‘”Education” continues its slide into indoctrination and brainwashing. The Cultural Marxist’s “long march through the institutions” is now substantially complete.’ (@JWSpry)
‘There’s a disturbing whiff of totalitarianism, in that this secular religion permits no dissent’ (Karl du Fresne, Dominion Post, January 23, 2020)
‘state-organised bullying of kids’ (David Seymour)
The New Zealand government has announced a new Climate Change Curriculum (available here) for children from 10 and above. It is a callous, exploitative project whose undisguised aim is to frighten children to death (perhaps literally) in order to fulfil the government/UN climate agenda.
Let us be quite clear – the climate change curriculum has nothing to with science or education but is unashamedly evangelical. The IPCC reports are Holy Writ, and to question any detail is heresy. There is instruction on how to resist temptation from the devil, in the form of sceptics (heretics). Donald Trump, the villain who pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Agreement, is of course the Devil Incarnate. There are fast days with abstinence from certain foods. Greta Thunberg leads the Children’s Crusade. If the children fail, there will be hell on earth, and they will live with the guilt forever – moral blackmail, guilt and blame play a prominent role in the climate cult.
There is no attempt to apply academic rigour at any point or to inspire critical thinking – the aim is to suppress critical thinking. Children are brainwashed, cowed or bullied into becoming climate activists. They are given no space to disagree with the facts as presented, to fail to respond emotionally as demanded, to refuse to take action as required. Such manipulation is child abuse.
The fundamental creed is, of course, that an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases, principally CO2, is causing the world to warm up, with various spin-off effects like scarily rising sea levels, droughts, hurricanes etc.
The science presented is at best selective. It does not show the breakdown of gases in the atmosphere. There is no attempt to put climate change into context, even by providing a graph of geological history. Everything is taught as bald fact, with no room for debate, even where the claims are hotly disputed by reputable scientists around the world. Instead the children are taught to swallow and regurgitate the mendacious mantra that ‘97% of climate experts agree’.
The IPCC is referred to repeatedly as an absolute authority, despite the heavy criticism that has been levelled at the organisation over the years, with number of contributors complaining that the findings of scientists are reversed by the final editors . New Zealander Dr Vincent Gray, who contributed to all the early IPCC reports, described the IPCC in 2007 as too blinkered and corrupt to save (see also here and here ).
An analysis by Dr Jock Allison of flaws in the science presented, focusing on the so-called myth busters in Session 7, is included below as an Appendix.
How does it make you feel?
One of the strangest aspects of a supposedly scientific subject, where one would expect the application of some objectivity, is the emphasis on and encouragement of emotional response. This is introduced as early as lesson two with ‘The Feelings Splash: How does this make us feel’. The remaining lessons of Section A include segments entitled ‘Feelings Thermometer. Can we measure our feelings?’; ‘Understanding our feelings about Climate Change’; ‘Introducing “Psychological adaptation”: Wellbeing action – what can I do?” – all leading up to Lesson 7: ‘Empathy/Outrage + Action = ACTIVISM’. (One doesn’t like to think of how a child who said, ‘I’m fine with it’ would be viewed.)
Emotional response is such an essential part of the programme that there is a separate 15 page teacher resource dedicated to the subject. Having callously pressured and enticed children into experiencing overwhelming emotions by telling them what is in effect a pack of lies, the education authority kindly offers advice to teachers and in turn parents on how to deal with traumatised children:
‘It is normal for children and adults to feel worried, frustrated, angry and sad when learning about the issues around climate change. Parents and whanāu can help when they acknowledge and accept the range of emotional impacts that awareness of climate change brings.
‘Parents and whanāu can watch out for:
• Worsening anxiety or behaviors over time
• Withdrawal or avoidance
• Excessive reassurance seeking or limit testing
• Changes in sleep, appetite and weight
• Somatic symptoms such as tummy aches and headaches
• Anxiety or behaviors that are interfering with functioning or causing distress
• Any other change in your child that causes distress or interferes with their functioning’
There follows a long list of professional agencies that can advice parents or treat traumatised children. And finally, parents are warned:
It goes without saying that, if the campaign has its intended result and children are driven to suicide by this programme, blame will be attributed to climate change, not to the wickedness of those who devised this programme.
