looking-at-an-actual-climate-change-debate/ re Howard.
Fred Singer is also active in DDP, as is Craig Idso. Both are experts in aspects of climate science (as am I).,
Ian is quick to say folk require an education. He has never explained any mechanism by which C02, which is released from water by heat, suddenly becomes the driving force of heating? This of course is reversing the cause and its effect.
Ian is a crepadarian….
Actually the people that prepared these lessons do have enough “climate science credentials” to do a fine job. After all, these are middle to high school level points. They are simple, obvious and true. Some of the authors have PhD’s in physics.
In doing this story I did notice that “fringe group” is the alarmist press’s attempt to discredit them. A group ad hominem! Skeptics of climate alarmism are not a fringe group, except in alarmist circles of course, making this a kind of naval gazing ad hominem.
Simple and obviously misleading is a more accurate assessment.
can you point to something that is misleading? It all looks pretty good to me.
“..In doing this story I did notice that “fringe group” is the alarmist press’s attempt to discredit them.”
>> A fair assessment given that their views are diametrically opposed to the positions of virtually every US and international scientific organization and academy including NASA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC and the American Geophysical Union.
fringe (adj): peripheral, extreme, or minor in relation to the main
You have named some of the leading alarmist organizations. Interestingly polls show that a lot of members or AMetSoc (meteorologists) and AGU (geologists) are skeptics but the bosses disagree.
That something like 90% of academic scientists are liberals, hence alarmists, explains a lot here. Conservatives are not a fringe group.
So are 90% of governments. EPA has pulled its alarmist stuff but NASA is still run by Obama people. The National Academies went alarmist some time ago. I have documented this on other CFACT articles.
At least he presented something logical to consider – as opposed to your fallacious character attack which adds nothing to my knowledge of nature and her processes.
Douglas, with little effort i am sure you can find some resources written and published by a scientific organization.If not I’d be pleased to point you to some. DDP is not a scientific organization.
Love the ‘children or journalists’ bit :-)
No climate scientists I see. Bogus.