The purpose of the curriculum is not to educate: it is to terrify the children, then prime them for activism. The argument for an urgent need for activism is as follows:
- Greenhouse gases, generated by human activities, such as CO2 and methane are warming the planet – to question this is impossible
- The natural emotional reaction is grief, fear, despair, anger and of course guilt – failure to react thus is impossible
- The responsible response is to take action – failure to act is impossible
Section B introduces the concepts of personal responsibility and activism:
Session 6: ‘Living with Climate Change: What can I do?’
This session starts by recapping the essentials of the situation as has been taught to the children, with a graph showing sensational, totally unrealistic scenarios by 2080-2100 if little or no action is taken to reduce emissions.
None of these predictions are any more likely to come to fruition than any of the past sensationalist predictions on the subject – see Jock Allison on failed predictions, below, Point 22.
Having been reminded of looming Armageddon, the children are now set for the next stage. They can live their religion, by making changes to their own lives, on the basis of the science as they have been taught it. They can do their bit to reduce emissions by using less electricity, shopping locally, driving less, planting trees, etc.
A most concerning element is the strong pressure on children to limit their meat and dairy intake, with no discussion of health implications, nor any relevant resources. Starting with meatless Mondays is suggested – it is very clear that it will be virtually impossible for a children to opt out if a school makes this policy. The programme is intended for children as young as 10 – ‘A dietary warning for people with developing bodies would be a prudent addition as well if teachers want to avoid lawsuits’ (Robin Grieve).
Greta Thunberg is introduced at this stage as an inspiration, presaging what is to come.
Go out into the world and spread the word (Session 7)
Essential tools: children are first reminded of the fallacious mantras that ‘most scientists’ agree (argumentum ad verecundiam or appeal to authority) and that most of the population agrees (argumentum ad populum).
‘Empathy or Outrage + Action = ACTIVISM’
The discussion on activism covers climate activists that the children may have hear of, such as Greta Thunberg, Schools Strike4Climate, and David Attenborough, who has himself been blamed for the epidemic of eco-anxiety among young people.
How to deal with sceptics
While the climate cult insists that there is no significant opposition to its teachings, care has been taken to include in the curriculum a sizable section on dealing with heretics who question the IPCC gospels.
Children are given instruction to prepare them for dealing with hypothetical situations with those who are yet to be convinced, or ‘flat out deny the existence of climate change’ (nobody denies climate change, but no matter). Children are expected to rote-learn a set of dictums to be used to confront such situations and make conversions or silence unbelievers – role plays are set up to help them memorise the answers.
The suggested situations are often straw men, and the answers are either seriously disputed or out and out lies (one can only guess at the conflict that will arise between a child armed with these mantras and an educated parent). For a detailed analysis of the ‘myths’ and their supposed refutations, see Jock Allison, below.
Section C, ‘Time For Climate Action’ consciously sets out to turn children into activists for the climate cult.
Children are obliged to commit as groups to ‘actions’. Suggested actions range from turning off lights to planning a campaign or a website. Children are encouraged to target their campaigns at everyone from parents to cabinet ministers.
Ironically, there is also a section on children’s basic rights, including those relating to wellbeing and education. Of course, as is the fashion, there is a suggestion of greater entitlement, also that adults are not taking action because they are selfish and uncaring of children and future generations (not because they have more sense).
The resource does not actually suggest civil disobedience, but it does feature prominently Greta Thunberg, who is closely aligned with the militant Extinction Rebellion.
Read more at stovouno.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Andy Rowlands
| #
Truly disgraceful behaviour by those pushing the climate scam. Sadly, with most governments having fallen for it, they will win. I can see a time where electricity availability will be intermittent at best, living standards will plummet and there will be mass deaths from starvation and the inability to heat your homes. This is of course, precisely what the UN wants; a massive reduction of the human population.
Reply
Mike Starenky
| #
If NZ wishes to help with the environment they should stop the 3.8 millions tourists arriving yearly so the air in NZ would be cleaner for their children to breathe instead of frightening them with the environmental boogey man.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
In principle I agree Mike, but tourism is a big part of most economies, so I can’t see that happening, unless some future government decides to acquiesce to Saint Greta and stop all flying.
Reply
chris
| #
I agree they should shut down their airports and render cars illegal to cut down the “pollution”. Then we’ll see how fast this crap is turned around. With only intermittent power outages the Germans already want to go back. The road back is slow because they have to overcome their corrupt government.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
NZ’s contribution to world wide CO2 is negligible….that’s what is so funny….they are saving the planet but they are not really saving it.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
They are effectively not doing anything, it’s just pointless virtue-signalling.
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Andy.
What they are doing is mass initial training on how to crush the voice of reason and the understanding of science. No mention of Natural causes of climate change. How to manage and combat “climate denierism” is an integral part of the syllabus.
i was thinking of interpretation of English the other day and the term “climate denier” includes scientists who know and understand much of the science of natural climate change as well as many failings of the CO2 hypothesis. I was considering the inaccuracy or dishonesty of the term “climate denier” and I then turned my contemplation to those who use that term and resolved that the most accurate and appropriate term for them is “science deniers”.
The term “science denier” will challenge the ignorant to challenge their own ignorance.
Curiously, when I got home from my journey of contemplation I read the Principia Scientific comments and JD Huffman had also used the term “science denier”. Same day. Serendipitous.
The common incorporation of the term “science denier” is a very important tool for us all to introduce into our language to help to overcome the ignorance of climate science and to negate some of the abuse the term “climate denier” is.
Regards Matt
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Hi Matt, I think you’ve got it pretty much nailed there. I saw someone a last year calling alarmists science deniers, and I’ve used it a few times myself since. It does fit them rather well.
Reply
J Cuttance
| #
On the off-chance that anyone is far enough south, I’m doing a presentation on Adiabatic Greenhouse Findings to the Southland Astronomical Society, at the Oreti Sands clubhouse, Otatara, Invercargill, February 13, 7.30pm.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
Have just read about the Southland Astronomical Society and the world of science needs more small local groups like it. If you do not have a IR thermometer like that of JD Huffman’s, I encourage you to get one and ‘play’ with it. For I believe students of all ages would be interested in not only measuring the various temperatures of the atmosphere but also the temperatures of the soil and water surfaces.
And while I have submitted the following short essay to PSI for possible posting, I have no idea if it will be posted. And since I composed it, I obviously consider it to be information which scientists need to consider.
Wisdom and Accurate Definition
Jerry L Krause 2020
Preface
We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves. (Galileo)
Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition. (Louis Elzevir)
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. (Einstein)
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough. (Einstein)
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Einstein)
The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. (Einstein)
Imagination is more important than knowledge. (Einstein)
The only source of knowledge is experience. (Einstein)
Essay
The earth is a very heterogeneous and dynamic body. It is a near sphere. It has a surface composed of liquid water, solid water, and other solid matter. It has an atmosphere composed of various gases. Its solid surface has greatly varying elevations. The earth spins (rotates) about central axis as it revolves about the sun along an elliptical, planar path. The axis about which the earth rotates is inclined at an angle of 23.5 degrees to the plane on which the earth revolves.
In the past many have tried to simplify this very heterogeneous and dynamic body by a process known as averaging. They average the variable temperatures of a day. They average the variable average temperatures of a day to find an average temperature of a month. They average the average temperature of a month to find an average temperature of a year. They average the average temperature of 20 years to find the average temperature of a climate.
When they average the variable temperature of a day the earth is no longer rotating about its axis. When they average the variable average temperatures of a day to calculate the average temperature of a year, the earth is no longer revolving about the sun with its axis inclined to the plane in which it revolves.
Instead of averaging we must learn to image. We must learn from what Galileo tried to teach us even though he knew he could not teach us anything. He knew he was only trying to help us to discover his knowledge in ourselves. We must learn to accurately define the Earth.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
You mentioned the topic of your presentation was to be about ZELLER-NIKOLOV CLIMATE CONTROVERSY AND HOLMES’ THERMAL ENHANCEMENT MODEL involving adiabatic compression.
I have no idea what else you have read, but I would encourage you to look at (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-three/)
Yes, I have not doubt the total cloud cover of Venus has an influence upon the planet’s surface temperature just as scattered clouds, up to a total overcast, have upon the earth’s surface temperature. So, I d consider that any study of Zeller’Nikolov ideas and those of Holmes,, which do not seem to consider any cloud influence, are not realistic and therefore any study of their ideas must be a waste of time.
Knowledge is based upon experience and the experience of seeing the fire-engine red sun (being transmitted through the smoke bank because the size of smoke particles were significant less than the wavelengths of the red light) rising from behind the ridge of the Cascade Mountains through the smoke bank (colored the blue color by the light scattered by the smoke particles) seemed to clearly confirm the validity of Feynman’s scattering theory. Any other theory would have to explain the blue and red colors seen in Photo 2.
Hence, 20 micron cloud droplets, according to this scattering theory would scatter upwelling IR radiation much, much more intensely than blue or red light.
A question is: How long are you going to overlook the presence of cloud and their influence as it seems maybe 97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the scientists do?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Steve Dembo
| #
The alarmists should do the right thing and make the ultimate sacrifice to save the planet. They would not be missed.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
I have difficulty in finding fault with that argument Steve 🙂 I’m sure you’ve noticed that all those who wish to see a reduction in the human population always exclude themselves.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
But the alarmist believe that they are in the majority and as such their ‘social justice’ mentality requires them to punish those who do not believe. Punishments that have already happened (excessive taxation and bannings), and more threatened by many alarmist for companies and individuals, with a few of extreme alarmist having voiced the idea of death to unbelievers. At times of mass hysteria (like today) alarmism is a real threat to normal sane people who do not believe.
Alarmists require no real knowledge about the world, no science, rationality, or logic, because even in their ignorant state, they ultimately believe ‘the ends justify the means’ as they virtue signal their deep belief that they can ‘save the planet’.
👿 🙁
Reply
Alan
| #
The section in the teacher learning document describing an experiment with a glass bottle representing a greenhouse gives both the correct and incorrect description of a how a greenhouse is warmer. It correctly says the air in the bottle cannot mix but then says a greenhouse is warmer because heat is trapped. Then follows nonsense about the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
NZ Government to teachers – repeat after me, NZ teachers to children – repeat after me. What has happened to teaching knowledge and rational thinking?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi J,
I thank you for giving me an excuse to review again what Richard Feynman taught his Caltech students about radiation scattering. And because of the opportunity you have given me, I finally saw the answer to the question: How is it that I see in my photo violet and blue light being scattered by the smoke particles and only the red photons being transmitted through the wood smoke bank? Where are the photons of green, yellow. and orange light?
I begin by focusing my attention upon is Feynman’s statement: “So as we keep increasing the size of the droplets we get more and more scattering, until such a time that a drop gets about the size of a wavelength, and then the scattering does not increase anywhere nearly as rapidly as the drop gets bigger.”
Hence, if the smoke particles had a diameter (size of the violet light, all visible solar photons would be scattered with similar intensity instead of the rapidly increasing intensity with increasing wavelengths as when the particles had a size greater than the wavelength of red light which would produce the white light of solar radiation.
Now artists know that mixing green and yellow pigments produces a blue color and mixing yellow, orange, and red pigments still produces a reddish color.
So, until corrected by an artist, I will assume that smoke particles are the size of blue wavelengths, or smaller, and the scattering of solar radiation could produce the blue and red colors I see in my photo. Except the pink is not the red sun I saw rising.
However, I must be honest, I did not see a ‘blue’ smoke bank when I took the photo. I saw a ‘gray’ smoke bank for some time before the sun rose and while the sun rose to the top of the smoke bank. My camera was electronic and automatically adjusted for the ‘level’ of the incident light. Hence, when I went to print a photo, the sun’s disk was terribly over exposed and there was no color. So I began playing with adjustments I could make before printing a photo. First I increased the color to be ‘warmer’. This did not make much difference in the color of the sun’s disk. Then I decreased the ‘brightness’ to its limit and this produced Photo 2. For just before sunrise, the twilight at 45 degrees latitude is quite ‘bright’. And we have long known that the twilight is the result of scattering the tiny molecules of the atmosphere and is composed primarily of violet and blue photons. Hence, once the light of twilight was removed from the surface of the smoke bank, the blue light being scattered by the much bigger (than gas molecules) smoke particles could be seen.
Does anyone agree with Feynman’s scattering theory and my reasoning about the blue and red colors of Photo 2. Which you must make some effort to view at the link provided..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
All school children and young students should all be given a printed copy of http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/chronological_listing.pdf translated to their local language. It is a chronological listing of weather events since 1AD to 2010.
Students should be advised to read at least one entry per day, and maybe then they may gain a real sense of perspective about how our weather and climate can vary wildly.
Reply